>>Hummm! I can't recall a single mainstream bee article, that originated
>>in the US, that promoted  any of the  above alternative  methods
>>before  1998.

There is a long history in the beekeeping population of aversion to drugs,
just as there is a long history of their advocation. When Sulfa Drugs were
found to inhibit AFB, many promoted their use as a "cure" but many states
still prohibit the treatment of AFB, and mandate the destruction of the
hives as *untreatable*. After Sulfa was found in honey, its use was
outlawed. Many beekeepers kept using it even after TM was made available.

In my 1949 edition of the Hive & the Honey Bee, it describes *two*
treatments for trachael mite. One is chemical, using a combination of
nitrobenzene and gasoline!! The other is "mechanical". The method was
desribed in the "mainstream" journal Bee World. See: "The mechanical
eradication of acarine disease", Bee World 28(5).

Also, in the same Hive & Honey Bee, now more than 50 years old, they
describe the breeding of resistant bees. They refer to an article in the
"mainstream" American Bee Journal titled "Disease resistance & American
foulbrood; results of 2nd season of co-operative experiment". The article is
dated 1937. They said: "Nearly half of the presumably resistant colonies
tested have rid themselves of all symtpoms of AFB".

"Because of the widespread interest aroused by these encouraging experiments
... Congress authorized an appropriation to initiate a more extensive
investigation of the possibility of developing strains of bees resistant to
AFB." -- the Hive & the Honey Bee

So, alternatives to chemicals have been sought for many decades and interest
in these alternatives has always been strong. But the bottom line is: people
have to use what works, and cannot be expected to squander time and money on
things that *might work* or *sort of work*.

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---