more than that, examinations have often been made and a chemical 

 analysis does not reveal the presence of any poison. 



R. F. Waterman of Canada says he thinks the trouble is caused by 

 insufficient air currents through the apiary, but we have known the 

 disease to occur in apiaries on high wind-swept knolls. 



E. J. Ladd, of Portland, Oregon, thinks that the trouble is caused 

 by wet nectar, too much moisture in it, so that when it is stored in the 

 cells it remains. Now that is not true all the time. It is true some- 

 times, but we have known many cases where it is not true. 



Now, C. D. Hulse — I have forgotten his initials, I am not sure 

 that that is right — said in 1917 that he thought the trouble was mal- 

 nutrition; that is, a diet too rich in proteins, too much pollen, and about 

 a year ago C. E. Carr wrote a long article on the subject, and he agreed 

 with Mr. Hulse that malnutrition was at the bottom of it, was at least 

 a factor in the trouble. I would like to say right there that if that 

 were the case, if that were the only factor that was causing the trouble, 

 then the disease would not be new to so many of our good bee-keepers, 

 because those conditions would have existed for years past. 



The one thing that stands out more prominently than anything 

 else is the fact that the disease is worse in wet weather and generally 

 disappears at the advent of warm weather. But even that is not 

 always true, and C. P. Chadwick of California tells us that in 1917 

 the disease was in California, very bad cases of the disease throughout 

 the apiaries in one large area, and he said that the disease persisted 

 throughout the summer, in spite of the fact that there was no rain, 

 but nice, sunshiny weather. And there have been several others that 

 have given the same report, but not a great number. 



A Member. — In what part of California was that? 



Miss Fowls.- — Near Redlands. Although we don't know the real 

 reason for the trouble, it seems plausible to believe that it is probably 

 caused by a combination of factors, probably damp weather with 

 malnutrition, and perhaps the presence of one or more organisms. 

 Nozema aphis is often times present, and doubtless other bacteria. 



Now, of course that is nothing but a guess, but it is based on 

 experience and on microscopic examination, so it is probably just as 

 good as any other guess at present. And as soon as any one has a 

 better one we should be very glad to have it. Over in Europe many 

 people consider it the same as the Isle of Wight disease, and in our 

 own country we do too. Possibly not the same disease, but at least 

 some bacteria are the same in both; it gives these same characteristics. 

 Over there they are using ever so many different chemicals, but quite 

 without success, and just recently their government has appointed a 

 committee, a commission, on purpose to investigate this Isle of Wight 

 disease. 



In our own country we have also tried the different chemicals. 

 We have tried to use them in various kinds of syrups, or different 

 medicated syrups. We have used lime and salt and sulphur, some- 

 times just feeding a heavy syrup, and also moving the colonies to an 

 entirely different location, or moving them just a few feet. Some have 

 advocated that. Some have taken away all the brood from the honey, 

 others have made the colonies queenless. Some have dug a ditch in 

 —10 B A 



