[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]) writes:
those are both good points, although neither of those parasites are
>> >generally considered to be serious contributors to current bee
mortality
>> >problems. That is why I didn't include them.
Maybe my memory is failing, but did Jerry not reach a different conclusion?
Absolutely, and at the two recent national bee meetings, we saw both
beekeepers and researchers at odds over the issue of whether Nosema was or was
not a problem and to a lesser similar debate about the extent of problems
due to viruses. About the only agreement - varroa is still a problem.
I should note that the CCD Working Group, of which I'm no longer a member,
has now decided that CCD can be characterized by a lack of Nosema and by a
very specific ratio of workers to brood.
Only problem, what's the justification for exempting Nosema?, that's
clearly not what we found and verified by proteomics, by PCR, and by microscopy.
And the worker/brood ratios sound very familiar to the seasonal changes
reported in the work of Cameron Jay - I'm well familiar with his work, since
these ratios had a huge impact on the model predictions of population
growth that we developed years ago working with Gloria at Tucson.
Assigning an arbitrary number to ratio of workers to brood to define CCD
doesn't seem to me more than window dressing. Dismissing nosema seems just
as arbitrary. Show me some data to support either of these changes to the
definition.
All of this presents an interesting question - how can you refine a
definition for a syndrome that still has no definitive cause? I guess this
approach provides justification for bee inspectors, beekeepers, and researcher
to exempt all Nosema cases from CCD - --- so I guess we'd then have to
conclude that Bee Collapses with Nosema must be Nosemosis, not CCD?
Disappearing Disease (DD), as I believe CCD was called in past decades, was
initially defined according to my OLD copies of the Hive and the Honey Bee
as the Bee Disease that disappeared before it could be resolved.
The same process that we are seeing now has occurred before - first define
the disorder based on signs, then find a variety of possible causes;
reject most, accept some, fail to solve the problem, blame it on cumulative
stressors re-define what DD is, then when bees do better for period of years,
forget about the whole issue, then start the whole process over when it
occurs again.
Jerry
Easiest way to dismiss CCD and publications, define it/them out of
existence.
Jerry
***********************************************
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
|
