"We must be careful to not synonymize CCD with all honey bee  losses."
 
Norm Carreck, G. Williams, others - have published on this, and I and my  
team would strongly agree.  I've been to some countries who think they have  
CCD, and whatever is causing their bee declines is NOT what I call CCD.
 
I'd sure like to have gotten to Spain - that's the only country where the  
signs seem similar to what I'd call CCD.  Something may also be going on in  
France, maybe Italy, possibly Greece.  
 
I don't think the U.K. is seeing the same thing - based on published  
reports - but I've also decided, its impossible to tell from written  reports.  
I'm reasonably sure CCD is not common in most S. American  countries nor 
Australia and New Zealand - based on my own visits.
 
 
"There is a growing consensus that colony mortality is the product of  
multiple factors, both known and unknown, acting singly or in  combination."
 
There's one paper that said this, after the authors failed to find a  
cause.  So, since they couldn't find a specific cause, they fell back on  the 
'its everything' explanation, and others then piled on.  At least one  of these 
authors is now back pedaling.
 
I strongly disagree with this claim - that CCD is a result  of everything.  
If so, why did severe collapses with such distinctive  signs, suddenly 
appear?  I can't think of any group of factors that haven't  been with us all 
along - migratory stress, pesticides, viruses, mites,  weather.    So, why now?
 
The cynic in me says: if you've spent a lot of research money looking for a 
 cause - its not going to get you more money if you admit you've failed.
 
Now, I'm not saying we haven't seen CCD before - I'm not sure  whether it 
goes back to the 1800's (remember, if you find an OLD bee book,  disappearing 
disease is defined as the disease that disappears before anyone can  find 
out what caused it - hmm, maybe that's the best definition after all), or  if 
it did, it was very localized.  
 
I did see some of the wide spread collapses described by Wilson, and I  
wish I had bee samples from those pre-mite crashes. Keep in  mind, Wilson and 
his colleagues showed that long-term exposure to low  levels of pesticide 
(long before neonics) could cause a slow dwindle, ending up  with a queen and 
small cluster of bees - but that was over a period of many  months, namely 
winter.  
 
I suspect that the reason for the cumulative stress notion is not  because 
there isn't a single causal factor, but rather  because we've failed to 
identify it.  I do think that some  external factor may act as a trigger - 
weather and associated nutrition are high  on my list - but that's my GUESS.  
Bits and pieces of correlative  information, but not enough to call it a 
hypothesis. 
 
Which brings me to a different question - one that seems central to all of  
the research and the debates about CCD.  What is a hypothesis?  I  always 
thought it was based on sufficient evidence for probable cause.
 
Its the probable cause issue that bothers me.  Where do we cross the  line 
from opinion to hypothesis to judgement?
 
Jerry
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"The first step in these efforts should be to objectively  discriminate 
among types of colony mortality occurring worldwide."
 
Agree with this, but not the HOW, at least not how COLOSS is  doing this - 
don't expect any answers there.
 
"This will permit a more informed and appropriate allocation of  research 
efforts into CCD specifically and other causes of mortality in  general."
 
Personally, NONE of the programs that I am aware of have approached CCD and 
 other bee loss problems in a systematic way - funding and research 
priorities  are not being focused as is required to solve an epidemiology problem.  
We  propose such an approach early on - were told by USDA reviewers that  
it wouldn't answer any problems.  
 
I see everyone jumping on a bandwagon of proposing their own pre-conceived  
hypothesis, with reviewers doing the same.  Most funds have gone to folks  
to do more of what they've been doing for all of their careers. Others are  
re-inventing the wheel - without doing due diligence to see if they've  
discovered anything new, or just something that has been known for a long  time. 
 Failure to acquaint oneself with literature older than a few years  should 
not be an excuse.





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