THE BEE-KEEPERS EEVIEW 



347 



colon}' and enterinpf a healthy colony 

 to become members thereof, daily, for a 

 period of several weeks. Is it conceiv- 

 able that they could do this without 

 infectinff the colony they enter, if they 

 were themselves diseased? Yet I can 

 testif}', as can man}' others, that this 

 is a practical method of cure. I have 

 tried it in a number of cases without a 

 single failure. 



The same principle is involved in 

 the plan of R. C. Aikin, whereby the 

 diseased colony is moved several times, 

 at each move losing its flying- bees, 

 which enter the hives nearest its old 

 stand Care being- taken not to dis- 

 turb the bees at the time of movinj;^ 

 them, which is best done in the even- 

 ing-, the returning- bees will enter 

 healthy colonies without conveying- the 

 disease. These facts show that the 

 contag-ion is not conveyed by the bees, 

 queen or drones. 



When curing bees by the McEvoy 

 plan, shaking- ihem from their old 

 combs and compelling- them to build a 

 new set, the old hive may be used, dis- 

 infection being- entirely unnecessary. 

 I have Mr. McKvoy as authority for 

 this, aod numerous trials in my own 

 practice have shown that he is correct. 



Finally, it is c]aimed by some that 

 there is no danger of the operator 

 carrying- the disease from one hive to 

 another, if he is careful not to carry 

 any honey on his hands or tools. At 

 any rate, his disinfectants are not 

 necessary I personal!}- know of large 

 apirtries where many casfs of foul 

 brood have been successfully hantlled, 

 the ( nly precaution against con\e} ing 

 the disease being lo wash the hands 

 and tools with soap and water after 

 handling- a diseased colony. 



If you will consider the foreg^oing 

 facts, which may be supported by any 

 necessary amount of evidence, you will 

 SI e that the only remaining sources of 

 contagion are the diseased brood itself, 

 or the honey infected therefrom. Al- 

 though Cheshire concluded, because he 

 could not find Ilacil/ns alvei in honey, 

 that the disease could not be conveyed 

 thereby, and even went so far as to 

 declare that bacilli could not multiply 

 in honey, all practical experience 

 with the disease as we know it in this 

 country shows that ordinarily honey 

 is the sole medium of contagion. All 

 successful methods of cure are based 

 on this theory, and the various methods 

 of cure by medication, which have been 

 imported from Europe from time to 

 time, have proven utterly useless, or at 



the best, only palliatives of the disease 

 they can not cure. 



We have come to the point where a 

 re-organization and re-adjustment of 

 our ideas in regard to foul brood seem 

 inevitable. There has been for a long 

 time a curious difference between the 

 experiences of bee-keepers in this 

 country and those of Europe. This 

 led to the belief in the minds of many 

 here that foul brood in Europe was of 

 a milder form than what we had here. 

 Some explained this by saying that 

 bees there had been subject to foul 

 brood for so much longer a time that 

 they had become more immune to it. 

 Just hovv time can operate to render 

 anything immune to a disease that fmce 

 well established is invariably fatal un- 

 less cured by a man, does not appear 

 to me. No evidence has ever been pre- 

 sented to show that a colony that has 

 been cured of foul brood is any less 

 likely to contract it again. 



Then came the investigations of the 

 bacteriologists of our Department of 

 Agriculture, in wiiich they were un- 

 able to find Bacillus alvei in any sample 

 of foul brood, as we know it in this 

 country, while every s-imple of what 

 we know as black brood contained 

 Bacillus alvei. This would indicate 

 strongly (hat what has been known as 

 foul brood in Europe is identical with 

 what we know as t)lack brood here. 

 At least it would go to show that it 

 was black brood and not foul brood, 

 that Cheshire experimented with. 



Evidence going to show that black 

 brood exists in Europe is given by the 

 fact tliat the treatment found by Alex- 

 ander, of New York, effective in cur 

 ing black brood has lieen recommended 

 by Simmins, of Hiiigland, for curing 

 foul brood, but which I think no one 

 who has ever had experiei-ice with the 

 genuine foul brood of this country 

 would consider in the least likely to be 

 effective in that disease. 



Of course, even if it is true that much 

 of the European experience has been 

 with something other than what we 

 know as foul brood, it does not neces- 

 sarily follow that the genuine article 

 does not exist there. It is quite prob- 

 able that there are two brood diseases 

 there, the same as here. It is difficult 

 to get around the evidence brought for- 

 ward by C. P. Dadant on page 719, 

 that the real foul brood exists there. 

 It may be that they have simply never 

 been differentiated, and that Cheshire's 

 error has prevented an earlier recog- 

 nition of the facts. 



