> Anyhow the fact is -- as Andy has pointed out a few times -- bees fed
> oxytet do better on the whole than those which are not
 
Now Allen, would this be the "real" reason for the treatment? That the
use of antibiotics will give the beekeeper a higher crop, irrespective
of whether there is AFB or not? That would explain the persistent
defending of prophylactic treatment with antibiotics by some of the
list members. The own profit sometimes affect the way of reasoning...
 
As Garth already pointed out, there is a growing problem with the use
of antibiotics to increase growth rate among animals we use for food.
The antibiotics are getting less effective to cure diseases on us, and
researchers working in that field are starting to ring the alarm bell.
 
As I earlier said, I don't argue against larger commercial operators
using it for curing hives that are found with clinical symptoms of AFB.
But to use a valuable resource in a way that soon might make it useless,
just for the short term profit, is irresponsible.
 
Europe is now turning away from the use of any antibiotic in animal food,
and I'm sure you will have the same discussion on your side of the pond too.
 
And Allen, The BEE-L logs don't hold information on the latest news
in research on antibiotics, and I'm afraid I will continue this discussion when
I feel it's nessesary to contribute with our attitude. And it's the overall use
of antibiotics as a cure for everything that I react to. When we get more
of those strains of bacteria resistent to antibiotics, we will be in far more
trouble than a few dead bee hives.
 
And I still think it's sloppy beekeeping to pour drugs into the hives
"just in case".... ;-)
 
 
--
Regards
 
P-O Gustafsson, Sweden
[log in to unmask]  http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/