256 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' HEVIEW. 



like trying to prove a negative so that great- 

 er caution should be exercised in such a 

 matter than would allow one to place re- 

 liance upon the favorable results of a dozen 

 experiments not to say one, for so far as 

 is yet known though forty nine such queens 

 might be used without conveying the disease 

 , the introduction of the fiftieth one might 

 entail costly consequences. Nevertheless in 

 feeling my way towards the light on this 

 question I took a queen from a colony affect- 

 ed with foul brood of the worst description 

 and the case was of such a serions nature 

 that at least one half the brood was dead. 

 This was on the 20th of last April. This 

 queen was at once caged and placed in a 

 healthy colony. This colony was strong 

 and apparently in excellent condition except 

 that it was queenless and must have been so 

 for at least three weeks and was consequent- 

 ly entirely without brood in any stage. 

 In thirty six hours the queen was released 

 and accepted by the bees and began to de - 

 posit eggs within a few hours. The colony 

 has prospered as prosperity went during the 

 season full better than the average of the 

 colonies in the apiary. It has been carefully 

 examined at divers times for any appearance 

 of foul brood but up to the present time no 

 indication of the disease can be discovered 

 and it would be entirely safe now I think to 

 say after the length of time that has elapsed 

 that it is quite improbable if not impossible 

 for it now to develope as a result of the 

 queen. It would not nevertheless as I have 

 already intimated be safe to conclude that 

 the disease would never be the result of the 

 introduction of a queen from a diseased 

 colony. But it must be confessed that if a 

 queen taken from a diseased colony and im- 

 mediately placed in another does not convey 

 the disease it would appear extremely im- 

 probable that one which had passed through 

 the mails in a clean cage could do so. But 

 t^ere is a contingency to be considered. It 

 is possible, that, in the colony which is the 

 subject of the experiment, -as the period 

 which has elapsed is that during which the 

 hive contains the largest amount of brood, 

 a diseased cell or two might have escaped 

 the closest scrutiny and that the disease 

 might even lie dormant there for a consid- 

 erable length of time before the circum- 

 stances are such as to favor its dissemina- 

 tion. 



The question has been raised before as to 

 whether foul brood may lose its vitality and 



disappear of itself. L. C. Root in his 

 Quinby's New Bee-Keeping mentions the 

 fact that it disappeared from his apiary in 

 1870 without any effort on his part. But it 

 does not appear that such disapearance 

 often happens, nor has the cause of such 

 disappearance been divined. In a former 

 report I mentioned the case of a colony 

 which I have had under observation for 

 several years. At different times it contain- 

 ed dead brood which seemed to answer in 

 every point the description required for 

 foul brood but the disease if such it was kept 

 at most but a slender hold on the colony. 

 During the present year observations of the 

 colony have been continued. From exam- 

 inations made in April though the disease 

 itself was not discovered I expected from 

 general appearances to find it later but so 

 far it has not done so and the brood has now 

 every appearance of health. 

 Lapeee, Mich. Aug. 14, 1895. 



Why the Union Doesn't Need the North 



American. Some Suggestions if a 



Union should be Effected. 



DK. A. B. MASON. 



^^f^ ELL, Mr. 

 A A Editor:— I'm 

 opposed to the 

 union of the N. A. 

 B. K. A. and the 

 Bee - Keeper's 

 Union, and then 

 again I'm not. I 

 had read your 

 editoral in the 

 •lune Review, but 

 yave the matter 

 little thought till 

 you asked mt' Lu wiuu something on the 

 subject for the August number of the Review, 

 to which request I failed to respond ; and 

 then you've been at me again, and said " but 

 two, Mr. Newman and Mr. Secor have 

 opposed the Union, and as you are opposed 

 to the union, I am especially anxious to have 

 your views for the Sept. Review. " You 

 may regret your rashness. 



I consulted the June, -luly and August 

 Reviews to see what had been said on the 

 subject, and in your editorial in the June 

 number, after having admitted that it " is 

 not possible to make the N. A. a delegated 



