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:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:43:36 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Brian offered a choice:

> an operation of 500 hives that is on clean comb 
> never contaminated with any harsh mite treatments...

> now consider another 500 hive operation which is 
> moved repeatedly for pollination and is on some 
> level of contaminated comb...

> why would anyone spend any money or time studying the 
> problems associated with the second operation? 

Maybe the money and time is being spent because 
BOTH TYPES of operations have been affected by CCD, 
and all the negative factors you listed have been 
(at least, initially) ruled out as contributory 
factors in CCD due to the wide range of actual 
conditions among operations that were hit by CCD?

Even if you want to dismiss the analysis above
as "it must be somehow wrong", maybe the reason
that the problem is being studied is that the
migratory operations are exactly the ones doing
the bulk of the pollination that justifies the
research effort and dollars in the first place.
(You don't really think for a moment that anyone
gives a hoot about honey as a crop, do you?
Or haven't you noticed that there are no
"honey futures" traded on any exchange 
planet-wide?)

> IMO the [hive] losses were never that big as compared 
> to other historical losses and the likely sources of 
> the problems are inherently flawed practices doomed 
> to never ending problems. its a big sham!     

Hmmm... an interesting choice.  I can either believe:

1) Hundreds of beekeepers, 30 or so researchers, video
   and still photos, data from sophisticated lab gear,
   and the first-hand accounts of the large number of
   people who looked at scores of hives, and took samples
   from the hives that met the criteria of "CCD collapse".

2) One guy from Minnesota who has never seen a single
   case of CCD with his own eyes, and therefore calls
   everyone involved in (1) either a liar or a fool.

I'm afraid I'll have to get back to you about this,
as I'm going to have to think about it for a while.

I don't have to think about my answer much.
I just have to figure out how to best phrase my answer.



> CCD = The Y2K Bee story of 2007! 

IAPV from Australia - The "Cold Fusion" of Beekeeping!  

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2