516 ANNUAL, REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



are almost forced to the conclusion that the Alexander plan has a 

 great deal to do with the disappearance of the disease. 



Another fact that seems to be a part of the treatment is, that of 

 the removal of the old queen. In view of the fact that it always 

 pays to requeen at least once in two years, and sometimes oftener, 

 we can hardly count the destruction of the old mother an actual 

 loss. The only loss we can figure on at all is the absence of all 

 brood for 20 days; but this does not compare with the nuisance and 

 expense — the great expense — of destroying thousands and thousands 

 of good combs as well as the frames containing them, even if we 

 melt them up, the return is small, comparatively. Then there must 

 be the foundation, which, according to the McEvoy treatment, must 

 be cut out at least once, compelling the bees to try again. 



Up to the present time the McEvoy treatment was considered 

 the most effective, but not a cure in many cases. The reason for this 

 is not hard to understand. The destruction of the old combs and 

 the compelling of the bees to draw out two sets of foundation in- 

 volves the cessation of brood-rearing at least a week and probably 

 longer, and, at the same time, the entire removal of the source of 

 infection that might be in the old combs. But the treatment too 

 often failed because the germs of the disease would still reside in 

 the alimentary tract of the bees, sufficient time not having elapsed 

 (20 days). As soon as the young larvse require feeding, the larval 

 food itself would be liable to have the germs and reinfect the young 

 brood. 



Another interesting fact is, that Italians are more proof against 

 the disease than the blacks; and why is this so? Probably because 

 they are less inclined to rob, but more probably because they do a 

 more thorough job of housecleaning than the native bees of this 

 country. 



E. R, ROOT. 



DR. FUNK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Nelson what 

 he has to say about the non-stinging bees. 



MR. NELSON: I will say in reply to Dr. Funk that I have not 

 had any experience with them. I see there has been a great deal of 

 experimenting done with them, but it is only experiment. 



DR. FUNK: Isn't the Government doing something in that re- 

 gard? 



MR. NELSON: The Government is distributing different varieties 

 of queens to the United States to people who understand handling 

 them, among others, the bee of Africa, or the large bee. There has 

 been many an attempt made to domesticate them, but it has not 

 proved a success yet. 



DR. FUNK: It is not a stingless bee, is it, really? They have 

 stings, havn't they? 



MR. NELSON: No, they are a stingless bee. 



DR. FUNK: I thought it was like a queen that don't sting. 



MR. NELSON: That is not correct. They use it sometimes. 



DR. FUNK: Yes, use it royally. 



On motion, duly seconded, it was ordered that the report of the 

 Committee on Apiary be received and placed on file. 



The following is the Report of the Committee on Poultry: 



