>
> >What I can't figure out is what you would consider "unnatural"?  Seems to
> me that your definition is essentially "everything under the sun".  Can you
> please give me an example of something you would consider "unnatural"


All xenochemicals (synthetic compounds that are not found in nature) are
unnatural.  There are tens of thousands of xenochemicals.  So I'm hardly
speaking of "essentially everything under the sun."  In addition, I would
consider any sort of bee management that differs greatly from bee biology
in nature to be unnatural.  Such as putting 50 colonies into one yard, or
taking their honey, or restricting swarming, or even importing the exotic
bee Apis mellifera into North America.  All are "unnatural."  So where do
you want to draw the line?

>
> >why you would use the term 5 times in one post as a way to reassure the
> reader that there is nothing scary about Remebee


Sorry Dean.  Everyone: BE SCARED!!!!!  OK, am I off the hook now?  I'm
starting to sound like Dick Cheney...


>
> > I note that you see value in the control queen that showed the most
> resistance....do you think this was something in the DNA or the RNA?


Why do you limit yourself to genetic sequences?  Epigenetics are likely
more important.


> > If it is in the RNA, I bet you could shake a few nurse bees from the
> resistant colony into one that needed to acquire it....if concentration of
> the specific dsRNA were not a factor.
>

 I've been recommending for a while, and hoping to test in a controlled
trial. .

>

> If they were challenged with IAPV and had some innate
> resistance...wouldn't that also ramp up the levels?
>

If it ramped up in response to a challenge, then, by definition, it would
no longer be considered "innate"--it would be induced.

>
> >I don't care how you want to use the word "natural", but to say that
> infection vectoring via hive top feeders after treating with Apistan for 6
> weeks, equalizing the hives, and treating with TM leads to any kind of
> "natural" result is absurd.  I absolutely agree it is the experimental
> design...but there is no "natural process" here.
>

 The only "natural" part that I'm referring to is the bees' natural immune
upregulation due to being challenged by viral dsRNA. JUST AS HAPPENS IN
NATURE-that's the only thing that I'm saying is akin to "natural."

>
> >Perhaps the unexpected result was due to "over inoculation" of the IAPV?


I've said that already a few times.


> > Perhaps this is a red flag that since your control colonies did not
> behave as expected that there is a flaw in the experimental design
> somewhere?
>

They behaved EXACTLY as I would expect in a natural situation in which a
colony died out from IAPV, and was then robbed out by surrounding colonies.
 If the inoculum was of high enough titer, virulent, and novel to the
population, I would expect that the majority of the colonies would succumb,
but that a few would exhibit resistance and survive.  We scientists call
that process "evolution."  And it's about as "natural" as I can imagine!

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com




-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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