Jim wrote:

>I am bemused by the focus on this minor point,

So am I.  Perhaps we should take a little time to re-cap on how we arrived 
here.

Randy Oliver originally wrote:

> I haven't yet seen any study that has shown the N ceranae contaminates
> the comb, as does N apis.  It very well may, but haven't seen supporting
> evidence.

and I responded:

> Given the amount of work done so far on CCD and comb contamination,
>  presumably someone has been checking for N ceranae spores?

I thought that a fairly uncontroversial response.  At worse, I expected
someone to say 'Yes they have -you have obviously missed reading xxxxx'.

Instead, I seem to have been subjected to a vitriolic attack from Jim -
which I have to admit I almost enjoy in a sort of masochistic way - but feel
that I do not deserve it for asking such a simple question!

Why did I ask it?  Well, we all know that bees with Nosema apis often
defaecate on the comb and that the combs are therefore a source of
infection.  Bailey taught us that there was no point in treating the adult
bees with Fumidil B (take that as the Greek letter 'beta') unless we
sterilised the combs at the same time - either with acetic acid or by
employing a 'Bailey' comb change.

But, we are told, N. ceranae is different.  The infection is, unlike N.
apis, prevalent in the summer when bees are able to fly freely and therefore
perhaps less likely to soil the combs.  So Randy's statement that he had not
seem any supporting evidence that bees contaminate combs when infected with
N.c. seemed a perfectly valid observation - as, I think, was my question
'presumably someone has been checking for N.c. spores?'

Peter Borst has responded with:

> Does anyone really doubt that the hives in which nosema afflicted
> colonies have lived and even died are covered with spores?

To which I would reply: 'No.  My gut feeling is that it is extremely 
likely - but gut feelings are not particularly scientific'.

Dick Marron responded (with a 'sheesh'):

> We know the spores are there because if the comb isn't treated, it
> infects the next swarm to inhabit them.

But have we shown that these are N.c. spores - which was the original 
question?

Jim's response was a little more condescending at times:

> but I will assist Peter's inquiries as best I can.

Thank you sir (he said, touching his forelock).

> I will not put words in the mouths of others
> without verifying with them first, so I
> will refrain from attributing specifics
> simply to satisfy your demand for more
> definite "proof" of what I will stress
> yet again should be obvious to even the
> casual observer.

Ah! the 'obvious' word again!

> I think I've said I know often enough, but you
> seem to want to hear it from someone who is more
> than a mere "nobody".

No Jim, you are definitely not a nobody!  I have the greatest respect for 
your contributions to this list and appreciate your intellect and incisive 
wit.

> To quote Darth Vader, "I find your lack of
> faith disturbing."  :)

I thought that you separated faith and science a long time ago on this list.

> The more accurate test from a clinical standpoint
> would be the count of Nosema spores in the gut of
> a sample of bees, as the number of spores is of
> interest.

Agreed!!!  (he said, with three exclamation points!) - but, sadly, that is 
not what we were discussing.  Again you have moved from the original 
question which simply asked whether N. c. contaminates the comb.

> It is clear (to me, at least) that the
> lack of anything more than casual interest in the
> use of comb analysis as a screening tool is the
> complete lack of any calibrated "levels" for
> Nosema comb residue.

No-one mentioned screening tools.

> So, while someone certainly could publish data
> saying that they found so many million spores
> per gram of wax sampled, they would be unable to
> draw any firm conclusion from the data...

Yes they would - they could conclude either that N.c. spores are found on 
the comb or that they are not!  If they are, then the comb becomes a source 
of infection, if not, then it is not.

> Bees confined to the
> hive by bad weather will deposit more feces
> on comb than bees that can fly every day.

Is this not a winter phenomenum?  Bees are rarely confined for extended 
periods  (at least in the UK) during the summer months.  Of course, moving 
bees when they have been unable to fly for some time could be an issue here.

> So, the focus is certain to remain on looking
> at Nosema levels in samples of bees, as the
> results would be more meaningful/useful.

I think I agreed that above.

Randy has also responded:

> Yesterday I asked the following question to several researchers directly:
> "Have you, or any other researchers that you know of, actually looked to
> see if there were Nosema ceranae spores on the combs?"

> Dr. Eric Mussen, a U.S. nosema expert, said "No."
> Dr. Marla Spivak, who has been studying N ceranae,  said "No."
> Dr. Jeff Pettis, head of the USDA/ARS team studying N ceranae, said "No."
> Dennis van Englesdorp, of the Penn State CCD collaboration, said "No."

> Thank you Peter for pointing out an apparent gap in our knowledge.  I look
> forward to plugging it upon receipt of Jim's suggested protocol (to this
> List, not private please, Jim).

At this point I shall bow out of the thread, muttering Q.E.D. to myself, but 
also making the point that, although some things may seem 'obvious', in the 
words of a well know composer: ' It ain't necessarily so!'  Just a few years 
ago, we 'knew' that bees emerged with deformed wings because Varroa 
jacobsoni mites were feeding on the larvae and damaging them; now we know 
that the mites are Varroa destructor and we have discovered Deformed Wing 
Virus.  Assume nothing!

Best wishes to all
Peter Edwards
beekeepers at stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk
www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************