Hi Bob, and everyone:

Before I start: I very much appreciate the quality of the posts to BEE-L, and do
not wish to start a thread on posting etiquette.  I would rather that people
feel encouraged to post to BEE-L than think we will quibble about the format
beyond what is in the guidelines, BUT there is one thing that makes many
otherwise excellent an well-written posts *very* hard to read and understand and
I would ask one little favour of everyone.  Please use clear quotation
indicators for each writer quoted, and white space between different writers.

I find that I often cannot tell who wrote what, and where one person's writing
ends, and the author's begins when reading posts that include quotes.  The ideas
below are not my own, but stolen from netiquette articles and sites.  The TINY
changes in format outlined below can result in much better understanding I hope
writers will employ them:

1.) Could everyone please either use just a '>' if the email software supports
this or '>>>' at the beginning of a quoted paragraph and '>>>' at the end?  Even
a '"' at the beginning and end of paragraphs helps...

2.) Single blank lines like the ones above and below this paragraph help the
reader's eye distinguish items in what is otherwise a jumble and allows easy
skimming of the text.  Please use them liberally, especially between quotes from
different people and your own comments.

3.) using '---' on a new line as a separator helps separate sections that are
unrelated. Like this:

---  and now for the main event ---

My AFRB comments follow interspaced:

> For years in the U.S. treating with terramycin prevented the active AFB and
> for the first time in the history of beekeeping the worst plague of
> beekeeping was a non issue. I have been monitoring the problem over the last
> four years and do see the AFB problem increasing. Keep a sharp lookout.
...
> "Approximately 2.5 BILLION spores are produced in each infected larva."
> "Spores can remain viable INDEFINETLY on beekeeping equipment"
> "Spores of AFB germinate approx one day after ingestion by the larva"
> "ONE spore is sufficient to infect a larva a day old after egg hatch"

There is not much debate about these facts, however I am always concerned about
the conclusions people reach from them.  I've written lots before and will write
again on the topic, but to do the topic the justice it deserves takes much more
time than I can spare now.

In short, my understanding is that there are bees that get AFB easily and those
that don't.  Hygienic behaviour is part of the resistance trait, but there are
other factors.  Since we seem to just about have AFB controlled in these hives
that have hygienic queens, the next step is to stock select from the hives that
show zero AFB in this obviously contaminated environment.

Some bees CAN exist disease-free in yards severely polluted with AFB.  As an
inspector years ago, I've seen it with my own eyes.  Now we must go the rest of
the way and breed for this feature.
...
> Allen, George and others could be right about the above. My opinion is we
> are going to have to get another antibiotic registered quickly *before* the
> problem gets larger. The beekeeper I work closest with uses the expensive
> artificially inseminated hygienic breeder queens.  He is still seeing a
> increase in AFB.

A new drug is just a stop-gap measure.  Granted, it is necessary, but if
beekeepers use it the same way as OTC, then the new drug will become useless
someday too.  Maybe someday soon.

Drugs are part of an IPM approach to AFB, as are culling serious disease,
hygienic queens, and breeding queens that mother larvae which are not easy to
infect, but drugs are the least reliable, least permanent, most costly, and most
subject to human error -- and the least acceptable to our customers and the
public.

IMHO, anyhow.

Thanks for all the good posts lately bob.

allen