1919 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



377 



against the attack or disease, seems 

 to depend on more than one factor. 

 In the first place, a strong colony is 

 always far better organized than a 

 weak one. As a result, all its meti- 

 bers are, comparatively speaking, in 

 a better state of welfare, and conse- 

 quently in better health. Moreover, 

 in a strong colony the queen — the 

 mother of the colony, and the com- 

 pensating element against loss of 

 life, whatever the cause may be — is 

 well attended to. Again, a strong 

 colony alone can afford the strict ob- 

 servation of principles of sanitation 

 within the hive. Considering that 

 the spores of both B. Larvae and E. 

 Pluton are not easily destroyed, it is 

 difficult to. believe the ordinary 

 cleaning of the combs by the bees is 

 in itself sufficient to remove sources 

 of infection from previously infected 

 combs or to protect clean ones 

 against the lodgment of a source of 

 infection. It is possible that a thin 

 coat of propolis or another resinous 

 substance of some antiseptic value is 

 in addition spread by the bees on the 

 surfaces of the empty cells, thus ren- 

 dering any remaining spores more or 

 less harmless. This view might be 

 offered as an explanation for the suc- 

 cess of the Alexander-House-Miller 

 treatment of European foulbrood, 

 although the requeening is not an 

 insignificant help. Should this view 

 be acceptable, we might ourselves 

 copy this lesson from the bees, and 

 include antiseptic measures amongst 

 our preventive procedures. In any 

 case, it is only too logical to think 

 of antiseptics and disinfectants in 

 combating infections, irrespective of 

 their causative organisms and of 

 whether they are pure or mixed. 



Considering that foulbrood is prin- 

 cipally an alimentary infection of the 

 larvae, it is most essential to prevent 

 the infection of the food. During 

 brood rearing, water is much sought 

 by the water carriers, and it is help- 

 ful to medicate it with a suitable an- 

 tiseptic. No artificial pollen or syrup 

 that has not been previously medi- 

 cated with such an antiseptic should 

 be given to the bees. In addition, it 

 is helpful to replace the hives at 

 least once a year by clean disinfect- 

 ed ones. The gentle spraying in 

 warm weather of the flying bees in 

 front of the hives, also of the combs 

 with their covering bees, and of the 

 eggs and larva? in the cells, with a 

 warm solution of a non-poisonous 

 antiseptic is highly desirable for the 

 protection of the bees against more 

 than one infectious disease. It 

 means trouble and expense, but it 

 means also safety. This practice 

 should be frequently repeated. It 

 will thus reduce the possibility of the 

 establishment of a serious infection 

 to a very low minimum. Anything 

 less than the thorough use of an an- 

 tiseptic in the manner here suggest- 

 ed is next to valueless. An occa- 

 sional spraying of the bees and the 

 combs is merely a wasted energy. 

 The practice should be done method- 

 ically and frequently. Let me say in 

 this connection that, with the proper 

 application of a suitable disinfectant, 



it is sheer waste to advise destroy- 

 ing combs infected with B. Larvae. 



Our next problem is to consider 

 the choice of suitable germicides for 

 both external and internal use, the 

 dosage and the correct method of 

 their application. Generally speak- 

 ing, germicides may be divided into 

 two classes — those which are poison- 

 ous and those which, comparatively 

 speaking, are non-poisonous. Nat- 

 urally our selection, as beekeepers, 

 goes to the second class. But on 

 further examination we find again 

 that most of these preparations, on 

 account of their toxicity (however 

 small it may be in comparison with 

 that of the first class), are decidedly 

 unsafe for Internal administration '.o 

 our bees in appreciable quantities or 

 over a long period. And when we 

 still further examine them we find 

 that those which appear safe unfor- 

 tunately present disadvantageous 

 features which minimize their use- 

 fulness. A watery solution of mer- 

 curic chloride is obviously unsu ; t- 

 able for use in the apiary because it 

 is a deadly poison; but we are not at 

 an advantage, so far as internal ad- 

 ministration to the bees is con- 

 cerned, with any of the germicides 

 derived from coal tar products, al- 

 though the less toxic and most po- 

 tent of them could certainly be used 

 with safety for disinfecting hives, 

 quilts, frames, extractors and other. 

 appliances, so long as they are not 

 intended to be immediately given to 

 the bees. But what about hydrogen 

 peroxide, hypochlorides and allied 

 preparations? Unfortunately these 

 easily decompose, and therefore are 

 almost valueless for medicating the 

 bee-food, though, no doubt, their so- 

 lutions for immediate use (e. g., for 

 spraying with), would be helpful. It 

 is easy to give many illustrations to 

 your readers testifying to these con- 

 clusions, but it is unnecessary to un- 

 dertake this analysis. Almost every 

 germicide that I know of possesses 



advantages and disadvantages, and 

 the attempt to create preparations 

 that would prove ideal for both inter- 

 nal as well as external antisepsis 

 have not met, so far, with an over- 

 whelming success. For the purpose 

 of external antiseptis, I would sug- 

 gest a universal cheap germicide 

 such as chloride of lime, in spite •>{ 

 the unpleasant odor which it gives. 

 It is suitable for disinfecting hives, 

 but it will not do for sterilizing an 

 extractor, because of its corrosive 

 action on metals. A 2 per cent solu- 

 tion of the powder (containing about 

 0.8 per cent of available chlorine) or 

 even a l.S per cent solution will 

 suffice. According to Klein, chlorine, 

 even in such a low dilution as .05 per 

 cent, is capable of killing most bac- 

 terial spores in five minutes. It is 

 my intention to avoid, so far as pos- 

 sible, for economical reasons, recom- 

 mending proprietary articles. I shall 

 be content, therefore, with recom- 

 mending an alternative preparation 

 which has an international reputa- 

 tion and which has ceased to be a 

 proprietary article. I am referring 

 to lysol, which is now manufactured 

 in different countries by several 

 chemical firms. A 2 per cent solu- 

 tion of this antiseptic is sufficiently 

 strong for all our purposes. A re- 

 markable advantage of it is that it 

 acts as a soap, and thus can re- 

 move dirt from the articles under 

 disinfection; but it is wiser (in order 

 to insure thorough disinfection as 

 well as to preserve the power of the 

 germicide) to remove beforehand .ill 

 organic matter by means of soap and 

 water, soap in itself being also of 

 some antiseptic value. Frames in- 

 fected with the organisms of foul- 

 brood should be relieved first of 

 their dead larvse and infected honey, 

 then dipped in a bath of soap solu- 

 tion for half an hour, then in clean 

 water for a similar period, and lastly 

 transferred to a lysol bath (they 

 should be placed erect in the bath) 



Crawford's packing house attracts many a passing tourist who becomes a permanent customc 



