2 BULLETIN 809, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE. 



disease have not been attempted by the writer. It will be readily 

 recognized, however, that any treatment that is efficient and at the 

 same time economical must be determined by results obtained by the 

 solution of such problems as those which have received attention in 

 these studies. 



The facts may tend to engender fear for the disorder in some in- 

 stances while in others they may tend to aUay it and to offer encour- 

 agem.ent. It is hoped, however, that no statement made here wiU 

 cause any beekeeper to lessen the vigilance that the disease requires, 

 nor, on the other hand, to increase it to a point that would render its 

 control uneconomical. 



The discussions in the present paper are based almost entirely upon 

 observations made in the laboratory and in the experimental apiary. 

 The value of the results is emphasized by the fact that the disease 

 produced experimentally and the disease encountered in nature are 

 identical in almost every respect. It is believed that the paper^ wiU 

 be of interest not only to the practical beekeeper who wishes to apply 

 the results noted here in the practice of his profession, but also to 

 those who may desire to make further studies on the disease. 



NAME OF THE DISEASE 



That bees suffer from diseases is recorded in works written before 

 the Christian era but it is not altogether clear what the diseases were. 

 In 1771, Schirach (19)^ was using the term "foul brood" for an 

 abnormal condition of the brood of the bees, but from his conception 

 of the cause of the disorder one is led to believe that more than one 

 abnormality was being referred to by the term. In 1882 Dzierzon 

 (11) had definitely concluded that there were two kinds of foulbrood. 

 Cheshire expressed a similar belief in August, 1884, but by September 

 he had reached the conclusion that there was but one. 



In 1885 Cheshire and Cheyne (9) published an article containing the 

 results of some studies on foulbrood including a description of Bacillus 

 alvei. For more than a decade after the appearance of the paper, 

 the view was quite generally accepted that there was but one disease 

 present in the condition that was being called foulbrood and that 

 B. alvei was the cause of it. Many American beekeepers, those in 

 New York State especially, became convinced, some time during the 

 decade from 1890 to 1900, that two serious brood diseases were being 

 referred to by the one name — foulbrood. 



That there are two such diseases has been conclusively proved. 

 In the United States the one characterized by a decided ropiness of 



1 The studies reported in the present paper are similar in nature to those made by the writer on sacbrood 

 (25), Nosema-disease (26), and European foulbrood (27). These papers may be helpful where the dis- 

 cussions in the present one are especially brief. The investigations were completed in September, 1916, 

 and the paper was submitted for publication in October, 1918. 



2 Figures in parenthesis refer to "Literature Cited," p. 42. 



