~ 
+ 
PRESENT STATUS OF INVESTIGATION OF BEE DISEASES. 37 
a yellow growth. All these characters show conclusively that it is identical 
with Bacillus alvei. There seems no doubt, therefore, that the foul brood which 
we have in Ontario is the same disease and produced by the same bacillus as in 
other places. 
Many prominent bee keepers, both here and in the States, however, maintain 
that wherever unsanitary conditions are allowed to prevail, wherever chilled 
brood is allowed to putrefy, or decapitated drones are left to decay in the 
hive foul brood may arise de novo. This is not a new theory, either in bee 
keeping or in medicine, but unfortunately it is a theory which is not supported 
by the results of investigation. Diphtheria naturally will develop more readily 
if unsanitary conditions are present, but it certainly will not develop if the 
Bacillus diphtherie is absent. The same is true of other diseases, and conse- 
quently when we come to consider such a decidedly infectious disease as foul 
brood and learn the facts about it which such men as Cheshire have told us we 
naturally come to the same conclusion. If I were to maintain that a Carnio- 
lan queen might lay an egg which would develop into a humble bee, bee men 
would be inclined to think that not only my bee knowledge, but also my scien- 
tific knowledge, was at fault; but yet in all the bee journals I find many promi- 
nent bee keepers maintaining that an ordinary microbe which produces putre- 
faction may become metamorphosed into the specific cause of foul brood. It 
it is easy enough, however, to combat such an opinion upon a priori grounds, 
but not quite so easy to offer convincing proof. 
In order to do this I thought it worth while to try some experiments. With 
this end in view I obtained some comb containing chilled brood and endeavored 
to isolate Bacillus alvei from it, but without success. 
There were plenty of other bacteria, but none which presented the well- 
marked morphological characters peculiar to Bacillus alvei. Again I had sent 
to the laboratory a piece of perfectly healthy comb. I killed the brood by chill- 
ing. Then I infected some of the cells from a pure culture of Bacillus alvei. 
I allowed all the chilled brood to putrefy in a moist chamber for two weeks, at 
the end of which time I obtained Bacillus alvei again from the cells which had 
been artificially infected, but could find no traces of it in the other cells. I 
left this comb in a moist chamber for several months and again examined, but 
with the same results. In the cells in which Bacillus alvei had been placed it 
was still to be found; in the others it was not present. 
It seems to me that an experiment such as the above conclusively shows that 
there is a distinct difference between foul brood and ordinary putrefaction. 
In considering the subject of the vitality of Bacillus alvei the first question 
which naturally arises is its power to resist heat. We know that bacilli which 
produce spores and those which do not stand in entirely different positions in 
this regard. The sporeless bacillus is destroyed at a much lower temperature 
than one which contains spores. Consequently in considering the question of 
the vitality of Bacillus alvei, which produces spores very quickly and easily, we 
may confine our attention entirely to the vitality of the spore. 
This is of special interest, as the question has been repeatedly raised whether 
it is dangerous to use comb foundation made from foul-broody wax. Does the 
temperature to which the wax is raised in the maaufacture of comb foundation 
sufficiently destroy the vitality of the spere? Can the spore germinate and 
infect the brood when once inclosed in the wax? 
These questions have been raised by many careful thinkers among bee men, 
and certainly deserve attention. The second point ought to be considered first, 
since if surrounding a spore with a film of wax prevents its germination, we 
need pay no further attention to the question of heat. The crucial test of this 
