> Would you care to cite?

No.  This topic has been covered in detail on this list in the past, and
after you have read the archives, if you have a specific question, perhaps
Jim or someone else will take the time to explain more.

> No scientist would support this.

I guess Steve Taber is not a scientist then.  Nor is Marla Spivak.  I can
name more who have recommended exactly this (or a close variation) in
writing or a public lecture.  Moreover many beekeepers have practised this
with reasonable success, and no, I am not going to name names. The keys are
resistant stock, close observation, good understanding, and in some cases
some chemical assistance or a change of queen or stock, depending on the
object in mind and the environment. This is a really complex topic and, as
always there are some who love simplistic solutions, especially if they
involve destroying things -- and especially if those things belong to
others.

This is 2002, and there are many new alternatives.  Radiation works and does
a lot of good besides just kill AFB. The new drugs, Tylosin and Lincomycin
can be used legally in the US with the approval of any local vet (depending
on the state jurisdiction).  New communication methods and new science are
pushing back the ignorance that was a main cause of the original and
continuing AFB problems in North America. There is a good chance that the
honey bee will be chosen for an upcoming genome project.

Moreover it is now easy to analyse bees for AFB resistance (there are
several factors to look for) and select, although sadly, breeders are not
putting their hearts into this and won't until pushed by their customers --
or regulators.  Recent analysis has shown there is a good reservoir of
reasonably resistant bees -- perhaps better described as less susceptible --
in North American stock.  If only the most susceptible were identified and
eliminated, the disease would seldom be seen.  This may come about in the
next decade.  There are claims also that using stock that is suited to 4.9
cell size seems to allow exactly this let-alone approach.  A good friend of
mine has observed this latter effect in action, but reserves judgement.

> Actually, if you read the study, they state that the supers can be
> marked, then the hives inspected. If the apiary is clean, then the
> supers can be unmarked. If a hive is diseased, then you will know
> which supers are contaminated. This would represent very little
> trouble at all. You can number the hives and mark the hive number on
> the super with a crayon.

I gather, then, you have never worked in a commercial outfit that runs hives
up and down across distances greater than the breadth or length of NZ and
sometimes hires illerate or semi-literate labour, and uses custom
exctracting facilities or swaps equipment, or puts hives into that
500-mile-long beeyard they call California almond pollination?

> >The NZ approach may be optimal for NZ, but may be the high cost solution
> >when compared to other possibilities for other countries.
>
> Just what are the possibilities you referring to? How about some
specifics?

Read the archives.

B. Haver