Hi all.

I think it is extremely important to consider that our observations and
collected data do not necessarily infer or document a correlation between
data sets, but may only reflect an association.  That seems unscientific
doesn't it?  But take this example:

In Jerry Bromenshenk's recent post he gives information about:
1.  varroa infested colonies that collapsed after the removal of the honey
crop when outside temperatures dropped to 20 degrees F.,
2.  most colonies died within a week of each other,
3.  bee populations were large with plenty of food,
4.  a few survivors dropped out before April
5.  it appeared that the bees did not cluster for warmth
6.  Dr. Southwick said the mite "appears" to have altered the bees response
to low temperatures
7.  Jerry says they did not move to available food
8.  Some appeared to have starved within a fraction of an inch of available
food stores in mild temperatures.

I have documented the same clustering behaviors in colonies in the spring
and summer.  I have also had colonies with these behaviors abscond from
hives in a mild fall at first frost.  They demonstrated all of the last
seven of Jerry's observations.  But the colonies had a range of 3-10 percent
HBTM and 50 to 150 varroa in mid-August when I treated them with Apistan.
Its hard to believe that my observations were correlated with varroa when
they "appeared" much more correlated with queen attractiveness and colony
noise from queen introduction to colony demise.

While the observed correlations may have been observed and statistical, our
conclusions may not be accurate.  The statistics may only be saying that an
association exists not a correlation in terms of cause and effect.

The same may be said about the observation of the presence of viruses
causing colony collapse when associated with varroa.  The data may be saying
that viruses exist in colonies with varroa, at some level per bee or percent
of population, but maybe this doesn't mean that viruses caused the colony
collapse any more than varroa did, though both may have had an impact.

Bill Truesdell says that colonies "appeared varroa free a month or so before
their collapse.  What does "appeared" mean?   I haven't seen varroa in my
colonies, even with extensive observations all summer, yet sticky boards
revealed over 3400 mites in one colony in mid-August.  He says "apparently
healthy hives (colonies) collapse from varroa."  What are healthy colonies?
How can we define the characters that make up bee health?  Can visual
observation really tell us that a colony is healthy?

Bill also says that "The varroa that are transferred to the strong hives are
also virus carriers which is the real cause of the sudden collapse."  I
don't think that science has yet proven that this statement is true.  To my
way of thinking, having seen so many variables, the science has observed an
association but not proven a correlation because it has not taken into
account all the other health factors of a colony.  And I am not really sure
that you can find viruses in a few bees in colonies of thousands of
individuals and conclude that the viruses found have caused the demise of
the colony.

Some might say this last statement can't be true by referring to human
health scenarios.  But I think we know much more about human health and
contributing health factors than we do about the variations of health in bee
colonies.

I had the same reactions to recent quotes or references from Wedmore.  Some
of the statements referred to are opinions but do not necessarily reflect
facts.  I have made some of the same observations but would not reach the
same conclusions that Wedmore seems to suggest.

Maybe I ask too many questions.  But I never was good at just looking at the
surface and accepting an issue or idea.  I always want to know what holds it
up.  It gives me more of an appreciation for the complexity of nature and
being.

Thanks,

James C. Bach
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]