>>I think folks are making a big mistake belittling the work that is being.

> Hear, hear!  Major progress is being made, this is a difficult nut to 
> crack!

Please read carefully and check the responses.  Nobody is belittling 
anything.  That is just Pete's word for my pointing out some obvious 
deficiencies in the (unscientific?) defining and diagnosis criteria for CCD. 
It seems others agree.

Accepting and evaluating criticism dispassionately and responding positively 
and appropriately is essential to science and being a scientist.  Many of 
the people working on this I count as friends and acquaintances.  I am not 
criticizing them personally.  I know they are committed and doing the best 
they can under their marching orders.  It is hard to work in a bureaucracy.

You have had to diagnose CCD.  Did and do you find the definitions 
understandable, especially before you became more intimately involved? 
Could you improve on them?

> Re thresholds, as Pete says, high mite levels used to not be that much of 
> a problem.  But something changed about ten years ago.

I think we all noticed that.  Bob says it is viruses and neonicitinids plus 
maybe nosema or something unnoticed.  there was talk of strange things 
showing up in dissections a while back.  Has that been followed up?

> Re Allen's request for numbers, I can only speak for my own operation. 
> All numbers are for alcohol wash of 300 bees from the broodnest.

Same here.  That is the gold standard.  I find it sad, though, since it does 
kill a lot of the best bees in the hive.

I sometimes do a half-sample if the yard seems consistent and high accuracy 
is not needed.  A lot of the time, we just need to confirm our guess, and if 
a whole yard will be treated or not treated on the basis of test of a random 
six or eight hives and even one shaking in at over 2% will bring on the 
strips for all, then scientific accuracy is not required and the number of 
samples makes up for the smaller sample per hive.

> I'm not concerned at up to about 6 mites (2% infestation).  By the time 
> you see 15 mites (5%) the colony is starting to have problems.  By 45 
> mites (15%) is might be able to be saved.  By 60 mites (20%) it is walking 
> dead.

Thanks.  That fits with my experience.

As the numbers go up, the likelihood of serious problems increases, perhaps 
exponentially.  There are several factors: 1.) the predation itself and 2.) 
the nutritional burden, 3.) the injuries , and 4.) the spread of infection 
through open wounds and the mites' mouthparts.

> I have not yet been able to make any correlation in my operation between 
> nosema and hive problems, but spore counts of entrance bees rarely get 
> above 0M, and then only temporarily.

It is just one more straw, IMO.  In the current situation, after high 
losses, eliminating that additional variable is considered prudent here, 
even if the correlation, if any, to losses is not simple.

Maybe we need to dig out some of Furgala's work for a fresh look. 

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