Dave Hamilton wrote:
> I would like to start some discussion of Marla Spivik's
> article in ABJ.  She
> advocates periodic replacing frames and not using
> prophylactic treatments
> with Terramycin.

I was glad to see Dr. Spivak's suggestions in ABJ.  Resistance management is
a battle the rest of agriculture has been waging for some time.  We
beekeepers are just now joining the fray; perhaps we can avoid some of the
problems other farmers have suffered.

It seems clear from other systems that exclusive dependence on chemical
control is not sustainable.  All chemicals will fail, sooner or later.  With
judicious use, we can slow the development of resistance, but that means
minimal, targeted use.  In apples, for example, it's usually assumed that
you can use a new fungicide 20 times in an orchard before you begin to see
resistance--growers can decide if they want to use it five times a year for
four years, or twice a year for ten years and fill in with other chemicals.

The New Zealanders have made due for years without Terramycin.  Good
information on their approach is available at
http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/disease/index.htm  Aggressive inspection and
rigorous cleanliness seem to be the basis of their efforts.  Perhaps someone
from there could comment?  This approach, along with hygienic queens and
routine comb replacement (as Dave Hamilton suggested), should go a long way
toward reducing AFB.

The worst possible response to Terramycin-resistant AFB is one I've had
people admit to me--non-labeled chemicals.  You think the Alar incident
damaged the apple market?  Wait until the tylosin scare hits the honey
market.  (Though it might do my cut comb sales some good....)

An integrated approach using a number of techniques will allow us to prevent
losses from pests while extending the useful life of our chemical control
measures.  Beekeeping survived before Terramycin; we'll probably make it
after Terramycin.

Adrian