1910 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



141 



honey and thus lose the legitimate reward of 

 an abundant crop. 



In the season of 1908 there was an abun- 

 dant crop, and some bee- keepers got panicky 

 and sold out at prices barely above the cost 

 of production. The season of 1909 was not 

 so good; and if some of that honey had been 

 carried over it would have brought better 

 prices. This applies with greatest force to 

 extracted honey; but comb honey can also 

 be kept over if care is exercised. 



Let every bee-keeper be alert to the fullest 

 possibilities of his chosen occupation, and 

 aetermined to obtain the legitimate compen- 

 sation for his skill, toil, and trouble. It is 

 his lot to produce his crop of honey only by 

 the sweat of his brow, and against many 

 pointed attacks by superior numbers (the 

 bees) ; but remember that, in retailing direct 

 to the consumer, there is little danger of be- 

 ing "stung." Spot cash upon delivery of 

 the goods is the rule, and an increasing de- 

 mand with advancing prices is the fair pros- 

 pect. 



Kenmore, N. Y. 



ALEXANDER IMMORTALIZED. 



His Nfethods Defended, and Dr. Miller Crit- 

 icised for Misapplying His Treatment 

 for European foul Brood. 



BY E. E. PRESSLER. 



The article appearing on page 760, Dec. 15, 

 entitled, "Some Discoveries on the Alexan- 

 der Treatment for European Foul Brood, by 

 Dr. C. C. Miller," and its subsequent com- 

 ments by the editor, are as discrediting to 

 the tf achings and writings of the late lament- 

 ed Alexander as they are untrue. 



While I never wish to pose as a writer, or 

 aim to have my name appear in the bee- 

 journals as a critic, I can not forbear in this 

 case (tne author being dead) to enter at least 

 my protest against such juggling of that em- 

 inent teacher's writings. The article in ques- 

 tion is not only doing gross injustice to his 

 memory, but to every bee-keeper who has 

 ever had European foul brood, and also to 

 his many friends. 



1 have only the utmost regard for both you 

 and Dr. Miller, and believe that perhaps as 

 many bee keepers are indebted to you two 

 writers as to the late Alexander. It is not 

 my purpose here to belittle you, if I could, 

 but to defend and support the teachings of 

 one who is no more. Realizing full well that 

 you two "big fellows" are amply qualified 

 to refute any wrongful allegations I might 

 make, I am prepared to crawl into my hole 

 without another word if you should be able 

 to "come back " at me. 



If this article in Gleanings proves one 

 thing more than another, it is that neither 

 Dr. Miller nor its editor is even familiar 

 with the literal knowledge of the Alexander 

 treatment. 



Nowhere in all his writings can I find 

 where he speaks of "ten days," "introduc- 



ing a laying queen on the twentieth day," 

 nor where he "thought" his cure was etii- 

 cient for American foul brood. Dr. Miller 

 says, "Mr Alexander never insisted that his 

 plan would succeed with American foul 

 brood, although I believe he thought it might 

 do" (italics are mine). Alexander very em- 

 phatically said on this very point, "The old 

 American foul brood is incurable. You can 

 save the bees by the McEvoy treatment, but 

 you can not save the combs." About three 

 years ago, when his plan was attacked, and 

 denounced as not being suitable for Ameri- 

 can foul brood, you, Mr. Editor, appealed to 

 him to straighten out the muddle, which he 

 did in his almost ante-mortem statement in 

 the following lamentation, taken from page 

 166, Feb. 1, 1907: 



"I do wish I could impress on the minds 

 of all bee-keepers that I never recommend- 

 ed any cure for American foul brood. I wi^h 

 to have it understood that I don't think that, 

 up to the present time, there has ever been 

 a comb that was aft'ected by American foul 

 brood cured of that disease. You might as 

 soon expect a colony of bees to clean out 

 their combs if filled with paint as to expect 

 them to be able to remove the rotten larvae. 

 Many bee-keepers are continually speaking 

 and writing of these two diseases as one and 

 the same. Now, if it were not for the young 

 and inexperienced bee-keeper I would not 

 notice this mixing-up of a very important 

 matter. Then when my critics go still fur- 

 ther, and speak of the cure I recommended 

 for European foul brood as failing to cure 

 American foul brood, and in that way belittle 

 that cure, when I from the first wrote that I did 

 not think it of any use for American foul brood, 

 they do me injustice. You might as well ex- 

 pect to cure American foul brood by throw- 

 ing a cup of cold water in the grass in front 

 of your hives as to expect to cure it by re- 

 queening as I recommended for European 

 foul brood. The reason why American foul 

 brood has never been cleaned out of a comb 

 is because a larva that dies from that disease 

 is so much Hke glue that the bees can not re- 

 move it in its soft state; and before it dries 

 down it penetrates with its spores into the 

 cocoons of the cell until it becomes a part of 

 the comb itself, where it can not be reached 

 by any disinfectants, nor removed by the 

 bees." 



Almost on his dying-bed when he wrote 

 the above, are we now to believe this dying 

 man was trying to deceive us when he la- 

 mented in the above language? No, surely 

 not; nor can his words be misinterpreted; 

 they are too plainly understood. There are 

 very many similar expressions throughout 

 his writings, positively showing that he did 

 not think "it might do." 



Dr. Miller says the Alexander plan consists 

 of a few words: "Make a colony strong, make 

 it queenless, let it remain so three weeks; 

 then give it a vigorous young laying queen. 

 That's all" (23 words). Can any thing be 

 more falsely represented? Alexander never 

 recommended giving a laying queen in less 

 than 27 days. This, the very chief point in 



