I'll add a New Zealand perspective to the discussions re: use of drugs
to control/treat AFB.
 
>> Just one more, from the same sourse as the other two...."The
>> incidence of AFB in most states of Australia, where destruction is
>> the only permitted treatment, is much lower than in countries where
>> drug treatment is generally used.  For example, 5% incidence of the
>> disease is considered acceptable in many parts of the Uited States,
>> compared with a normal incidence of less than 1% in victoria" (quoted
>> earlier as 0.75%)
 
>Now what does this mean?  Where the disease is not stigmatized, people are
>more likely to call their inspector.  Where it is a death sentence,
>people hide it and treat it secretly - as you mention.
 
I don't think it would be correct to call our attitude to disease
control 'stigmatizing' either the disease or the beekeeper who discovers
it.  Beekeepers who do not take appropriate steps to deal with a problem
receive peer pressure (!) and regulatory pressure.  I presume that would
be the case in a country that feeds drugs for control as well.
 
The 'hiding it and treating it secretly' would probably have come about
because what the beekeeper was doing was illegal.  In NZ beekeepers will
speak reasonably openly about how many cases of disease have been found
in their outfits.  They will do so especially to share in the
information pool to identify areas where someone is not doing the right
thing, or where there might be a feral source of infection.
 
While there is certainly ease in not having to inspect and destroy AFB
as we handle it, as a nation of beekeepers we are fairly united in our
approach.  We feel that in the long term it offers us a better solution
and a competitive advantage.
 
We are not rabid about it, recognising that if ever the situation was
different, we could still make the change to feed drugs.  The converse
is not true - once you've chosen to feed drugs I don't think it would be
feasible stop.
 
We are currently working through the process of deciding how we might
actually eliminate AFB entirely.  Should we manage to do that (a big
'if') we would have an operational and economic advantage.  So long as
we have that as a reasonable possibility, we will continue to control
AFB without drugs.
 
---------------------------------------------------
Nick Wallingford
President, National Beekeepers Assn of New Zealand
Internet [log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------