Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Default

    if you read the first link to Wiki on Nosema apis, you will learn that there is a second pathogen of Asian origin, Nosema ceranae that appears to be much more virulent and devastating to the EHB than Nosema apis.
    Funny thing about that... the nosema issue was looked at with care,
    and it was found that, of nosema samples saved, they were all testing
    as "nosema ceranae", going back nearly a decade. It appears that all the
    nosema in the USA has been nosema ceranae for some time, and the
    cases of nosema we have seen have not been the violent and fatal
    cases one might associate with nosema ceranae, but instead, much less
    virulent.

    Funny thing about the Wikis on CCD (and bee subjects in general).
    They are wildly inaccurate, and attempts to correct the more misleading
    parts have been met with active "resistance". Someone or some group,
    uninformed or misinformed, seems to be very defensive, and will restore
    the inaccurate information within minutes or seconds, deleting the corrections.

    The symptoms are very close to those described for CCD. The fact that a majority of the CCD affected colonies tested positive for Nosema along with the fact that it requires molecular-genetic methods to differentiate the two, it could be reasonable to suspect Nosema ceranae as the CCD culprit
    But the symptoms observed have been far less spectacular.
    Nosema apis has not killed any US colonies to our knowledge, but
    it seems to be everywhere. And no, the test is not "wrong", this
    truly is a different protozoan. An experienced eye can see differences.

    (all the sterilization methods used on the CCD infected combs and equipment are among the only known methods to destroy Nosema ceranae spores as well)
    Well, irradiation kills everything, and Acetic Acid fumigation kills just
    about everything except AFB, so it is not surprising that these techniques
    also kill Nosema. If "CCD" were nothing more than nosema, regardless of
    the variety of nosema, the investigation would be over by now.
    Last edited by Jim Fischer; 05-17-2007 at 03:12 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Nice article Jim.

    If one day, someone "found" cancer (assume up till now, it was not discovered) and the search was on for what caused it, what would we think when we hear about the first person to find a link to asbestos(sp?).

    We would say, hey, but wait a minute! We had these symptoms long before asbestos was produced. We have documentation a hundred years ago about cancer like symptoms, with people dying. Long before that stuff was around.

    Then someone adds, "Hey, we think its tobacco use!" Look at the risks, the association, and the testing"
    But someone adds "Yeah, but look at all the people using the stuff. My own grandmother smokes to this day, and she's 93 years old"

    Then someone adds "Hey, its the charcoal grilling!"

    Then someone adds "hey its the cells phone use!"

    Then someone adds "hey, its the goverment!"

    Then someone says "Hey, its the water".....

    and so on and so on....

    Each may have its merits. Each could be disputed with cases causing cancer, and there would be others who would claim grandmom's smoking at 93 proves it can't be this. And for each sample, no clear connection, no clear one point answering all the questions. Yes, the smoking part is perhaps a poor example, and I am not disputing the smoking research etc.

    I am just pointing out how interesting it would be to get all the different angles of cuases of cancer, and how many non-associating circumstances could be made. Cancer is cancer. It comes in different forms. It has different risk enhancers. It has different paths...that all lead to one thing. Cancer, and early death.

    I liken the discussion of CCD, along the same lines. Everyone is trying connect dots. ("My bees were right next to that guy who has CCD", "My bees were on neocicotinoid crops and I don't have symptoms", etc...)

    Why do people get cancer? Many reasons. Genetics possibly. Health style. Risk factors. and so. But connecting dots and finding clear answers would be hard to answer why a 5 year old has it, and a 93 year old smoker does not.

    I guess you could say, the best we could do would be to know the risk factors involved and try to eliminate as many as possible or at least lessen the risk.

    I don't think we will have a clear pinpointed answer to CCD. I think many of the nosema, efb, and other found contaminates are secondary in nature. A compounding factor.

    But just as with questions with cancer, some will never be answered. But some could say its exposure here, overuse there, lifestyle for some, genetics, and the list is many.

    Could the same be said with bees, with CCD? No real answers clear enough to pinpoint one item. But exposure here, overuse there, genetics, lifestyle)stress), and the list goes on and on.

    Why do people get cancer? Long discussion. Many types. Many causes. We have had a long time dealing with it. The dots don't always add up. The dots don't always present answers.

    Why do bees have CCD? Could it be many causes. With many similar types symptoms, but fatal just the same? Are we expecting the dots to add up? Are we asking that the dots once we connect them, whether correct or not, to provide answers that may be never forthcoming?

    I am not rtying to detail a discussion of inner dealings of cancer and what we know or don't know. Just using the "outline" of asking the question "Why do people die of cancer?" and using the same logic for "Why do bees have CCD?"

    Were trying to connect too many dots. And seek answers clearer than what we may ever come to realize.

    Round and round we go. Its sure to be a long ride.......
    Last edited by BjornBee; 05-17-2007 at 05:55 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    And Jim,
    I had discussions with some connected to CCD research months ago. They made it clear to me that they felt a single source item causing CCD would not be found. That the best we would get is a "guideline" of sorts with reccomendations of what they feel would lessen the chances of CCD outbreaks, and that the CCD was cuased by compounding factors.

    If that is true, then other than bickering on funding and splitting up the money, what else is there?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Default

    No, it is not "cancer", nor is it "AIDS".

    But sure, it very well may be caused by a combination of factors.

    Problem is, a "combination of factors" would be rare statistically,
    and while we might have a handful of "cases", it would be highly
    unusual to see so many operations affected. So many operations,
    run very differently, would not "roll the dice" and all come up with
    the same combination.

    Further, a "combination of factors" would not result in a sporadic,
    but recurring list of "outbreaks". What we have is a record of
    multiple operations seeing the same unusual symptoms at the
    same time in some years, but not in others. The list of years
    when "outbreaks" have been reported is long, and detailed in
    the Underwood/vanEngelsdorp paper available on the
    Bee Culture Website

    Clearly, not all these incidents featured symptoms similar to "CCD",
    but some of them did.

    So, the "combination" must be fairly common to multiple locations,
    operations, and practices. It rules out much, and it certainly rules
    out many of the "blame the beekeeper" rationales that have been
    lobbed around, such as illegal and off-label miticide use.

    The combination has to be fairly simple, if it is a combination at all.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lewisberry, Pa, usa
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    I did not say it was aids, nor cancer.
    I also did not use the word "combination"...

    Dot...dot....dot........

    "Clearly, not all.....",......"but some did"........

    dot... dot....dot......

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Amador County, Calif
    Posts
    3,167

    Default

    First of all, wow, Bjornbee great thought provocative post.

    Now Jim,
    >But sure, it very well may be caused by a combination of factors.

    I agree with that Jim.

    >Problem is, a "combination of factors" would be rare statistically,

    Jim, weather conditions were not normal and many now are coming to the almonds which is a new stress on the bees.Many did not feed pollen sub, didn't have to a few short years ago, things are changing, the cause and effect need to change too.

    >unusual to see so many operations affected. So many operations,

    How many numbers are we talking about here Jim ?

    And one last thing , Jim, how many of those keepers that had problems feed Fumagilin-B ?

    Anyhow, good discussion with both of you.
    Keith

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    N. Ridgeville, OH, USA
    Posts
    352

    Default How long were the "previous" outbreaks

    Jim,

    Good article. Thanks. Your article, and a few others I've read, mention past CCD-like outbreaks that mysteriously appeared and then just as mysteriously disappeared. Are there any records on how long these outbreaks lasted? Was it a season, a few seasons, etc?

    Seems to me that, if this is a new occurrence of some sort of "Bee Ebola" then there is a race against time on top of everything else to discover the cause before it disappears again.

    Cheers,
    DCH

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Jim,

    I followed this link found on Wiki at the Nosema apis page:
    http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/in...new-thre.shtml

    These folks are out of the UK and based on their research insist that chances are extremely high that Nosema ceranae is now spread pretty much world-wide.

    The following is the final statement in their article:
    "I hope the relevant authorities and beekeepers take note. Forewarned is forearmed."

    Without pointing fingers as to your experience with trying to correct the CCD info on Wiki, one has to wonder as these folks sure seem almost militantly sure of themselves in regards to Nosema ceranae.

    Personally I suspect that you may be right about the cause of CCD, and given the competition that seems to be going on over the research dollars, I also suspect that by the time any serious investigative research gets funded, the "evidence" will be long gone and all that will be left is questions, much the same as in the past.
    Last edited by Gene Weitzel; 05-17-2007 at 10:33 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Default

    > These folks are out of the UK and based on their research insist that
    > chances are extremely high that Nosema ceranae is now spread pretty
    > much world-wide.

    When I read the posting I quote above, I went back and looked at
    my prior posting, and realized that I had typed "nosema apis"
    when I should have typed "nosema ceranae".

    I went back and edited to correct the error, but let me repeat.

    Tests on saved samples have revealed that at least "nearly all"
    if not "all" the nosema we have been seeing here in the USA
    for years - almost a decade - is nosema ceranae, rather than
    nosema apis.

    The strange thing is that all the dire warnings about nosema ceranae
    aside, the hives do not die within days or weeks. They react pretty
    much as they did with nosema apis, which is to say that many cases
    of nosema simply weaken the hive, reduce the yield, and perhaps
    avoid detection.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    With that correction, then the article they published is "old news". It would also certianly seem to indicate that nosema ceranae may only be an oportunistic player in the CCD puzzle as has been suggested by others.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Massillon, Ohio
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Fischer View Post
    Tests on saved samples have revealed that at least "nearly all"
    if not "all" the nosema we have been seeing here in the USA
    for years - almost a decade - is nosema ceranae, rather than
    nosema apis.
    Do you have a link to these test results? Sounds interesting, I would love to read them.
    To everything there is a season....

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Default

    > Do you have a link to these test results?

    Heck no... nothing has been published.'

    This was a verbal comment made at the USDA "CCD" Meeting,
    nothing more.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    bjorn sezs:
    We would say, hey, but wait a minute! We had these symptoms long before asbestos was produced. We have documentation a hundred years ago about cancer like symptoms, with people dying. Long before that stuff was around.

    Then someone adds, "Hey, we think its tobacco use!" Look at the risks, the association, and the testing"
    But someone adds "Yeah, but look at all the people using the stuff. My own grandmother smokes to this day, and she's 93 years old"

    tecumseh fills in a blank or so:
    actually bjorn if you read some of the original work in regards to asbestos* the related culprit was smoking. the mechanism which allowed asbestos to become lethal were scars on lung tissue caused by smoking.

    *asbestos is a generic term and was commonly available in two form... one form comes from canada and the other africa. if memory serves it was the african form of the material (which had a higher r value) that was the culprit in regards to human health problems. the canadian form (which had a lower r value) was never connect to human health problems as far as I know.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads