>> the "worst case outcome" from shaking is the same 
>> exact outcome one would get from using antibiotics, 
>> without the use of any antibiotics!

> I have to thank you for proving my point...
> Bottom line: Either method has similar results.

There's a big difference - one method allows one's honey to remain
antibiotic-free, and thereby, allows one to remain in the business of
selling food fit for human consumption.  The other method does not.

The point is that one can avoid antibiotics entirely without suffering less
AFB control.  As explained by others, this has become a requirement in other
countries in Europe and elsewhere, so the handwriting on the wall may not be
in English, but it is clear. Antibiotic use in connection with production of
food for human consumption (rightly or wrongly), is now seen as a clear and
bright line between ethical agriculture and everything that is wrong with
agriculture.  

My farm was a former dairy operation, surrounded by other dairy operations,
so I learned a lot about dairies. My arrival literally made our county "the
land of milk and honey". The milk co-ops and buyers test all truckloads of
milk for antibiotic residues at parts per billion. Positive results prompt
tests of dairy-level samples to find the farm responsible for contaminating
the truckload.  The farm testing positive is liable for all costs incurred
with the dumping of that truckload of milk because milk with antibiotics AT
ANY LEVEL is simply not allowed in the U.S. food supply.

Similarly, to sell honey with antibiotic residues is to sell a tainted
product, and there simply is no way to escape detection any longer.  All
that shields the users of antibiotics is a less-than rigorous testing
regime, and, in some cases, "residue tolerances", which make the tainted
product technically legal, but still ethically unmarketable

> The advantage of the antibiotic method is 
> there is almost no work, no trauma to the 
> bees, and it leaves the bees with their stores 
> and brood nest intact, giving them a far better 
> chance of surviving an oncoming winter.

Yes, it keeps the bees alive, but you now have a hive that cannot be used in
production for... how long?  Beekeeping is the art of doing the right thing
when no one is looking, so I think the time has come to realize that
antibiotic use puts your hives "out of business" in terms of producing food
for human consumption just as much as it would a dairy farmer.  Problem is,
the persistence of the residues from these antibiotics is amazing.

Any US dairy cow given antibiotics is removed from the milking herd until
her milk tests free of antibiotics. On an organic farm, if a cow requires
antibiotics, she is permanently removed from the herd.

> Again, beekeeping is local, and what can 
> be done without a second thought in 
> warmer climes is a recipe for hive death 
> in the north.

Gerry McKee, the president of the Canadian Honey Council, would likely
differ.  He does not seem to want to make exceptions, even for beekeepers
who attempt to keep bees far beyond their natural range, where not wrapping
a pallet of colonies "just so" is ALSO a "recipe for hive death".  Last
April, he wrote:

"Tylan has been registered for use in Canada, with the inclusion of a
proposed 0.2 ppm Maximum Residue Limit (MRL)..."

"With [Tylan]... used only in the fall, honey produced in the following
season has been found to have residues of Tylosin.  These levels are below
the proposed 0.2 ppm MRL but treatment in the spring will only increase the
likelihood and levels of Tylosin found in honey.  A three week treatment and
four week withdrawal period before a honey flow will be very difficult to
impossible for many Canadian beekeepers to fit into their spring management.
At this time of year, beekeepers would be pressed to do the treatments while
attempting to maintain normal beekeeping practices.  It is also very
difficult to accurately predict the start of honey flow in a given year and
the first significant honey flow can vary by over a month in many regions.
In most cases a spring treatment will not be possible because of our
compressed beekeeping season compared to the United States.  The most likely
result will be insufficient withdrawal period and higher than anticipated
residues of a very stable antibiotic."

So, the leadership and subject-matter experts in Canadian beekeeping seem as
concerned about this issue as I am.
And I wonder about the marketability of honey with any detectable
antibiotics in it, let alone 0.2 ppm (200 ppb).

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