> > > Same with the TM issue? Detect AFB burn the hives. > > What are the criteria? Having one spore? Having one cell? > Being found at or > near the scene of the crime? Being suspected of witchcraft? > You missed my point, kind of. The answer is simple: burn the hive. Works very well as long as you keep the question simple. > > > Sounds good until you get a 10% infection rate. After > reading Allen's diary > > every day solid for the last few months I doubt his > operation could have > > withstood a 3% infection rate. > > Not sure what you are saying. We used to have about a 3% > annual AFB rate not > too long ago. That is pretty normal for many outfits that > are quite viable. > Zero is obviously best, though that state can never be proven. > After reading your diary, and all the work you had for diesel transmissions, requeening, supering, uncapper problems, labor and now wrapping the extra burden of having to burn N hives would have been expensive. What are you running now 2,500 hives? With all of the other aggravation the thought of having to burn over 75 hives is not pleasant. You lose the frames, comb and woodenware. Have a bad year (10%) then 250 hives? > > We agree about this. Curing the disease should not also kill > the patient. > If I am dealing with a national epidemic that threatens the vast majority of the population then I may have only one sure path to preserve the majority, and that could be allowing the sick to die in isolation. Not a popular solution until you have a real epidemic (i.e. smallpox in the 1800's). If we are losing our bee population to a disease to which we have no cure (AFB in the early 1900's) then one solution stands out: burning. Today we have several options. You are applying a broad treatment program and following up with inspections and the removal of bad comb. Someone else may elect, or be compelled by law to burn. A third method would be to inspect often and treat the infected with antibiotic along with removeal of bad comb. > >From what I can recall about mathematics and also nature, it > is often unnatural > to have only one solution, and when there are several, the > best one is often a > moving target. Yes, the first problem is to define "best". Best for the bees or the beekeeper? Best for you (me) or the entire world population? Best for honey production, hive strength or overwintering survival? Is there more than one way to get there? Is one way better? If one way is better then is the cost of finding out "better" so high that we gain nothing from finding out. Is the risk of waiting while we look for better too high? With computers we often "just do it" because the cost of looking is higher than the extra work: 1) IF (A <> B) THEN A := B 2) A := B In the first example we check to see if something needs to be done. If A is not equal to B then we assign the value of B to A. In the second example we just assign the value of B to A. Why do something if it is not needed? Because the cost of the test can be higher than a few extra assignment operations. In beekeeping we treat the hive with formic without testing for mites because the labor to test one costs more than the labor and material to treat five hives. The result of all of this is I follow what you are doing and why. If I had a better way to do it I would offer it up, but I don't. I have concerns but then don't we all? > > "One of the best examples of pure democracy in action is > the lynch mob" > > I can't figure out if you are celebrating this -- or warning > us about it. > Warning. Both of our governments have protections against this danger by putting certain rights above any desire of the people.