?> If virus is half the issue and nosema ceranae is perhaps the other half
as Jerry's study suggests then I suggest wiping out nosema ceranae
completely from our bees has a better success rate than trying to stop virus
issues.
I could not agree with you more, Bob. Moreover, it seems to me that we
really do not understand either type of nosema in honey bees and an
understanding is increasingly crucial.
Additionally, we are only speculating what method is the most meaningful one
to determine if nosema levels are problematic or not, and all our current
methods are destructive and time consuming.
Even with current methods, optimal sample size, location and timing of
sampling, both seasonal and diurnal is not clearly understood, nor is the
best way to analyse samples to determine probable outcomes.
Out understanding, our methods and our our projections are extremely crude
and slow. Nonetheless they are adequate to manage nosema if the resources
are available to use them in a timely manner. Unfortunately, because they
are some cumbersome and indeterminate, beekeepers are inclined to simply
treat on schedule prophylactically. Is fumagillin resistance a
possibility? Of course it is.
Additionally, the only widely accepted and effective treatment once
problematic nosema levels are diagnosed by these crude methods is
fumagillin, a drug which is banned in many jurisdictions and coming under
increasing scrutiny for potential adverse effects on the bees, the beekeeper
and the public.
Any such adverse effects are speculative at this point, but we desperately
need alternate controls, be they biological, managerial, or chemical.
Cheap, common GRAS additives used for prevention or suppression of fungus of
food would be ideal and tests of several are scheduled, but the progress
thus far has been excruciatingly slow. The probability that we should be so
lucky and find such cheap and common substances to be effective is low, but
anything is worth a try.
Beaverlodge has tested some alternate chemicals and I tried to post the
chart here yesterday using the attachment feature on the advanced post
feature on the web interface at http://www.BEE-L.org, but my post was
returned to me. I'll try a different way here. The image is at
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/images/DSCF7708_1024.jpg and is
a slide presented at the BCHPA meeting in Cranbrook recently.
Note: A tall bar indicates less or no effect. No bar or a short bar
indicates good efficacy against nosema. The three at right are most
promising. Not surprisingly, fumagillan was the most effective of those
tested at the concentration shown.
The coded test substances shown were made up by a group associated with the
Beaverlodge station and the composition was unknown to the researcher who
presented this slide.
***********************************************
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
|
