At 3:18 -0500 1/21/02, James Fischer wrote:
>  > At one time AFB infection rates were very high and the
>>  rate was brought down by burning.
>
>So, let me get this straight...
>
>1)  One detects AFB
>2)  One may only detect a single cell showing symptoms.
>3)  Even if the hive is otherwise doing fine, one burns it.
>4)  One thereby destroys what would otherwise be a
>      contributor to a strain of AFB-resistant (or tolerant) bees.
>
>>  Then beekeepers switched to medicating, which some say
>>  merely covers up the symptoms.
>
>It certainly does not kill dormant spores, but only people who
>slept through biology in middle school would expect any different.
>
>While dormant spores are very, very hard to kill, one will soon be
>able to start each season with an absolute assurance of AFB-free
>equipment, as soon as we find a US Postal Service manager who
>is a beekeeper, or environmentally oriented.


James, you refer to the New Zealand paper, but what you are saying is
exactly the opposite of their conclusions. They conclude using drugs
is a mistake, and do not permit it. You say AFB can be cleaned up
with drugs (I am not arguing the point, merely stating that you
diverge here).

You saying burning is a witch-hunt, but destruction of infected
colonies (visibly infected, read: one cell or more) is the
centerpiece of their control program. They do not talk AT ALL about
retaining so called disease tolerant hives. This should NOT by the
average beekeeper.

When I worked Southern California in the 1980s the infection rate was
around 5%. Everybody medicated. Nobody talked about getting rid of
AFB, just keeping it down. Now that TM no longer can be depended upon
there are two roads: new drugs or destroying infected hives. The new
recommendation with drugs is to NOT use them as prevention, only for
treatment. (Again, illegal in many states).

PB



--
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>