# CCD puzzle pieces



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The problem with the theory presented is that it does not explain
the very similar, perhaps identical symptoms seen in the 1970s,
the 1960s, and even before that.

These symptoms were seen long before varroa, long before the
current pesticides in use were invented, even long before
migratory beekeeping (and the "stress" it presents to hives)
existed as we know it now.

Before, it was called "disappearing disease".
Now it is called "CCD".
But the overt symptoms are very unique, and identical.


----------



## Ron Young (Aug 16, 2006)

So what was the end result then? Was there a means by which to stop the disappearing of the bees?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> So what was the end result then? 
> Was there a means by which to stop the disappearing of the bees?

Prior outbreaks were met with shrugs and hand-waving.
We now have the technology and the ability to do a much
better job of tracing this thing down.

Good news - the National Honey Board just cut a $100K check
to help with the mounting costs of the ongoing work, so this
situation seems to has focused attention on the needs of the
problem.


----------



## Focus on Bees (Mar 6, 2006)

The outcome will be interesting. Hopefully they will come up with whatever it is


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Too bad this poll only relates to bees WITH CCD. 

We did NOT have any signs of CCD even though we treated for mites, moved our bees, (also fed HFCS and our bees no doubt got a little GM corn pollen). There are lots of folks that did all of the above that didn't get CCD, from that viewpoint can we assume CCD is _prevented_ by chemicals and migration? No? Then how can we assume that they _caused_ it?
I think we will find it is way more complicated than that.

As long as "mite free bees ain't gonna happen", all-natural beekeeping on a commercial scale 'ain't gonna happen' either, right or wrong.
As long as monoculture agribusiness requires pollination services, there will be large migrations of honeybees, like it or not. 
Hopefully within those perimeters we can figure out how to keep our bees healthy, because the perimeters won't be changing anytime soon. 
The 100K is indeed good news. Glad some of that assessment money is being put to good use.
Sheri


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

mr fischer sezs:
even long before migratory beekeeping (and the "stress" it presents to hives) existed as we know it now.

tecumseh replies:
although I very much agree with you general statement this little snippet left me scratching my head Jim. certainly migratory bee keeping existed in the '60s and '70's and folks were pretty much moving bees long distances for pollination purpose during the same era. sooooo.... could you clear up exactly what this is meant to imply Jim.

the 100 K is most excellent news, but it won't go far. it is a good beginning..


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Migratory beekeeping has been around as long as any dissappearing desease or dwindling desease. A hundred years ago, beekeepers from a commercial basis moved hives multiple times per year, as they called it "chasing the flow". And a hundred years ago there was documented dwindling desease.

Stress factors include migratory practices but also include the brood buildup, low protein factors due to poor nutrition from low protein sources, enviromental impacts, etc. Most of the dwindling desease a hundred years ago was documented on a localized level or regional basis. Although we did not have commercial movement of bees across country, they were moved more on the regional basis. Ruling out v-mites and pesticides of today, I think much of it was due to poor forage conditions effected by drought, extreme weather conditions, etc. 

Certainly the stress of moving hives today is probably on a higher level. With mono-crop farming, poor single source crop pollen, and the compounding factors of beekeeping today from desease and other introduced items, its only logical that stress impact is probably higher.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I think much of it was due to poor forage conditions effected by drought, extreme weather conditions, etc. 


Can they make that connection with the present day out break of CCD?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>I think much of it was due to poor forage conditions effected by drought, extreme weather conditions, etc.

Just curious as to what makes you think this? 

edit...Was this speculated on these past cases? I heard there was also blame put on Africanized genetics at the time.

Sheri


----------



## simplyhoney (Sep 14, 2004)

I still think it was an auto-immune disease introduced in California, possible from the imported Aussie bees. If you didn't see any signs of it, consider yourself extremely lucky and if you do see it know that time and good forage will cure it for the most part, time being the bigger cure.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>If you didn't see any signs of it, consider yourself extremely lucky<<<

_So_ true! We are still knocking on wood and holding our breaths....it feels a little like what I imagine it feels like being the sole survivor in a plane crash, so many of our associates had crashes. It is comforting hearing of others that didn't have major problems, maybe we dodged the bullet this time.
If it is something coming from Australia, most of us will be out there in harm's way again next year. Hope they have a good handle on this by then.
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Ian,
I can make the connection in my own mind. But thats completely different than proving it. I have mentioned my own thoughts on CCD extensively on beesource and as always, I am only going on what I see, hear, and my own logic.

Sheri, some is just reasoning using deductions and other factors. Certainly, CCD or what was called dissappearing or dwindling desease was well documented a hundred years ago. I guess rulling out GM crops, ELF, cell towers, neonicotinoids, nieghborhood spraying for perfect lawns, west nile spraying, mites, and other items that many have looked into today...are easily eliminated as the cause a hundred years ago.

Many of the reports a hundred years ago were localized or regional in nature. I could go as far as a viral or bacterial outbreak, but that would tend to go back to my original thought of how we keep bees as compared to nature. I have detailed natures spread of desease when talking about ferals and the compounding impact of keeping bees in close quarters under the systems that beekeepers do. I would not rule out some viral condition entirely for something that happened a hundred years ago. I just don't know. But certainly by deduction, many of the items being researched today can be eliminated.

Could it (today) likely be stress (from many factors) and poor nutrition? Sure. We do know that stress, low bee protein levels, single source pollen, poor quality pollen, beekeeping managment practices and other factors such as added desease and mite issues all come into play. Austalia has documented in the past how bee protein levels combined with stress, allows nosema, EFB, and dwindling desease to reach a breaking point.

If it happens to be one single item causing CCD, I will breathe a sigh of relief. We can deal with that. Personally, I think it is more than a couple items playing off of each other, with no easy answers. I may be wrong about CCD in regards to nutrition, stress, and other ideas. But I have no doubt learned more about some of these areas recently than I have ever done before. If this makes me a better beekeeper in the future, than it was well worth it. CCD aside, my operation will no doubt be healthier for what I have learned, and hopefully my hives might be able to not only handle CCD depending on the final cause, but will likely be able to fight off other "problems" other than CCD.

My older copy of "ABC-XYZ" specifically mentions "lack of Pollen" as a cause for winter dwindling, and how hives dwindle "rapidly". It mentions lack of pollen, and I take it one step further and suggest that this condition can also be seen even if pollen is seen, but from a poor source or from single source mono-agriculture. Back then, they did recognize that supplimental feeding was needed in times of short pollen supplies. I take this fact and just carry it forward to today, and have openly questioned the supplements we feed bees and the nature of how we keep bees. To me, it certainly is an area that beekeepers today lack knowledge and practical application. I being one of them til recently.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Ian,
I can make the connection in my own mind. But thats completely different than proving it. I have mentioned my own thoughts on CCD extensively on beesource and as always, I am only going on what I see, hear, and my own logic.


No no no, thats not what I was trying to get at. Im not trying to pin you with anything, nothing like that.

In fact I am really starting to agree with what your saying, and all I am curious about is if the "hired men" have been able to find a definitive link between disappearing disease and Colony Collapse Disorder, in relation to hives experiencing parching summer conditions?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Ian,

I presented some information awhile back. Was told it was "interesting".

The last presentation I attended has a slide slideshow/power point, listing the items being looked at. Nutrition and stress was listed. Who's looking at what or what they found....I have no clue.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>Certainly, CCD or what was called dissappearing or dwindling desease was well documented a hundred years ago.<<<
I think it is too soon, and potentially damaging to the investigation, to assume the present CCD is the same syndrome reported before, even if symptoms are similar and end result is the same. Fatal cases of pneumonia are caused by varied exacerbating conditions, different diseases can ultimately cause kidney failure, etc etc.

I think nutritian may well be part of this "puzzle" but until we figure out what factors are causing this we cannot say for certain one way or another if this is the same syndrome from 30 years ago or 100 years ago. 
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Thanks Sheri. You give way to much credit to some beekeeper making suggestions and stating their opinion. I could hardly think that this little chat is "damaging to the investigation".


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

No thanks necessary Mike, you know I value your opinion, as do all here I am sure.

I was not implying your opinions would damage anything, this was a _rhetorical_ question. If our discussions on this forum greatly influenced the investigation the researchers might be out with dousing rods as we speak, lol. (no offense meant for the dousing rod proponents amongst us)

You are not the only one to imply this is the SAME syndrome from before, and I am curious, in the context of our "chat" just how much basis in anything but "gut feelings" these assumptions hold. 
You stated "Certainly, CCD or what was called dissappearing or dwindling desease was well documented a hundred years ago." I am just wondering how certain this certainty is. 
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Sheri,
My certainty that they had dwndling desease? Very. My certainty that its all the same....Hmmm. Good question. 

It should be noted that dwindling and disappearing desease was thought to be two seperate issues, but was not fully understood a hundred years ago.

My older ABC-XYX book specifically discusses dwindling desease and mentions lack of pollen with pollen feeding as a remedy.

Disappeatring desease was not fully understood beyond mentioning nosema, arsenic poisoning which was apparently ruled out, and other deseases of the time such as AFB. It is interesting to note that it was with disappearing desease syndrome that a comment made as follows "Dwindled to the mere handful of bees and starved brood.

So was dwindling and disappearing the same? And both just misunderstood a hundred years ago? It certainly would be hard to clearly connect the dots with today, since they had very limited testing and conclusions for that period. 

I find it interesting that a hundred years ago they knew feeding pollen was a cure for winter dwindling and colony callapse. Then twenty years ago, Australia made some studies about low protein level in association with poor nutrition and low nutritional forage pollen, again detailing fall dwindling, very short bee lifespans, and colony loss.

Is it as clear as this? Are there other factors coming into play? Such as a suppressed immune system, pesticides, etc? I can't say 100%. But it does indicate to me that we have come very little in this area since 20 years ago, let alone where we were as an industry 100 years ago.


----------



## snowglobe (Mar 22, 2007)

BjornBee said:


> Ian,
> 
> I presented some information awhile back. Was told it was "interesting".
> 
> The last presentation I attended has a slide slideshow/power point, listing the items being looked at. Nutrition and stress was listed. Who's looking at what or what they found....I have no clue.


BjornBee, 

Methinks that this information might have been presented before my time in this forum. If it is not too much trouble, would you be willing to repost it for me, and for other Newbee"s? 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Bjorn,

Your post # 13, is on the money IMO.

I stopped by mann lake the other day after delivering bulk bees up north. One guy in there was asking me about my bulk cages. Duane said that there was a study out, that hives could use 12 pounds of pollen sub each.

I dont see many keepers putting on more than 2-3 pounds.
I have yet seen a clapse in keepers that put on 10 pluse.

We seem to have a pattern growing here.

Keith


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Seems to be alot of implications towards this theory, can they make that connection with the present day out break of CCD?


----------

