AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



577 



three supers ; a few having only two, a 

 large majority three, some four, and a 

 very few having even five supers. Now, 

 with all this room, at night, when all 

 the bees were at home, they would lie 

 out, with an opening all the way 

 around the hive, except at the back, the 

 front being raised from the bottom- 

 board and blocked up at the front 

 corners K to % of an inch. 



We used separators, but only put two 

 in each super, so that there were two 

 rows of sections, a separator, three rows, 

 another separator, then two rows. So 

 there was only one row of sections — 4 

 out of 28 — that did not have a separator 

 on one side ; and not one out of 1,000 

 but could be crated almost as fast as 

 they could be handled, except once in 

 awhile where a foundation had fallen 

 down. 



Let it be remembered, that this is not 

 so hot a climate as it is further from the 

 mountains, and almost any night we can 

 sleep under one or two covers. 



Writers should tell us more about the 

 system they use. There are many roads 

 by which we may travel, and all will 

 take us to the same place. But one goes 

 by Doolittle's, another by Dadant's, a 

 third by Heddon's. Then there is the 

 Elwood-France route, and a good one it 

 is, too. Now, when we go by these 

 routes we must remember that they are 

 not alike, and it will not do to put on the 

 brake just at the same time and distance 

 on each, but keep your eyes open, and 

 put on brakes, or use the whip, when 

 needed. 



Ft. Collins, Colo. 



Wliat Causes Fonl-Brooi, W Contagion? 



C. J. ROBINSON. 



Some time ago a correspondent of a 

 bee-periodical propounded a problem of 

 great importance to bee-keepers. The 

 question reads: "What causes foul- 

 brood to start in an apiary, when not 

 introduced from another that has it ?" 

 Mark you, that the question recognizes, 

 as a fact, that foul-brood does occur 

 when 7iot introduced by contagion. The 

 problem does not involve any question 

 as to whether or not foul-brood ever 

 originates in a colony spontaneously, but 

 only asks what causes it to start inde- 

 pendent of contagion. 



The editor, in attempting to answer, 

 totally ignores the plain import of the 

 question, and rules out the only point 

 submitted, to-wit : What starts foul- 



brood when not started by contagion ? 

 He says : 



I am sure I am right when I tell you that 

 foul-brood never starts in an apiary unless 

 there has already been some of it in the 

 vicinity, or some honey, in some shape or 

 other, has, by some means, brought it into 

 the locality, and the bees have been per- 

 mitted to get a taste of it. Foul-brood can 

 no more originate itself than can a hill of 

 corn originate itself. Chilled brood, suffo- 

 cated brood, or dead brood, can in nowise 

 or manner originate foul brood. I have 

 conversed, in regard to the matter, with 

 our best professors of entomology, and 

 with scientific men familiar with all the 

 problems of spontaneous generation and 

 vegetable life. There is no such thing as 

 any plant or animal starting up without a 

 seed or germ. 



Varieties may grow and develop, and 

 new species may be originated by natural 

 or artificial selection, but no plant starts 

 up unless the seed was planted by nature 

 or by man. Sometimes it is a little difficult 

 to tell just where the disease did come 

 from, but let an expert look the matter 

 over, and I think he will tell you, generally, 

 where it was contracted. 



If the doctrine advanced by our good 

 friend could do no serious injury, I would 

 not interpose a criticism, and I am only 

 prompted by a desire that bee-keepers 

 have knowledge of facts that are sus- 

 ceptible of being, and have been, proved, 

 instead of grave error. It is because 

 bee-keepers have been uninformed as to 

 "what causes foul-brood to stmt," that 

 so much injury has been done by it. 

 There can be no need of treatment to 

 cure, in but few cases, when the cause 

 is generally known. 



It appears that the editor has not in- 

 vestigated the cause of foul-brood, yet he 

 teaches everybody who is equally as com- 

 petent as himself to deal with the prob- 

 lem, that his guess is "right." His 

 illogical view of the case in question, his 

 belief or disbelief counts no more than 

 did the views of the self-inspired " scien- 

 tists" who disbelieved Newton's theory 

 that the earth " do move." 



The editor says : " Let an expert look 

 the matter over." I agree with him, 

 that experts are competent to teach 

 matters in which they are skilled. 



Kindly, I ask correspondents, whether 

 or not it is always proper to bear in 

 mind, when we write for publication, 

 that it is not justifiable to record our 

 individual belief— "I believe" so and so — 

 but mention no special reasons for such 

 belief ? We ought to be mindful of the 

 fact that mere belief goes for naught. 

 If I cannot believe the account of Jonah 

 remaining three days of his life in a 

 great fish, and believe that foul-brood 



