CCD explained?

[gavin]

Seems like it!

See this paper from Jerry Bromenshenk and colleagues. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013181) Published online this afternoon and open for all to see.

G.

[Stromnessbees]

Now, we do have Nosema in the Uk, ... do we have IIV, as well?

And how could we possibly avoid spreading IIV (and Nosema c.) everywhere?

Doris

[gavin]

FERA reported 35% of the attendants of imported queens showing visible signs of Nosema. Does that give you a clue?!

The virus is a new discovery. I don't think that anyone will have a clue yet whether you find it elsewhere than in the CCD-affected areas in the States. It is a DNA virus and so quite different from the classic RNA viruses looked for previously.

One obvious question is whether the Marie Celeste cases (the ones that don't seem like Varroa or acarine-induced absconding) in Scotland might have this virus-Nosema combo.

G.

[Jon]

If nothing else this paper should put to bed the series of daft theories blaming CCD on pesticide use - bees supping guttation water, sub lethal doses of Imidicloprid bla bla bla.

But somehow I don't think the devotees will be deterred.

[gavin]

We'll see. Eric, what do you think?

[Jimbo]

After reading the paper the results are good and Proteomics is now starting to be an established technique (We use Proteomics in many of our Human disease research studies). We don't know if this virus is in the UK but as Doris says we do have Nosema. The way forward for beekeepers is to treat their colonies for Nosema same as we treat for Varroa. It looks like that the combination of the two pathogens together was more lethal and by reducing one of the vectors may give you some protection from CCD.
Jon the best theory I heard put forward for CCD or Marie Celeste was someone suggested the bees had just been nicked. I think I read that one in the Scottish Beekeeper

[Stromnessbees]

If nothing else this paper should put to bed the series of daft theories blaming CCD on pesticide use - bees supping guttation water, sub lethal doses of Imidicloprid bla bla bla.

But somehow I don't think the devotees will be deterred.

Hi Jon

The mass-killings of bee colonies in Germany e.g. in 2008 are a sad reality. They happened where those pesticides had been applied incorrectly on maize fields, which is a major agricultural crop there.

I know this is in German, but these people are not just talking 'bla bla bla'. There are 400 posts in that thread, and many of them well worth translating. http://www.imkerforum.de/showthread.php?t=13990&highlight=imidacloprid+bienensterben

Of course it is incorrect to call all colony deaths incl. these poisoning events 'CCD', and we have to be careful to distinguish between the different causes. But just because there might be a resonable explanation now for CCD it doesn't mean that all pesticides can be declared to be harmless.

Doris

[Jon]

Hi Jon

The mass-killings of bee colonies in Germany e.g. in 2008 are a sad reality. They happened where those pesticides had been applied incorrectly on maize fields,

Doris.
I grow my food organically and I am not a big fan of pesticides.
I am always arguing with the other allotment holders that it is possible to grow good quality produce without dousing them with chemicals.

With regard to your point above, anything applied incorrectly can kill or cause damage.
The German problem was to do with incorrect application of seed coatings.
You can cause death by too much salt or too much water.
Look how many people are killed on the roads due to the improper use of motor vehicles.

The fact that companies like Bayer and Monsanto may be somewhat lacking in the ethics department does not mean that we all have to jump on a bandwagon and blame pesticides for ccd. I think that is lazy thinking and unfortunately it is the default position on a lot of the beekeeping forums.

I think it is better to look at the evidence, such as the paper in the first post, and draw conclusions in an objective manner rather than blaming the usual bogeyman.

The situation has become so distorted that the mainstream view with beekepers is to blame pesticides for ccd even though the evidence has never supported this.
Sometimes it is harder to go against the flow.

I would love to be able to lay the blame at the doorstep of Bayer but there is little or no evidence linking ccd to pesticides other than internet rants by the usual suspects.

The real problem with pesticides from a bee point of view is that it leads to monoculture and limits the forage available.
I am not saying that pesticides are wonderful.

[Rosie]

The way forward for beekeepers is to treat their colonies for Nosema same as we treat for Varroa. It looks like that the combination of the two pathogens together was more lethal and by reducing one of the vectors may give you some protection from CCD.

I am not sure I like that idea. As far as we know we don't suffer from CCD yet. I have never treated my bees for nosema because not all bees seem susceptible and the only way to breed strong bees is to let nature cull the weak ones. Last winter I lost one hive from 24 so I don't think nosema treatment is necessary in any case. If my hives started to suffer from CCD or regular nosema deaths I might think differently but prophylactic use of nosema treatment, especially fumagillin, is currently a no-no for me.

I am with Jon on the pesticide issue. Of course insecticides kill insects, including bees, but if the hot heads had had their way a lot of time would have been wasted researching pesticides instead of looking for the real cause of CCD. Many of us have tried to say this throughout the CCD search but we have been shouted down on all the forums apart from BEE-L.

Rosie

[Jimbo]

I think it is important to keep an open mind on these issues. The paper gives one scientific answer to one cause of CCD with the results published. There may be other vectors that have not been tested for yet i.e other virus strains that give a similar result, other vectors e.g. varroa etc. It may be the same with pesticides. Was there tests done on the dead bees in Germany? Was there only high levels of pesticides found? Was tests done on viruses and testing for Nosema at the same time.
As an example the IIV virus may have been present and the pesticide may have been the other vector that caused CCD. It could also have been another combination of pesticide and Nosema etc. or pesticide and something else.Only proper scientific research can answer these questions.

[Stromnessbees]

In Germany they did prove the pesticide connection and Bayer ended up paying 2.000.000 Euro in compensations to beekeepers.
That was for about 11. 500 colonies and the loss of revenue from them.

I am not sure what other test were done, but only colonies adjacent to treated maize were affected.

Doris

[Jimbo]

Hi Rosie,

Sorry if I misled you I an not saying we should go out and start treating right away.I was trying to suggest if the virus is found in the UK and CCD becomes a problem then it would be better to treat the Nosema as we have a way to deal with Nosema but not the virus. By keeping one of these vectors at bay would prevent the combination that gives rise to CCD

Jimbo

[Jon]

In Germany they did prove the pesticide connection and Bayer ended up paying 2.000.000 Euro in compensations to beekeepers.
Doris

Hi Doris. Noone disputes that. As Rosie says, insecticide kills insects including bees, especially if the insecticide is not applied according to instructions.
The point I am trying to make is that there is no logic in linking pesticides to ccd without evidence - the evidence is scant.
The pros and cons of general pesticide use is a seperate argument

[Stromnessbees]

Hi Jon

I agree with you that there seems to be no link between pesticides and CCD.
Post #11 was meant in reply to Jimbo.
All I objected to was the way you wrote about beekeepers who worry that bees are affected by pesticides:


... bees supping guttation water, sub lethal doses of Imidicloprid bla bla bla...Those German bees must have picked up the pesticide somehow ... but this is not the topic of this thread, so
no need to discuss it here further.

Very impressive morphometry results, by the way!

Doris

[Jon]

Hi Doris.
I didn't mean to be pejorative about beekeepers who worry about pesticides.
I just get tired of people who move the goalposts every time a theory is disproved.
There are a lot of people out there who are determined to blame pesticide use for every ailment suffered by bees irrespective of the evidence.
That would be a simple solution but some problems are complex and require complex solutions.


Those German bees must have picked up the pesticide somehow

From what I read, the German bees picked up the pesticide from dust clouds when maize seed was being drilled as the seed coating had not been properly applied to the seed.
As you pointed out, Bayer recognised this and paid compensation.

[gavin]

Of course insecticides kill insects, including bees, but if the hot heads had had their way a lot of time would have been wasted researching pesticides instead of looking for the real cause of CCD. Many of us have tried to say this throughout the CCD search but we have been shouted down on all the forums apart from BEE-L.

Hi Rosie

In fact the US researchers did initially have pesticides quite high up their list, and the research showed no link. My impression was that the Belgian study and a French one also thought that pesticides were likely candidates for widespread colony losses, and they found links to other aspects of bee health but not farm pesticide exposure.

Now we're about to repeat the folly in the UK. Let me re-phrase that: these other studies had reasons for including pesticides in their long lists of possible suspects for their bee troubles. However a large expensive project has been funded which assumes that pesticides are the major factor in UK bee troubles. See the France 5 thread lower down. The hot heads have had their way.

I'm talking about diffuse, low level poisoning of course, not the blunder of coating seed in dusty dressings containing clothianidin. Nor the effects on the environment of over-intensive agriculture and the destruction of in-field, field margin and other lowland habitat wildlife. Just the supposed failure (in the eyes of these hot-heads, which is an odd juxtaposition of words!) of regulation of pesticides in routine farm use.

G.

[Rosie]

In fact the US researchers did initially have pesticides quite high up their list, and the research showed no link.

Hi Gavin

I remember that. Jerry Bromenshenk was quite good at releasing information at strategic points of the search via BEE-L. One could say that it's a shame the same information was not released on the British sites but his words would have fallen on quite a lot of stoney ground in any case.

Rosie

[gavin]

Hi Folks

Try this for a description of Apis Iridescent Virus in Apis cerana:

L. Bailey and Brenda V. Ball (1978) Apis iridescent virus and “clustering disease” of Apis cerana. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 31:368-371.

Abstract

Apis iridescent virus was plentiful in each of several samples of adult individuals of Apis cerana from sick colonies in Kashmir and Northern India. Almost every bee, of those examined individually, was infected with the virus, which caused an easily detectable iridescence in the fat body and most other internal organs. The only other parasites recognized were tracheal mites, but most individual bees and some samples were not infested with these.

Then go here for Bee-L discussion on Dee Lusby's problems in September 2007. Dee herself describes clustering inside colonies, something she'd never seen before. She also - in response to questions from me - describes the totally pesticide-free nature of her beekeeping and the environment her bees live in.

Scroll down to 'CCD misdiagnosis' and look for Dee Lusby's posts.

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A1=ind0804A&L=BEE-L

G.

[GRIZZLY]

Very interesting paper.I struggled thro' it and , I think , understood the gist of it.What is your conclusion Gavin ? -do you think the American research has cracked CCD or are they just scratching the surface.Treatment of both forms of Nosema are fairly straight forward , but I notice they seem only to be dealing with N.Cerenea -do you think N.Apis would react similarly with IIV ?

[Jon]

So given the age of that paper on clustering - 1978 - the inference is that Apis Iridescent Virus jumped species from Apis Cerana to Apis mellifera via varroa, is that what you are saying?

[gavin]

Hi John and Jon

Yes, I think that they have basically cracked it. If the virologists at Rothamsted had not been made redundant they may have helped crack it earlier.

No doubt there are lots of subtleties yet to come out, but it seems likely that this virus and this microsporidian pathogen is the explanation. Probably also explains the Spanish losses linked to Nosema ceranae and explains why N. ceranae is not always so pathogenic. Might explain the French troubles. Does Nosema apis also amplify the virus? Not sure.

It doesn't seem to be known yet whether the Apis cerana virus was the same as the CCD one. However an iridovirus was spotted in *Varroa* in colonies of moribund US bees in 1996. Not the US but Peace River in British Colombia, Canada.

See: Scott Camazine, Tsu Peng Liu. JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY 71, 177–178 (1998) - as discussed on Bee-L.

Even more interesting is the *negative* association of DWV with CCD in Jerry Bromenshenk's study, while IIV was showing that strong positive correlation with CCD. That could mean that the IIV is more pathogenic to Varroa than bees.

Did it come from Apis cerana? Mibbae. Varroa did.

So (hypothesising!):

- IIV could be a pathogen of Varroa that also affects the bee host for Varroa, and this 3-way relationship developed while Varroa was a pathogen of Apis cerana.

- Nosema ceranae makes this a 4-way relationship. A separate pathogen of Apis cerana, it also has the action of amplifying the number of IIV (aka AIV) particles in the bee and rendering otherwise benign pathogens virulent.

- Varroa jumps to Apis mellifera

- perhaps later (perhaps sooner or simultaneously) IIV/AIV jumps to Apis mellifera and the Varroa on it too

- Nosema ceranae makes the jump too (when will we ever learn?!)

- Nosema ceranae promotes the amplification of IIV (aka AIV) in Apis mellifera, giving rise to dramatic collapses in populations in the US, Spain and maybe France too. All after Varroa took hold.

Taking this further on:

- IIV/AIV could, in the absence of Nosema ceranae, provide part of the explanation for that tricky Varroa tolerance seen in some bee stocks yet which can disappear in another location

- It seems that we are currently experiencing a year with low Varroa numbers. Is this due to this virus?

- what about the Isle of Wight disease, Marie Celeste and other disappearing diseases, do we now have a better explanation for them? Has AIV been around for a long time?

OK, time to go and lie down now.

Gavin

[Pete L]

Excellent post Gavin,really interesting the way you have linked these pathogens together....and also about the comments about the isle of wight disease back in history,certainly makes you wonder about that. I think this is even more reason to take nosema detection and control far more seriously than many seem to nowadays,well since the arrival of varroa anyway.

[Rosie]

Pete, what's your take on "take[ing] nosema detection and control far more seriously"? Do we breed nosema-tolerant bees or do we throw chemicals in the hive to kill nosema but at the risk of encouraging susceptible ones? Would it be better to cotrol nosema to delay the spread or entry of IIV into the country (assuming it's not here already) or would it be better to let affected colonies be culled naturally?

I don't expect you to know the answers, by the way, but presumably you have an opinion.

Rosie

[gavin]

Personally I think that the lessons are to take pathogens more seriously all round. The only way I can think of to slow the spread of pathogens which we don't even know about yet is to move bees less - a lot less - from country to country. It seems that a major pathogen has been missed in the States for at least 3-4 years despite all that fuss about CCD, and maybe missed in Europe too.

We are yet to find out what really triggers and predisposes colonies to CCD even if the disease is essentially a disease of two pathogens, and presumably there are lessons there too. Do large apiaries provide opportunities for transmission? Is long-distance transport on trucks one reason for the devastating nature of the disease? There was one prominent organic beekeeper (*very* organic) affected, but she did say that there were migratory beekeepers nearby.

But yes, in the shorter term, controlling Nosema as well as Varroa is a sensible precaution.

Gavin

[Pete L]

Hi Rosie
i believe we would all like bee's that were resistant to nosema,plus other diseases and parasites,indeed some are already more resistant than others. But from my own past experiance of nosema this is not going become widespread any time soon,or without great losses, so yes i believe we need to treat.
I really don't like putting any chemicals into hives,nor does any beekeeper,but i do know that there are better methods of treatment than fumidil, from my own experiance on my own bee's at least. I believe that good nutrition,and using essential oils in syrup make for healthy bee's. I also believe all beekeepers should test,or have the bee's tested for nosema once,preferably twice a year,which used to be done much more before the arrival of varroa.

[Phil McAnespie]

Excellent comments Gavin. Unfortunately for the bees commerce overtakes common sense though.
This is really interesting research and I trust becomes conclusive in time. It would be nice to see science prevailing over conjecture.
I agree with your comments about controlling Nosema, given the recent rise in it's appearance. It's good to keep chemicals out of
the hive, but it is folly to ignore them altogether.
Well done for all the work.

[Jon]

Just to update this thread, Jerry Bromenshenk has another paper due out defending his work on Iridovirus which other researchers did not corroborate.
He made a detailed post about the situation on Bee-L (http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1303&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=D&X=6A01173B0146416D18&Y=jjgetty%40fsmail.net&P=266205) yesterday.

original (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013181)Bromen shenk paper from 2010

Rebuttal (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128115/)from Tokarz et al, 2011

[The Drone Ranger]

every so often Lidl have microscopes -- Biolux I think for around £50 by all accounts good quality
I a decent one off ebay it had a had a hard life and the stage controls for maneuvering the specimen needed stripped and cleaned
Stain Giemsa was easy to find -- might be harder now there are more rules about posting/transporting chemicals
(Quick Ian Craig 1 Day microscopy course)
You will be kitted out for detection of nosema