390 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 



CORKS FOB HONEY- BOTTLES. 



We extract the following- fromapiivate letter 

 Irom Chas. F. Muth, on the subject as above: 



All ooi-ks should be sruldcd with hot watci- ln-loiv thev are 

 pressed into the neoks of bottles. Put your eoiks into a buck- 

 et and pour hot water over them, when they will be as pliable 

 as rubber. Chas. F. Muth & Son. 



Cincinnati, 0., March 14, 1890. 



LOOK OUT FOR THE BOGUS DICTIONARY. 



Doubtless some of you have seen flaming ad- 

 vertisements of a complete "Unabridged Dictiona- 

 ry" for three or four dollars. When the notice 

 first came out we ordered ;i sample; and, without 

 orders, one of the books was sent to our office C. O. D. 

 Now, it is an unheard-of thing to bring a package 

 into the oflice of the Home of the Honey-bees with 

 "C. O. D.'"on it. One of the boys brought it in, 

 and, without noticing the C. O. D., the book was 

 opened and examined. As soon as I looked inside 

 of it, it went right straight back to the express 

 office, and the publishers tried to make us keep it, 

 '• because we undid the wrappings'." The whole thiog 

 is a swindle from beginning to end. I would add, 

 that it is a reprint of an edition issued in 1847—43 

 years ago, but I doubt whether any thing was 

 known as poor and shabby even at that time. There 

 is not a siogle illustration in it, except In the back 

 part; and ia the body of the work there is not a 

 reference to any of the illustrations in the back 

 part. How much good do the illustrations do you 

 in that shape? After some jangling about it, we 

 were required to pay the express charges back on 

 the miserable thing^ 



ARTIFICIAL COMB HONEY AND MANUFACTURED 

 SCIENCE. 



This is the title of an exceedingly well- written 

 article in the PupuJar Science Miintlily for May, by 

 Allen Pringle, President of the Ontario Bee-Keep- 

 ers' Association. Tbe writer locates the source of 

 the falsehood regarding- manufactured comb hon- 

 ey to Prof. Wiley's article, which appeared in the 

 Popular Science Monthly for June, 1881, and alludes 

 to the fact of its having been copied in the A//ieri- 

 can Encyclopedia, and in the Supplement to the 

 Encyclopedia Dritannica, besides being copied 

 through the press generally. It seems that the ed- 

 itor of the Popular Science Monthly -w&s not aware 

 until recently that the mischief took root in his 

 magazine. Just as soon, however, as he was in- 

 formed of the fact, he asked Mr. Allen Pringle— a 

 bee-keeper and a scholar— to reply to it, and he has 

 done it in a masterly manner. We should be glad 

 to publish the article entire; but as our space is 

 crowded, we can not; but we can not forbear quot- 

 ing from the last paragraph, which reads as below: 



I take tbe liberty of here suggesting to publish- 

 ers of encyclopicdias and scientific works, the wis- 

 dom of first submitting doubtful points and dubious 

 assertions, made by men outside their special de- 

 partments, to practical men in such departments, 

 whether the latter be learned or unlearned, for the 

 knowledge of an unlearned man touching his own 

 particular line of business (even the science of it) 

 may exceed tbat of the scientist both in accuracy 

 and extent. Such a course would often save the 

 specialist from humiliation, and spare the public 

 the infliction of some very queer saiencc, which, 

 not infrequently, fails to dovetail with every-day 

 facts. 



There is one sentence in the above to which we 

 wish to call attention; namely, that the knowledge 

 of an unlearned man in his own line of business 

 may exceed that of the scientist, both in accuracy 

 and extent. Why is it that cyclopedias will some- 

 times, instead of going to practical men for infor- 

 mation, employ some big-named scientist of little 



or no experimental or practical knowledge, to write 

 up the facts? Allen Pringle is both learned and 

 practical, and we hope, with Bro. Newman, that oth- 

 er periodicals will publish this masterly refutation 

 as widely as they circulated the old Wiley fabrica- 

 tion. 



FOUL BROOD. 



Bulletin 61, under date of April, 1890, of the 

 Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, treats 

 on the subject as above, and it is signed by A. J. 

 Cook. We have carefully looked it over, and con- 

 sider it fully up to the times, and sound in its 

 teachings. After treating of fungoid diseases in 

 general, and dividing them into different groups 

 as to form, such as micrococci, bacteria, spirillum, 

 and bacillus (under which latter head comes foul 

 brood), Prof. Cook goes on to describe foul brood in 

 particular— its microscopic appearance, etc. His 

 description of the symptoms of foul brood is good. 

 Under "Remedies" he treats briefly of salicylic 

 and carbolic acid. We are glad to see that he does 

 not recommend them as a cure. Even our much- 

 respected friend Chas. F. Muth does not recom- 

 mend salicylic acid now, because he can not pre- 

 vent reinfection. When we had foul brood, an old 

 classmate of your humble servant, Ernest, while 

 home on a vacation from Cornell University, was 

 induced to make " pure cultures " of foul brood in 

 test-tubes. In other words, he made a sort of beef 

 gelatine, which, after being boiled, was stoppered 

 in test-tubes with cotton batting. After heating 

 the point of a needle, and letting it cool, he Im- 

 mersed It into diseased larvts, and then plunged it 

 into beef gelatine, which under the inoculation 

 very soon became cloudy. These experiments were 

 conducted with the greatest of care. " Now," said 

 he, "if carbolic acid is a fungicide, it ought to ar- 

 rest its progress." Into some of the inoculated 

 cultures he introduced a small quantity of carbolic 

 acid, and left it for a time. Instead of killing the 

 bacilli as we expected, it had no effect upon it; for 

 even after the addition of the acid other tubes 

 could be inoculated. The phenol was administered 

 in the proportions recommended by Frank Cheshire. 

 That this was the real foul brood he had been treat- 

 ing, and not some other growth, was evidenced by 

 examination with the microscope. If this experi- 

 ment means any thing it means that carbolic acid 

 has little if any effect as a fungicide. While it 

 apparently kept down the disease in our apiary, 1 

 somewhat doubt whether it did any ?-C((l good. I 

 am glad to see that Prof. Cook recommends that 

 sure and reliable method, transferring, as first 

 announced by Mr. M. Quinby, and by him styled the 

 " fasting " method, and, later, recommended by 

 D. A. Jones. It never failed with us. Where hives are 

 boiled for some minutes, the disease does not reap- 

 pear. Some seconds is hardly safe, as the spores do 

 notyield readily to a boiling temperature. Prof. Cook 

 very much doubts whether the disease resides in 

 ihe blood of the bees or queen, as suggested by 

 Cheshire and argued by R. L. Raylor. We have re- 

 peatedly taken queens from diseased colonies, and 

 dropped them into perfectly healthy ones, and no 

 trouble followed. But that it does reside in the 

 honey, and that it can be carried by robbers to all 

 parts of the apiary, is beyond any question or doubt 

 with us. Scores of instances have proved this. We 

 are glad to recommend this bulletin to any who 

 may have had foul brood, or have any doubt as to 

 whether they have it or not. 



