> What substantiates your opinion that extender patties had increased doses
> of OTC?

I don't think I suggested that.  I think I suggested that other delivery
methods often had reduced doses and short active periods from what was
intended.

> It would appear that the bees took them down much slower and sometimes
> barely at all, so the dose would be much less and would extend over a long
> period, classic methods to cause resistance.

Extender patties are widely misunderstood.  Many people wanted to see them
consumed and doctored the formula.  We are not talking about those bastard
offspring of the original concept and the patty which was registered for
use.

Extender patties are called extender patties for a reason: they extend the
period of treatment.  They are expected to be consumed slowly and the grease
was included to slow consumption and to protect the unconsumed active
ingredient (OTC) from moisture which begins the degradation of the
antibiotic.  The patties when properly used are more like a cattle oiler
than a bolus.  Therefore, placement in the hive is somewhat critical, as the
nurse bees need to be rubbing and working on it.

I recall talking to Bill Wilson during the period when he was refining the
product and he emphasized these points.  Many beekeepers did not bother to
listen, and many thought they were using extender patties when they were
altering the formula and misapplying the patties.

> I see no way that extender patties could deliver the recommended label
> dose as bees do not follo directions well when it comes to consuming
> pollen patties, grease patties and the like. Mostly too fast or too slow
> and seldom just right.

In nature, there is variation.  No matter what application method is used,
some degree of unevenness is likely.  The question is whether the method
hits the window between inefficacy and toxicity.  In rapid dose application,
the operator must make the judgement.  We have many, many stories of hired
help misunderstanding instructions and over applying, or simply not
bothering to do the job properly.  With many application methods, we cannot
tell afterwards if the job was done right, or at all.  With a method like
extender patties, dosage and placement can be verified for some time after.

> I realize that there is no direct causal relationship, but it certainly is
> convincing, to me, since extender patties were followed by resistance.

We have a term for that popular logical vulnerability: Post hoc ergo propter
hoc

> Also, the problem with extender patties is they were too easy to apply and
> became preventative rather than a treatment for AFB. We certainly know
> that antibiotic resistance occurs when they are used when they are not
> needed and used too often, which fits extender patties directly.

Well that is a wide, sweeping claim that I cannot tackle in a few
paragraphs.  Listing the exceptions, conditions and logical problems in it
is beyond my current resource allocation to this recurring slander.  Granted
there is some truth in there, but I really do not know where to start to
take it apart.  It is a sort of "Have you quit beating your wife, yet" kind
of gambit.

> Plus, I think it is impossible to prove just when any resistance happens
> since it occurs over time and you cannot point to a second in time and say
> Eureka! That's it!

I agree with that.  I guess that weakens your argument, though.

> Extender patties sure fits the profile for how to develop resistance.

Therefore let's have a lynching!

Hey!  Has anyone who believes this baloney ever actually worked with
extender patties?

I doubt anyone who ever used them and used them properly would fall for such
a line. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm