386 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 15. 



It begins to look as if the Paddock pure-food 

 bill, now before Congress, would fail to become 

 a law. It is being vigorously assailed by some 

 of the papers as being •' unjust to inventors and 

 manufacturers." The National Dairy Associa- 

 tion, the National Association of Druggists, 

 and we niiglit almost include the National 

 Association of Bee-keepers, all demand it. The 

 opponents of the bill seem to recognize that, if 

 they could only make out that it is a partisan 

 measure, they would be able to kill it. and we 

 fear that they are going to be successful. It is 

 no more partisan, in our estimation, than a bill 

 to repair a levee on the Mississippi River would 

 be. Of course, those who are engaged in the 

 mixing or adulterating business will oppose it 

 with all their might and great capital: and, 

 taking these two elements together, it begins 

 to look now as if the bill would fail to pass. 



FOUL brood; the CHESHIRE VS. THE STARVA- 

 TION PLAN. S. CORNEIL'S CRITICISMS. 



On page 6 of the Canadian Bee Journal for 

 April 1 appears an article entitled " Foul Brood 

 and its Treatment." by S. Cornell. Friend C. 

 criticises both our methods of curing the dis- 

 ease, and the conclusions at which we arrived 

 after experimenting and testing the various 

 remedies. First, he can not understand why 

 we abandoned and ceased to recommend the 

 phenol or carbolic-acid tn^atment when we had 

 several times declared in favor of it as an anti- 

 septic in our earlier reports. We will admit 

 that our first utterances respecting the acid 

 treatment are somewhat at variance with our 

 later statements. This is easily explainable, 

 because our knowledge was progressing: and 

 what we first thought to be true we lat -r con- 

 cluded was incorrect. All first impressions are 

 not liable to be as accurate as those received 

 later. We first thought the acid answered as 

 a check to the further spread of the disease: 

 but later, when the field of our observation and 

 experimentation had greatly increased, and our 

 knowledge of what others had done had been 

 extended, we changed our mind. We haven't 

 the time or space to make numerous quotations, 

 as our critic has done, nor to go into the details 

 affecting this belief, but may give one of them. 

 Toward the latter end of our experiments with 

 phenol, and its effect on foul brood, it so hap- 

 pened that Prof. Sargent, of the Michigan Mil- 

 itary Academy of the Department of Sciences, 

 was home on a vacation. We explained to him 

 the nature of foul brood, and added that it was 

 due to a small microbe, bacillus alvel. Having 

 at his disposal a very tine microscope, and a 

 ^-inch immersion lens, he readily found the 

 hacllll in samples of affected brood which we 

 submitted to him. To make a long story short, 

 he prepared "■ pure cultures" in a series of test- 

 tubes. Some of these he inoculated with bacil- 

 lus alvei. and allowed them to grow and multi- 

 ply, which they did very readily under sterilized 

 cotton. Into these were tiien inti'oduced a solu- 

 tion of phenol, of the strenglii rccum mended by 

 Cheshire. The acid had no t'tfoct whatever, as 

 other tubes could be inoculated from the phe- 

 nolated tubes, and the microscope revealed in 

 each case the gi'owing bacilli. 



Mr. Cornell may challenge the correctness of 

 these experiments of Prof. Sargent: but as they 

 dovetailed nicely with our own experiments in 

 the apiary. I can not think that phenol did 

 much real good, if any, with our bees. If Mr. 

 Cornell will consult a recent bulletin by Prof. 

 Cook he will see that the professor and his 

 associates quite independently came to the same 

 conclusion that we did respecting carbolic acid 

 or phenol. 



Our critic says we did not use the Cheshire 



plan exactly as Cheshire recommended. While 

 we admit that, we thought we did in a practical 

 way: but in view of the failure of the acid to 

 kill the bacilli in the test-tubes, and in view of 

 the corroborative testimony of no less an au- 

 thority than Prof. Cook, besides scores of reports 

 from practical bee-keepers, testifying to the 

 failure of the acid (whose exact statements we 

 haven't time to look up and quote verbatim), 

 we must still insist that our faith in phenol is 

 still weak. However, in spite of all this we 

 might be mistaken in our conclusion; and hence, 

 if another opportunity should present itself we 

 would test the acid exactly a la Cheshire. 



We have run across a few reports — yes, a very 

 few— where carbolic acid cured foul brood. We 

 have also seen reports where salt water cured 

 it, and a dozen other simple remedies. In some 

 of these cases we are sure there was no foul 

 brood, and that the apparent disease simply 

 went away. We find there are some very crude 

 ideas regarding foul brood and what it looks 

 and smells like, and hence supposed cures are 

 no cures at all. 



So far as we can learn, Mr. Cornell has never 

 had any practical experience with foul brood — 

 at least, not to any great extent: and, although 

 a close student, and a correspondent whose 

 writings we read with pleasure, we think that, 

 if he would mix a little practical experience 

 with the disease with which he is dealing, he 

 might modify his opinion also. At all events, 

 it is a pretty safe thing for us to recommend for 

 treating foul brood wiiat w^ have tried and 

 know to be a safe cure, rather than something 

 we are skeptical about, and we imagine that D, 

 A. Jones will agree with us. 



PROF. H. W. WILEY AND ADULTERATED HONEY; 



IS IT A CASE OF OFFICIAL INCOMPETENCY 



AT WASHINGTON ? 



BuLi>ETiN No. 13. of the United States Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, entitled " Foods and Food 

 Adulterants," by H. W. Wiley, Chief Chemist, 

 has recently been laid upon our table. It re- 

 lates to the adulteration of sugar, molasses, 

 honey, and wax. Prof. Wiley, it will be remem- 

 bered, is the author of what Mr. Newman 

 appropriately calls the '" Wiley lie." Years ago 

 he wrote an article for the Popular Science 

 Monthly, stating in all seriousness that comb 

 honey was successfully manufactured, filled 

 with glucose, and capped over by appropriate 

 machinery. The professor was called upon to 

 retract by bee-keepers all over the land; and 

 finally, years afterward, he admitted that his 

 article in the Popular Science Mnntldy was 

 only a "scientific pleasantry," and that he had 

 no idea it was possible to manufacture comb 

 honey. Well, now, in the bulletin above men- 

 tioned, page 744, the same chemist says: 



•* Many samples of comb honey containing only 

 glucose have come under my observation. But 

 in all these cases, the comb, presumably after 

 the separation of the honey by a centrifugal 

 machine, was evidently placed in glassed bot- 

 tles, and the glucose then added. I have never 

 yet found a sample of comb honey sold in the 

 frames which was artificial, except in the use of 

 comb foundation." Here we have the professor 

 down in plain black and white; and why 

 couldn't he have been candid enough to give 

 utterance to a similar statement years ago ? 



Now, instead of attacking bee-keepers on the 

 score of comb honey, he and his associates have 

 struck out on a new line; and that is, pi'onounc- 

 ing, by chemical analyses, that nearly all liquid 

 honey is adulterated. 

 Pnifi^ssor W.. it seems, appointed seven or eight 

 chemists lo analyze each some fifty samples of 

 honey. These analyses are all numbered and 



