1887 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTUliE. 



93^? 



taken in hand before the case had gone too far. 

 Nevertheless, all such combs went into the wax- 

 pot, and the refuse was carefully buried or burned 

 afterward. 



The lesson was such a K'ood one, and the necessi- 

 ty of always adopting the greatest caution was so 

 thoroughly impressed upon me, that I have never 

 again had the complaint in my own colonies, 

 though it has frequently been brought into my 

 apiaries among purchased bees. The experienced 

 eye will at once nolice the least suspicion of foul 

 brood, and the only thing to do is to put it out of 

 harm's way at once. 



There arc many who are not acquainted with the 

 nature of the treacherous disease; but anyone in 

 doubt about it will observe that, where any of the 

 larvje or older brood retains its original color and 

 form. In many cases drying up to a white cinder, 

 there is then no actual disease, even though some 

 of the younger larvte appear just as rotten as that 

 of the real foul brood; but in the latter case the 

 whole of the dead brood changes color, and be- 

 comes a dark putrid mass. 



Simple dead brood, as above, will generally 

 disappear during the autumn, or simply by giv- 

 ing a new queen; and there is not the least 

 doubt that it has been this slight malady, and not 

 genuine foul brood, which has sometimes been re- 

 ported as curing itself. 1 have never known the 

 real plague to cure itself, though it can be to a 

 certain extent restrained, by an energetic colony 

 with a young queen; and from what I know of the 

 nature of the disease, I never expect to see a self- 

 cure. S.\M. SiMMINS. 



Rottingdean, Brighton, Eng., Nov. 8, 188T. 



Accept our thanks, friend Simmins, for 

 your very kind letter and words of advice. 

 Your statements in reference to the disease 

 in general, agree with our experience. It is 

 possible that some of our neighbors' bees 

 have foul brood, and it is possible that a dis- 

 eased colony lives in some hollow tree in 

 the woods. In the latter event I do not 

 know how we can remove the source of mis- 

 chief unless we scour the country in bee- 

 hunting excursions. We have questioned 

 those who keep bees within a mile and a half 

 of us, and they all unite in sa>ing,so far as 

 we have heard from them, that then- bees are 

 free from all such infections as we have de- 

 scribed to them. If such is the case it is not 

 probable that there is a diseased colony in 

 the woods. I (Ernest) pass among the bees 

 several times a day. I keep track of and 

 advise the boys ; and when I have time I 

 w'ork among the bees myself. If a colony of 

 foul brood is found, I direct as to its mode 

 of treatment, and, as a rule, lam on hand to 

 assist. The two apiarists are very careful 

 men; in fact, as careful as I could be my- 

 self. So closely were the colonies examined, 

 that, with one or two exceptiims, we never 

 found more than one or two infected colonies 

 in an apiary in a single day, and most of the 

 days none at all. Practically speaking, the 

 disease did not exist in our apiary during 

 the summer. But you will urge that foul 

 brood did occasionally manifest itself, and, 

 in consequence of this, there was some- 

 thing in my treatment or management that 

 was not quite right. This maybe true ; but 

 if so, I plead in defense that, at the solicita- 



tion of not a few, I experimented with 

 some of the acid treatments : and while 

 sucli experiments may have been favorable 

 for the further continuance of foul brood, I 

 am the better able to judge regarding tlie 

 merits of this or that treatment ; and con- 

 sequently to advise our over 7000 readers 

 when they get into trouble. Aitt-r having 

 tried the various acid treatments, i feel sure 

 tliat, for efficacy and dispatch, there is no 

 better method than the starvalion plan, 

 coupled with a good antiseptic. 



THE FAMILY POCKET-BOOK. 



DU. MILLER TELLS WHICH OF THE TWO, WHEN THE 

 TWO ARE WON AND ONE, SHOULD CARRY IT. 



fRIEND ROOT:— I'm riled again. On page 743 

 you say, " But I do think it is every wom- 

 an's privilege to have the money an article 

 costs, in place of the article itself, whenever 

 she wishes." Now, I just don't think so— at 

 least, not in some cases. Let me give a case in 

 point. My wife wanted her strawberry-bed clean- 

 ed out. We had had a severe drought, making 

 the ground hard, and the condition of the bed was 

 such that it would take no little strength to do 

 the required work. I told her to hire the work 

 done. No, she wanted to do the work herself, so 

 she could have the money it cost, to do as she 

 pleased. As nearly as I recollect, the matter was 

 loft in a half-settled condition; and before I fairly 

 knew what was going on she had a good share of 

 the bed done, and, like all of her woi'k, it was 

 done in good shape— perhaps better than if the 

 work had been hired. But. For the next 24 hours 

 she was a sick woman, and did not fully get over 

 it for a number of days. In such a case I feel that 

 I have the right to say, "That money must go for 

 the work, and it is not your ' privilege to have 

 the money' the work 'costs, in place of the article 

 itself.' " 



But the very fact that a woman may want the 

 money instead of the article itself, is suggestive of 

 a state of affairs that is radically wrong. It brings 

 to mind a good many cases I have known, one of 

 which I will mention. During m>' boyhood 1 clerk- 

 ed in a country store, and among our customers 

 was a well-to-do farmer who lived quite near. I 

 don't suppose the man thought he was a tyrant, 

 but he was unwilling to furnish his wife what was 

 really necessary to bring up a large family. So 

 sometimes one of the girls could be seen coming 

 down the back alley, through the barn, into the 

 back door of the store, bringing a pillow-slip full 

 of goose feathers, a roll of butter, or what not, 

 to trade for needed goods, unknown to Mr. Nagel. 

 I can hardly blame a woman, in such a case, even 

 for making herself sick for the sake of getting 

 something she needs very much. 



Now, in my judgment there is something radical- 

 ly wrong somewhere, when a woman can spend 

 money only at the pleasure of her liege lord, and 

 must come with a feeling of dread for every dollar 

 she wants. It is a relic of barbarism, or, rather, 

 barbarism itself, to consider the wile as merely a 

 slave or a servant, entitled to a mere pittance, 

 grudgingly doled out, when she wants any money 

 for her own disposal. And when a woman wants 

 the price of an article rather than the article 



