>
> > Same with the TM issue? Detect AFB burn the hives.
>
> What are the criteria?  Having one spore?  Having one cell?
> Being found at or
> near the scene of the crime?  Being suspected of witchcraft?
>

You missed my point, kind of. The answer is simple: burn the hive. Works
very well as long as you keep the question simple.

>
> > Sounds good until you get a 10% infection rate. After
> reading Allen's diary
> > every day solid for the last few months I doubt his
> operation could have
> > withstood a 3% infection rate.
>
> Not sure what you are saying.  We used to have about a 3%
> annual AFB rate not
> too long ago.  That is pretty normal for many outfits that
> are quite viable.
> Zero is obviously best, though that state can never be proven.
>

After reading your diary, and all the work you had for diesel transmissions,
requeening, supering, uncapper problems, labor and now wrapping the extra
burden of having to burn N hives would have been expensive. What are you
running now 2,500 hives? With all of the other aggravation the thought of
having to burn over 75 hives is not pleasant. You lose the frames, comb and
woodenware. Have a bad year (10%) then 250 hives?

>
> We agree about this.  Curing the disease should not also kill
> the patient.
>

If I am dealing with a national epidemic that threatens the vast majority of
the population then I may have only one sure path to preserve the majority,
and that could be allowing the sick to die in isolation. Not a popular
solution until you have a real epidemic (i.e. smallpox in the 1800's). If we
are losing our bee population to a disease to which we have no cure (AFB in
the early 1900's) then one solution stands out: burning.

Today we have several options. You are applying a broad treatment program
and following up with inspections and the removal of bad comb. Someone else
may elect, or be compelled by law to burn. A third method would be to
inspect often and treat the infected with antibiotic along with removeal of
bad comb.

> >From what I can recall about mathematics and also nature, it
> is often unnatural
> to have only one solution, and when there are several, the
> best one is often a
> moving target.

Yes, the first problem is to define "best". Best for the bees or the
beekeeper? Best for you (me) or the entire world population? Best for honey
production, hive strength or overwintering survival?

Is there more than one way to get there? Is one way better? If one way is
better then is the cost of finding out "better" so high that we gain nothing
from finding out. Is the risk of waiting while we look for better too high?
With computers we often "just do it" because the cost of looking is higher
than the extra work:

1) IF (A <> B) THEN A := B

2) A := B

In the first example we check to see if something needs to be done. If A is
not equal to B then we assign the value of B to A. In the second example we
just assign the value of B to A. Why do something if it is not needed?
Because the cost of the test can be higher than a few extra assignment
operations.

In beekeeping we treat the hive with formic without testing for mites
because the labor to test one costs more than the labor and material to
treat five hives.


The result of all of this is I follow what you are doing and why. If I had a
better way to do it I would offer it up, but I don't. I have concerns but
then don't we all?

> > "One of the best examples of pure democracy in action is
> the lynch mob"
>
> I can't figure out if you are celebrating this -- or warning
> us about it.
>

Warning.
Both of our governments have protections against this danger by putting
certain rights above any desire of the people.