March, 1919 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



149 



FROM THETIEtDX)F EXPERffi 



•,4k- 



^M 



IS IT A SAFE PRACTICE? 



Two Beekeepers Who Do Not Approve Kight's 

 Foul Brood Treatment 



On page 21 of the January issue of 

 Gleanings appears an article under the title, 

 "Is it a safe practice?" The article de- 

 scribes what is called ' ' the nursery meth- 

 od" of treating a "mild" case of American 

 Foul Brood. Now, Mr. Editor, I am one of 

 those "foul-brood inspectors" (we call 

 them inspectors of apiaries out here in Cali- 

 fornia) who does, most emphatically, ques- 

 tion this "method of cure." I disapprove 

 for the following reasons: 



(1.) The method is in opposition to all the 

 accepted scientific data we possess in regard 

 to American foul brood. These data have 

 been accumulated thru many years of the 

 most careful and painstaking study and 

 experimentation on the part of both scien- 

 tific and practical beekeepers. Suppose it 

 be granted, for the sake of the argument, 

 that ' ' some good beekeepers have tried the 

 method with excellent results." I would 

 answer that statement with the Editor 's 

 own words: "It is probably true that the 

 disease may api)ear in some other combs. ' ' 

 Is not that statement, in itself, enough to 

 convince anyone that the method is unre- 

 liable? 



A method that does not certainly eradi- 

 cate disease, is not, and cannot justly be 

 caUed, a cure. 



Picture in your mind the condition of af- 

 fairs that would exist in the apiary of the 

 average beekeeper who tries to treat Ameri- 

 can foul brood according to this method. 

 If it is a genuine ease of American foul 

 brood, even tho only a few cells appear, 

 there is no doubt but that other combs will 

 show the disease sooner or later. These 

 combs will have to be looked for, found, 

 and treated. The process must go on until 

 the last vestige of the disease has been 

 eradicated. The method of treatment re- 

 solves itself, finally, into a continuous per- 

 formance in which, instead of eradicating 

 the disease, the beekeeper is engaged in 

 juggling diseased combs and colonies in the 

 midst of a more or less healthy apiary. 



(2.) My second objection for disapprov- 

 ing even the publicity of such a method of 

 treatment of American foul brood is, that 

 it tends to lessen the sense of danger and 

 dread of the disease that should always 

 exist in the minds of all beekeei^ers. 



There are entirely too many beekeepers 

 who treat the matter of brood diseases 

 lightly. The author's views of the details 

 of this method of treatment are bound to 

 create, or encourage, the belief that foul- 

 brood infection is not as jeontagious as care- 

 ful inspectors say it is.' 



What is still worse; Mr. Kight's publish- 

 ed endorsement of such unscientific methods 

 tends to increase the number of those who 

 are willing to hazard their own and their 

 neighbor 's interest for the sake of a doubt- 

 ful experiment. If one man can try his lit- 

 tle scheme of treatment and get by with it, 

 why should not an inspector let every Tom, 

 Dick, and Harry tinker with disease to his 

 heart's content? 



What is needed, in order to rid the coun- 

 try of the scourge of foul brood, is a whole- 

 some dread of the infection — a dread that 

 will prevent any such tinkering with dis- 

 ease as described in the article referred to. 



(3.) My third reason for disagreement is 

 found in the statement of the editorial note 

 as to the people who are most likely to be 

 benefited or injured by this publication. In 

 my humble opinion, the ' ' careless man ' ' is 

 the very fellow who is most likely to try 

 the method. "The "careful man" will not 

 try the method at all! Perhaps this is but 

 the statement of personal opinion; in which 

 case, the opinion of the authorities in bee 

 culture would naturally outweigh that of a 

 mere "foul-brood inspector." But if the 

 opinion of an inspector is worth anything, 

 it seems to me that it should be uttered in 

 favor of more drastic treatment of all brood 

 diseases; and that all temporizing, and much 

 of the experimenting that is done, should be 

 eliminated. The danger is not confined to 

 the apiary that it infected, but menaces all 

 the bees in the country. 



Whoever called this treatment of Ameri- 

 can foul brood ' ' the nursery method " is to 

 be congratulated on his choice of a name. 

 It is, without doubt, a nursery of the dis- 

 ease. Eobert B. McCain. 

 Inspector of Apiaries for Santa Barbara 



County, Calif. 



An article entitled "Is It a Safe Prac- 

 tice?" telling of the mild cure for Ameri- 

 can foul brood, appeared in the January is- 

 sue, page 21. May I venture to say from 

 experience that it is not safe without one 

 or two qualifications. Either the treatment 

 should be employed only during a good hon- 

 ey flow, or else the diseased brood should 

 be removed entirely from the flying range 

 of the bees treated. With either of these 

 conditions suj^plied one can effect a consid- 

 erable saving by using this plan, provided 

 you figure foul brood is with you, like 

 * ' poor relations, ' ' to stay, and the effort is 

 merely to keep it in check. 



Here 's a tip on foul brood that 's worth 

 remembering: If you are sufficiently afraid 

 of it, it will not be liable to hurt you much; 

 and just about the time you lose your fear 

 of it, you are liable to get a pretty good 

 jolt. 



I decided once that I was not afraid of 



