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:
Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:14:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (90 lines)
> >To me CCD is a myth and only a word now used *today*to describe a dead
> hive.
>
> I must admit, Bob, that I am a bit incredulous that you would make such a
> statement!

I believe CCD will go the route of "Disappearing Disease" which is not even
talked about in the 92 edition of the Hive and the honey Bee.

>  But  > they can recognize an unusual phenomenon when they observe it.

Two points:

Every CCD symptom can be explained by another cause.

The symptoms put forward by the CCD working group are not seen in all CCD
claimed deadouts.

I have went through hundreds of hives which were claimed CCD (reported on
the CCD survey) and none fit the described symptoms *exactly*.

>
> As one who has experienced CCD, as well as having spoken with a number of
> beekeepers who have watched it spread across their holding yards, I must
> state that the specific signs of CCD are distinctive, and well defined.

Why not list the symptoms you see and I will answer with a another possible
hypothesis?

>
> I have also created CCD-like collapses experimentally, and published
> photographs of the same (ABJ this month).

The work of Bailey in the U.K. created many cases of colony collapse by
using viruses  but proves little.

Mites did not appear to be a
> factor.

Try the same experiment in Australia with bees which have never seen a mite
and get the same result and you will get my full attention.

>
> Just because you have not seen something personally does not mean that it
> is
> a myth.

Not sure why you keep saying the above. I have looked through thousands of
"claimed" CCD losses.
I have been called in to look at many beekeepers "claimed" CCD losses. In
all cases there has ALWAYS been other possible hypothesis but then I have no
agenda and I am not trying to get in on the CCD research gold mine of
funding.

My point is:

There is no proof CCD exists. I am from the "show me" state  and need to see
the proof a NEW problem is killing hives.

Beekeeping history:
"Disappearing Disease" was never proven to be real.

if you watch Saturday Night live you will see many  spoofs ( based in truth)
about the way the government simply tosses money at every problem it hears
about. The wheel (or friends of legislators and home states) that squeaks
gets the tax payers money when put in simple terms.

Jerry may have found something new in our bees ( virus?) but proving it to
be the *cause* of the bee die off will be hard.

You guys always say I have no proof the neonicotinoids are harmful to bees.
I say you guys have not shown the beekeeping world that a disease named CCD
exists.

Perhaps i am simply saying what the researchers of Canada feel but too
polite to say.

CCD is an interesting hypothesis. Nothing more in my opinion. ( another
incredulous statement?)

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2