> this claim that since organic beekeepers have lost 
> colonies, than pesticides (or beekeeper applied 
> treatments) can't be the cause keeps getting repeated. 

The "claim" is backed up by extensive data from
multiple operations. Dismissing it as a mere
"claim" is extremely misleading, given that the
data to support the statement makes it "fact".
Sadly, I fear that this was a deliberate attempt
to advocate at the expense of the facts.

> it seems to me that dee's operation is an important 
> resource in the hunt for a cause

I think I can speak for the entire "scientific community"
when I say that this would be akin to doing aerodynamic
research in the middle of "Area 51" or doing work on new
sailing hulls in the "Bermuda Triangle".  No matter what 
results came out of the work, no matter how compelling the
data, the location alone would tend to become a bigger 
issue of discussion and contention than the data, results,
and findings themselves.

> but as far as i know, testing has not yet been performed.  

The tests HAVE been performed.  

Jerry delivers on promises, and I am offended by your 
implication that someone who works so hard was anything 
less than prompt.  He is ALSO discreet. 
Because he is discreet, he is now accused of not being prompt.  
Every good deed is likewise rewarded, it seems.

> as the samples were taken last fall, and dee is in a rather 
> unique situation...the results could be very telling.

The results certainly were very "telling".
Clearly, Dee is NOT telling, and no one else is 
so indiscrete as to presume to tell before she does.
That would be telling.

If Dee wishes to make the test results public, she can.
She has had her results for a while.
Clearly, she does not wish to make them public.

Any thinking person will conclude that the results do 
not support the contention that "organic" colonies fare 
any better than any other colonies under the onslaught 
of Nosema and other pathogens that are we call "CCD".

I challenge you to go back to Dee and demand that she
come clean to the many people who hang on her every
word.  She should tell them exactly what killed her 
bees, and she should simply retype the actual results 
from the tests to do so.  No sugar coating allowed.

I'll cover any bet you want to make that what killed
her bees was one or more pathogens.  (Groundrules would 
include a written statement by Dee, checked for accuracy
by Jerry B.)  

My bet is that even Dee's data supports the exact 
contention that I made and you challenged. 

So, you wanna ante up, or fold?



> i did spend 2 weeks going through virtually all of 
> dee lusby's hives 

Dee Lusby's operation is the sort of data point that
needs several inconveniently large 55-foot tractor
trailer truckloads of metadata and footnotes to explain.

Just to start with, Dee is of the opinion that her bees
are descended from bees that predated the arrival of
Apis mellifera in the Western Hemisphere with the
European exolorers and settlers, so if we are to agree 
with Dee, we cannot even call her bees Apis mellifera.  
If we were to rely upon DNA testing done in Florida on 
marked queens Dee shipped to a certain Michael Housel, 
we would be forced to classify them as Apis mellifera,
but more specifially Apis mellifera scutella.

I'd go on, but Dee is better-equipped to explain the 
many things that she has claimed about her bees that 
imply that they are nothing at all like yours or mine.
Its been years, and the list is long.  Dee can speak
for herself, and she does it better than I could.

> it seems to me that there is more than one route to 
> hive contamination..

Of course there is, but none of your speculation about 
Dee's bees explain any of the nationwide data set, which 
includes data from many other yards where organic 
practices are followed, AND organic forage is foraged.

> it seems to me that no matter who you cite, that it is 
> a rather large leap to assume that if the beekeeper 
> isn't putting chemicals in the hive that there cannot
> be chemicals in the hive. 

Hold on, you are confusing two different things - the
organic operations cited by May Berenbaum were known
to exclude not just beekeeper-installed miticides and
chemicals, but also a forage area free of pesticide
use.  Note that true "organic" as applied to honey 
implies that the hives are free of both kinds of
pesticides.  "Organic" is more than beekeeper
practices, and the USDA seems to be firm on this point.   

Yes, there are non-organic things within flight range
of Dee's bees, and this means that Dee would not be
considered an "organic" operation in the strict sense,
even if she does follow organic practices.
 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************