Brian said:

> I'm not saying that non commercial operations 
> that are stationary never have problems I'm 
> saying that those operation have reduced the 
> risks by running an operation that is inherently 
> more sustainable. 

You can call it "sustainable" if you'd like,
but such an operation is no less likely to 
be hit by CCD, given who has been verified
as "having CCD".

Not one iota.
No matter what kind of self-congratulatory
label you want to put on it, it doesn't 
seem to help.

So your definition of "sustainable" is clearly
much less than sustainable in the face of CCD.
This is why we employ researchers and lab techs,
so that we can find the actual practices that
can be proven to reduce or eliminate the risk
of losing one's colonies, and avoid managing
bees with acts of faith. We'd rather use reason.

> the non sustainable operation is so screwed up 
> that all the CCD studies in the world will only 
> be a band aid even if they do find something 
> definitive to hang a hat on.   

Uh, maybe you ought to realize that even though 
we don't have any "eureka" moment on CCD, we
do have lots of very specific advice as to what
we should be doing in the meantime.  One of these
things is to test and treat for Nosema, as both
kinds of Nosema (apis and cerana) are so widespread
it appears that they are almost universal.

Now, maybe you don't want to test or treat for
Nosema, as treating for something would violate 
your definition of "sustainable".  That's a shame,
as it is hard to cure Nosema with crystals and 
incense, but easy to cure it with some Fumagillan.

> stress has never been ruled out !!! and was 
> fingered from the very start by many many 
> researchers. 

I'm not sure what anyone means by "reduce stress",
but if you define a non-migratory, no-chemicals,
"all natural" beekeeping operation that wants to
call itself "organic" as one with minimal
stress, call Jerry Bromenshank and ask him which 
kind of operation was the FIRST to report CCD when
he put up his online survey system.  

You see, it is easy to sit back and thunder your 
opinion, but it is another thing to reconcile your
opinions with the facts.  Objective reality is
sometimes much more complicated than one might want.

> We have had shortages of bees for pollination and 
> shortages of queens and packages since 2000

Again, some facts may help you here.  Below is 
the "bearing" acreage devoted to almonds in 
California, listed by year (USDA figures):

1994 433,000
1995 418,000
1996 428,000
1997 442,000
1998 460,000
1999 485,000
2000 510,000
2001 530,000
2002 545,000
2003 550,000
2004 570,000
2005 580,000
2006 585,000
2007 615,000

So, as you can see, the "need" has been GROWING, 
while the total number of US hives has been 
shrinking, so the "shortage" you speak of has 
been created more by the growers' expansion
than by beekeeper's losses.  This has been 
going on for some time.  

The first "breaking point" was back in the early 
2000s, when the Almond Board put their considerable
support behind allowing bee imports.  It took them 
a few years to realize it, but now, even the Almond 
growers realize what should have been obvious - that 
packages dumped into a box don't do much pollination, 
and a hive worth paying for is a hive that has been 
overwintered and built up (i.e. fed) prior to being 
placed in the almonds.  So their little attempt to 
keep pollination fees low kinda backfired, as the 
packages still needed expert care to get them built 
up to proper strength.

The second "breaking point" was in the winter of 
2004/2005, when so many colonies in California 
were doing poorly, that Bart Smith was sent to 
California to collect samples and see if he could
figure out what new thing had gone wrong. 

The most recent "breaking point" was when Dave 
Hackenberg pointed out the specific symptoms his 
hives were presenting, and it was found to not 
be unique to his operation.

So, extraordinary measures HAVE been attempted
multiple times, long before we had any hint
that we had what might be yet another invasive 
exotic disease or pest, might be the fallout
of widespread systemic pesticide use, or might
be something else. Or all of the above.

> Its all backward in your mind Jim. You have attached 
> too much importance to the economics of the problem 

Thank you so much!  I don't think I've ever been
complimented so well.

Yes, it is true that bees would never have been 
brought to North America if not for "the economics 
of the problem", and that beekeepers would have 
nothing more than "ant farms" with flying residents
if not for the economic value of bees, so yes,
it is simply impossible to attach "too much
importance" to the economics of beekeeping.

> and forgot that keeping bees healthy and alive should 
> be the first priority of commercial beekeeping.

I haven't forgotten. Those who refuse to even test for 
diseases like Nosema, let alone treat, and yet have 
the gall to posture and pose as somehow being superior
to other beekeepers are the ones who have forgotten.

These types are guilty of negligence bordering on the 
criminal, as they make little or no attempt to even
verify the health of their bees, let alone save the
lives of God's creatures who will perish without
the beekeepers' help.

So, when you gonna send some bees in to Beltsville
for a Nosema test?

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************