>Wouldn't that bacteria be dead in colonies treated with antibiotics?

No, of course not. This is the fallacy that the anti-antibiotics people are spreading. 
Antibiotics tend to be fairly specific. Occasionally an antibiotic will wipe out a lot of 
beneficial bacteria, but that is the exception -- not the rule. Plus, the organisms tend to 
get re-inoculated pretty quickly.

Earlier we were discussing whether tylosin would work on both EFB and AFB. Not sure. 
Terramycin does, but sulfathiazole doesn't. There again, TM won't kill TM-resistant 
bacteria. If any antibiotic or antiseptic killed all types bacteria, it would be useless as 
bacteria are essential to life in many or most organisms. 

Supposedly the majority of the cells in a human being are bacterial. On the other hand, if 
it weren't for the high degree of specificity of antimicrobial substances, there wouldn't be 
so many choices. Also, many antimicrobials are based on natural substances and as we 
know, many naturally occurring substances have antiseptic, antibacterial and toxic 
properties. 

The history of food preservation reveals human attempts to kill germs without wrecking 
the food product. Obvious examples are smoked, dried, or salted meat; pickled 
vegetables; wine. These products contain substances that are poisonous to microbes, and 
in larger quantities, poisonous to us. However, the benefit derived from them outweighs 
the drawbacks. 

In the Garden of Eden, everybody ate fresh fruits and nobody got sick. It's different 
where I live: it's tick eat dog and only the smart survive. It's smart to use antibiotics 
where and when they are needed. It's foolish to use drugs for diseases or pests that 
aren't really that harmful -- or not even present.

plb

             ***********************************************
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