so 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



and that a "great many" have reported 

 that salicylic acid and phenol would cure 

 foul brood, which seems proof to him 

 that the disease was a different one from 

 that which attacked his own bees, since 

 he found drugs worse than useless. Of 

 one of the "great many" he says: "For 

 instance, C. F. Muth found that he could 

 very readily handle the foul brood, or 

 what he suppossed to be that disease, in 

 his locality, years ago, by spraying the 

 combs with a solution of salicylic acid." 

 And he infers that: "Thewfrrt/^ [moral?] 

 of this thing seems to be that there are 

 two kinds of foul brood, so-called, in the 

 United States; or, at least, there have 

 been." Scientifically speaking, there 

 cannot well be two foul brood diseases, 

 and it appears to me to be unwise to 

 treat the matter as though there might 

 be. So far as I have learned, no one has 

 yet pronounced the disease which has ap- 

 peared in New York to be foul brood, 

 and, as to the reports of the "great many" 

 referred to, wouldn't it be well to take 

 them with a grain of salt? We know 

 many have been mistaken as to the effects 

 of drugs on foul brood. Mr. Muth him- 

 self was greivously mistaken, for he told 

 me personally, at Keokuk, I think it was, 

 that he had found that salicylic acid 

 would not accomplish in the case of foul 

 brood what he at first supposed it did — 

 that it would not cure the disease. Mr. 

 Robertson, a few years a noted bee-keep- 

 er in central Michigan, sent me, at one 

 time, a formula for the compounding of 

 a sure cure for foul brood. Salicylic 

 acid was the vital ingredient. It had 

 cured foul brood for him, he said, with- 

 out the distruction of a comb. I tried it 

 faithfully, and failed utterly. I heard 

 later that Mr. Robertson lost all his bees 

 afterward by foul brood. Editor Sim- 

 mins, reported in the American Bee Jour- 

 nal, 764, is undoubtedly another of the 

 "great many." He cures foul brood with- 

 out destroying combs, by simply letting 

 the diseased colony during a honey flow 

 "when fairly numerous" rear a virgin 

 queen; when the bees will clean "out 



every vestige of the disease before the 

 young queen again made up a brood- 

 nest." He has never known it to fail! 

 Even the editor of Gleanings (Gleanings, 

 878, ), I trust in his haste, thinks it would 

 be a sure cure^he of all others, who 

 heretofore would have foul-broody honej* 

 boiled three hours before feeding it back, 

 and generally would burn combs and all, 

 now holds, practically, that it would be 

 safe to give them back unheated foul 

 broody honey, combs, dead brood and 

 all, if only the colony be not badly de- 

 populated, and is compelled to rear a 

 queen before renewing brood-rearing, and 

 and during a honey flow for he says of 

 the plan: "There is no reason why it 

 should not work, as it is almost what is 

 called the starvation plan of cure." Tell 

 it to the marines. To any one who has 

 has had experience with foul brood it is 

 utterly ridiculous. Are we to make no 

 advance ? Others are yet to be tried with 

 foul brood for the first time. Is it nec- 

 essary to delude them into threading all 

 the weary way their predecessors have 

 trod ? If a new disease has appeared, let 

 it be known for what it is, and let it be 

 treated as its character requires, but let us 

 not confound the novice by confounding 

 it, even in name, with foul brood. 



SUPPOSITIONS OF SMALL VALUE. 



I pointed out some time since that an 

 experiment, reported in Gleanings, in 

 which an effort was made to determine 

 the quality of the new process foundation 

 by comparing it in the hive with a like 

 quantity of the old process, was without 

 point and valueless, because the quality 

 of the old process foundation with which 

 the new was compared was not known in 

 any particular. Stenog. (Gleanings, S79) 

 attempts to make light of my position in 

 the matter and supposes that the old 

 foundation "was as good as could be had." 

 I suppose the experimenter supposed so, 

 too, and the chief difficulty is that sup- 

 positions are not facts. Reasoning found- 

 ed on suppositious cannot give results 



