[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) writes:
Allen: Don't want to antagonize those viruses ,,,Does it mean 'fight
them', or just piss them off? (Uh, Oh!)
Addition of some supplements and treatments may be followed by an increase
in the levels and kinds of viruses being expressed in bees. For example,
Robb Cramer asks, why fumagillin? In mammals it can adversely affect the
immune system. Some of the bee samples that Dave Wick, next door, has
seen, showed an increase of viruses after using this fungicide to treat Nosema
- so the treatment may open the door to other problems. I must emphasize,
this is very preliminary data, but it fits what Dr. Cramer mentioned, and
its one of the reasons that Robb is trying to find an inexpensive
alternative that does not further compromise the bee's immune system. FYI, Robb
asked me if he should concentrate on trying to prove this interaction, I
suggested that beekeepers had a more pressing need for alternative control
measures than proving whether this particular product was hard on the bee's
immune system.
> ...we can eventually tell you which supplements are useful, which are
not, which might be harmful... Allen: are you meaning commonly accepted
commercial bee feeds, or all those little goodies beekeepers like to add ?
We were going to start with the commercial protein supplements and a
'beekeeper' recipe, but yes, they all warrant consideration - who knows what
some of the home brew may do - and some of the initial virus screening data
suggests at least one may beat the commercial preparations in terms of
reducing viral loads.
Allen: Are you thinking that 'pathogen loads, viruses' would be the mea
sure, or that the ability to thrive despite the loads would be the measure?
We can quantify viral diversity and loads fairly quickly and cheaply as a
first step. Ability to thrive would be the obvious follow-up. And
proteomics gives us virtually ALL pathogens - viral, bacterial, fungal - I can
post a list of what proteomics can screen for.
> Looks like its going to be citizen science -
Allen: I agree. Do you think it is possible that we could design and
perform a test via a web page or list like this, where some one (like Jerry)
designed a test and the others went out and did what they were told and
reported back?
In our rejected USDA CAPS proposal, this was the main concept that we
pushed. The blankety blank reviewers stated emphatically that beekeepers would
never do research. This despite the fact that in 1985 we published a
research project conducted by 200+ beekeepers in Puget Sound, and got the study
in Science. I found this particular reason for rejection as extreme ivory
tower protectionism.
Sure, not all beekeepers want to do science, but there are enough who do,
and enough who would do a good job with appropriate training (direction) and
coordination. Most of our work over the past 36 years has been based on
beekeeper participation in most of our projects.
It does take more effort in designing and coordinating, and there are costs
- but it can and has been done.
> Bit of a placebo effect seems to go along with these products.
Allen: The placebo effect is stronger than gravity or electromagnetic
force, and does not vary over time or distance.
-- Jerry I agree
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L
|
