’ 
36 MEETING OF INSPECTORS OF APIARIES. 
This paper has probably come to the notice of but few bee keepers 
in the United States, because the report of the agricultural college is 
not widely distributed. To make it available for comparison, there- 
fore, it is included here. 
THE Fout Broop Bacitius (B. ALVEL) ; ITS VITALITY AND DEVELOPMENT. 
[From Ontario Agricultural College Report for 1892, pp. 267—273.] 
Mr. J. J. Mackenzie, B. A., bacteriologist of the provincial board of health of 
Ontario, read the following paper : 
GENTLEMEN: At the request of your secretary, Mr. Holtermann, I undertook 
for your union some investigations on the subject of foul brood, the results of 
which I propose giving you in this paper. Although it is almost a year now 
since I undertook this work under the auspices of the Agricultural and Experi- 
mental Union, it is by no means exhausted, and there are many points which 
require to be further elucidated, which I have not had time as yet to touch on, 
owing to the fact that investigations on foul brood had to be carried on simul- 
taneously with my regular laboratory work. 'These points J hope to work at 
next summer, and reserve the privilege of reporting again to your unicn on the 
results of further investigation. 
The subject of foul brood is an old one to apiarists and an intensely interest- 
ing one to Canadian bee keepers, but in reading over the bee journals one can 
not help being struck with the great want of unanimity amongst bee men as to 
the disease, how it should be treated, how it is spread, and on many other points. 
Some would have us believe that the disease arises de novo whenever insanitary 
conditions prevail; others claim that there is a specific infection and where the 
disease arises it must have originated from previously existing disease; some 
claim that the honey is the only method of transmittal ; others that it is not, and 
so on. On every point there seems to be plenty of arguments pro and con. 
I have attempted in my work to take hold of some of these controverted 
points from a bacteriological standpoint in order to aid in coming to some defi- 
nite conclusion. Some of these points I should consider settled from the results 
of previous investigation ; but as many bee men do not seem prepared to accept 
this, my work will have value as confirming what has already been done. 
Before an association which includes many practical bee keepers it would be 
superfluous to enter upon a minute account of the clinical features of the dis- 
ease. Most of you know them better than I do. I certainly would not be pre- 
pared to “spot” foul brood in an apiary, although I certainly think I can under 
the microscope. The infectious character of the disease has been generally 
accepted for many years, but not until Cheshire and Watson Cheyne worked it 
out scientifically was it definitely proved. They isolated a bacillus (Bacillus 
alvei) which they found in the diseased brood and which they cultivated on 
nutrient media for many generations, finally reinfecting perfectly healthy brood 
from these pure cultures. This evidence to a bacteriologist is absolutely con- 
clusive that Bacillus alvei is the specific cause of foul brood. Consequently, 
when I began my investigations on some samples of diseased brood which were 
sent me through Mr. Holtermann, I looked at once for Bacillus alvei. Micro- 
scopically and by means of bacteriological methods I had no difficulty in isolating 
2 bacillus which corresponds in all points to Bacillus alvei. It is a bacillus 
similar to that of Cheshire’s in size, produces spores which are somewhat 
thicker, giving the bacillus a clubbed appearance. On agar jelly it grows 
rapidly so as to cover the whole surface. In gelatin its growth is very peculiar, 
shooting out from the infected point in all directions. On potatoes it produces 
