> > *Perhaps* attempting to stictly control such drugs would extend
> > the useful life, but there is a cost/benefit analysis that comes
> > into play in all such decisions.  It's the old economic question
> > of the optimal rate at which to consume vs. conserve.  By severely
> > curbing the distribution of these powerful agents it might be
> > possible to have the full use of them at some projected future
> > date, but in the meantime, we would lose many lives, agricultural
> > production,...
> <etc>
>
> Allen, I belive you are missing the point here. The use of
> antibiotics as an ordinary additive to the hive can only result in a
> larger susceptibility to the disease. The natural selection that was
> first showed by Darvin is still valid. By feeding drugs this
> mechanism is set aside, and the natural control of the disease
> destroyed.
 
Perhaps, but I think not.
 
You see, there is a difference between *breeding* stock and
*production* stock.  Most production stock has no long term genetic
future , since most producers are periodically reduced to importing
large amounts of replacement stock.  In fact many routinely replace
their queens 100% with purchased stock, and in the extreme case
beekeepers have been know to gas *all* their bees each year. Obviously
in these cases, survival of the fittest -- or even natural selection
-- has no meaning.
 
I agree that *breeding* stock should not be treated beyond the
minimum to avoid extinction.  In the case of varroa, which has
proven almost 100% deadly in unprotected North American honeybees,it
has proven necessary to treat most, if not all breeding stock for
survival of the businesses managing them.
 
> This natural selection is the fundamental process that has brought
> us to where we are today. We are now tampering with the process of
> evolution by not letting the best fitted survive. Moreower, it has
> come to the point where we have started to turn the clock backwards
> in the interest of short term profit.
 
Well, this arguement is used to justify not treating human diseases
too, but I think such arguements are specious.  Human management has
become a much more powerful force than natural selection in many, but
not all selection processes, including the one in question here.
 
As far as the short term: well, life is a short term thing. There is
nothing wrong with short term thinking.  We could use more of it.  It
is defective short term thinking that is the problem.
 
> No one want's to stop using antibiotics where it's needed. But to
> indiscriminately spread it around without the need is a waste of
> money and resources. I don't belive that American beekeepers are any
> less capable in managing hives than for example New Zealand
> beekeepers. Like in Sweden, they are not allowed to use antibiotics
> in NZ, still they (or we) don't have any great problem with AFB.
 
They do, in fact, have AFB, and some use antibiotics, they just
don't admit it publicly (or privately).
 
Anyhow, I am not arguing for or against the use of antibiotics.  I am
merley pointing out that what you or I do will likely have little
effect on the ultimate decline in usefulness.  And the real point is
that TM resistant AFB exists already, so it is much more likely to be
imported in honey than home-grown by what you or I do.
 
 
Regards
 
Allen
 
W. Allen Dick, Beekeeper                                         VE6CFK
RR#1, Swalwell, Alberta  Canada T0M 1Y0
Internet:[log in to unmask] & [log in to unmask]
Honey. Bees, & Art <http://www.internode.net/~allend/>