No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 195 



He is especially adapted for the position of Chief Field Apiary In- 

 spector. Other apiary inspectors are also well qnalitied, and have re- 

 cently entered the service of the State. These are Mr. John O. 

 Busenian, of Philadelphia; Mr. Franklin G. Fox, of Pipersville, 

 Bucks county; and Mr. J. K. Rambo, of Collingsdale, Delaware 

 county. As the appropriation for this service is but five thousand 

 dollars for two years, not a great deal can be done, and yet it is sur- 

 prising that on this limited fund such results were accomplished as 

 are shown below\ The report of Mr. Rea. as Chief Apiary Inspector, 

 follows : 



REPORT OF PENNSYLVANIA APIARY INSPECTION 



AUTHORS' NOTE 



The aim of this report is to make a history, to date, of the Apiary 

 Inspection work in Pennsylvania. In order to make it as complete 

 as possible, many details are recorded that would not otherwise be 

 necessary. 



To be true to the purpose of the report, statements concerning all 

 legislation relative to the work are given. While some effort was 

 put forth in this direction previously to 1909, yet nothing definite 

 was accomplished until the legislative session of that year. 



For the successful passage of our splendid Apiary Inspection law 

 and securing of subsequent appropriations for the work, credit must 

 be given to Economic Zoologist, H. A. Surface and certain members 

 of the Pennsylvania Beekeepers Association. These results are due 

 to their untiring efforts in this direction. 



If some beekeeper, discouraged or disheartened because of the 

 ravages of foul brood among his bees, will, by a perusal of these 

 pages, take courage and fall into the ranks of those who are success- 

 fully fighting this dread scourge of beekeeping, those who have so 

 faithfully stood by the cause will feel amply repaid for their efforts. 



GEORGE H. REA, 

 In charge of Apiary Inspection. 



A bill ''To provide for the inspection of apiaries, and for the sup- 

 pression of contagious or infectious diseases among bees, and making 

 appropriation therefor," was introduced in the legislature of 1909. 

 It failed to pass, largely because of a lack of enthusiastic support on 

 the part of the beekeepers. Such legislation was a new thing to most 

 members of the legislature and aroused considerable comment and 

 discussion. It also furnished the basis for ridicule on the part of 

 certain editors of newspapers. However, in these respects we were 

 no more unfortunate than many other states that eventually suc- 

 ceeded in securing such legislation. 



Definite results were accomplished in the legislative session of 

 1911. An act was passed authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to 

 do the work through the Economic Zoologist. A wave of enthusiasm 

 spread among the beekeepers of ihe State. However, a murmur of 

 regret followed when it was learned that the legislature failed to ap- 



