CITESTTTRE, SEPTEMBER 1, 1884. 23 



The Bee Keepora' Record says, in referring!; to my paper, "Whether ])henol ia 

 really a specific for foul-brood time alone will show, but we urge our roador.s to give 

 it a thorough trial. " I rei)ly that all that coidd be done to prevent phenol succeeding 

 I have done. I have heaped up dilliculties: given beea sucrh combs as I venture 

 to say they have never received before in the history of bee keeping; secured the 

 most virulent type of the disease I could discover, and yet in seventeen days a most 

 perfectly healthy aspect is presented, and the bees, with brood in their six frames, 

 are hard at work comb-building. I assert, with all the positiveness I can command, 

 that phenol, upon my plan, is a specific, and only needs a careful and correct applica- 

 tion . 



Bee keepers wlio have had experience in the treatment of foul 

 brood can decide, first, whether such phenomenal results as Chesliire 

 has recorded are to be expected, and, second, whether from one 

 experiment like this he should have asserted so positively that the 

 method is a specific one. 



The method advocated by Cheshire was given a trial, however, 

 by many bee keepers, especially in England. To indicate what 

 harm might ensue from such immature work, we quote from a few 

 who followed liis advice. A questioner ^ gives the following fi'om 

 his experience: 



Having used carbolic acid as a prophylactic in the apiary for more than fifteen 

 years, I was delighted to learn that Mr. Cheshire, by putting a little amongst syrup 

 and pouring it into the brood-cells of a virulently diseased stock, had succeeded 

 in effecting a complete cure. To test its power in this way I procured a bottle of 

 medicated material prepared under Mr. Cheshire's guarantee, and began to treat a 

 stock, thoroughly foul-brooded, according to the method prescribed — on the 30th 

 August last. 



Circumstances were all favourable, such as a high temperature, a breeding queen, 

 and bees carrying in pollen. No heat was allowed to escape from the stock through 

 imperfect covering. But although the treatment has been carried on till now (Oct. 

 20th), there is no more abatement of disease than usually takes place when egg-laying 

 becomes languid. The population is getting reduced; the cells perforated and 

 closed are filled with gluey, putrid matter, and the stench emitted is scarcely less 

 offensive than formerly. 



What the treatment can effect in spring and summer, when greater heat and activity 

 prevail, remains to be tested; but from what has come under my observation I have 

 come to the conclusion that unless the apiarian himself clear out every foul cell, no 

 virulently diseased hive can be restored to perfect health in the autumn by administer- 

 ing phenol as Mr. Cheshire directs. 



From another bee keeper^ we quote the following: 



I have used Mr. Cheshire's cure, and followed his directions to the best of my 

 ability, but it has proved in my case a complete failirre. 



From another ^ the following is quoted : 



During the latter end of July I observed that three of my bar-frame hives were 

 affected with foul brood. I was a little puzzled what to do, as I never had had any 



• Questioner, November 1, 1884. Phenol no cure in autumn. British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 157, 

 p. 379. 



« Johnston, Arthur B., November 1, 1884. Is phenol a cure for foul brood? British Bee Journal, Vol. 

 XII, No. 157, p. 379. 



» Veritas, November 15, 1884. Foul brood. British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 158, pp. 399-400. 



