Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 27 Aug 2006 09:34:34 -0400 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Why? If you treat for AFB rather than burn wouldn't it be a good idea to
>rotate treatments to delay resistance?
I don't think terramycin resistance is very common. I have sent almost 100
samples to USDA and only 3 beekeepers of these had it. If you have AFB you
should have it tested for resistance to terramycin.
If you had an infected hand, you would no doubt get some generic antibiotic,
and if that didn't work you'd try something else. If the regular stuff
works, why go on to the other?
I think it is very unwise to treat active foulbrood. It is better in the
long run to get rid of it. My experience is that the beekeepers that don't
have foulbrood (and there are plenty) are the ones that practice zero tolerance.
Once you embark on the medication plan, you will always have it. And I think
it is through the medication of active cases that resistance develops. If TM
is used to prevent active cases, resistance will probably not develop.
This is my own opinion and is subject to revision in the light of better
information.
Peter
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|