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:
Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:57:50 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (96 lines)
Hello Peter & All,



> N. ceranae has likely parasitized western honey bees for decades (Paxton
> et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2008), but due to its recent detection, very
> little is known about its biology and management (Fries, 2009).

I think Fries sums it up. Very little is known about its biology and
management. Each researcher running studies is trying to come up with a "one
size fits all situations" hypothesis.

People many times think that for some reason the hives used in studies are
not susceptible to the common issues beekeepers face. ALL studies today are
*tainted* with a margin of error which could easily be up to  30% due to
queen issues , nutrition issues etc.

Researchers used to publish conclusions about hives with only 4-6 used in
the study and even today from maybe a half dozen caged bees.

In comparison to the over 2 million hives in the U.S. . With commercial
beekeepers running the majority.
I once asked at an ABF convention in a room of the largest beekeepers in the
U.S. the number of beekeepers which had EVER had a researcher ( USDA-ARS or
other) visit and look at hives. Less than 10 hands went up.


>In Europe, it has been associated with colony collapse (Higes et al., 2008)
>and high pathogenicity in caged bees (Higes et al., 2007; G.R. Paxton et
>al., 2007),

The author suggests above that the Spain research only involves caged bees!
NOT SO!
The above statement represents in my opinion a author trying to select
research and use the statement *caged bees* to help support his hypothesis
and conclusions. I am not dissing researchers but only pointing out my
opinion about the above statement. The longer you read beekeeping research
the more you see these attempts by other researchers trying to find ways to
support their personal hypothesis.

I am not sure what the goal of Mr. Williams is but suspect to tell me that I
should not be concerned about nosema spore counts of 15 million per bee in
north American .

Spain has a higher number of bee colonies than the U.S. and being around the
size of California the situation is similar to the situation yearly in
almonds. Concentrated numbers of hives. In fact add a million hives in
California during almonds and then you can get a take on the concentration.
Like California most hives in Spain are in the nectar producing areas. Higes
( Spain) has the field studies to back his data.


>whereas in North America, it appears to be more benign (Williams et al.,
>unpublished).

Mr. Williams is entitled to his opinion but high nosema ceranae spore loads
go hand in hand with most cases of high commercial hive loss.  As Mr. Danny
Weaver ( pres at the time of  the first CCD cases of the  American
Beekeeping Federation) said at the start of CCD.

Danny Weaver:
" Both nosema ceranae & KBV were found in 100% of the samples from the CCD
dead hives sampled"
(source ABF newsletter)

Because vacinating all bees in a hive would be problematic ( branding each
bee is tough enough!) and researchers around the world ( ALL) have no
solution for virus issues other than the ones we knew about at the start of
CCD then as beekeepers trying to keep nosema ceranae controlled is our only
course of action ( other than nutrition etc.).


>Both species can be controlled using the antibiotic Fumagilin-BĂ';
>unfortunately, treatment never completely eliminates infection -- Williams
>et al. / Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 104 (2010)

 I am inclined to say today that fumigillin when used before nosema ceranae
levels climb to 15 million spores per bee might *control* or keep nosema in
check but fumigillin (as sold in the U.S.) works very poorly to reduce spore
counts quickly. So slow in some cases ( reason unknown) the hives collapse
before returned to a normal hive.

The 4 million dollars spent on a hive of robotic bees ( Harvard & tax payers
money) would have been better spent to find a drug which *will* control
nosema ceranae and bring spore levels down FAST!

bob

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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L

ATOM RSS1 RSS2