December 1, 1887. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
481 
system of ventilation which has. been often described' 
During the past summer, however, a disease of some 
sort, apparently akin to the odourless foul brood, appeared 
in a Syrian hive, but the diseased larvae were never 
sealed over nor reached the pupa state; every one of 
them was cleaned out by the bees. Some of the grubs were 
odourless, while others had a most foetid odour. To such 
an extent was this hive diseased it made no increase in 
the number of its bees during the best of the summer. 
Owing to these bees cleaning out every offensive thing 
from their hive, I at first thought it was foul brood, but 
the cheesy nature of the dead grub changed my opinion, 
and I made an experiment by removing every comb, giving 
them to queenless bees, and under their nursing the 
disease ceased. Apparently every egg matured into a 
healthy bee, not even one cell being left unhatched. 
Meanwhile the Syrians were at work in their new hive, 
from which the disease seemed almost to have disappeared, 
as only an occasional grub was thrown out. 
The only different treatment this hive had from the 
others was that it received a little Orange blossom honey 
from California. The bad effects arising from feeding bees 
with foreign honey is not a new discovery. Half a cen¬ 
tury since foreign honey was much cheaper than some 
sorts of inferior sugar which at that time could not 
be had for much less than Is. per lb., and I remember 
it being sold at Is. 2d. per lb. At that time bee-keepers 
did not attempt keeping many hives; but even with the 
few kept, when a bad season occurred it told heavily on 
the pockets of working men earning from Gs. to Os. 
weekly. Knowing that the bee books at that time re¬ 
commended honey as the best food for bees, many 
bee-keepers speculated in homy for feeding purposes, 
much to their dismay afterwards, for in every hive fed 
with it foul brood appeared. I believe that was not only 
the first but the last attempt to feed with foreign honey 
in this district. 
<\i r : \\ hen the late Mr. T. W. Woodbury’s apiary was 
infested with foul brood, about ISO.', he was driven to 
his wit’s end for a cure. Some amusing letters appeared 
on the subject, such as “Jonas Jackson’s,” among other 
things advising that money should not be taken in return 
for bees, if it were misfortune was sure to follow. The 
German writers hinted that the cause of the disease 
would never be found but by learned scientists. Every 
writer had an opinion of his own as to the cause. “ A 
Renfrewshire Bee-keeper ” gave the “ Purgatorial Pro¬ 
cess,” as a cure, and Mr. Woodbury in a private letter 
revealed that the cause in his case was feeding his bees 
with, foreign honey. Stifling and overheating is in my 
opinion the origin of foul brood in its worst form. 
THE USE OF FERTILE WORKERS. 
It will be remembered by many of the veteran bee¬ 
keepers how the late Mr. T. VV. Woodbury exercised 
himself towards the discovery of anything mysterious 
concerning bees for their and their owner’s interest. One 
of these things was what he then thought on queens 
laying eggs before fertilisation, and “A Renfrewshire 
Bee-keeper” saw in it something yet unrevealed to us to 
perpetuate the species at a critical period. I had nume¬ 
rous cases of eggs in a hive before the queen was fertilised, 
and which for a time I considered they were the eggs of 
the queen; but something occurred that changed my 
opinion, and in the early part of this year a beautiful 
example presented itself to me, confirming the change of 
my belief on so interesting a subject. On the 7th of 
March a queen was accidentally killed. A successor was 
reigning about the 20th, and by the middle of April the 
hive was well filled with drone brood in all stages, too 
early to be the progeny of a well-matured and healthy 
queen, which in many cases remains in a virgin state for 
twelve weeks before fertilisation, when she lays worker 
eggs, or that time elapses with some queens unfertilised 
before she lays eggs that produce drones only. 
Another examination of this hive was made about the 
middle of May, when, to the astonishment of all who 
witnessed it, worker brood was rapidly taking the place of 
what was occupied with drene brood so recently. The 
explanation of the above is, in my opinion, fertile workers 
are more often produced for the purpose of producing 
early, as they commence laying shortly after birth, while 
the drones of a sister bee are more distantly related to 
serve the queen than woidd be the drones of the queen, 
even should she be capable of mating after egg-laying had 
commenced, which 1 do not think could take place. 
Although some modern writers assert that drones, being 
the progeny of a fertile worker, are incapable of mating, 
it is a mistake; the drones of any fertile worker are as 
perfect in this respect as are any other, and numerous 
cases are on record of queens mating with the drones of 
fertile workers, and the above is but another instance of 
the same sort. At the time the queen would be fertilised 
no other drones would be on the wing, showing the utility 
of fertile workers, and the wise provision in Nature to 
perpetuate the species at a most critical time.—A L anakk- 
siiihe Bee-keeper. 
ODOURLESS FOUL BROOD. 
T I notice an article in the issue for November 10th, signed “ The 
Writer of Useful Hints in the British Bee Journal. November 2nd, 
1887,” replying to my letter, and I see he also encloses copy of the 
article I had in my mind ; for which I am obliged, as readers can see 
and judge for themselves. He says, “ The entire responsibility, there¬ 
fore, rests upon me, and I flatter myself that public opinion will acquit 
me of any desire to infringe upon what your correspondent claims as his 
own discovery.” But we are not told who did write it. 
In the British Bee Journal quotation it says, “ Of this disease we 
have cognizance for some years, but always felt inclined to consider it 
incipient foul brood, which, if allowed to remain undisturbed, would 
end in the malignant Bacillus Alveiand in the last, “ Our attempts at 
curative measures have always failed, although we have applied phenol, 
. salicylic acid, &c.” If we turn to the British Bee Journal for July 8th. 
1886, page 302, under the head of “ Useful Hints,” we shall find the 
following :— 
“ our district this evil has been very prevalent, in some cases 
leading on to foul brood. The queens, stimulated to egg-laying by syrup 
feeding, or the uncapping of comb honey, have produced more brood 
than the bees could well cover, while the speedy dwindling of the latter 
(caused sometimes by robbing as well as foraeing) has left whole sheets 
of unsealed larvfe to perish and rot— a meet hotbed for the reception of 
bacilli, or foul brood germs. In several cases we have found five queens 
with distended ovaries, accompanied by about a dozen bees, on three or 
four frames of putrefying larvae, without any of the odour, so well 
known to the practical expert, of foul brood. Is not this chilled brood 
often mistaken for foul brood 1" Here we have the ‘‘odourless” form 
of foul brood very fairly described only about a year previously, yet 
there is not a word about its being a disease. 
Mr. Raitt, in a footnote to my letter in the “ Record,” said he knew 
the disease I referred to, that it was not infectious but congenital, as he 
cured it by simply changing the queens. I have since s°nt him a sample, 
and he says it is the real foul brood, the only kind he has ever known 
as such ; yet Mr. Cheshire says not, and he ought to know. No wonder 
Mr. Raitt directed everything to be burnt as the only cure, which un¬ 
necessary course prompted me to write him an article, pointing out that 
there were two forms of foul brood, and the one was incurable with 
physic. 
Another point. It will be noted that the extract from the British 
Bee Joiirnal ot July last is now put forth to be judged on its merits. 3 
ara quite willing it should be so judged ; but it is not always fair to 
judge by a single paragraph. Now, as a matter of fact, a very lar^e 
portion of the columns of the British Bee Journal since July has been 
devoted to foul brood, and what they are pleased to call bacillus minor. 
Never once am l mentioned, nor is there a hint that a way to cure it has 
been published, and, to crown all, in every contribution sent to them in 
which myself, my plans, or s\.stems are mentioned the parts referred to 
are either left out, or the whoU contribution rejected.— AHallamshike 
Bee-keepek. 
