1910 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



649 



General Correspondence 



EUROPEAN FOUL BROOD. 



How Dr. Miller Succeeded in Treating European 



Foul Brood by Both the Alexander and 



the McEvoy Plan. 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



[After we visited Mr. S. D. House, and learned of 

 his experience in treating European foul brood by 

 tlie Alexander plan, as related on page 611 editori- 

 ly. in our issue lor Oct. 1, we had a curiosity to 

 know how Dr. Miller was coming on, and we ac- 

 cordingly wrote him, asking him to give us his 

 final conclusions. We suggested at the time that 

 if he would get rid of his sprinkling of black blood 

 the problem would be much simpler for him. The 

 following is the article which he sends in reply.— 

 Ed.] 



At the close of last year I went into win- 

 ter quarters with the expectation — indeed, 

 rather with the desire — that I might have 

 cases of European foul brood to deal with 

 this year, so that I might learn more about 

 the disease. I was not disappointed. The 

 dij;ease appeared in greater or less degree in 

 27 hives. It appeared in those that had 

 been treated by the modified Alexander 

 treatment, and also in those that had been 

 brushed upon foundation. H(jw much of it 

 came from outside apiaries there is no way 

 of telling; but I suspect I would have had 

 enough to fool with if there had not been 

 any surrounding apiaries. 



i'here was no very bad case. Indeed, in 

 11 of the cases there were so few bad cells 

 that I did not think it worth while to med- 

 dle, and the bees cleaned up of their own 

 accord. Last year my chief effort was to 

 get rid of the disease. This year I didn't 

 care for that so much as to learn more about 

 it, so my efforts were more or less experi- 

 mental. Last year, by a mere blunder, I 

 departed from the Alexander method to the 

 extent of giving the diseased colony a virgin 

 qtieen ten days sooner than the regular 

 Alexander recipe called for. As that had 

 succeeded, my chief effort this year was to 

 see whether another ten days might not be 

 cut out. So in most cases I destroyed or re- 

 moved the queen, and at the same time 

 gave to the colony a virgin. That would 

 generally leave the colony eight or ten days 

 withotit a laying queen. In several cases 

 tlie virgin failed, and a second virgin was 

 given, which increased the time of queen- 

 lessness; but I did not see any difference in 

 results; and, so far as I now see, just as 

 good results can be had from this shortened 

 treatment as by giving the full Alexander 

 time. 



'J'here can be no question that if just as 

 good results can be had by giving a virgin 

 immediately upon the removal of the queen 

 in>i,ead of waiting the regulation twenty 

 days, there will be a great gain. I think I 

 hear some one say, "You do well to put in 

 that 'if.' Now, why not wait till you have 



tried the matter more fully, instead of rush- 

 ing into print with your half-baked ideas 

 and dreams?" True enough; that would 

 be a good way. But, in the meantime, if I 

 tell about what I have tried, some one else 

 may help to try the matter more fully. Be- 

 sides, it would have been worth many a 

 dollar to me if, before I had melted up good 

 combs by the hundred last year, some one 

 had told me that he had made even a par- 

 tial success by giving a virgin immediately 

 upon the removal of the queen. 



And right here I want again to record my 

 thanks to the editor of Gleanings, who in- 

 sisted that I should give a trial to the Alex- 

 ander treatment, which I did only after hav- 

 ing treated most cases by the McEvoy plan. 

 If it had not been for trying to please him, 

 I doubt if I would have tried unqueening 

 at all. 



No. 67 was a weakling, of three brood or 

 less, that ha 1 bad brood. It went queen- 

 less of its own accord, and reared a young 

 queen, but remained diseased. That con- 

 firmed, if such a thing needed confirmation, 

 what Mr. Alexander had insisted upon, that 

 a colony must be strong to overcome the 

 disease. 



No. 12 and No. 14 were diseased, neither 

 of them strong. I caged the queen of No. 

 14, took the hive from its stand, ])ut in its 

 place an empty hive in which were clean 

 combs and a frame of brood from a healthy 

 colony; and in this hive I put the caged 

 queen. The object of caging the queen was 

 merely to keep her in the hive until she 

 would have enough company to hold her 

 there. Understand, there was not a bee iij 

 the hive except the caged queen; but imme- 

 diately the field bees began to return to the 

 hive; and as soon as a few had returned I 

 liberated the queen. The colony was very 

 weak, but when brood appeared it was all 

 perfectly clean. Later on, however, there was 

 some bad brood. Did it come from outside? 

 It hardly seems possible that it could have 

 come from inside, for there were no workers 

 in the hive except such as returned to the 

 hive from the field, and it is generally un- 

 derstood that a bee going from a diseased 

 colony to the field carries no disease with it, 

 for on this depends wholly the success of 

 the Baldridge plan. Anyhow, if those bees 

 brought the disease it should have shown 

 in the first brood. 



The brood and bees taken from No. 14 

 were given to No. 12, whose queen had been 

 killed four days previously. The next day 

 a virgin was given, and in due time she be- 

 gan laying. Forty days after the killing of 

 the olcl queen. No. 12 was found clean; but 

 two weeks later still, some bad brood was 

 present. Was that bad brood imported, or 

 was it a home jiroduct? I'd give something 

 to know. 



In spite of the final apparent failure of 

 Nos. 12 and 14, I think the plan is worth 

 further trial, for it is entirely possible that 

 each of them got the disease finally from the 

 outside. But if I were trying the same ihing 

 over again I would kill the queen of No. 12 



