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:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:23:31 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
 
In a message dated 9/19/2010 10:00:50 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

In   fact I am criticizing that very lack of good and 
precisely criteria.  



Stongly agree, we've done nothing to improve on this, and the Williams  
paper doesn't provide any new insights, maybe just confuses things more with  
statements such as:
 
"CCD, is characterized by the rapid disappearance of adult bees from  
colonies containing brood and food stores but lacking damaging levels of  
parasitic Varroa destructor mites or Nosema microsporidians." 
 
its the .... but lacking.... that bothers me.  I do agree that varroa  per 
se is not the common factor to CCD - we, like others, have seen CCD colonies 
 with every level of varroa from outrageously high to non-detectable.  So,  
you can have CCD with damaging levels of varroa and without damaging levels 
of  varroa - and since I've seen high levels of mites cause bees to walk 
out of  colonies in mass, it may in some cases be difficult to ascertain 
whether colony  abandonment is due to uncontrolled varroa or whatever is causing 
CCD.
 
Nosema on the other hand seems to be common to all CCD colonies - we've  
seen this, as have most other investigators.  Whether the Nosema levels are  
or are not at damaging levels - I haven't seen the data that clearly defines 
a  threshold.  Obviously Higes and others in Spain are not likely to agree  
with the 'lacking'.... Nosema criteria.
 
I view this amended description of CCD as confusing things, it may be  
newer, but its NOT an improvement.
 
The original description was restricted to defining CCD by signs  
(symptoms) and was carefully called a disorder to avoid preconceptions that it  was a 
disease (implies cause).
 
This 'new' definition mixes signs with causes, yet we don't know the  
cause, so how can we discount mites and nosema?  
 
They may play a role - I suspect as co-factors.  I don't (and this is  MY 
OPINION) think that either mites or nosema alone cause CCD, but neither  do I 
see the evidence behind the varroa/mite addition to the CCD definition  
(although I realize they were hedging with the 'damaging' - but what is  
damaging?).
 
Jerry
 
 

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