At 09:25 PM 8/1/98 -0400, you wrote:
 
Hi Chris,
 
>It is interesting that although this chemical is cheaply
>available in the US most commercial beekeepers destroy all AFB brood comb.
>Why?
 
Its a case of the economics of this disease being passed to other hives in
the normal comb exchange process necessary with extracting honey and making
divides. Also by destroying the hives that come through the TM screen one
would guess that they are reducing the chances of real resistance to the
disease if you don't consider that some bees may be better able to remove
the scale and reduce the disease on their own.
 
>Andy notes that bees from different sources share their brood diseases when
>brought together for pollination contracts.  This is our experience too
and is
>one of the reasons I don't play that game.  If I did, any honey and money
>would come back but not the bees or their combs.
 
I said that but here with AFB I am sure some spores are passed but the main
vector for the passing of AFB is the beekeepers himself who for what ever
reason does not pick up weak or dead hives with large stores of honey.
Honey itself may have few AFB spores but by the action of the bees robbing
honey from diseased hives the number of spores can be increased and new
infections may/can get beyond the ability of the bees to clean it up. Some
or most initial AFB infections can be handled by the bees themselves
without loss. But there is also the problem with strains of bees that can
not and in hot AFB areas these will identify themselves.
 
>Andy also notes areas with AFB. In England there are areas which are
notorious
>for EFB.  They tend to follow gravel soils in river valleys and a link to a
>lack of trace elements has been suggested.  However,  people build houses
into
>cities on poor soil because the land is cheaper.  They build roads along the
>river valleys because it is flatter and easier.  Migratory beekeepers use
>these roads to get to ling heather which also grows on poor soils.  AFB,
>however does not seem particularly to be linked to area in the UK except
>through contact colonies.  Can Andy explain please?
 
I have never seen any connection between different soils, beekeeping areas
or forage plants and AFB. I suspect there is none. With EFB it is a
different story. EFB may not be what most think it is in that it is a
opportunistic pathogen that comes in when other things go wrong including
poor bee nutrition. Because of this it can be a problem early in the brood
cycle of our bees and if not provided with the prophylactic TM before it
appears some damage can be expected. Here there are many areas that over
the years have been identified as bad for EFB. These areas have plants in
common and are identified by those plants but this does not preclude other
causes such as soil or micro climes.
 
>As Andy points out no EFB will BE FOUND when colonies are treated with TM.
 
>In the meantime the beekeeper will have no idea that the combs are
infected and will cheerfully
>use them to set up a new colony.
 
This is true but there are some things in our bees life we have no control
over and if what ever causes a disease is epidemic in bee sites it seems to
me it would be better for the bees if they never experienced the disease if
it can be avoided. Bee disease can be reduced by not using the same exact
locations for bees every year or removing the top soil from an old yard
before replacing it with a new yard as many commercial beekeepers do in the
west to reduce fire hazard.
 
>I have been told by a geneticist,  (on this list I think) that resistance is
>always present.  The trick is to avoid selecting for resistance.
 
I also believe this to some extent and we in the US are somewhat happy that
all new bee problems seem to start in Florida because they have conditions
for rearing bees year around so they are the actual site of most resistance
to new pests and that's why I have always looked to bee breeders in Florida
to get at least a few of the queens that I select for breeders in my own
bee operations.
 
>One reason why AFB  is not so frequently found in wild bees may be wax moths
>which do have their benefits.
 
That would seem to be the case in areas that have these pests but since
many areas don't it would not seem to be the whole story. But in any case
wax worms do not destroy the spores even when they ingest them so in many
bee trees that if the hive died out from AFB the next hive would have much
exposure to high levels of AFB spores.
 
>Andy's penultimate paragraph is his most interesting.  He says that TM when
>fed to NORMAL HEALTHY BEES (my emphasis) with no history of disease will
>increase the amount of brood over feeding just sugar syrup alone.  Why should
>this be?   The obvious answer is that "normal healthy bees" ain't too
healthy.
>Is that right, Andy?
 
This could be one answer but the antibiotic itself could also be supplying
a boost. When I first came across this in the literature I believed it to
be misleading and only a sugar high but tests in several areas of the world
have shown a small advantage to the healthy bees when TM is included in
their food.
 
>Having re - read the above I have just realised the error in my logic.  It is
>not part of the plan of the makers/ sellers of TM to eliminate foul brood, if
>fact they depend on its survival for part of their daily bread.
 
You are 100% right Pfizer the manufacture of TM as bad as they have been
and they have paid millions out because of their actions in the past is not
interested in honeybees which are like a tit on a bore hog as far as their
business goes. They would in a wink of a gnats eye discontinue the labeling
for bee use if any kind of problem or even if there was a lack of interest
by the beekeepers, and this came close to happening in the past. The use of
TM is the direct result of trial and error by beekeepers and bee scientists
in the past looking for new bee medical agents and the manufacture became
interested after the fact and required the outside pressure of the
beekeepers to even register it in the first place. Pfizer never went out
looking to sell their products to beekeepers.
 
This has been the norm until resent years when the bee industry has began
to look like a fat goose by pesticide companies who now are thanks to our
bee regulators looking at a captive market for their products. If Pfizer
did not want to register TM for bee use there were a dozen other products
that could work as good and could have been registered.
 
ttul, the OLd Drone
 
 
(c)Permission is given to copy this document
in any form, or to print for any use.
 
(w)OPINIONS are not necessarily facts. USE  AT OWN RISK!