THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



47 



^ Department of 



riticism 



R. L. TAYLOR. 



Hlaine where you nuist. be candid where you can, 

 .\u<\ tie each critic the (lood-natured Man. 



GOLDSMITH. 



H.\STV .\ND ILI.-COXSIDERKn JIDCMKNT 



— SOMK WELL CONSIDERKD F.\CTS 



RKG.\RDING THE BOILING OF 



FOUL BROODY HONEY. 



The time is still within the memory of 

 many of us when th? scientists had a dis- 

 cussion on the then newly re-opened 

 question of spontaneous generation. 

 Glass flasks in great numbers containing 

 suitable organic matter were boiled and 

 then sealed and set aside to determine 

 whether dead matter would produce life; 

 or, in other words, whether there were 

 such a thing as spontaneous generation. 

 Thi^ was all done by trained scientific 

 men; yet results so diflfered for a time 

 these learned men divided upon the 

 question; one party contending that they 

 had conclusively proved by most care- 

 fully conducted tests that life sprung 

 afresh in matter from which all life had 

 been removed and excluded; and that, 

 therefore, spontaneous generation was a 

 fact. The other part\- insisted with equal 

 earnestness that it was impossible; as 

 their numerous experiments attested. So 

 the battle royal waxed hotter. New and 

 ingenious tests were invented; and, at 

 last, it came out that the party who 

 had championed spontaneous generation, 

 scientific men as they were, had not ex- 

 ercised sufficient care, in making their 

 tests, to prevent tlie ingress of life from 

 outside their flasks; and, consequently, 

 had deluded themselves. 



Now there is a question, not of spon- 

 taneous generation of foul brood, but 

 whether fifteen minutes boiling of the 

 germs of foul brood in honey will destroy 



their vitality or not. It ha,s been demon- 

 strated, almost universally, that such 

 boilings will destroy the germs. I might 

 have said universally, without qualifica- 

 tions, had it not been for a case I am about 

 to mention. Time and time again, by 

 divers individuals in actual practice, 

 has it been proved that such boiling 

 renders foul brood germs innocuous 

 to bees. It is to be observed, too, that 

 this is not negative evidence, but 

 positive; i. e., the feeding of foul 

 broody honey, so boiled, to bees, without 

 conveying the disease, proves that such 

 boiling destroys the vitality of the foul 

 brood germs; while, if after a case of such 

 feeding, the colony fed contracted the dis- 

 ease, it would not disprove what the other 

 case proved; but only that the colony had 

 in some way become affected with vital 

 germs of the disease. In what way 

 would be another question. 



I have just intimated that, hitherto, al 

 who have had to deal practically with 

 foul brood have agreed that fifteen min- 

 utes boiling of honey containirig foul 

 brood germs would dlstroy their vitality; 

 and foremost among these has been the 

 editor of Gleanings who has not even in- 

 sisted that fifteen minutes were required, 

 but has taught that a "few minutes" were 

 sufficient. Now comes J. A. Buchanan, 

 who boiled some foul honey ten minutes 

 and fed it to bees with the result that 

 they were "soon rotten with foul brood" 

 (Gleanings, 48); and, forthwith, the edi- 

 tor makes haste, without raising any 

 question of skill or care, on the evidence 

 of this single case, to recant his former 

 opinion; and declares, after referring to 

 Dr. Miller and his citations of scientists 

 who have boiled their cultures of foul 

 brood," I believe one will betaking risks 

 if he feeds such honey if it has been boil- 

 ed for less than three hours." He even 

 goes so far as to say "I feel just a little 

 chagrined for the part I have borne in 

 insisting that a few minute's boiling was 

 sufficient." Why chagrined? Was he 

 not following the evidence of his own 

 senses— evidence a thousand times better 



