Bill wrote:
> I know that some are tired of my mantra, but the real problem is mites.
I asked Dr Ilan Sela about this last week. He said that they have found
IAPV in almost every varroa mite tested (I assume that he meant in Israel,
but could be wrong).
There are other issues with the mite:
First, feeding by the mite blocks bee immune function, much as a tick bite
suppresses immune function in mammals.
Second, feeding by the mite depletes a bee's vitellogenin reserves, and
further suppresses immune function.
Third, the feeding wound allows bacteria and fungi to enter the bee's
haemolymph, and such infection has been demonstrated to intiate viral
reproduction.
Fourth, mites can vector some viruses.
Mite levels were not indicated in the causal regression for CCD, but are
certainly suspect as a player.
Note the explanatory regression for CCD prediction:
IAPV (96%), KBV (65%), N apis (73%), N ceranae (63%)
Total 88.2% explanatory power!
Note that *all* samples positive for IAPV contained KBV--could there be a
synergy?
Note that N apis, which is becoming uncommon, had slightly higher score than
N ceranae! Surprise!
That said, the Army/Bromshenk data do not support the universality of IAPV
in CCD colonies.
Although the Cox-Foster paper is tantalizing, it is far too early to draw
conclusions!
The point has been made for some time that fewer Canadian beekeepers are
experiencing CCD, despite having both Aussie imports and varroa. We need to
clarify this observation.
I will be reporting more.
> BTW, since the problem is now solved (stop imports and destroy all
> Australian colonies, right?), do we still need funding to find the cause
> of CCD?
This is a huge point, Bill! The release of this paper has not gone over
well in Congress! Nor in Australia. Nor with almond growers.
Randy Oliver
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
