392 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 15 



tract the disease, while unhealthy ones 

 would contract it everywhere and at any 

 time. The facts show an entirely different 

 state of affairs. When foul brood exists in 

 a locality, sound colonies catch it just as 

 well as the others; and, on the other hand, 

 there are plenty of unhealthy colonies in 

 many places that do not contract foul brood, 

 undoubtedly because the g-erms are not 

 there. This seems to roe conclusive ag-ainst 

 Mr. Lambotte's theory. 



J ^A second objection is the difference in 

 vitality of the spores. The Bacillus mesen- 

 tericus spores (if I understand Dr. Lam- 

 botte correctly) resist for years all exterior 

 influences. According to the experiments 

 of Watson, Cheshire, and recently of Dr. 

 Howard, the spores of Bacillus alvei. while 

 very resistant against chemical agents and 

 pretty high temperature, lose their vitality 

 in two or three days when exposed to the 

 dry open air or the sunlight. A strong 

 proof of the correctness of their opinion is 

 furnished by the success of the McEvoy 

 method of curing foul brood. After elimi- 

 nating any possible contamination through 

 the agency of the honev, the malady can be 

 cured in a few days, even without disinfect- 

 ing the hive. This shows conclusively that, 

 during these few days, the spores that un- 

 doubtedly have been in the atmosphere and 

 on the walls of the hive, and probably the 

 bees themselves, have lost their vitality; 

 otherwise the disease would certainly break 

 out again. 



A third discrepancy is shown in Dr. 

 Lambotte's experiments in trving to inocu- 

 late the disease. He applied a culture of 

 Bacillus niesentericus to some healthy brood. 

 The bees cleaned out brood and culture at 

 once. 



1 have had no personal experience with 

 foul brood; but from what I have read on 

 the subject I feel sure that an application 

 of foul- broody brood on sound brood would 

 have developed a raging case of foul brood. 

 Furthermore, it is known that the bees can 

 not and do not clean out foul brood (see the 

 Dec. 15th issue, 1902, pages 1016, 1017). 



His second series of experiments is ob- 

 jectionable also. Only a fifth of the larvje 

 became diseased with a malady similar, at 

 least, to foul brood. The others were clean- 

 ed out. Moreover, the process he used has 

 no counterpart in the circumstances obtain- 

 ing in the actual colonies. 



I do not say now that Dr. Lambotte is in 

 error; but the objections I have mentioned 

 should be seriously investigated. His ex- 

 periments do not seem to have been con- 

 ducted very judiciously. His first labora- 

 tory experiments seem to have convinced 

 him that Bacillus mesentericus and Bacillus 

 alvei are the same bacillus, and that he 

 tried to force his actual experiments with 

 bees in that direction. 



In trying to inoculate healthy brood with 

 the disease it seems to me that the experi- 

 ments should have been conducted simulta- 

 neously with Bacillus mesentericus froni 

 suitable cultures, and with Bacillus alvei 



from actually diseased colonies, perhaps 

 adding, also, a third series inoculated with 

 cultures of Bacillus alvei. 



I think it was a mistake to kill the larvae 

 to be inoculated. We have no proof that 

 the already dead brood contracts the dis- 

 ease, though it is likely to do so. But in 

 the usual course of events it is the living 

 brood that "gets sick." 



Again, the disease is nearly always (if 

 not always) transmitted through honey 

 containing spores. It seems to me, there- 

 fore, that this mode of transmission should 

 be the one experimented upon — that is, 

 cause some honey to be infec'ed with Bacil- 

 lus mesentericus spores, and feed it to the 

 colony experimented upon, to see if actual 

 foul brood would develop. 



Knoxville, Tenn. 



[The conclusions of Dr. Lambotte are 

 not, if I am correct, generally credited by 

 those bacteriologists who have given the 

 matter any serious attention. Facts from 

 practical every- day experience, as you point 

 out, disprove them in every important par- 

 ticular. — Ed.] 



FORMXLDEHYDE Q^S AS A DISINFECTANT. 



Its Properties and How it Should be Applied ; its 



Repeated and Long cnn'inued Application 



Essential. 



BY J. R. HAGAN. 



"Formaldehyde gas is a complex, un- 

 stable body, and failure in its use as a dis- 

 infecting agent re&ults from an imperfect 

 knowledge of its properties, its limitations, 

 and its methods of production" (Resenau). 

 Commercial formalin is a solution of water 

 and wood alcohol, containing 40 per cent of 

 formaldehyde gas, the wood alcohol being 

 added to make it more stable. It being an 

 unstable body, and subject to evaporation, 

 it seldom contains the full 40 per cent, even 

 when it is put up with the greatest care. 



Formaldehyde gas is of about the same 

 specific gravity as air at ordinary tempera- 

 tures, thus making it necessary to generate 

 it as fast as possible, and in large quan'i- 

 ties, so as to expel the air and cause the 

 gas to reach every part of the room or com- 

 partment to be disinfected. The gas must 

 be brought in direct contact with the materi- 

 al to be sterilized; in fact, it has its power 

 by uniting with nitrogenous organic and 

 decomposing matter, turning them in o new 

 chemical compounds which are sterile. 



Surgeon- General Sternberg places this 

 gas next to fire as a disinfectant, but it is 

 not considered an insecticide of any great 

 value, for bedbugs, crickets, etc., can live 

 almost indefinitely in the s'rongest fumes 

 of the gas. Rabbits subjected to the fumes 

 of the gas for a half hour show no ill effects, 

 except irritation of the lungs and mucus 

 surfaces, but may eventually die of pneu- 

 monia: therefore, when using it, care should 

 be taken not to inhale its fumes. 



