This came in this morning and I thought I'd share the reply, and expand, 
since the question is relevant to many things we discuss here.

> A post from BeeSource goes: Allen Dick is a retired commercial beekeeper 
> who used to run 4000+ colonies. He has INTENTIONALLY put AFB infected 
> combs into healthy hives. www.honeybeeworld.com .   Can you tell me where 
> you write about this? I can't find it.
I don't think I actually wrote that in so many words, but I often say that I 
did not worry about the odd cell of AFB back when I was commercial or worry 
about mixing in the frames from hives which were in hives that had shown 
breakdown.  I never scorched or disinfected boxes or floors and lids.

At the time I was using oxytet (OTC), and before that, sulfa as a 
prophylactic treatment in spring and fall.

At one time I even  intentionally purchased infected equipment and cleared 
it up with OTC.  During and after that time, I saw, maybe 3 to 4% AFB, 
tapering down to effectively zero over time.

After I retired, I quit medicating proactively and saw a few cells 
occasionally.  In the Kona Carniolan descended stock, they did not spread 
and always cleared up, but in descendants of some Australian Italian 
packages I had, the AFB became a problem.

Note:  Please do not take this as an indictment of *all* Australian 
packages, since that was a decade or so ago, and much has changed since.  I 
can't even recall the actual source of the stock.  Italians, generally, were 
noted for being more AFB susceptible, possibly due to larger brood areas.

I was down to three hives a few years back, and split back up to 9 last 
year, then 35 this year.  I was given 3 queens last year by friends who are 
pretty careful to obtain hygienic and quality stock, but otherwise my stock 
is descended from whatever I had.  Maybe some of that susceptible stock was 
in there.

This year, for the first time in years, I had three breakdowns.  I was away 
in the spring, and had my wife and daughter do some walk-away splits.  I 
gather we split a hive which proved to have susceptible (degenerate) stock 
and I later split the stronger half of it using the same technique again.

Thus, I am assuming that the three hives were actually one problem hive, 
split in three.

For the coming year, I am planning to be more careful in my splitting in 
order to increase numbers.  In recent years, I was just splitting to avoid 
making honey.

I also plan to inject better stock, however, I have no intention to cull 
equipment beyond removing any obvious scale, although I understand some 
stock can thrive in the presence of scale and clean it out without 
medication.

The main issue is that there is a cost for the bees to do so, since the 
scale is hard for bees to remove, and a major contamination source, leading 
to a waste of bee time and energy at a time of year when all effort should 
go into building up.  It is much easier for me to remove the scale for them.

I am assured by some who know these things that some, like the Primorsky 
(AKA "Russian") can manage quite well without meds, and I intend to be sure 
to obtain some queens or cells of a stock with superior resistance to brood 
disease.  I have not decided which stock yet, and my decision will partially 
depend on what friends decide due to the convenience factor. 
Recommendations are welcome.

Although walk-away splits are great for a quick split in the short run, over 
time, if it is the sole method used, the stock is likely to lose resistance 
(degenerate) unless inspected and selected.  This is not a problem where 
prophylactic treatments are routine, but is a problem in a chemical-free 
regime.

The walk-away method, while quick for the beekeeper, is also a slower way to 
build up than methods using mated queens or quality cells.

The number of successive splits possible is much higher using more intensive 
management.

While walk-away splits do not require beekeeping skills or examination of 
frames, the other methods do, and at this point, I plan to do at least one 
frame by frame inspection to ensure that the AFB is not re-emerging and the 
stock is able to handle it.

So, there you have it.  A true story you likely won't hear elsewhere, and 
which causes apoplexy in some doctrinaire bee inspectors.  (Worked for me 
unexpectedly one night at EAS when I innocently related my tale in a 
meeting).

I have been pushing for more and better access in Canada to some of the 
hygienic and disease/mite resistant stock and it is surprising how a small, 
steady pressure can result in huge changes over time.  More and more people 
are picking up the refrain and more and more people are realizing that there 
are bees out there that can resist the scourges and produce well.

Net of costs and effort, these stocks can provide superior returns to the 
beekeeper and less worry.  Of course, the price of security is eternal 
vigilance and monitoring is important.  Some interventions may still be 
required, but occasionally and topically, rather that generally and 
routinely.

The one problem with using genetics instead of drugs, barring cloning, is 
that there is always variability and some individuals as a percentage will 
prove susceptible, scaring the beekeeper and maintaining a reservoir of the 
disease or pest.

A different mindset and set of tolerances is required.  With chemicals 
applied properly, 100 out of 100 results will be roughly identical.  With 
genetics, at this point, some number less than 100 will always be observed 
over time. 

             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L