390 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 15. 



for the valuable information he has given us, 

 and for the clear way in which he has discrim- 

 inated between spores and bacilli. 



As I understand him, the purpose of medi- 

 cating syrup fed to bees is to kill the spores 

 immediately on their entrance to the bacillus 

 form, as well as the bacilli themselves. Drugs 

 can in no sense kill spores; but if the syrup is 

 medicated with the proper antiseptics, when 

 the spores do hatch ( if I may adopt an un- 

 scientific term) the microscopic life is killed 

 at once. 



This naphthol beta is something that I be- 

 lieve American bee-keepers can use with profit, 

 especially those who have had foul brood in 

 their vicinity or at least have had it in years 

 gone by, and are troubled with its reappear- 

 ance occasionally. If every year all the syrup 

 fed to the bees in such apiaries is medicated 

 with naphthol beta, the time will come when 

 the last traces of the disease, even in the spore 

 form, will be wiped out. — Ed.] 



FOUL BROOD. 



Danger from Improper Diagnosing. 



BY W. A. H. GILSTRAP. 



Mr. Root: — On page 224 you think it is 

 Prof. Cook who thought Mr. Jackson had no 

 foul brood. Yes, it was ' ' our own Prof. 

 Cook." I am not sure it was foul brood, 

 but in common with many others I believe it 

 very confidently. Repeatedly I have heard 

 Mr. Jackson give Prof. Cook's words on re- 

 ceiving a sample of the diseased brood, which, 

 as my memory serves me, is this : " I do not 

 think your bees have foul brood ; in fact, I 

 state positively that they have not." 



I suppose from the language used that he 

 judged from appearance without using a glass; 

 but " they died ; ah, they died ! " 



Mr. Jackson is a venerable gentleman 

 whose word has never been questioned that I 

 know of, and I believe his photo would be 

 accepted by any physiognomist as a splendid 

 type of honesty. He never questioned the 

 honor of Prof. Cook, neither do I. 



J. W. Paine, of Selma, the Fresno Co. In- 

 spector, and the writer, evidently made a 

 bungling job on Mr. Paine's bees, and the 

 Tulare Co. inspector did as bad or worse with 

 Q. L. Abbott's bees. To explain these cases 

 would probably be unprofitable. 



Had I thought you would think so quickly 

 that I referred to Prof. Cook, his identity 

 would have been better hidden. The aim was 

 to show that it is unsafe for a scientist to judge 

 without a glass, or for any one to suppose 

 that this fatal malady (or what resembles it so 

 closely) could recover by climatic influence 

 when extracting honey. If it takes an expert 

 to detect this deadly enemy, with a micro- 

 scope, our case is almost desperate. 



Grayson, Cal , April 3. 



This was referred to Prof. Cook, who re- 

 plies : 



DIAGNOSING FOUL BROOD WITH A MICRO- 

 SCOPE IMPRACTICABLE ON THE PART OF 

 THE AVERAGE BEE-KEEPER, AND 

 WHY ; THE LATE RAINS IN CAL- 

 IFORNIA. 



Dear Mr. Root: — I wish to thank you and 

 Mr. Gilstrap for your courtesy in calling my 

 attention to the article on page 224 of Glean- 

 ings, and giving me opportunity to reply to 

 the same. I have had a great many inquiries 

 regarding foul brood since I came to Califor- 

 nia, and so of course I do not remember Mr. 

 Jackson's sample. I can say, however, that 

 I am always very careful before expressing an 

 opinion in any such case. If I wrote Mr. 

 Jackson that his bees positively had not foul 

 brood, I feel very certain that there were no 

 signs of it in the sample sent. I regret ex- 

 ceedingly if any thing I wrote led to such dis- 

 astrous results, but I am very positive that, if 

 he sent me a sample of foul brood, I could not 

 have been mistaken in my diagnosis. 



You are quite right in the opinion that the 

 microscope test is not practicable for the ordi- 

 nary beekeeper. A good ^4-inch objective 

 will show the bacillus ; but the latter has to 

 be stained, and this requires microscopic dex- 

 terity. A good microscope could be had for 

 from twenty to thirty dollars — one that would 

 bring out these germs ; but the skill and dex- 

 terity required in manipulation and determi- 

 nation would make it of little use to the aver- 

 age bee-keeper. 



But I do not think it is necessary to use 

 the microscope to determine the presence of 

 foul brood, especially when in the active state. 

 The brown ropy mass in the cells is a sure in- 

 dication that the disease is present ; and if no 

 dead brood shows this I should unhesitatingly 

 declare the disease absent. If we add to this 

 the characteristic odor, the sunken cap, and 

 the perforations through the latter, we may be 

 absolutely sure of the disease, without the 

 microscope. I have often received cases with 

 dead brood where none of these symptoms 

 were present, and in such cases I have felt 

 warranted in pronouncing the colonies ex- 

 empt. Of course, it may be that there was 

 foul brood in the apiary, but not in the sam- 

 ple sent. I can make no specific explanation, 

 as I do not remember the special case. 



I do not think that foul brood is very apt to 

 leave an apiary when once established. I 

 have known several apiaries in California en- 

 tirely ruined by it. I would not say, how- 

 ever, that bees might not recover from this 

 trouble, though I have always had mv doubts. 

 Some of the best bee-keepers in California 

 have assured me that they have known it to be 

 present, and afterward disappear. 



Although we have had rains of late, we 

 have had less than seven inches for the season. 

 This is only half of our average at this place, 

 and only about half of what is generally sup- 

 posed to be requisite to secure any honey crop. 

 I presume there will be little honey taken 

 from this section this year, yet I think we 

 shall have to have experience to know. It is 

 possible that, even with so light a rainfall, it 

 might come at such a time as to secure a 

 honey-flow. I think most of our bee keepers 



