February, '16] PHILLIPS: APIARY INSPECTION 191 



tabular form in the Journal of Economic Entomology. There 

 would be cases of injustice in comparing cost of inspection per colony 

 and each inspector should be permitted to add a brief statement of any 

 reasons which might exist for unusual expense. Under this heading, 

 a preponderance of small apiaries or difficulties of travel might be 

 stated. An inspector who had a hard time in explaining why it costs 

 twenty-five cents or more per colony might be stimulated to inspect 

 more the following year. Some inspectors do considerable extension 

 work and there should be a careful estimate of this expense to be 

 deducted from the regular inspection expense with a statement of the 

 number of days spent in each kind of work. This might bring out the 

 fact that in some cases the inspection is being neglected and the time 

 spent on certain lines of extension work which the conditions do not 

 justify. 



It is perhaps impossible to make a definite statement as to what 

 constitutes inspection of a colony or apiary. If an inspector goes 

 into a region where little or no disease exists and visits an apiary of 100 

 colonies belonging to a good beekeeper, he may not open a single col- 

 ony or he may examine a few weak ones. He may be justified in 

 reporting no disease in the apiary but if he reports having inspected 

 100 colonies, his record for the year is not comparable with that of 

 another inspector who must examine every colony. It might be well 

 to make a record of the total number of colonies and of the number 

 actually examined. In some cases this would perhaps give an entirely 

 different complexion to the report. Such a distinction is entirely 

 warranted as giving a basis for judging whether the inspector is doing 

 all he should. Of course it is assumed that all the reports of inspec- 

 tion of individual apiaries are truthful, which assumption may stand 

 until there is evidence to the contrary. 



In presenting these points for your consideration it may be well to 

 summarize briefly the points mentioned. 



1. Extension of the influence of this section. 



2. Reduction in the waste of time in inspection. 



3. Declaration of the need of a central office for the state inspection 

 service. 



4. The need of information concerning disease in adjacent states. 



5. Summary of records of various state inspection service for com- 

 parison as to cost per colony and general efficiency. 



6. Definition as to what constitutes inspection. 



These suggestions are made because, with the impossibility of cen- 

 tral control, there will certainly be a waste of funds in places unless 

 it can be remedied by publicity. In certain cases of waste that have 

 come to my attention it is clear that the inspector is acting in ac- 



