Wikipedia is not the authority on CCD - it still has many errors - its an
unfiltered dump, starting with incorrect quotes of the CCD working group,
and then posting anything else said by anyone; regardless of validity.
We've a person on the Entomol-L and one on this list, both claiming to have
posted the Wiki description. I'm going back through the lists to try to
find the names. Its impossible to correct - make a correction, the
controlling factions change it back. Have someone make an accusation or claim,
its reported 'out of context'. Peer-reviewed work is on the same ground as
speculation.
Scott Debnam, I, Randy, Dave Westervelt did post a more complete
description of CCD in the US in Bee Culture; perhaps Kim will make it available on
line.
I'm responding to posting by:
[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])
>Ontario team could or would not confirm your contentions
And what would they test for? There is no test, that's why I am going on
about rear leg symptoms
(which _I_ think is a test)
Rear leg syndromes are NOT anything that my team or anyone on the USDA team
has reported. I've seen some dwarf wing, some paralysis, some K-wing -
but none of these are common to all CCD colonies. What exactly do you mean
by rear leg symptoms.
>So far, CCD is defined by a set of symptoms and a morbid state.
By now these bones should be "fleshed out" and the "bare" description
considered obsolete<
And how do you know that there are more signs/symptoms to flesh this out?
Are we now making them up as we go? At least the signs in the USA were
agreed upon by all of the investigators who inspected the 2006-2007
collapses. We had several long discussions. We only included signs that all
agreed were common to CCD.
You don't even know whether what you are seeing and calling CCD is the
same as what the CCD researchers and bee inspectors are calling CCD in the
states. FYI, I'm reasonably sure Canada has CCD, based on numerous reports
and discussions with Canadian beekeepers. But, I've not heard reports of
rear leg syndrome, nor do I fully understand what this sign is.
We need to find is a cause for CCD, not add signs. If we can ID the
cause, we can find a reliable indicator of CCD. Until then, the best we can do
is a SET of agreed upon signs. CCD is different from many disorders, the
classification is based on multiple, concurrent symptoms (ie, technically
signs, even we made this mistake in our early writings). Things like foul
brood have fewer, and most viral diseases are classified based on a single
sign - twisted wings, k-wing, paralysis, etc.
>Some of your observations may actually suggest otherwise. Like: Presence
of capped brood in colonies during time of year when queen should be
laying. Pay attention to last 5 words..>
I have no idea what is meant by these sentences. If you read our Bee Cultu
re description, you will see that brood and queen laying issues are not
constant all year. One doesn't expect and won't see brood in CCD colonies
when the queen normally wouldn't be laying. What we often see, an excessive
amount of brood relative to the amount of adult bees - indicating that
lots of bees were in the colony at some point in not so distant time, but
they've been lost, leaving more brood than the colony can maintain.
<I notice that they now mention ants
(http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2008.12.30.21.09.archive.html)
Ants is why this is NOT only PPB (see archives)>
There is one beekeeper who mentioned ants, and that was very early on. I
don't know who 'they' is. I've not observed this. Its not a diagnostic
agreed upon by the US CCD researchers. It is an interesting comment. It may
fit with the general observation of lack of robbing by pests.
I used to think there was a repellant in CCD hives - but we used NHB and
Almond Board funding to look, and didn't find anything unique, other than
volatile chemicals from mite control agents, which are now much more common in
all US hives. We extended that search for volatiles to a search for
proteins, and that's how we found the IIV virus. There are forms of IIV that
kill a broad range of insect hosts, so who knows, maybe the IIV is killing
the pests? There's an IIV that is common to wax moth, and wax moth are an
easy host for lab rearing of IIV.
>what beekeepers generally agree is absconding>
CCD is not absconding - look up the definition of absconding in Hive and
the Honey Bee or any established bee reference.
Here's how I use terms to describe lots of bees leaving the hive
- Swarming, old queen and workers leave, new queen remains,
- Absconding, queen leaves with workers, no queen left behind,
- CCD , worker bees leave, old queen and small retinue remain in colony,
new queen may be produced, recovering colony often has two queens (old and
new) working side by side, laying eggs,
- Dead out - just that, dead bees; not CCD
I have seen a form of absconding induced by mites, bees march out of the
hive in mass, die in piles on the ground some feet away, again, not CCD.
Vitamin C and CCD, seems to me to be pure speculation. First beekeeper
who mentioned this to me in 2006, added Vitamin C because his 5 year old
asked why Daddy wasn't pouring a bottle of Vitamin C in his home made pollen
sub.
<No VC is NOT the answer. It is however a treatment that will reduce the
problem.> Based on what evidence? I've not seen any. I don't even know if
your bees have CCD.
<The problem will not go away. It, so far, is the ONLY feasable
treatment.>
Agree, CCD is real. In most cases, CCD will go away, for a year or more,
then re-appear.
Disagree with usefulness of VC - who knows, it probably doesn't hurt, but
whatever you are looking at with some form of rear leg symptom may not even
be CCD. Linus Pauling's VC work and humans hasn't even passed the test of
time. Whether VC has any use to bees? Who knows?
<And how much does iRNA cost?? And where to buy?>
I'm still not convinced about usefulness of iRNA - if my team is right,
that CCD is caused by a combination of Nosema and a DNA virus, then iRNA
isn't likely to help.
I'd like to see some serious testing of iRNA by someone other than the
company producing it. They may be correct in their claims, but I think
everyone would like to see some verification. I realize Randy is doing some work
for them, and I trust Randy. Still, why isn't an independent group, for
example, USDA, looking at this under its own nickel - isn't the answer likely
to be an important economic factor to beekeepers? If it can reduce CCD or
even viral diseases, then it may be worth the cost. If not, its a waste of
time and money. Isn't that worth looking at?
Of course, I feel the same about diets and supplements - can't find any
money to look at that either. In this case, USDA would not be an independent
reviewer, since they've their own product on the market. But why do
beekeepers buy supplements and pollen substitutes without having an independent
evaluation of whether they are worth the investment?
<After ccd effects start to show VD control is too late (varroa
destructor)>
After CCD effects start to show, we don't have any quick fix.
Uncontrolled varroa certainly doesn't help, but it in itself is NOT a cause of CCD -
we didn't see it consistently in our field inspections, survey reports, or
proteomics. Some CCD operations had or had had high varroa levels, others
did not. Our data says the most common denominator was Nosema ceranae, not
varroa. That was also a finding of the CCD working group and even the IAPV
Science paper. We can't re-write history on this. The researchers may
not agree upon the significance of finding Nosema in virtually all CCD
operations, but we can agree to it being more common to CCD colonies than varroa.
>Has anyone confirmed your observations in other operations and confirmed
>that VC works for them? No and this is the strangest thing. I have seen
how the SC and vapourized mineral oil advocates have been responded to. The
silence is creepy.>
I suspect the issue is whether your colonies have CCD - the rear leg issue
is not typical. VC might help with that. I suspect VC is relatively
cheap, and those who believe are using it. No need for fanfare.
Studying CCD is tough - I've had years where I lost 95% of the colonies,
years when Nosema ceranae over-ran the colonies, but being able to induce CCD
or even know when it will show up again, not so easy. So how does one
test VC? You have to have CCD in order to test a treatment. Most US
beekeepers say, and I am willing to believe this, CCD has a minimum 3 years cycle.
Bees go down, bees recover, colonies do great, bees go down again 3-4
years later - that's a long time to wait.
Put another way, if your bees had CCD and you treated with VC, tell me in
3-4 years whether it worked.
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
***********************************************
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
|
