BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:49:33 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
Pete said:
While no effects from imidacloprid were seen, significant effects were seen 
from inadequate control of varroa mites, supporting my contention that 
beekeepers are seeking to blame in-hive conditions on externalities beyond 
their reach. In other words, they want to cite somebody else for causing the 
colony decline that they have failed to prevent.

If the above is true then:

I have asked many times for the actual number of hives during the period of 
the CCD survey which were examined and had all the symptoms defined as CCD. 
Silence from those with the figures.

If you apply the above ( Pete hypothesis) to the hives reported (and not 
checked) from the nationwide CCD survey exactly what level was the problem?

1 or 2%

In one area I checked (hundreds of hives) I saw none of the *documented 
symptoms* yet the hives were on the survey as being CCD.

Canada says they did not see CCD (as defined by the symptoms)

The state was notified but no entomologist was ever sent. As I checked few 
areas were documented by actual checking.

In my  opinion the CCD team does not want to look back to what happened.

The pathogen as cause has basically been dropped. Varroa loss is very 
familiar to most beekeepers.
I have no problem telling if a hive collapsed from varroa load.

Maybe researchers can't most of the time so they should contact a commercial 
beekeeper to tell. The hives in Dr. Lu study DID NOT collapse from high 
varroa load when examined by knowledgeable beekeepers.

Some of those first Bayer studies were very flawed in beekeepers minds. 
Still many defended their studies.

A new autism study out defined problems which could contribute to autism in 
pregnant women. Right away another doctor came out saying the study was 
flawed.

I do not believe the question has been answered and expect new studies on 
the neonics to be ran.

new claims new studies are flawed. (usually by the same people)

bob

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2