February 10 , 1881 . ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 117 
TO 
am 
HE BEE-KEEPER. 
. i. i . i. i ,-r . i. i. i . i. 
CONGRESS OF GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN BEE¬ 
KEEPERS. 
(Continued from page 34.) 
Dr. Pollman read a paper on “ The Way to Cure a Colony which 
Breeds Drones Only.” The statements of this highly educated bee- 
master gave rise to a rather excited discussion. Clausmeyer pro¬ 
posed to remove the entire colony, and to put another queen with a 
few brood combs into the hive, allowing the drone-breeding colony 
to enter that part of the hive intended for the storage of honey. The 
honey-gathering bees of the latter colony in that case would join the 
new queen, while the drone-breeding queen would be stung to death. 
But Mr. Clausmeyer would very rarely attempt to cure a drone-breed¬ 
ing colony except in spring. In the autumn he would destroy such a 
stock without the least hesitation. 
Count Pfeil introduced the question, “ How may the queen be pre¬ 
vented in the most simple and inexpensive manner from having access 
to that division in ‘ Stander ’ and ‘ Lager ’ hives intended for the stor¬ 
age of honey.” The speaker objected to the queen-excluder, and re¬ 
commended Vogel’s canal, which, by-the-by, Mr. Vogel, the distin¬ 
guished author, is too modest to call his own invention. Mr. Giibler 
replied that he was in favour of the use of perforated zinc, the intro¬ 
duction of which would change the entire system of bee-keeping on 
scientific principles. Breeding would in future take place in the 
division for the honey, and honey would be stored in the division for 
the brood. Colonies of bees need no longer be separated, only the 
queens must be excluded at the proper time. Knobel of New-wied 
mentioned some of the drawbacks of Vogel’s canal, his principal 
objection to it being that it is an obstacle in cases when hives are to 
be removed to another place. 
FOUL BROOD. 
Mr. Erey of Nurenberg favoured the meeting with a most instruc¬ 
tive speech on foul brood, the most dreaded of all diseases of bees. 
Starting with a few general remarks as to the origin of low organisms 
the speaker proceeded as follows :—The fungus of putrefying matter 
consists of exceedingly small thread-like or oval cells, which increase 
very rapidly by continuous division. Bacteria, which are the cause 
of foul brood in bees, belong to the same class of fungi. Time will 
not allow me to enter fully into a description of the putrefaction of 
the brood. I can merely state in a few words the conditions which 
favour the spread of this destructive disease, and the means the bee¬ 
keeper should adopt to combat it successfully. Foul brood is of two 
kinds—1st, Non-contagious ; 2nd, Contagious. The former may be 
caused by rainy or cold weather chilling of the bees, and especially 
the brood ; uncleanliness while stimulative food is administered ; feed¬ 
ing with honey or pollen in a state of fermentation ; too high a tempe¬ 
rature in the hive, and in consequence copious condensation of aqueous 
vapour. The latter may be caused through healthy bees robbing 
colonies infected with foul brood, uniting healthy and diseased 
colonies while they are breeding, and through placing a colony into 
a hive which has been inhabited by bees suffering from foul brood. 
In an apiary where bees infected with foul brood have stood there 
is always danger of the disease breaking out again, even after the lapse 
of several years. Infection is also possible through aphides, honey 
which contains an enormous number of fungus spores, flowers on 
which diseased bees have been may become the vehicle of foul brood ; 
and lastly may be mentioned feeding with honey taken from stocks 
actually infected with foul brood, and want of caution on the part 
of the bee-keeper. And what can the bee-keeper do to combat this 
dreadful disease ? 1st, He should take the proper means to prevent 
its appearance by arresting the conditions favourable to the develop¬ 
ment of the disease, or should try to lessen their injurious effect. 
2nd, The bee-keeper should employ the proper means to stifle the 
disease should it have made its appearance. Upon the destruction 
of the vitality of the fungus which causes the disease depends the 
cure of the colony. The various substances which will destroy the 
fungi of fermentation are called antiseptics, and a great many of 
them are known in chemistry, such as sulphur, chloroform, salicylic 
acid, spirits of wine, &c. ; but only a few of these can be employed 
for our purpose. Carbolic acid has been used to cure foul brood, amd 
is recommended. I need not therefore refer to it, but I may mention 
salicylic acid, a substance closely related to carbolic acid, and com¬ 
posed of exactly the same elements. Its effect is about one-third of 
that of carbolic acid, and Nature herself offers it to our bees in the 
flowers of the Meadow Sweet (Spiraea Ulmaria). This plant grows 
in Germany and England in damp meadows, &c. By encouraging the 
cultivation of this plant bee-keepers would provide a natural pre¬ 
ventive against foul brood. Bees are fond of visiting the flowers of 
this plant, but if the plant were dried and then rubbed to powder 
and mixed with the food in spring it would probably also be of con¬ 
siderable benefit to bees. The speaker further mentioned boracic 
acid and a few other chemicals which have antiseptic properties. 
Pastor Rabbow stated that there had been cases of foul brood in 
his district which, however, had disappeared without any measures 
having been taken to cure it. He was inclined to think that the 
bees themselves had effected the cure through visiting the Spiraea 
Ulmaria, which plant is frequently met with in that part of the 
country. 
After the close of the discussion it was decided unanimously that 
the next meeting should be held at Erfurt in 1881 ; Mr. Breslau, the 
Burgomaster of Erfurt, and Mr. Frankenhauser of Gispersleben being 
elected President and Vice-President respectively by a large majority. 
The cities of Buda Pesth and Frankfort-on-the-Maine were proposed 
for 1882. A banquet was then held, and the next day the prizes were 
distributed by the Burgomaster, when I had the pleasure of receiving 
at his hands a silver medal for a collection of articles used in bee¬ 
keeping. As the publication of the awards made to our accomplished 
foreign friends would not be of general interest to British readers I 
will next describe a visit to a German apiary.— Alfred Neighbour. 
REVIEW. 
Handy Book of Bees. By A. Pettigrew. Fourth Edition, 
Bevised and Enlarged, 1881. W. Blackwood & Sons. 
We congratulate Mr. Pettigrew on the well-merited success of 
his “ Handy Book of Bees.” It may well be called the vade 
mecum of profitable bee-keeping for all who look for large honey 
harvests, while managing their bees as little divergently as possible 
from the old-fashioned straw skep principle. Honest common 
sense and a thoroughly practical acquaintance with his subject is 
manifest in all he says of matters within the range of his experi¬ 
ence. He can be thoroughly trusted here, and no one who follows 
his guidance can go wrong. As he says himself, “ the most im¬ 
portant chapter in the book” is that wherein he treats of “hives.” 
Everybody knows that he has for several decades been waging 
war against the ridiculously small hives still too commonly in use 
throughout England and Wales. Very gradually he has won for 
himself a hearing, and we believe that no one has been dis¬ 
appointed who has fairly tried his large straw hives in anything 
like a fairly good country for honey. “ The proof of the pudding 
is in the eating,” and where tens of pounds used to be harvested, 
and that only in exceptionally good seasons, it is not uncommon 
to find hundredweights of delicious honey garnered in the autumn 
time—thanks to Mr. Pettigrew’s improved hives. Therefore, all 
bee-keepers whose one object is profit at the least possible cost 
owe him a large debt of gratitude. 
We should like to content ourselves with this favourable notice 
of the book, which we honestly think one of the best bee books 
that was ever written ; but we should not be impartial in our 
criticism if we did not express our regret that Mr. Pettigrew does 
not confine himself to pressing upon public notice the manifest 
advantages of things within his own experience, but that he allows 
himself to run tilt in no measured language against the proved 
successful experiences of others. Hives of wood of every kind, 
whether bar-framed or otherwise, are unsparingly condemned, and 
their inventors and manufacturers, as well as those who use them, 
appear in his eyes to be wanting in sound judgment. “ Prejudice,” 
“selfishness,” not to say “successful humbuggery”—the latter 
term borrowed from an American author—is rather strong lan¬ 
guage to be applied indiscriminately to his brother apiarians who 
do not exactly see through his glasses. If, therefore, Mr. Petti¬ 
grew’s book sees a fifth edition, which its intrinsic merits well 
deserve, wo would suggest to him the advisability of rewriting 
the pages in which he thus vilifies as honest men as himself. 
The book will then be almost faultless so far as it goes, and will 
only minister to the profit and pleasure of those who read it. 
On one more point, however, we must still question (and. it has 
often herein been questioned), the soundness of Mr. Pettigrew s 
judgment. We refer to his opinion respecting honey. He tells 
us that what bees collect in the nectaries of flowers is “not honey 
proper;” that the “sweet juice” which they bring in from the 
fields is by them “converted” into honey. “They reswallow it 
at night, thus making it into real honey.’ Now, shall we venture 
to say that this is a “ prejudice ” in the proper sense of the term ? 
Certainly it is “ not pi oven.” This fad might also well be omitted 
in a future edition; for, to paraphrase Mr. Pettigrew’s own 
words, “ the stating of certain opinions will not satisfy an intel¬ 
ligent person unless his mind be fully convinced by the reason¬ 
ableness of such statements,” (p. 35). Such “ opinions ” will never 
be admitted as facts till they have been demonstrated to be so by 
irrefragable evidence. 
TRADE CATALOGUES RECEIVED. 
Henry Hope, 55, Lionel Street, Birmingham.— Illustrated List of 
Horticultural Buildings. 
J. Carter & Co., 237 and 238, High Holborn, London.— Catalogue of 
Popular Collections of Vegetable and Floicer Seeds. 
