BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:25:33 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (94 lines)
> Having done quite a bit of research on early beekeeping i will add a few
> facts i found.

> > So why didn't the period between
> > 1922 and WW II when no TM or sulfa were available
> > result in AFB prevalence as low as now or even lower?

Thanks guys,

I think it is time for those who claim that drugs can't cure AFB to prove their
position, and not just keep repeating opinions as if they were fact.  I'm not
talking theory or semantics, I'm talking practical.  When I say 'cure' I mean
'Well enough for all intents and purposes'.

In challenging what seem to me to be idealistic statements about OTC and other
drugs, I must state that I have the advantage of first-hand practical experience
with this problem both in hives I have purchased and those of others over a
quarter century and more as a beekeeper.  I began with an idealistic anti-drug
point of view, but rapidly learned about the real world when I set out to become
a commercial beekeeper.  Over the years, as a beekeeper or long ago as an
inspector, I've often personally observed the drastic reduction and elimination
of infection in properly treated hives.  I can assert that medication works
marvellously in practice, even if it may not hold up as well in theory for some
people.

When I defend OTC, and claim a cure, I should explain that we run up to 4,500
hives and could not find *any* AFB this fall.  We offered a generous cash reward
to our staff for any AFB and no one claimed it, although they did find some
interesting combs.  I know for a fact that some of the hives we run had a
serious history of AFB a decade or more ago. We medicate once a year in the
spring using OTC extender patties made according to the Wilson  formula.  We
melt any AFB or scale we find and re-use the boxes and other combs in the hive
without any special measures.  We operate in areas where other beekeepers are
nearby.

Just for illustration of how amazingly good this is, the above could be taken to
mean that if a hobbyist had 10 used hives with a history of AFB and operated
using the techniques we do, he/she might expect to be free of AFB symptoms for
225 years, even in an AFB area. Is that 'cured' enough?  It is for me.  Think
about the inevitable alternative.  But YMMV.

I don't think it is too much to ask those who maintain that drugs do not prevent
AFB to explain:

1.) The exact mechanism by which drugs purportedly mask an INCREASE (or even
steady state) of AFB spore levels in a hive, since that is what they seem to
insist.  It seems obvious to me that if the disease is prevented from expressing
itself, then the levels of viable spores in a hive must decrease over time.  In
the fullness of time, they must reach a point where the chance of outbreak is
close to zero -- even if the drugs were not provided regularly.  I've seen this
transformation of hives that were riddled with scale to hives that could be left
untreated for long periods.  In my experience, every failure of the drugs to
work has been due to operator error or incorrect dose. (Excepting cases of the
resistant AFB strain(s) that have recent arisen).

2.) What happens if a non-treated hive is exposed to AFB from nearby operations
or discarded honey?  This is a fact of life in many areas.  Most of us are in a
world where all our efforts to maintain total freedom from AFB can come to
naught by someone bringing a few hives into our district or even discarding
unwanted honey into the trash.  If we see AFB in our hives, we may not even know
what has happened and assume that it came from our own equipment when it did
not.  How can we ever know if old disease was cured or not if new equipment
beside the old hives is breaking down?  What does it matter?  In such a case,
burning is a continuous and pointless task, but a little medication can
eliminate the problem -- and its spread -- for as long as the drug is properly
applied.

I realise that some think in terms of absolutes and do not depend on bees for a
livelihood and will pay any price for a theoretical -- even an illusory and
temporary -- purity.  However, commercial beekeepers live in the real world; we
can no mare avoid occasional exposure to AFB in practice than avoid regular
exposure to the common cold in everyday life.  We must accept that fact and plan
accordingly.

Good drugs, used properly, can reduce AFB levels to near zero.  That is a good
place to start on reducing dependence on them.  I think reducing dependence is a
laudable goal, and we have been conducting some research to that end.  A friend
sent me some copies of research a while back in response to a conversation we
had on the way to the airport one day; I think the study is illuminating and
holds some interesting answers.  I'll write more about that soon, but first, I'm
waiting to see if anyone can make a case that addresses my points and has any
respect for the economic reality commercial beekeepers face.

> I might be going out on a limb here but i don't believe sulfa was ever
> approved for use in beehives but was sold by many bee supply houses.
> Trace amounts of sulfa were found in honey i believe and its use banned.

You are right on here bob.  Good post.

allen

My diary is working again. Visit me at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary

ATOM RSS1 RSS2