randy oliver wrote:
>
> Note the explanatory regression for CCD prediction:
> IAPV (96%), KBV (65%), N apis (73%), N ceranae (63%)
> Total 88.2% explanatory power!
> Note that *all* samples positive for IAPV contained KBV--could there 
> be a synergy?
> Note that N apis, which is becoming uncommon, had slightly higher 
> score than N ceranae!  Surprise!
>
> That said, the Army/Bromshenk data do not support the universality of 
> IAPV in CCD colonies.
I agree that there definitely could be a synergy, but KBV may be a 
larger factor than IAPV. The problem is that other things can cause CCD 
like symptoms, so it could be KBV that is the larger factor, especially 
after Jim's analysis.

 From what has been seen so far, it appears that Jerry is looking at CCD 
and the team is looking at virus and mites. The actions of bees under a 
high Varroa/Tracheal and virus load are like CCD. Plus, it appears that 
the bees are mostly eastern US, where, in my opinion, the sources are 
suspect.

There is a big difference between experienced field people who see bees 
from a variety of sources and locations, and lab bound people who see 
them mostly under a microscope. Some in the lab will even agree with that.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************