>>Hummm! I can't recall a single mainstream bee article, that originated >>in the US, that promoted any of the above alternative methods >>before 1998. There is a long history in the beekeeping population of aversion to drugs, just as there is a long history of their advocation. When Sulfa Drugs were found to inhibit AFB, many promoted their use as a "cure" but many states still prohibit the treatment of AFB, and mandate the destruction of the hives as *untreatable*. After Sulfa was found in honey, its use was outlawed. Many beekeepers kept using it even after TM was made available. In my 1949 edition of the Hive & the Honey Bee, it describes *two* treatments for trachael mite. One is chemical, using a combination of nitrobenzene and gasoline!! The other is "mechanical". The method was desribed in the "mainstream" journal Bee World. See: "The mechanical eradication of acarine disease", Bee World 28(5). Also, in the same Hive & Honey Bee, now more than 50 years old, they describe the breeding of resistant bees. They refer to an article in the "mainstream" American Bee Journal titled "Disease resistance & American foulbrood; results of 2nd season of co-operative experiment". The article is dated 1937. They said: "Nearly half of the presumably resistant colonies tested have rid themselves of all symtpoms of AFB". "Because of the widespread interest aroused by these encouraging experiments ... Congress authorized an appropriation to initiate a more extensive investigation of the possibility of developing strains of bees resistant to AFB." -- the Hive & the Honey Bee So, alternatives to chemicals have been sought for many decades and interest in these alternatives has always been strong. But the bottom line is: people have to use what works, and cannot be expected to squander time and money on things that *might work* or *sort of work*. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---