Hello all,
Having done quite a bit of research on early beekeeping i will add a few
facts i found. I don't want to get between Dan & George only add a few
facts.
Bob

dan hendricks wrote:

 So why didn't the period between
 1922 and WW II when no TM or sulfa were availalbe
 result in AFB prevelance as low as now or even lower?

quote: from talk by the late George Vanarsdale (Osage Honey Farm Sibley,
Missouri)on early 1922-1944 AFB (wording from memory & notes):
Burning was not solving the problem. Kind of like a wildfire out of
control. The problem seemed unstopable until sulfa (by accident) was
discovered at the University of Missouri in around 1944 to control the
active disease(but as Al said not kill the spores).

 Why were bseekeepers (including yourself?) inclined to
 use sulfa when it became available and, later, TM?

I might be going out on a limb here but i don't believe sulfa was ever
approved for use in beehives but was sold by many bee supply houses.
Trace amounts of sulfa were found in honey i believe and its use banned.
Please correct me if i am wrong as old records about this subject are a
gray area but i believe the above to be correct for the U.S.. Tm was
approved and found to control the active stage. Most beekeepers
according to Mr. Vanarsdale wanted to get back to the business of
beekeeping and contaminated equipment was in every operation so use of
drugs was taken up with the intention of gradually quiting its use and
going back to the original burning of equipment.  Sadly bee supply
houses(why not blame those people) tell new beekeepers to treat with TM
spring and fall and so the story is as it is today.  Resistant to TM
AFB.
Best wishes,
Bob  Harrison
Odessa, Missouri

 __________________________________________________
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/