> I suggested a parallel in the feeding of antibiotics and increased
production. See:
> Woyke, J. (1984). Increase in life-span, unit honey productivity and honey
surplus 
> with fumagillin treatment of honeybees. Journal of Apicultural Research,
23.

The paper cited refutes the suggestion.

Here's the full paper:
http://jerzy_woyke.users.sggw.pl/1984_increase_life_honey_production.pdf

It was a study of the benefits of the clearly therapeutic use of Fumagillin
in curing specific cases of Nosema apis:  

"Twenty-four honey bee colonies...checked for Nosema apis spores... all
colonies were found to be infected [with Nosema]... Starting on 5 May,
Each colony was given five 250-ml feedings of 33% sugar syrup every third
day. Colonies in the control group received sugar syrup only, while 5 g
Fumagillin (Chinon, Budapest) was added to the syrup for the treated group.
Each treated colony received altogether 1.25 litres of sugar syrup with 2 g
Fumagillin equivalent to 71 mg pure (DCH) compound."

So, unlike the non-therapeutic continuous long-term feeding of antibiotics
to cows or sheep, this single spring treatment of bees with Fumagillin was a
"by the label" therapeutic treatment for verified Nosema apis infections.

Further, the paper cites prior studies where much less difference
("advantage") was seen between controls and treated colonies:

"Moeller (1962), Furgala and Gochnauer (1969) and Gochnauer and Furgala
(1969, 1981) found that fumagillin fed in the spring to package bee colonies
either failed to increase brood production or increased it by only 10% or
less. Autumn feeding increased brood production the next year by 27% in a
study by Gochnauer and Furgala (1969). Spring feeding of fumagillin to
overwintered colonies in the present study increased brood production by
20%.  In the experiments of Furgala and Gochnauer (1969) fumagillin feeding
of package colonies increased worker population by 4%, in contrast to an
increase of 41% for the overwintered colonies in the present study."

> In livestock the effects are noticed, even if no one knows what the
mechanism is.

The mechanism is very well-known!  Antibiotics restrict the variety of
species of digestive gut bacteria to those which aid digestion, which has
positive impact on ruminants.

Here's an extension pamphlet with a clear explaining the use of antibiotics
in this way, and the specific impact on gut bacteria:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/animalcare/amr/facts/05-041.ht
m
or
http://tinyurl.com/pyxvk6h

When one compares ruminants and their digestion process with bees and their
digestion process, one finds very little similarity.  So, I'll ask again -
is there any possible metabolic mechanism to explain how antibiotics even
MIGHT be used in a non-therapeutic manner, and somehow "improve production"
for bees?  

There's even a group who stridently claims that the "microflora" of the hive
is a delicately balanced thing that ANY intervention by the beekeeper is
sure to upset, even to the extent of claiming that feeding bees anything but
set-aside frames of honey is a bad idea.  I don't see much data to support
that extreme view, either, and it is important to note that this claim about
bees appeared only after the broad promotion of "pro-biotics" for human use
by snake-oil vitamin salesmen.  I don't see Dr. Oz and "Oprah" magazine as
sources of progressive animal husbandry practices, despite her size.

	


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