April, ’18] 
BALL: FOULBROOD CONTROL 
201 
From Inspector France’s last biennial report we find that he visited 
34 places and found foulbrood in 21 of them. If a line is drawn across 
the map of Wisconsin through Appleton and Eau Claire, thus separat¬ 
ing it into northern and southern sections, it will be noted from his 
report that foulbrood was found in every county in which inspections 
were made south of that line, excepting three, and only a single place 
was visited in each one of these three counties. What would have 
been found if further inspection had been carried on can best be 
suggested by a glance at the maps showing the areas inspected this 
season. 
North of the line mentioned 6 counties were visited and no foul¬ 
brood was found. This does not mean that foulbrood does not exist 
north of the line, as we have a number of records showing its presence 
in that region, but it probably indicates that there is far less of it in 
the northern district than in the southern. 
Inspector Kindig in Bulletin 55 reports similar conditions in Michi¬ 
gan and the same difference between the northern and southern parts 
of the state. Inspector Rea of Pennsylvania in his latest publication 
reports conditions in that state much better than the above but notes 
some localities with similar conditions. 
As a result of the survey of conditions it was decided that the 
“area clean-up” method of inspection was the only one that promised 
to cope with the existing situation, and so the work of the present 
season was organized along that line. The funds being limited, only 
three areas were undertaken. Two of these were chosen because 
active cooperation and support were assured from local associations, 
and the other to protect the University Experimental Apiary from 
contagion. 
Owing to war calls and bad weather, less work was done than was 
planned and only parts of each area were covered. As far as the work 
went, however, every place where bees were kept or where they had 
been kept at any previous time was inspected. The old hives, frames, 
etc., in the honey houses or lying around outside were carefully gone 
over—every living colony was opened and at least four frames from 
the center of the brood chamber examined, even where no disease > 
was found. Where disease was found in an apiary every frame was 
examined unless disease was found sooner. This method requires much 
work and care but the results obtained when charted and compared 
with previous knowledge were so strikingly different that there was 
no comparison—or rather that there was a very definite comparison 
possible. 
The following table shows 161 apiaries inspected in 1917 of which 
79 or one half of them had foulbrood. This is to be compared with 33 
