Sept. 28, 190S 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



681 



River from Peoria south until we get down to Pike county, 

 where I have not heard of any foul brood. When you get 

 down to Pike county there seems to be considerable of it. 



Mr. Dadant — I think I have an answer to that ques- 

 tion, whether foul brood will be produced in damp places. 

 Colorado is about as dry a State as there is, and, I believe 

 there is more foul brood to the thousand colonies there than 

 there is in Illinois. California is ;i very dry State, and they 

 hav€ considerable foul brood. I think a great many colonies 

 has more to do with foul brood than temperature or moisture. 

 We find when things are congregated in large numbers there 

 is more chance of disease ; that cities have more disease than 

 farms. In the production of crops a small vineyard will 

 have very little of the black rot, but put them together and 

 it will • start somewhere and spread through the vineyard ; 

 and I believe you will find the same thing where large vine- 

 yards are, and where a number of bees are kept together. 

 I believe that is the main secret of all the diseases. I would 

 like to add with regard to foul brood, it is very difficult to 

 say some things positively in regard to the treatment, as I 

 believe there are different degrees of foul brood, as tliere 

 are different diseases of the throat. Some foul brood is 

 more malignant than others. Therefore you need more care, 

 in which case the inspector has to judge as to how much 

 care he should use. In regard to beeswax, I have never had 

 foul brood at home. We iiave bees in the apiary where we 

 have our comb foundation making. We get beeswax from all 

 parts of the Union and foreign countries ; our bees have 

 access to the beeswax before it is melted. We find it diffi- 

 cult when we take in materials to have very close-fitting 

 doors, so they are opened most of the time in the summer, 

 and we have the bees in there a good part of the time ; we 

 have never had any foul brood from it. Therefore I con- 

 clude it is impossible for beeswax to give foul brood, and 

 the reason is this : When beeswax is melted it soaks into 

 whatever it touches. If you dip your finger in hot beeswax 

 you find it very difficult to work it out, although the mois- 

 ture in the body would be apt to throw it out. Take one of 

 those foul-brood germs and soak it in beeswax, and you 

 deaden it and render it absolutely harmiess, and it surely 

 could not reproduce itself. 



Mr. Reynolds — Mr. Smith states that a swarm hived on 

 foundation with a young queen is not as likely to have foul 

 brood as the swarm shaken from a colony would be. Would 

 it not answer the purpose, instead of keeping those bees so 

 long on foundation, to catch the queen and prevent her from 

 laving, as Mr. Smith says, and close the entrance for four 

 days and they would consume the honey, no matter what the 

 honey-flow would be? 



Mr. Smith — That would be a very good idea, I think, to 

 catch the old queen to keep her from laying. It takes a 

 brood or an egg to develop, I think it is nine days until it 

 comes into a fully-developed pupa — as we call it when it 

 fills the cell ready to cap ; that is the time that foul brood 

 attacks the larva ; and after the bees cap it, then it goes into 

 the nymph state. I have never yet found any bees in that stage 

 of growth or development that were affected with foul brood. 

 It seems that the tissue of it gets so tough that the spores 

 do not enter it. 



Mr. Moore — One gentleman has raised the question as 

 to the great damage that is likely to be done to a bee- 

 keeper by the inspector. I want to ask these people who 

 have had experience in this matter, what is the probable 

 profit from a colony of bees that has foul brood during the 

 season, supposing they are run for honey? Never mind tlie. 

 question of getting rid of the disease, but what profit will 

 you have from those diseased colonies through the season? 

 And what is the damage to the honey crop by the legitimate 

 treatment ? 



Mr. Root — If I might answer that question, from my own 

 experience I would say, generally speaking, there would be no 

 profit. If the colonv could hold its own, if I allowed the 

 disease to run and didn't do anything with it, it would be 

 not a case of profit, but a case of profit and loss, with par- 

 ticular emphasis on the word "loss," with the chance of in- 

 fecting the other colonies. 



Mr. Reynolds — Some inspectors might be a little n. 'ic 

 partial with .some than others. There is a point there to 

 look at. 



Mr. Snell — I would like to ask Mr. Smith if he has 

 found any foul brood in the northwestern part of the State? 



Mr. Smith — Yes, sir ; in Whiteside county there is a 

 good deal of it. 



Mr. Wilcox — I want to get this clear to my own mind. 

 I have never found foul brood in my apiary, and I hoii- I 



never will. I understand from all I have read of it that the 

 disease is transmitted only through honey. Is that correct? 



Mr. Dadant — I believe that is a mistake. Cheshire de- 

 scribed foul brood as Bacillus alvei, and he found it even in 

 the body of the queens. Now, of course, I couldn't answer for 

 what Cheshire said, but he is one of the best authors on 

 bee-culture. Cheshire was a scientific man, but he was not 

 practical ; he was not a man who produced honey. He found 

 germs of foul brood in all parts of the hive. In cases v/here 

 you cure it so readily I don't believe you have the true, 

 dangerous foul brood. Therefore I think we should be very 

 particular. I don't think we can go any too far. Where you 

 cure it by simply transferrmg the bees, that is well. I don't 

 think you should expect to do it in every instance. I be- 

 lieve there are dangerous cases where you will have to 

 transfer the bees and destroy the combs, over and over again. 

 I don't believe you should stand to the statement that foul 

 brood is only in honey. 



Mr. Root — Prof. Harrison gave a paper on that in the 

 Canadian report in which he stated he had found the Bacillus 

 alvai in the ovaries of the queen, as Cheshire has said. But 

 I wish to say, in opposition to that, I have personally intro- 

 duced queens from the worst colonies we have had, into 

 healthy ones, time and time again, and never saw the disease 

 carried ii: that way. I don't mean to say it cannot be done, 

 though. But the experience so far as I know over the country 

 has been to the effect that queens may be taken out of these 

 diseased colonies and put into others, and the disease was 

 not trauFmitted. Why that is so I don't know, but that is 

 the practical result of it. 



Mr. Dadant— Perhaps in this matter the scientific men 

 are deceived by some circumstances. Now, where a man 

 dissects a queen he evidently has to kill her, and those germs 

 of Bacillus alvei are very difficult to produce. It may be a 

 colony partly infected. When he examined the queen the 

 germs have developed since the death of the queen, or in such 

 a way that if the queen had been alive and well she would 

 not have had any germs. At the same time, we must be 

 very cautious and not assert. In this disease it is better to 

 be over-cautious than insufficiently cautious. Therefore. I be- 

 lieve we should be very careful. In regard to boiling, I 

 believe it is a mistake to say it will take three hours of 

 boiling to destroy the germs. At the same time there are 

 men who have found germs after three hours of bo'.img, 

 It may be they got those germs in a short time after the 

 boiling, before they made the examination, and I am in- 

 clined to believe that, because I think anything that is boiled 

 in the matter of life will die. But in such a dangerous 

 disease we must be very careful in asserting the danger does 

 not exist under such and such circumstances. We mav <:^v 

 it is not probable. As Mr. Root says he has not found it, 

 therefore I would be inclined to think he is right, but at tiic 

 same time we must be very careful not to assert the disease 

 does not exist in all parts of the hive. 



Dr. Miller— Calling attention to a point that might be 

 misunderstood in what Mr. Dadant has said, the fact that 

 the germs of foul brood may be found in the body of the 

 queen, does it necessarily follow that the disease will be 

 conveyed by that? It may be there without being conveyed. 

 But going back to the point before: Will foul brood be 

 carried in any other way than by the honey of the hive? 

 If the germs be carried from a diseased colony, no matter 

 what from, the disease may be conveyed to another hive. 

 ■The germs are in the brood. Isn't it possible that that 

 might be carried, sometimes, ar- well as the honey? I sup- 

 pose it is true that the honey is the principal medium, and 

 the usual medium, through which the disease is conveyed, 

 but surely it is not the only medium. If the diseased part 

 itself of the brood be in any way carried from one colony 

 to another, that would surely carry the disease. 



Mr. Wheeler — That is a good point the Doctor makes, 

 and one that is very important The be >s are continually 

 taking out that dead brood. I believe vhen the disease 

 first starts they keep it all clean. I bel'eve the hive for 

 months is perfectly free of any signs ot foul brood, and 

 yet they have it and we don't know it. They keep carry- 

 ing out every bit of foul mat'., r and finally they have to give 

 up in despair. All this time ibit foul brood has been carried 

 on the bottom-board and :uiri a while some of it is left. 

 Now, the ouestion is. Is tlu- t"nl matter that is carried out 

 infectious? That is somethiti'.; worth inquiring into. The 

 question is whether we had 1m fter fumigate our hives and 

 burn them out or not. Some say yes, and some say no. 

 It is an important question. 



(Continued next we ;k.) 



