346 



THF: BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



FOUL BROOO. 



A Comprehensive Review of the Cheshire 

 Theory. 



That there are at least two diseases 

 of the brood of bees there is no possible 

 doubt. For years we here in America 

 have been puzzled at the decisions and 

 conclusions of European scientists and 

 bee-keepers regarding- foul brood, or 

 what we have called foul brood, but, 

 since the scientific investigations have 

 shown that black brood (so-called) and 

 European foul brood, or at least, some 

 European foul brood, are similar, 

 much of this mj'stery has been cleared 

 away. 1 have already gone over the 

 ground at some length in the Review, 

 but I think Jas. A. Green, State In- 

 spector for Colorado, has pnt the 

 matter in the best possible shape in an 

 article in the American Bee Journal. 

 Mr. Green says: — 



For a number of yea' s bee-keepers 

 have accepted the theory of Cheshire as 

 to the cause of foul brood, and have 

 assumed that there was only one form 

 of foul brood, alike in all countries 

 where bees are kept. There were some 

 inconsistencies. Cheshire's theory, or, 

 p(-rhaps, I should rather say the con- 

 clusions he drew therefrom, did not 

 always fit the facts. Several. I believe, 

 have called the attention to this. I 

 myself in an article published abr.'it 

 15 years ago, expressed mj^ doubts 

 that the true cause of foul brood had 

 been discovered. But in the main there 

 was no opposition to the acceptance of 

 the Cheshire theory. The disease was 

 of bacterial origin, and Bacillus alvei 

 was as convenient a one to lay it to as 

 any other bacterium \'ery few had 

 the facilities to make microscopic inves- 

 tigation on their own account, so for 

 lack of anything better, Cheshire's 

 theory as to the cause of the disease 

 had full credence, though practical 

 men, in this country at least, had been 

 compelled to discard his conclusions 

 in regard to the transmission of the 

 disease, its character and its cure. 



Let us review briefly some of tlies.(. . 

 First, that foul brood is not simply a 

 disease of the brood, but a chronic dis- 

 ease of the blood, aflFecting queens, 

 workers and drones. 



He found Bacil- 



lus alvei in the ovaries of the queen as 

 well as in eggs not y^X. laid. If a 

 queen were infected to this extent, it 

 would hardly seem that she could ever 

 again lay healthy eggs. Yet the queen 

 may be lemovedfrom a infected colony, 

 placed in a health}^ colon}', and the 

 brood that hatches from the eggs she 

 laj's therein, will be healthy. I have 

 done this a number of times myself as 

 have many other bee-keepers probably 

 hundreds of times in all — and if any 

 one has ever brought forward any 

 proof that the disease was ever trans- 

 mitted thereby, it has escaped my 

 notice. Moreover, by the McEvoy 

 method of cure, which has been suc- 

 cessful in thousands of cases, the queen 

 of the diseased colony is, only 3 or 4 

 days later, laying eggs in a colony 

 that is thereafter healthy, all trace of 

 the "chronic blood disease" having 

 vanished in the meantime. 



If the mature workers of an infected 

 colony are diseased, it is certainly 

 very remarkable that all of the many 

 thousands comprising a colony are 

 cured, or, at least, made incapable of 

 transmitting the disease by the simple 

 process of building a few square inches 

 of comb. 



It is well known that drones are 

 "free commoners," going from one 

 hive to another. If it were true that 

 they were diseased in themselves, 

 would not this frequent interchange of 

 visits result in spreading the disease 

 to a far greater extent than is known 

 to be the case ? No proof has ever been 

 brought forward that the disease has 

 ever been transmitted from drone to 

 queen by the act of mating^, as claimed 

 hy Cheshire, and all experience is dis- 

 tinctly against the supposition that 

 such is ever the case. 



Perhaps the strongest proof that the 

 workers are not diseased, or are in- 

 capable in themselves of transmitting 

 the disease, is furnished by the Bald- 

 ridge method of cure, which was de- 

 scribed on page 469 of the American 

 Bee Journal for 1905. The principle 

 involved in this plan, which is one of 

 the most practical and valuable methrds 

 of cure, is that foul brood is conveyed 

 onlv bv me.ins of the honj^v, and that 

 an undisturbed bee leaving its hive 

 does not carry any honey with it, and 

 may therefore enter any hive without 

 any danger of transmitting the disease. 

 The bees leave the infected hive 

 through a bee-escape, and, being un- 

 able to return, go into a hive along- 

 side. Bees are thus leav'ng a diseased 



