PeterD

I must admit that you "still" have a wonderfull mind ;)- What a great
summary and account of all the information presented at Bee-l. Based only on
that information I think you are right.

However each day I am more puzzle about nosema. I think I have read almost
all the last reports/articles and I am starting to dig on the old documents
in search of more clues. At the same time I had been monitoring and testing.

Nosema is there (and here) and it is proving to be more difficult than
varroa to deal with.

In the case of varroa it is rather easy to monitor and the results are
rather consistent. There are a couple of registered and more than a couple
of unregistered products to treat. The economic thresholds are rather clear.

In the case of Nosema the monitoring is very time consuming and the results
not so consistent. It is not the same to take foragers than house bees and
the results are not the same if you check in the morning than at mid day. As
it is a parasite of the adult bee, over time the adult bee load might change
as the population changes. It is not the same the average spore count per
bee than the percentaje of bees infected. There are enrironmental and
managments factors that increase or decrease the incidence and there is a
clear sporulation curve for each territory. The economic threshold at the
end is a moving target that will depend on all the above.

To add in this confusion many of the old paper dealing with Nosema apis, are
dealing with Nosema ceranae, for sure those after 1990 and most probably
many of the ones written after 1980.

Finally we do not agree maybe because we are mixing between the effects nosema
might have in CCD and in winter mortality, and for sure because nosema is
never alone.

If you read the available papers many try to prove Higes wrong or to disprove
that nosema is linked with winter mortality. But all the paper I have read so
far inoculate with far less spores (< 10 ^4) than what Higes did (10^5) or
have varroa in between as a cofactor. Higes didn't pay much attention to
viruses either.

What my data tells me.

1.- This season had been a more nosemic season here. Past season 2 out of 5
colonies had nosema and those 2 had spore counts inferior to 2 M. This season
ALL hives show nosema spores and the average is over 4.5 M (so far, we have
some 130 samples still to check, and some 270 after treatment).

2.- For spore counts < 1 M (millions), less than 25% of the house bees are
infected. For spore counts > 1M and < 10 M around 50% of the house bees are
infected, and above 10 M more than 50% of the house bees are infected.


Based on the above, I think it is wise to treat when spore counts taken from
mid day samples reach 5 millions.

It is also wise to search for an alternative "medicine" than fumagilin
because anytime hives could reach that threshold.

But "medicine" could be there in nature as ways of propolis or pollen, so
maybe Randy's bees cure by themself.

-------------

"Perhaps weather has been a key factor...I'm sure our Chilean geographer
friend (the one with all that spare time on his hands) will have a view on
that, and could shed some light!"

I am so sorry that I run out of time just when you send your excellent post.
I am also sorry that I do not want to risk my "prestige" getting involved on
northen climate. But for sure climate have much to say on winter mortality
and nosema.

-- 
Juanse Barros J.
APIZUR S.A.
Carrera 695
Gorbea - CHILE
+56-45-271693
08-3613310
http://apiaraucania.blogspot.com/
[log in to unmask]

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