>I believe CCD will go the route of "Disappearing Disease" which is not even
talked about in the 92 edition of the Hive and the honey Bee.

So do I, Bob!  That is why it was called "Disappearing Disease"--because the
disease disappeared, not  because of the bees disappearing.

>Two points:
> >Every CCD symptom can be explained by another cause.
>

CCD is nothing more than a list of "symptoms."  It is not a cause.

>
> >The symptoms put forward by the CCD working group are not seen in all CCD
> claimed deadouts.
>

Then they should not be called "CCD," would they?

>
> >I have went through hundreds of hives which were claimed CCD (reported on
> the CCD survey) and none fit the described symptoms *exactly*.
>

As I say, then you have not seen it personally.


> >Why not list the symptoms you see and I will answer with a another
> possible
> hypothesis?
>

You can easily read and see photos in my article in this month's ABJ.  Hope
to have it on my site soon.  In "classic" CCD, there is the sudden loss of
the adult workforce over the course of a day or two, leaving behind frames
of fairly healthy-appearing brood.  This is a phenomenon not commonly
observed historically by any beekeeper or researcher that I know.

In the "dwindling" form of CCD reported by Jerry Bromenshenk, the "symptoms"
(actually properly called "signs") are similar to dwindling due to nosema.
However, nosema may not be present to any extent (personal observations).

>
>
> >The work of Bailey in the U.K. created many cases of colony collapse by
> using viruses  but proves little.
>

I have no idea what you mean then!  Colony collapse can be caused by any
number of things.

>
> >Try the same experiment in Australia with bees which have never seen a
> mite
> and get the same result and you will get my full attention.
>

As much as I relish your attention, Bob, such a trial takes a lot of time
and money.  Would be glad to run if you wish to fund.


>
> >There is no proof CCD exists. I am from the "show me" state  and need to
> see
> the proof a NEW problem is killing hives.
>

Bob, I don't know that anyone is saying that CCD is a NEW problem.  It
appears to me to simply be a twist on an old problem, likely exacerbated by
the presence of the varroa mite and N ceranae.  The sudden collapse of
colonies is as real as it gets, so I'm not sure what you are arguing.

Pathogens evolve, and new ones get introduced (varroa, DWV, N ceranae).
Decimation or extirpation of colonies is to be expected with the
introduction of each new pathogen, until a new host/pathogen balance is
achieved.

In recent years, many beekeepers have observed unusual losses, often with
similar signs.  To me, we are simply observing evolution in action.


> >CCD is an interesting hypothesis.
>

Bob, I get the impression that you may be misunderstanding terms.  CCD is a
description of field signs, not a hypothesis.  You have in previous posts
put forward several hypotheses to explain the signs described:  new diesel
fumes, mites, neonics, N ceranae, etc.

Signs (symptoms) are observed.  Hypotheses are proposed to explain the
signs.  Hypotheses can be tested, but they do not change the reported
"symptoms."

Randy Oliver

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