September 30,1880. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 819 
swan’s nest is an enormous affair, being built up of a large mass of 
coarse water plants as a foundation, which is lined with finer grasses. 
In this six to nine eggs are generally laid, which are, of course, very 
thick in the shell, and generally of a dirty white colour, some¬ 
times dirty pale green. The time of incubation has been differently 
stated, but we believe Bechstein to be right in fixing it at thirty-five 
days, though some have said forty-two. The young when hatched 
are very thickly covered with down, and are generally taken to the 
water by the mother when only a day or two old. There they are 
watched over by both parents with the greatest care until grown 
enough to provide for themselves.—(From “ The Illustrated Boole of 
Poultry" for October.) 
- Manures and Pastures. —The Agricultural Gazette sum¬ 
marises the results of some experiments on the above subject as 
follows :— <l Farmyard manure increased the bulk of the grasses, and 
in so doing diminished the weeds, with one or two exceptions. As a 
general principle, all manures tended to drive out the weeds by in¬ 
creasing the better herbage. Mineral manures alone diminished the 
proportion of the grasses by lending special aid to the growth of the 
leguminous plants, especially of the perennial Clover and the Meadow 
Yetchling. Ammonia salts, on the contrary, favoured the production 
of cereal grasses, increased their bulk, and by so doing almost de¬ 
stroyed as by a single blow the leguminous plants and the weeds. 
The hay crop was increased, but this occurred at the cost of several 
species which do not love ammonia salts ; while at the same time— 
and this is worth noting—the ammonia dressing developed in a very 
remarkable degree the leaf of the grasses rather than the stems and 
seeds. Of the mixed manures, mineral manure and ammonia salts 
gave the greatest increase of crop, still favouring the graminaceous 
or grassy plants, almost to the exclusion of the Clovers and the 
leguminous plants. Weeds, with one or two exceptions, were driven 
off, and the development of the seed and stem of the grasses was 
particularly marked. It may here be mentioned with regard to the 
effect of sewage, that it increases the free-growing coarse grasses, 
such as Poa trivialis, Triticum repens or couch, Lolium perenne, and 
Holcus lauatus, and it follows of necessity that the weaker plants 
must be crowded out. When the bulk of a particular kind of herbage 
is increased, the number and proportion of the plants which had been 
the rivals of that herbage are certain to be diminished. The plants 
which receive the manures that favour their growth soon prepon¬ 
derate over those which are of lesser stature, and must necessarily be 
overcrowded. Ammoniacal manures increase the bulk of the grasses 
and thus crowd out the Clovers, while mineral manures alone increase 
the luxuriance of the Clovers and thus crowd out the grasses.” 
- Seed-sowing Machine Exhibition in Italy. —An inter¬ 
national exhibition of seed-sowing machines will be opened on Octo¬ 
ber 20th at Pisa, Italy, under the direction of the Agrarian Committee, 
when prizes of gold and silver medals will be conferred by the Italian 
Minister of Agriculture for the best machines. The conditions with 
regard to exhibits may be obtained at the Italian Consulate, 31, Old 
Jewry, E.C. 
NEW AND OLD PRACTICE IN BEE-KEEPING.—No. 2. 
People of every age have been attracted by the marvellous, 
and almost everybody is naturally desirous of novelty. Even in 
bee-keeping it is pleasant to indulge wonder—to venture on un¬ 
trodden ground and make important discoveries. The cause of 
foul brood, we are told, has been disc' vered in Germany, and the 
discoverer has been noticed and rew ded by the Emperor. 
The existence of the disease call > 1 ‘‘foul brood ” was known in 
Great Britain a hundred years a^o. In Scotland then it was 
called “backgone brood,” and it has there borne that name ever 
since. What is meant by this name is, that some brood has died 
before it before reaching maturity, and has become foul. Ever 
since I can remember Scotch bee-keepers talked about backgone 
brood as a dreaded and destructive disease, one that is incurable 
and fatal in its effects. This has been my opinion all through 
life. The cause of this disease, we are told, is a fungus which 
attacks and destroys brood in the cell. The brood thus attacked 
bursts at a certain stage of development and becomes a putrid 
mass, hurtful to the health of hives and activity of the bees. A 
fuller and more lucid description of the cause of foul brood was 
given in the Journal some months ago, representing the German 
discovery. Some weeks afterwards I read a quotation from a 
German report of a discussion on the question of foul brood. One 
statement of the report pleased me : it was to the effect that the 
gentleman who is looked upon as the discoverer said that the 
disease of foul brood is produced by many causes. In order to 
be brief I am making no quotations, but simply writing from 
memory. 
Let us now notice the discovered cause of foul brood and call 
it a fungus, which spreads in hives and kills the brood. It has 
often been asserted that the honey of infected hives is affected 
and has power to transmit the disease to other hives ; nay, that 
every bee that fills its bag from a diseased hive carries a bagful 
of poison ; furthermore, that the very atmosphere surrounding a 
diseased hive is infected and carries the disease or plague to 
sound healthy hives by indraughts. Foul brood is an awful 
scourge in a hive, and if the above description be correct it is a 
scourge to be dreaded in every bee-keeping locality. I do not 
know enough either to confirm or contradict the account given of 
the nature of foul brood. I have never known the disease carried 
from one hive to another by indraughts, and often have I seen 
diseased hives closely surrounded by healthy hives. Last spring 
I smelt foul brood in a strong hive standing in the middle of my 
apiary. The hive was condemned at once, but execution was 
delayed, as we resolved to take a couple of swarms from it, but 
owing to the unfavourable season the bees were never fully mature 
for swarming ; it was sent to the moors with the hope that they 
would gather some honey before the time of execution came, it 
yielded 20 lbs. of honey, and in the refuse combs foul brood was 
evident enough, but not very extensively spread. 
As to the statements of the honey of diseased hives containing 
and carrying the infection, I have to say that they are exaggera¬ 
tions doubtless; for if such statements were correct where could 
clean and sound hives be found ? Swarms from infected hives 
would carry the disease with them, and the distemper would soon 
fill every apiary and be universal. I have had many swarms 
from diseased hives, but the disease was left behind. Never once 
have I noticed the disease go with the swarm. Last year I noticed 
that an old stock hive was severely diseased in October. The 
bees were driven into a small hive and fed. It survived the 
winter, yielded a swarm, and is now a clean and healthy stock 
kept for another year. 
Now a word or two about the remedy which has recently been 
recommended as effectual and able to remove the distemper from 
the apiaries of Great Britain. The remedy for foul brood we are 
told is salicylic acid applied by spray or sprinkling. Our friends 
will surely excuse me for here again expressing the opinion that foul 
brood is an incurable disease. Foul brood, as I understand it, is 
dead brood ; these can never be restored to life or removed from 
the combs. That the spores of fungus may be destroyed by some 
application may be true. In such a case it would be prevention, 
not cure ; and let me say that more evidence is required to make 
me believe that salicylic acid will prevent hives from being 
attacked and hurt by this terrible disease. A gentleman of con¬ 
siderable experience amongst bees knows that I think he is too 
easily influenced by novelties and statements made without proof, 
wrote to me the other week admitting in a modified sense the 
correctness of my opinion, stating that he had been misled in 
some things, one of which is the application of salicylic acid. In 
his hands it was a failure. The idea of preventing or curing foul 
brood by mixing this acid in their food does not, from my point of 
view, stand to reason. If the cause of the disease is a fungus and 
it spreads amongst the combs by spores, how can the food of bees 
affect it ? The acid cure is new amongst us. 1 believe it will 
pass away and be forgotten, and the old remedy—if it is right to 
call it a remedy—will come to the front and gain the confidence 
of experienced bee-keepers. And what is the old remedy i The 
destruction of all diseased hives or combs. I heard the other day 
of an apiary extensively diseased, and that the owner had resolved 
to destroy the combs of all his hives and begin afresh with his 
bees and comb foundations. This is a wise and commendable 
resolution, the safest and best course he can pursue ; and we have 
no doubt as to its success, for it never fails. 
Now is a good time to examine hives for foul brood. If any 
cells are covered with concave or hollowed lids there is reason to 
fear. Such cells should be pierced and examined. If they con¬ 
tain foul matter let the bees be driven into an empty hive at the 
earliest convenience and fed into stocks. If the bees build combs 
to the extent of one-third of the hive only, the stock will be worth 
half a dozen of foul-broody hives for future work, and likely 
enough the value of the honey and wax in the foul hive will be 
greater than the cost of syrup used in feeding the bees. If foul 
brood be discovered in a hive in spring, say in March, the bees 
should be driven out at once and united to another hive. If not 
