From: Peter L Borst <[log in to unmask]>

>The results were also published in another journal. There, they said:

"...It is conceivable that Nosema loads were higher in surviving colonies because bees from these colonies lived significantly longer (10 to 15% longer) and older bees tend to accumulate more Nosema spores"

Peter (and all)...the above makes perfect sense to me, and I don't at all doubt it at all (although the phrase "it is conceivable" seems to indicate that the authors are not willing to state this as fact).  I have not read this version of the write up.

But

In the PLos ONE paper that was posted earlier (the paper we have been discussing), it is stated clearly (as I've pointed out before):

"The data show that DWV, Nosema ceranae, Varroa destructor and Vitellogenin can be predictive markers for winter colony losses, but their predictive power strongly depends on the season."

...but the higher levels of nosema ceranae were not just correlated with survival, but also with mite treatment (and given the mite treatments were acids, the changing of the pH in the hives).  As far as I can tell they have not generated data that within each group (treated or untreated) shows that nosema ceranae levels have any kind of predictive value...what is seen in their data seems to be a side effect of mite treatment (at least with FA and OA)....NOT a predictor.

It has been suggested (offlist) that my discussion of this study (which someone else posted excerpts from) amounts to little more than uninformed armchair beekeeping.  I'm not sure what one is supposed to do with a published study if one is not to read it, evaluate it, critique it, and discuss it.  This study was performed, written up, reviewed, and published...ideally the end result should be robust enough that it can stand up to criticism...especially criticism from an uninformed armchair beekeeper with ignorant positions.

It has been suggested onlist that I have misinterpreted what was written.  It has also been suggested that I should discuss the conclusions of the study (which I did) and that I should summarize the study (which I did not...nor has the poster that made that request of me).

I would suggest that I'm not a bad guy here...that a study unexamined is a study not understood.

The almost perfect alignment within the two groups [treated/surviving/higher-nosmea-counts vs. untreated/dead/lower-nosema-counts] casts great doubt on the conclusion that a higher nosema ceranae level indicates future survival.  One really needs to separate the nosema count from acid varroa control...and ultimately from varroa control all together if one is to reach such conclusions.

deknow

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