Bill Truesdell wrote:
>
> Begin rant-
>
> The application method insures a sub lethal dose will be administered to
> some colonies, just because they will not consume the entire or even most
> of the patty.
>
> So even though the proof is not there, circumstantial evidence is fairly
> strong. There does seem to be a cause and effect relationship.
>
Hello Bill,
In my opinion both you and Allen raise valid points and are on the same
page. Allen is correct is saying when applied at the correct time and
consumed by the bees they work great for the purpose intended and
shouldn't cause resistance.  You are saying that when not correctly used
and not totally consumed by the bees they cause resistance which i
believe could be correct also although the proof is not there thru lab
testing.
I will also state there are beekeepers not using any treatment for AFB
other than burning all equipment found to contain AFB. Beekeeping was
almost wiped out in the 1940's in the U.S. because of AFB before the use
of the sulfa drugs. Burning equipment was not working as the problem
grew larger. I started beekeeping after sulfa was in widespread use and
AFB was in check but remember all the beekeepers talk about how the
problem grew and grew and seemed as though the entire industry was in
dire straits before sulfa was discovered to work by a obscure university
in Missouri.

Bob Harrison
Odessa, Missouri