Adony,
you write:
>> The problems with antibiotics are four;

>> a)   Resistance to antibiotics is very likely.

        This would be far less of a problem if we could rotate two or three substances, like sulfathiazole and streptomycin

>> b)   Antibiotics can leave residues in honey and wax, which are illegal in many honey importing countries and can erode public confidence in the purity of hive products.

        Unfortunately, honey already suffers from this. NOFA (Northeast Organic Farmers Assn) won't certify *any* honey as organic and not just because of drugs; they think bees probably pick up pesticides from the crops they visit. Whether it is true or not, *they think this*. I believe most honey these days is sold to manufacturing firms like Nabisco and they certainly don't care about traces of chemicals

>> c)   The infective spores are unaffected by antibiotics and treatment does not reduce disease inoculum,

        This is not strictly true. By preventing disease from occurring the overall production of spores is drastically reduced. One rotten AFB hive could infect hundreds of colonies. This is the principal of prevention

>> d)   Antibiotics tend to temporarily mask disease symptoms, making assessments of AFB infection among colonies difficult.

        This is quite right and is a serious problem. Once on the antibiotic treadmill, one can't easily get off. By the way, I come from California where AFB was pretty widespread. It was also one of the first states to do away with inspection, with serious consequences ensuing.

>> Ontario, I have heard, is presently producing hygenic bee stocks.  For more information visit: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/facts/info_honeybeequeen.htm

        I have used so called hygienic stock and the difference was not pronounced. Of course, we were trying to reduce mite counts, not AFB, and using resistant stock against mites has been less encouraging.

        But you don't address the problem of high supercedure. I worked in a commercial queen raising outfit in 1981 (a big name concern in California) and I thought their practices were shoddy. They raised far too many cells under less than ideal conditions, resulting in puny cells. This was not regarded even as a problem! The queens mated under less than ideal conditions, having perhaps one or two flying days and then they were sold.

        Even if you have good quality stock, it means little if poor queens are raised and shipped. To produce true high quality queens would be very expensive. Even at US $10, that represents a cost of about 25 pounds of honey at today's prices.

Thanks for the info.

Peter Borst