"can really call this a vaccine although thedefinition is been widened greatly in recent years."
I am 81 years old and there has been no change at all in the definition of a vaccine in my life time.  There currently circulates the idea that a "real" vaccine must totally prevent infection.  Of course the facts are that no vaccine ever invented has been capable of doing this, nor will any future vaccine.  Perhaps the very best vaccine we have is the rabies vaccine.  It can be administered even after infection exists.  Of course the several  months to a couple of years incubation time for rabies makes it a dirt easy target.  But as good as the rabies vaccine is standard practice is four shots to establish initial immunity and two booster shots for immunized patients after any exposure.

This vaccine against AFB looks from the very limited lab studies to fully meet the definition of a vaccine that has been in effect my whole life, although based on reported data a vaccine that has such low efficacy I doubt if it has any practical value.  I am not spending my money and caging my queens for ten days until someone shows vastly better results for a disease that hardly exists.  It is easier and likely more economic to burn the rare infected hive.   Besides, we really do not need an AFB vaccine do we?  As another poster pointed out varroa has done a fine job of getting rid of the AFB problem.  SHB and trach mites also likely helped.  Now, if it was a vaccine against EFB, even with such low efficacy, it might just be a worth while product.  Last summer was the first summer in ten years I did not see a case of EFB.

Dick


             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html