174 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Mar. U, 



in the hands of a son or daughter with the understanding 

 that he or she could have all the clear profit made out of them 

 over and above the honey needed for family use, and the 

 necessary expense of hives, etc. Too many farmers bring up 

 their children without permitting them to have anything they 

 can call their own, and then when the boys persist in leaving 

 home, or the beautiful young daughter goes to the bad, they 

 wonder why it is. They try to console themselves with the 

 remark, " I always tried to bring my children up to do right," 

 little thinking that what they have called "doing right " has 

 narrowed' the lives of their children down to a vepy small 

 compass. 



Give the boy the bees, give the girl the poultry. Let 

 them have something they can call their own — something for 

 which they will feel tije entire responsibility — and then 

 "doing right " will not seem so much a matter of arbitrary 

 restraint. The right to think and act for themselves will 

 develop the latent manhood and womanhood which will seek 

 all that pertains to it because it will be to them the dearest 

 spot on earth — a home of happiness and contentment. 



Yes; it is too bad to let this delicious sweet go to waste 

 when it means so much to the farmer and his family ; nay, 

 more ; when the very labor necessary to the saving of it may 

 be the means of so sweetening life to some boy or girl that no 

 temptation will have any influence to lead him or her astray. 

 Employment with contentment — and contentment is more apt 

 to exist where there is a feeling of personal ownership — is the 

 best possible cure for any mania to leave the farm and try the 

 hot-house and over-reaching methods of city life, that may 

 come to a boy or girl. 



Surely there is someone on every farm who can find 

 sufficient time to properly care for bees enough to furnish the 

 family with honey, and a few extra pounds for "pin money," 

 or to buy a good book, or something that will be a source of 

 pleasure to the family. If so, it is too bad to let it go to waste. 



Abuse of tlie Smoker. — "It is a very difficult 

 thing to estimate what amount of mortality is caused among 

 bees by the injudicious use of the smoker ; but could it be 

 accurately arrived at, I dare say a good many bee-keepers 

 would be surprised to find what havoc they had caused among 

 the inhabitants of their apiaries by the injudicious and 

 indiscriminate use of even a cold-blast smoker." — Writer in 

 Gleanings. 



Here is food for a good deal of reflection. I confess the 

 matter was never brought so forcibly before my mind until I 

 read the article from which the above is a quotation. Do we 

 really kill our bees by smoking them too much '? We all know 

 how painful smoke is to a member of the human family. Is 

 it equally so to insects? It is true they do not breathe 

 through lungs, as we do, neither do they have the same kind 

 of a nervous organism, but they no doubt have feeling, and 

 possibly the mucous membrane — lining the trachea through 

 which they breathe — is equally as sensitive as that of our 

 throat, bronchial tubes and lungs. But, even if it is not, 

 there can be no question that the smoke is very disagreeable 

 to them, as any one can readily see from the effort they make 

 to get away from it ; and if disagreeable, analogy would lead 

 us to conclude that it is more or less injurious. 



The writer of the paragraph quoted claims that bees are 

 killed by the injudicious use of the smoker, and his arguments 

 to prove the same seem to be well taken. Let this be as it 

 may, there is no question that many bee-keepers, perhaps the 

 majority of them, use the smoker more than is necessary. A 

 few puffs of smoke, if properly directed, is all that is gener- 

 ally needed, as there is no use in smoking bees when they show 

 no disposition to sting. Many people work the smoker like a 

 blacksmith does his bellows, and as though they thought their 

 lives depended upon it. This is not only a foolish but a 

 useless practice, for the truth is the smoker will not throw 

 out as strong a volume of smoke when worked in this vigor- 

 ous way as it will with a more gentle movement. I have often 

 heard bee-keepers say, " Well, if a little is good, a good deal 

 will be better," and, acting in accordance with this, they would 

 pour volumes of irritati-ag smoke into the hive without any 

 thought of the feelings of the bees. As I said above, this is 

 not only a useless practice, but a manifestation of needless 

 cruelty, little becoming one who has any regard for the 

 comfort of "dumb animals," as we are won't to call them. 

 Some of them are not as " dumb " as the people who handle 

 them seem to think. 



YViiitei-iii^ Well.— In spite of the extremely cold weather, 

 reports so far indicate that bees are wintering well. This is indeed 

 surprising. When we remember cold winters are followed by early 

 springs, usually, the prospect so far is encouraging. — Gleanings. 



Cat^adiai;) Beedorr)^ 



Conductea by "BEE-MASTER." 



mr. McEvoy's Foul Brood Report. 



BY BEV. W. F. CLARKE. 



Bee-Ma.stf.r, Sir: — I did not expect to trouble you so soon 

 with another "Echo," but the appearance of Mr. McEvoy's 

 report as Foul Brood Inspector, on page 1.38, compels me to 

 do so. I was not present when that report was read to the 

 Ontario Association, and knew nothing of its contents until I 

 saw it in the American Bee Journal of Feb. 28. The report 

 was presented at an evening session. The weather was 

 stormy. I was stopping with a friend nearly a mile away from 

 the place of meeting, and with sciatica haunting me I did not 

 dare to venture out-doors. Not until I got my American Bee 

 Journal on Friday, did I know that I was virtually put in the 

 pillory, and arraigned as a public criminal in the Foul Brood 

 Inspector's report. 



It will be said, " Why, you are not named." I reply, I 

 might as well have been. All Canadian beedom knows that I 

 live in the County of Wellington where Mr. McEvoy reports 

 having burned three foul-broody colonies. Besides this, 

 Mr. McEvoy, notwithstanding he takes great credit to himself 

 for suppressing names, has made no secret of his having burnt 

 three of my colonies. I question if there were a dozen out of 

 the hundred bee-men present at the Stratford meeting who 

 were not furtively apprized of the fact. How does this look 

 alongside the statement made in the report that a resolution 

 had been passed by the Board of Directors prohibiting any 

 person from getting the names except the Minister of Agri- 

 culture. Moreover, Mr. McEvoy not only as good as names 

 me, but puts a bad mark against me. I am evidently hinted at 

 in the statement : — " Some that had only a few colonies, would 

 be so careless and indifferent about the curing, and would not 

 do as I told them, and then I resorted to stamping the disease 

 out by fire for the public good." Again, he says, " I burned 

 three foul-broody colonies in Wellington county. I was well 

 pleased with the work done by the owners of all other foul- 

 broody colonies." 



I have nothing to conceal in regard to my experience 

 with foul-brood, and nothing to be ashamed of in regard to 

 it. lam rather glad of the opportunity to state, " What I 

 know about foul brood?" Whether I am justly open to 

 the charge of carelessness, indifference, or disobedience to 

 Mr. McEvoy's authority, I will leave the bee-keeping public to 

 judge when I get through with my story. 



In commencing my present apiary in the spring of 1891, 

 I knew I was running a great risk from the proximity of foul 

 brood. Within a half-mile in one direction there was an 

 apiary of 81) colonies that I knew had the disease badly, for I 

 could smell it from the sidewalk. Half a mile in another 

 direction an apiary of 1()0 colonies had gone up with foul 

 brood. A mile off in another direction were the last vestiges 

 of another apiary of 40 colonies that had " pegged out" with 

 the disease. But I wanted to resume bee-keeping if only for 

 the diversion of it, after being unable to enjoy the pastime 

 from various causes for two or three years. Wishing to take 

 every precaution, I obtained an official visit from Mr. McEvoy. 

 He ordered 11 colonies of the 80-colony apiary to be burned, 

 and put the rest under a course of curative treatment. He 

 found a solitary colony over the fence from my apiary grounds 

 rotten with foul brood, and got the owner's consent to 

 burn it at once. He examined my colonies — 16 in number — 

 and pronounced them all right. They consisted of 10 hybrid 

 colonies bought of Mr. R. F. Holtermaun, 3 pure Italians 

 from Mr. Henderson, of Tennessee, and 8 Carniolans from 

 Mr. Turner, of Wisconsin. 



During the following summer I detected the first signs of 

 foul brood, und at once made use of the Cheshire prescription. 

 I also notified Mr. McEvoy that the disease had appeared in 

 my apiary, and he paid me a visit soon afterward. He found 

 mild traces of the disease, but there was no bad case. I was 

 trying the phenol treatment and he wished me to become con- 

 vinced that it was no good, so let me go on with it. He also 

 wanted to try an experiment of his own to which I had no 

 objection. In spring he called to look at the results of our 

 experiments, found them failures, and promised so soon as the 

 honey season began, to come and put my apiary, as he said, 

 "in grand order." He wrote on May 22, 1893, informing me 

 that he had ordered the necessary bar-heads with half-inch 

 strips, also Langstroth frames with full-sized foundation, and 

 directing me to hurry up and have all things in readiness. 



