BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
JamesCBach <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
JamesCBach <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:02:32 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
Ken Hoare asks why I don't mention using a gas torch on AFB infected
equipment.  Here is my answer.

Years ago (1981) Dr. Gochnaur told me that 99.5 percent of the AFB spores
are in the cells of AFB residue, and that while spores may be found in
propolis, and honey in the brood nest (depending on whether there is honey)
there are probably too few to break down a colony to further symptoms.  He
mentioned, and I've seen it in the literature, that it takes about 50,000
spores to break a colony down to visual symptoms (obviously depending on the
hygienic behavior of the bees).

His ideas suggested to me that removing the frames with infected comb from
the hive and scraping all other hive parts may sufficiently reduce the spore
level in the hive below the economic threshold.  In fact, I have picked up a
lot of AFB hives over the years and removed the disease as I suggest and
managed the hives for three years afterward without any prophylactic
treatments and never seen the hives break down.

As a state inspector I must ask myself if it is good public policy and
enforcement practice to destroy $150.00 worth of bees and equipment for a
few cells of AFB, or even a few frames with infected combs, if abatement can
be accomplished in an effective manner and at lower cost.  In law, requiring
the burning of an infected hive is called a "taking" by government and there
have been several comparable cases in law enforcement that raise a serious
question whether states can reasonably require burning of a hive for a few
cells of AFB.  We deliberately removed certain language from our state
statute to address this issue.  Our goal is to consult with industry and
define a more economic and practical approach to disease abatement.  Of
course if the beekeeper wants to burn the whole hive for one cell of AFB,
that is their choice and loss.  In the case of 40 year old equipment,
burning may be cost effective.

I don't try to save the frame containing the infected comb.  It is not cost
effective from a labor point of view.

My suggestion of scraping the frames clean was intended to mean removing
burr and bridge comb from the frame surfaces, and the box with a sharp hive
tool.

My personal opinion is that while beekeepers in the UK seem to remain
satisfied with the level of government activity in controlling AFB in their
hives, that much government power doesn't suit me.  I am of the mind that,
here in the US, it is the beekeeper's responsibility to abate disease and
pests in their hives, for economic reasons and also to protect the interest
of other beekeepers in the industry.  Beekeeper's have granted authority to
the states in the US to exercise certain powers in the form of efforts aimed
at gaining beekeeper performance of disease abatement in the interest of the
industry (i.e. state apiary statutes).

I am also of the opinion that we in government should change our approach to
enforcement, and disease abatement, based on the latest scientific data,
legal cases and opinions, and the economic impact of our action on the
industry.  Having burned hives for 80 years or so does not necessarily
justify continuing to do so.  I have burned new five story hives for one
cell of AFB because of the letter of the law.  What a waste!  What an
unnecessary negative economic impact on a beginning beekeeper who only made
the mistake of not knowing enough to recognize the disease before the
inspector appeared in the apiary!

That's my view.

Thinking that new approaches to historic actions should be explored
continuously.  "Antiquity is not always authority, but may just be the old
age of error,"  Charles Wesley.

James C. Bach
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2