Mar. 21, 1907 



American Hee Journal 



found on over-ripe fruit, left on the 

 trees after it should have Ijeen gathered, 

 and which offers them food from burst- 

 ing skins and soft or rotten spots, and 

 places that have been pecked by birds. 



Contracting Foul Brood. 



The first question announced by the 

 Secretary was: "Will bees contract foul 

 brood from surplus honey produced on 

 colonies that have foul brood?" 



Mr. Dadant — I would like to hear 

 from our President in- regard to that 

 matter. 



Pres. Smith said it was probable they 

 would. Such conditions would only oc- 

 cur in seasons when the honey-flow 

 was very free. 



Mr. Dadant — Is it not true that the 

 bee coming from the field sometimes 

 gives its honey to some other bee to 

 carry to the cell? 



President — I do not believe the one 

 stores the honey that gathers it. 



Mr. Kildow — Do you believe it is 

 possible for a colony that has foul 

 brood ever to get rid of it? 



Mr. Black — If my bees were where 

 they could get honey from any source 

 where there was a bit of foul brood I 

 would not touch it. 



Mr. Dadant said that a great deal 

 had been learned about foul brood at 

 the San Antonio meeting, and referred 

 to the very interesting report of Dr. 

 White. Specimens of foul brood were 

 shown there and the bacillus described 

 as in appearance like two tiny sticks 

 held together by a more slender con- 

 nection between them. The two little 

 sticks end to end, united by the slight- 

 er joining. These bacilli develop rapid- 

 ly, the slender joining breaking, and 

 each end then becoming one by itself, 

 and it developing and breaking in two, 

 becoming two more, and this process 

 is repeated every half hour. And they 

 remain in honey for years, and when 

 conditions are favorable, as soon as 

 they find a proper medium, will begin 

 to develop foul brood. 



Mr. Kildow said he was very much 

 interested in this matter of foul brood; 

 that it was one of the things he came 

 to this meeting to hear about. He has 

 kept bees since 1880 and never had 

 any experience with it until the past 3 

 years. He had bought some bees from 

 'a man who wanted to sell out, represent- 

 ing that his bees were all right, but when 

 he got home Mr. Kildow found they 

 had foul brood. He said Mr. Smith 

 was up in 1905. Out of 40 or 50 colon- 

 ies 31 were infected with the disease, 

 and there it was right under their noses. 

 It is almost useless for one man to clean 

 it out of his own colonies when his 

 neighbors allow it to increase in theirs. 



Under these circumstances Mr. Kil- 

 dow was very much interested in getting 

 a foul brood law, and thinks we might 

 get something like the law they have 

 in Ohio. He would be in favor of 

 making the bees pay what expense there 

 might be attached to the enforcement ot 

 the law. 



Mr. Johnson spoke at some length 

 on the use of disinfectants, and gave 

 some valuable information relative to 

 experiments that had been tried. He 

 had read a great deal on the subject, 

 and had some correspondence with the 



Department at Washington. He said 

 there were just two disinfectants — 

 sulphur and formaldehyde — and told 

 Iiow the latter had been successfully used 

 in disinfecting a house with the windows 

 wide open; his theory being that to 

 secure the best results the air should 

 be freely admitted, the oxygen being 

 necessary to the proper action of the 

 chemical. He advocated the McEvoy 

 theory. 



The question as to whether the bacilli 

 were in the beeswax was brought up. 



Mr. Dadant thought the only safe way 

 was to melt up all the combs and us« 

 up all the honey. 



]\Ir. Johnson thought we should not 

 be satisfied with opinions of others, l)ut 

 leave nothing undone to learn more on 

 this subject. He said: "The inspec- 

 tor of today should be an experimenter 

 all the time. You perhaps all know 

 that I have always condemned the for- 

 maldehyde treatment for disinfecting 

 when used in an air-tight compartment. 

 I want to give a little more informa- 

 tion on this subject. I find that Prof. 

 Newman, of Kings College, London, 

 as well as Prof. Koch, the greatest Ger- 

 man bacteriologist, agree that formalde- 

 hyde is not a disinfectant of itself, but 

 that the gas-formaldehyde must be 

 united with o.xygen in order to disin- 

 fect. The Department at Washington 

 claims that the gas is a disinfectant of 

 itself by its affinity to things nitro- 

 genous. However, last summer there 

 were 3 cases of smallpox in our vicinity 

 in one family. The doctor disinfected 

 that house in 5 days with formaldehyde 

 with the windows and doors open a 

 good share of the time, and the family 

 ate and slept in the house during disin- 

 fecting. The children have gone to 

 school all fall and people visited them 

 and slept in the beds in which the pa- 

 tients were treated, no clothing nor bed- 

 ding being burned. And no spread of 

 the disease resulted. The disinfecting 

 was complete ; while about 10 miles 

 north of us, where formaldehyde and 

 sulphur were used in tight rooms for 24 

 hours, the disease spread in an alarm- 

 ing state. The cases in our neighbor- 

 hood came from a visitor just out of 

 quarantine where air-tight fumigation 

 was used. So it seems that there is 

 much to learn yet about formaldehyde 

 as a disinfectant, especially among bee- 

 keepers. And I want to add with great 

 emphasis that formic acid, and not for- 

 maldehyde, is the real disinfectant ; and 

 if an air-tight tank be used in disinfect- 

 ing combs there will be no formic acid 

 produced, consequently no thorough dis- 

 infecting. Practice the McEvoy plan 

 until we know more about gas treat- 

 ment, but let our experimenters not give 

 up formaldehyde, as that will be the 

 'plan' when better known and properly 

 used." 



Mr. Hinderer said he had raised that 

 question, and wanted to know if the 

 practice of allowing bees from clean 

 hives access to bees and the honey from 

 hives infected with foul brood was 

 dangerous. 



Mr. Holekamp — I, too, am much in- 

 terested in this discussion. We have suf- 

 fered a great deal from this trouble. 

 We formed a club for the purpose of 

 assisting each other in dealing with it. 



Mr. Holekamp also said that he had 

 experimented with it, keeping a piece 

 of foul brood a whole year in his of- 

 fice. He thought there was danger of 

 its being carried, and said we could not 

 expect to make much progress in get- 

 ting rid of it as a long as all did not 

 work together to that end. He said any 

 foul brood law should compel inspec- 

 tion. The greatest danger he saw was 

 in the shipment of honey. Comb honey 

 will leak. Boxes will be thrown out 

 in the back yard, and bees will clean 

 them up. There should be uniform 

 laws in all the States, and we should 

 not rest until we get bills passed which 

 will compel inspection. Chemicals may 

 be good enough, but we do not want to 

 be using them continually. He had 

 found that an- easy way to destroy bees 

 and the comb. He related some of his 

 experiences with foul brood, and re- 

 peated that it was of little use for one 

 bee-keeper to clean up his hives while 

 others were careless of theirs. 



Other members said their experience 

 had been similar, and thought the in- 

 fection was carried by bees and in the 

 honey. 



Mr. Dadant — Some think they can 

 cure it by simply changing queens. 

 Some do not believe in this shaking 

 business. Some want to scorch the 

 hive. I advocate the use of the Mc- 

 Evoy treatment. 



Mr. Baxter — Two years ago I had 

 a colony I was sure had foul brood. 1 

 had never had it in my apiary, and I was 

 thoroughly scared. I asked advice as 

 to what to do. Upon that advice I 

 changed queens and had no more 

 trouble. 



Mr. Johnson told of one instance 

 where it seemed apparent that the foul 

 brood was brought by the introduction 

 of a new queen. 



As it was getting late Pres. Smith 

 suggested that it was time to adjourn. 



Mr. Stone moved that the first thing 

 to be done in the morning be to take 

 up the consideration of a law for deal- 

 ing with the foul-brood problem, which 

 motion received a second and was car- 

 ried. 



The meeting then adjourned till 9 a. 

 m. on Wednesday. 



Second Day — Morning Session. 



At 9:30 a. m. the convention met 

 again. 



Pres. Smith — The meeting will now 

 come to order, and we will proceed 

 with the order of business. Upon ad- 

 journment last evening it was decided 

 that we should take up the question of 

 foul-brood legislation this morning. 



Foul Brood Legislation. 



Mr. Dadant — It seems to me you, Mr, 

 President, are the best informed man 

 on this matter, having served the As- 

 sociation as Inspector, and we should 

 have your ideas on the subject as to 

 how best the desired laws for the ex- 

 termination of foul brood may be se- 

 cured. 



Mr. Stone — I want to say that I 

 have been on that same committee ev- 

 ery time, and I made it a business to 

 be at the State House twice a week. 



