Thanks for the post Randy!

After Dennis V. made the comment that around 4% of the deadouts should be considered CCD why is the world
Still talking about CCD?

Was CCD simply "smoke and mirrors" for the real problems?

As I said earlier to get funding two points needed met.

Danny Weaver in the ABJ newsletter & myself on BEE-L both pointed out kashmir virus and nosema N. Were found in 100% of the first samples yet the finding of IAPV
Was pushed as the source (at the time) of the problem 
In  the  article in Science magazine.

The above is in the archives.

In my opinion researchers tossed fuel on the CCD fire and now that funding is basically over wish CCD would go away. 

Which seems to make one wonder if we accept the 30% loss figure and only 4% are CCD what is causing the loss of the other 26% ?
 
Why did Canada not buy into CCD?

B.H.





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

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