Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
April 18, 2014, 02:56:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CCD research being questioned  (Read 7450 times)
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« on: November 07, 2010, 08:26:34 PM »

I think there was a couple comments on this topic. Not really sure the whole story or where it stands.

This came across my desk today.... So it still is making rounds.

http://www.apinews.com/en/component/k2/item/12391
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2010, 09:01:42 PM »

   old news and been debunked--they are just bottom feeding-- Wink RDY-B
44     BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER / GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. / Re: Follow the Money (Bayer Crop Did NOT Fund the CCD New York Times Artical)    on: October 13, 2010, 11:03:32 AM
  more to digest-RDY-B                       
Quote from: indypartridge on October 13, 2010, 04:02:17 AM
Here's an article in Fortune that discusses the possible connection between Dr. Bromenshenk and Bayer:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm
[/color]
The Fortune reporter knows full well:
 
(1) the onion seed pollination work was done for a large U.S.  company,
there was no grant received from Bayer,
 
(2) the acoustic recorder is better at pesticide detection than  pathogens
- the latter part of the development is an ongoing research  project still
being funded by USDA. 
 
(3) we weren't asked by NYT to disclose our funding sources, it wasn't 
brought up, and there was no need since this information is required by  PloS
ONE before they will even review a paper.  You can find it on the PloS  ONE
site.
 
(4) Bee Alert  Technology, Inc. is a technology transfer company  that is
legally recognized as an independent company in the State of  Montana,
affiliated with the University of Montana.  It is MT  State Board of Regents
Approved and has been since the early 2000s.  Intellectual property agreements
are in place, stipulating issues such as  patents, IP rights, licensing, and
if we ever make any money - which seems a  LONG way off, the University
receives an established royalty for research and  education. 
 
This all came about because of  changes in Federal Law ensuing from  the
1980  Bayh–Dole Act or University and Small Business Patent  Procedures Act. 
This is _United States_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
_legislation_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law)  dealing with  intellectual
property arising from _federal  government-funded research_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ris _United States_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding#Government-funded_research) . Adopted in _1980_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980) , Bayh-Dole is codified in _35  U.S.C._
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code)  _§ 200_
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/200.html) -212_[1]_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act#endnote_35USC200212) , and implemented by 37 _C.F.R._
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations)   401_[2]_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act#endnote_37CFR401) . Among other
things, it gave U.S. universities, small  businesses and non-profits
_intellectual  property_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property)  control
of their _inventions_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention)  and other 
intellectual property that resulted from such funding.
 
The Fortune article presents an assortment of lies and  half-truths by a
reporter who left another magazine before it folded.   Unfortunately, this
article has spawned a copy by New Yorker Magazine that added  an even more
inflammatory headline and chose to emphasize some of Ms Eban's  more outrageous
claims of what she alleges I said. 
 
The NEW version of this fiction appears at:
_http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/bee_mystery_unsolved_lead_inve.html_
(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/bee_mystery_unsolved_lead_inve.html
and  it also encourages reader comment, as does Fortune.
 
The only good thing about all this is that it can still generate a  smile,
courtesy of friends - such as the proposed title sent to me “Fortune’s
Misfortune – Smearing  Scientists Is Liable To Be Libel “.
 
Thanks to all.   Jerry
 esearch_funding#Government-funded_research) . Adopted in _1980_
(
 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 09:15:15 PM by rdy-b » Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2010, 04:53:58 PM »

So, am I reading this correctly?  You are Jerry Bromenshenk?
Logged

Never thought I would do it!
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2010, 10:33:55 PM »

So, am I reading this correctly?  You are Jerry Bromenshenk?
 no Im RDY-B thats Jerry's EMAIL response to the article in question-RDY-B


    Its confusing because its a sip from a post made on oct 13 general beekeeping
 heres the thread -the original Email came from Jerry to the list on Bee-L
http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,30219.0.htmlhttp://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 10:47:49 PM by rdy-b » Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2010, 09:46:25 AM »

Quote
What's really alarming is how 40% of their control just died off in 14 days._


Oh my God, if 40% of your control died off you have no control.  This research is ridiculous.  They are getting paid by word count … nothing scientifically useful here.


Logged

Never thought I would do it!
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2010, 09:50:33 AM »

my recolection is that the control (in this case) was caged bees (no comb, no flight).  this isn't unexpected....but caged bees do not operate like a colony does.

deknow
Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2010, 11:06:41 AM »

If you have three hives in the same vicinity and introduce chemicals to two of the hives you have some version of a control with the one you did not introduce chemicals to.  If you do the same thing but subject them all to a microwave and half of them die you have no control regardless of what the surviving numbers are in the other two hives.

They are calling this research?  huh  What a joke.
Logged

Never thought I would do it!
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2010, 11:13:52 AM »

...but in this case, "subjecting them to microwaves" (which here is "putting some bees in a cage and feeding them) prevents up to 60% drifting between  hives, and prevents the variables added by putting them in different locations.

i'm not a big fan of caged studies, but they do have their use in small scale preliminary trials.  in order to use free flying colonies effectively for such research, you need to separate the tests from the controls (again, up to 60% drifting of bees from colony to colony will affect most results), and you need to have enough numbers of locations to eliminate the effects of local conditions.

deknow
Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2010, 11:35:07 AM »

Quote
in order to use free flying colonies effectively for such research, you need to separate the tests from the controls (again, up to 60% drifting of bees from colony to colony will affect most results),

You are telling me that 60% of the bees from one colony will go into the hive of another colony?  That is quite the opposite of what I was told in a bee yard where the hives were inches apart.

I am not saying you can't get some useful numbers from a caged bee experiment but if 40% die in the control I am saying these numbers mean nothing.  You can't leave that death rate unanswered.

edited-
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 03:34:51 PM by Acebird » Logged

Never thought I would do it!
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2010, 11:49:26 AM »

how long do you think bees in a cage should live?

deknow
Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2010, 12:20:31 PM »

I have no idea.  Is our hive considered a cage?

edited-
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 03:33:41 PM by Acebird » Logged

Never thought I would do it!
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2010, 12:25:54 PM »

Quote
in order to use free flying colonies effectively for such research, you need to separate the tests from the controls (again, up to 60% drifting of bees from colony to colony will affect most results),

You are telling me that 60% of the bees from one colony will go into the hive of another colony?  That is quite the opposite of what I was told in a bee yard where the hives were inches apart.

I am not saying you can't get some useful numbers from a gaged bee experiment but if 40% die in the control I am saying these numbers mean nothing.  You can't leave that death rate unanswered.
 the numbers dont reflect free flying colonies-the test and controls can be duplicated time after time -because we now how bees survive in cages and there longevity-this is just a small part of what is going on with the current findings--mostly this was to get the paper per-reviewed and accepted by science community--reason being you can not get funding for research with out publishing a per-reviewed paper -and yes it is hard to compare to practical beekeeping but the research is SOUND
Logged
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 726


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2010, 12:46:30 PM »

I have no idea.  Is our hive considered a gage?
with all due respect, you don't understand the terms being used.

a "caged" trial (not "guaged") are some number of worker bees taken from a colony and placed into a small enclosed cage where they cannot fly, and (in most cases) don't have a queen....there is no "exit" to such a cage, and the bees can do nothing but eat and die (they cannot reproduce).  there is no brood present, and probably no comb of any kind (until the caged bees build some in the cage).

this is the "control" that you are referring to.

deknow
Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2010, 03:48:31 PM »

Sorry for the misspellings ... they are fixed now.

Quote
and yes it is hard to compare to practical beekeeping but the research is SOUND

It sounded as though it wasn't repeatable from the comments and discussions.  It sounded like 40% death rate was unusual otherwise why would it be questioned.  I worked for a medical company for 23 years.  I can't imagine a 40% fallout on the control group.  It points to a design of experiments blunder in my book.  Maybe they are doing things different in the universities these days.
Logged

Never thought I would do it!
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2010, 04:07:55 PM »

  60% survivability with caged bees-is in reflection to a given time frame-the caged bee part of this is
  is how they do this for many reasons-try to get past that part -so you can get a grasp of what the study shows
 it requires a little knowledge about the types of pathogens and viruses related to bees -and it is not written for laman
beekeepers but for science review heres the link----RDY-B
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013181
Logged
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2010, 04:23:05 PM »

 here they speak of the caged bees--RDY-B
*As is common in cage bee trials, mortality was observed in the control groups in all four biological replicates. To confirm that the controls likely died from a non-infectious cause, deceased bees from all treatment groups were further screened with MSP. The controls did not have any detectable IIVs, but did show some evidence of Nosema, which was not apparent from PCR analysis of the same samples.*
Logged
Acebird
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 955


Location: Utica, NY

Just getting started


« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2010, 06:34:59 PM »

Quote
Conclusions/Significance
These findings implicate co-infection by IIV and Nosema with honey bee colony decline, giving credence to older research pointing to IIV, interacting with Nosema and mites, as probable cause of bee losses in the USA, Europe, and Asia. We next need to characterize the IIV and Nosema that we detected and develop management practices to reduce honey bee losses.

This just looks like an excuse to bombard the hives with more chemicals.  I won’t say that I understand all the gibberish that is contained within this publication but I surely don’t get any warm and fuzzy about their conclusions.  Why have Nosema and mites become a problem in the first place?  Answer that and I think you will find the root cause of many problems.  Why is it that Australia doesn’t have CCD?

Quote
The controls did not have any detectable IIVs, but did show some evidence of Nosema, which was not apparent from PCR analysis of the same samples.*

I read that too.  Still looks flaky to me.
Logged

Never thought I would do it!
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2010, 07:01:17 PM »

 yes but it dose not boud well for the no treatment camp-you are correct in the root of many bee issues are varoa
related-and believe it or not nutrition is a key factor for nosema C(keep in mind there are two types)  -years ago
they called it DWINDLING disease -RDY-B
Logged
wd
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 541

Location: U.S.


« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2010, 01:12:58 AM »

This video arrived via gmail/buzz this evening with the heading "Colony Collapse Disorder Solved"

Colony Collapse Disorder prevention turns out to be easy

Logged
rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2010, 01:59:27 AM »

  that was the palo cedro honey festival-right in your neck of the woods WD-- cool  
 only thing missing was the guy in the Bee beard-- Wink RDY-B
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.418 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page March 03, 2014, 07:21:38 PM
anything