> It seems clear from other systems that exclusive dependence
> on chemical
> control is not sustainable.  All chemicals will fail, sooner
> or later.  With
> judicious use, we can slow the development of resistance, but
> that means
> minimal, targeted use.  In apples, for example, it's usually
> assumed that
> you can use a new fungicide 20 times in an orchard before you
> begin to see
> resistance--growers can decide if they want to use it five
> times a year for
> four years, or twice a year for ten years and fill in with
> other chemicals.
>
[cut]
>
> The worst possible response to Terramycin-resistant AFB is
> one I've had
> people admit to me--non-labeled chemicals.  You think the
> Alar incident
> damaged the apple market?  Wait until the tylosin scare hits the honey
> market.  (Though it might do my cut comb sales some good....)
>

As far as I know, in the United States there is exactly one chemical
available for AFB, the above mentioned Terramycin. In the example of the
Apple growers we do not see an agressive move to stop using fungicide
treatments, but to rotate them.

Don't misunderstand me on this, if non-chemical treatments can help reduce
the need of chemical treatments then bring them in. What I would like to see
is additional approved chemical treatments to allow rotation and reduce
resistance.