124 JOLRNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 14 



5. The suggestions gi\'en by a state inspector are almost always given 

 more consideration by the beekeeper than if they came from one of the 

 beekeeper's neighbors. 



6. There are often personal reasons why a local inspector would 

 hesitate to take the steps which he would realize would be necessary in 

 order to clean up foulbrood in his county. Such reasons would not 

 be present in the case of the state inspector. 



7. By means of a state organization a general program extending over 

 a period of years could be m.apped out, looking toward state wide 

 eradication. 



In some cases a combination of local inspectors working with the state 

 organization may be used to advantage. In these cases the local inspec- 

 tor should serve especially one or more of the following purposes ; 



1 . To act as a scout to detect first outbreaks of disease in his territory. 



2 . To make the necessary inspections in the event of bees being moved 

 into or out of his territory. 



3. To answer "Huny up" calls for inspection in his locality in the 

 event a state inspector is not available at the time. 



Local inspectors for the above purposes are particularly useful in large 

 states in order to save time and expense in travelling. I see no reasons 

 for confining the work of a local inspector by county lines, or for that 

 matter by lines of any kind within the state, excepting in a very general 

 way. I do not believe that the local inspection should necessarily be 

 given to any one man. The person who has charge of the state inspec- 

 tion work should have power to deputize any qualified beekeeper at 

 any time to make any necessary inspection in his locality. By such an 

 arrangement, some one would always be available in any part of the 

 state for inspection work. The successful use of this plan would of 

 course necessitate a wide acquaintance among the beekeepers of the 

 state on the part of the person in charge of the work, but the nature of 

 his work would naturally bring this about. 



During the past year we have had in Texas an excellent opportunity 

 to compare the results of the county inspection system with those ob- 

 tained by sending inspectors out from the office. One man on the staff, 

 Mr. C. S. Rude, gives all his time to foulbrood control work. In addi- 

 tion, this year we added to our force in June three young men who had 

 taken one or more courses in beekeeping in the Texas A. & M. College 

 and who had had excellent training for this kind of work. Two of these 

 men were graduates of the college and the other ranked as a junior in 

 college. These men were sent to those parts of the state where there 

 was greatest need for inspection, regardless of whether there were county 

 inspectors there or not. We were extremely fortunate in that Mr. Rude 

 and the three assistants all possess to a very marked degree those quali- 



