No. 4.] STATE INSPECTOR OF APIARIES. 123 



[the secretary' of agriculture] on tliis subject of interest to hundreds of 

 beekeepers of this Commonwealth. Cd,n you tell me if there is any legis- 

 lation contemplated to do away with this injustice? 



Co-operation of the Manufacturers of Insecticddes. 



In this connection, in an effort to educate the user of spraying 

 materials, it is suggested that the co-operation of the makers 

 of poisons, the dealers in insecticides and apparatus be in- 

 terested in the protection of bees. The originator of this sug- 

 gestion says that if a farmer uses a brand of " poison while the 

 trees are in bloom and gets no results, no fruit, he'll blame the 

 poison," not his practice. May there not be hope of utilizing 

 this argument with the manufacturers of poison, to the end of 

 their issuing warning tables and instructions? "!\Iake it prom- 

 inent," the writer says, "with the 'skull and crossbones' if 

 necessary, and words to this effect. Do not spray anything in 

 blossom." Some makers are advising against spraying trees in 

 bloom, but as the gentleman says, "it is small type and does 

 not show. One has to hunt for it." Thus here is some evi- 

 dence of the possible utilization of the gentleman's suggestions. 



The waiter has consulted with spray material manufacturers, 

 who show their readiness to co-operate in the interests of bee- 

 keepers. But there is yet a question of just what is to be done. 

 It is hoped that some enterprising manufacturer w411 blaze the 

 trail. 



Further Reports from Massachusetts. 



Newton. 

 In 1910 the writer received an urgent call from the bee- 

 keepers of Newton, who alleged that probably spray poisons 

 had caused them greater losses than diseases. An extended 

 search for diseases was made; samples of any suspicious brood 

 were sent to Washington for diagnosis. The report on each 

 sample was negative, yet the total destruction of colonies and 

 apiaries in the town was general. At that time, however, it 

 was usually contended that arsenical poisons of spray mixtures 

 were not harmful to bees, and therefore some other cause was 

 sought. The beekeepers, however, were satisfied that poison 

 was the cause of this trouble. A beekeeper who is a phar- 

 macist had made the Marsh test for arsenic on honey, with a 



