W. Allen Dick wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Chapleau wrote:
>
> > <deleted>
> >
> > bee pathologist signs an  article  confirming  the  resistance  of
> > varroa to Apistan
> >
> > <deleted>
> >
> > I read with interest the the last issue  of  Apis.   The  possible
> > "revenge" of bugs and microorganisms we fight from our colonies is
> > a big concern for me.  I think the TM approach of the AFB  problem
> > that  prevails  in  north  America is a dangerous.  I am convinced
> > that it is possible to operate large commercial operation  without
> > TM. I operate a commercial apiary (550 hives and 1400 mating nucs)
> > since 1977 and I have never used the drug.
> >
> > Yearly inspection of all the colonies, replacement  of  the  combs
> > every  4-6 years has been sufficient to keep a good control of the
> > situation.  I also had to destroy or shake colonies occasionnally,
> > but very few.  Less that one per year on average.  TM is dangerous
> > since   it   only   hides   problems   or   potential    problems.
> > Unfortunately,  for  most  beekeepers  who  have been using TM for
> > years, it is very difficult to stop using it.
>
> > In an ideal world, we could win a battle and it could stay won - but not
> > too often this world.
 
> Any victory tends to be temporary.  Drugs have provided a respite for
> both bees and mammals, but there will always be a 'round two' etc. Rather
> than to say 'the battle is ultimately doomed, so lets not try', I prefer
> to look at the years of relief that drugs have given us, and look for
> more similar advantages.
>
> We can't rest on our laurels.  The pests don't.  The worst that can happen is
> that we will revert to our status before drugs came on the scene.  The
> best that can happen is that we may be able to extend our temporary
> advantage.  After all, life is temporary.
>
<deleted>
>
> I am not sure that, in the case of AFB, physically destroying any evidence
> of a disease - that is obviously there everywhere in the background - is
> much different from treating with drugs from a selection point of view -
> unless one argues that the former selects for a more benign form of AFB
> that does not cause breakdown or a variety of bees that is resistant to
> the disease or both.
>
> Drugs and other chemical controls may or may not be a stopgap measure
> depending on whether - in a specific case - it is possible for the target
> to develop resistance.  I don't think mammals are likely to develop
> resistance to cyanide, for example.  The poison is too fundamentally and
> drastically effective.  The problems occur where the target is similar to
> the host such as in the case of mites and bees.  Effective chemicals have
> to exploit obvious and permanent differences between the two.
 
This could develope into quite a heated discussion :-)
 
I share a number of Jean-Pierre's concerns.  I and many others are
not  against  the  use  of  drugs  per  se.   I am concerned about
resistance to drugs.  There is evidence of resistance  already,  I
personally  have  destroyed  EFB infected colonies which would not
respond to tetracycline treatment.  I have greater concerns  still
with  AFB,  which has a spore stage (unlike EFB) which can survive
for _many_ years (about 50 I understand) in that form.  The  spore
stage is immune to antibiotics.
 
I have secondary concerns.  Tetracyclin is a  powerful  antibiotic
used  for  treating a large range of bacterial infections.  Whilst
it breaks down fairly quickly in the colony, there  is  still  the
risk  of  indiscriminate spread of the antibiotic into other areas
-- via honey possibly.  Other organisms then also  gain  increased
resistance.
 
Generally speaking,  as  I  understand  it  (someone  will  surely
correct me if I'm wrong) antibiotics don't kill the bacteria, just
slow the reproduction rate until nature deals with the  infection.
This  means  that whilst we treat we are increasing resistance but
not eliminating the bacterium.  Aggresive treatments away from the
bees (fire, acetic acid etc.) will destroy the bacterium.
 
Run out of time here.....
 
regards,
--
Gordon Scott            [log in to unmask]    Compuserve 100332,3310
Basingstoke Beekeeper   [log in to unmask]
 
RELIABLE SOURCE : The guy you just met.