■=fj*>-; 





128 



SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 



J^ 



committe of this society be discharged, 

 with thanks. 



The motion was seconded and car- 

 ried. 



It was moved, seconded and carried, 

 that the President appoint a committee 

 of three on resolutions. 



Pres. York — I appoint Mr. Hutchin- 

 son, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Whitney as 

 a Committee on Resolutions, to report 

 tomorrow. 



Foul Brood. 



"If foul brood is not foul brood, then 

 what is it?" 



Mr. Taylor — Something else. [Laugh- 

 ter.] 



Mr. France — I imagine what conflicts 

 here is the fact that the Department 

 of Agriculture at Washington has come 

 against this proposition. What has been 

 known out here as foul brood is en- 

 tirely a different disease from that which 

 has been commonly known as black 

 brood in New York State, and those 

 two have conflicted, and the Government 

 has been taking this matter up and de- 

 cided to call both '.'foul brood," but to 

 add an adjective to it, so that what is 

 known through our country here large- 

 ly as foul brood will be called "Ameri- 

 can foul brood," and the so-called New 

 York black brood will be called "Euro- 

 pean foul brood." Unless this change 

 was made, the laws now in existence in 

 nearly all the States that we have upon 

 foul brood would have to be modified; 

 we have gone through with hard work 

 enough to get it, and to have to do it 

 over again would mean a good deal. 

 So the Department has aranged it 

 in that way. We have the two distinct 

 diseases. If any of you have not read 

 carefully Bulletin 79 from the Depart- 

 ment on "Brood-Diseases" — on both 

 European and American foul brood — I 

 have asked that it be put in this year'i 

 Annual Report of the National, where 

 you will have it on file and can read it. 



Mr. Moore — That is my question. If 

 foul brood is not foul brood, then what 

 is it? If I can read correctly, it says 

 that the Bacillus alvei is not found in 

 foul brood, or American foul brood, to 

 use this nomenclature. If that is true, 

 what becomes of Howard and other 

 scientists who say that the Bacillus alvei 

 was the characteristic? We -have not 

 heard from them. We have not heard 

 the last word. Have they all been mis- 

 taken? and what has become of the 



American foul brood, or the old-fash- 

 ioned foul brood, as we know it? 



Mr. France — In the demonstrations 

 that Dr. White, from Washington made, 

 there was this marked difference: Our 

 American foul brood would not develop 

 on the same cultures as the European 

 foul brood, showing a decided difference 

 between the two. The New York black 

 brood or European would develop nicely 

 upon beef as a basis, whereas our other 

 will die — make no attempt to live. 



Mr. Moore — We have been accus- 

 tomed to thinking of Bacillus alvei as 

 the germ of foul brood. Shall we think 

 of Bacillus alvei as the basis of black 

 brood? 



A Member— Exactly. 



Mr. Moore^-What takes the place in 

 American foul brood that was occupied 

 by Bacillus alvei? 



Mr. France — Bacillus larvae. 



Dr. Miller — I am not sure whether 

 I understand this thing or not. It looks 

 to me a little as if you were mixing 

 two different questions. The first is 

 in regard to European and American 

 foul brood, and then there is another 

 different question in regard to Bacillus 

 alvei. 



Pres. York — Bacillus alvei is the same 

 as the New York black brood or Euro- 

 pean foul brood — all the same thing. 



Dr. Miller — It seems to me I under- 

 stand that it was decided that Bacillus 

 alvei was an entirely innocent party, 

 and had nothing to do with either of 

 them. 



Pres. York — I think that is wrong. 



Dr. Miller — Bacillus alvei is the Euro- 

 pean foul brood? 



Mr. France — Yes. 



Pres. York — And Bacillus larvae is 

 the American foul brood. 



Mr. Moore — I want to press this 

 right home. If in the past all of these 

 scientists have been mistaken, who have 

 held up Bacillus alvei as being the germ 

 of foul brood, and we believed them, 

 and -then somebody comes along and 

 says we are mistaken, is our authority 

 good enough to make us throw away 

 all we had in the past and say Bacillus 

 alvei is not in it at all? 



Mr. Taylor — I think there is no doubt 

 that they are right as far as they have 

 gone. The trouble with Howard and 

 those other fellows is that they relied 

 on a single test — I suppose on a micro- 

 scopic test — and I judge that the two 

 Bacilli are alike in appearance; but now 



jrv: :.^A/t;JisLiiS\-^v^i2?;^i;,;SS^ 



