Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:43:26 +1000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
<000501ceb4c0$7e9f1b40$7bdd51c0$@com> |
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> The next questions in such a case where infection clearly comes from
outside, are
> 1.) what amount of breakdown was seen in the neighbouring 'clean' hives
and 2.)what were the affected beekeepers able to do to keep from spreading
the > acquired infection through their own hives.
Know of one case, not the one I mentioned previously, of a beekeeper having
a 70% infection rate. I had a case of 20 hives on one site with 100%
infection rate.
In my case as I had a barrier system in place it was quite easy to keep the
infection in place. I had picked it up early so did not spread it to other
apiaries. Killed off the hives and irradiated the gear that I wanted to
salvage.
For the other beekeeper he destroyed the hives, irradiated the gear kept and
for the remaining hives kept them apart from his other hives. There were a
few more that came down with AFB and again destruction and irradiation.
After a year no more showed up. This is typical of how Australian
beekeepers, except for Tasmanians, deal with AFB and it works.
Trevor Weatherhead
Australia
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 8817 (20130918) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
***********************************************
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
|
|
|