



Produced by Wayne Hammond and The Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)









  AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL.

  EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY SAMUEL WAGNER, WASHINGTON, D. C.

  AT TWO DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.

  VOL. VI.      NOVEMBER, 1870.      No. 5.


  [For the American Bee Journal.]




Cure of Foulbrood.


Mr. EDITOR:--I promised, (vol. V., page 187,) to report how my
refrigerator wintered its colony. The frames were covered with a piece
of old carpeting, and the whole space outside the inner hive packed with
straw and shavings. This spring it was in splendid condition, and it was
found necessary to remove brood and cut out queen cells as early as the
20th of May; and, for this locality, the surplus would have been large,
if I had not been obliged to break up the colony on account of
_foulbrood_.

You can imagine my disappointment when my apiarian friend, Mr. Sweet of
West Mansfield, pointed out to me this loathsome disease in my choicest
Italian colony, early in June, when up to that time I had supposed that
everything was prosperous with my twelve colonies. After a thorough
examination I found six hives more or less affected, and according to
high authority, should be condemned to death. The other six appeared
free from disease at this time, although three more subsequently became
diseased.

This is my second summer of bee-keeping, and all the duties pertaining
to an apiary were entered into with the enthusiasm, and shall I confess
it, the ignorance and carelessness of a novice. Yes, ignorance and
culpable carelessness, for in gathering empty combs from various
quarters, the disease was introduced and spread among my pets. One hive,
in particular, of empty comb had the peculiar odor, perforated cells,
and brown viscid fluid, with which I have since become so familiar this
summer; and it seems unaccountable to me, how any person with the Bee
Journal wide open and Quinby’s instructions before him, could be so
careless as to give such combs to his bees.

But such was the fact, and foulbrood spreading right and left. What
shall be done to get rid of it? Shall Quinby be followed, purify the
hive and honey by scalding, and treat the colony as a new swarm; or
shall the heroic treatment of Alley be adopted; bury or burn bees and
hive, combs and all? The latter has sent me some fine queens; but the
former has always given reliable advice, and I shall follow his
instructions with two colonies which are past all cure, and reserve the
others for treatment, hoping that I may find some cure, or at least
palliative for the disease, and add my mite of experience, and, perhaps,
useful knowledge to our Bee Journal.

Accordingly, June 8th, the combs of the two condemned colonies were
melted into wax, the honey drained over and scalded, and the bees, after
a confinement of forty hours, were treated like new swarms; and now,
September 18th, are perfectly healthy and in fine condition for winter.

I will not occupy your valuable space with all the details of my
experiments and fights (which lasted through three months) with the
trials of doses of different strengths and kinds, with old comb and new,
with young queens and old ones, and with no queen at all, and how, in
doing this, I was obliged to keep up the strength of the colony for fear
of robbers and of spreading the disease to my neighbors. Suffice it to
say, that after two months I had made no apparent headway, although
still determined to “fight it out on this line, if it took all summer”
and my last hive. In fact, I devoted my apiary to the study of this
disease, and, perhaps, death.

Starting with, and holding to the theory that foulbrood is contagious
only by the diffusion of living germs of feeble vitality, (and I was
strengthened in my conjecture in microscopical examinations, by finding
the dead larvæ filled with nucleated cells,) I determined to try those
remedies which have the power of destroying the vitality of these
destructive germs, these living organisms. And no remedies seemed to me
more potent than carbolic acid and hyposulphite of soda. At first I used
both, making one application of each, with an interval of one day, and
with apparent benefit. But, attributing the improvement to the more
powerful of the two, I abandoned the hyposulphite and used the carbolic
acid alone, and I was so infatuated with the idea of its superiority,
that I did not give it up until three of the four hives had become so
hopelessly diseased, that the combs were destroyed and the colonies
treated to new combs (as it was late in the season,) and freely fed with
sugar and water. These are now in good condition for winter.

The fourth hive was carried a mile away, the queen caged, and the colony
strengthened with a medium sized second swarm. After all the brood,
which was advanced, had left the cells, I transferred the colony to a
clean hive; thoroughly sulphured the old hive with burning sulphur,
and stored it away in a safe place for future experiments. I now thought
my apiary free from the pest; but on thoroughly examining the whole,
three new cases of foulbrood were found--one very badly affected, and
two slightly so, with perhaps twenty to forty cells diseased and
perforated.

  Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by Samuel
  Wagner, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

This was about the 1st of August, and again hyposulphite of soda was
selected for the trial; and from the first application I have had the
disease under control. Three days ago I examined the three colonies
thoroughly, and found no new cells diseased in the two which had been
the least affected; and in the almost hopelessly diseased one (as much
diseased, in fact, as any of those that I destroyed,) an entire brood
had been raised, with not over fifty or sixty diseased and perforated
cells with dead larvæ remaining, most on one comb, and nearly all the
cells contained a new supply of eggs; this colony is certainly
convalescent, and I think now, from the recent and second application of
the hyposulphite of soda, is entirely cured. Still, I should not be
surprised to find two or three, or even more, perforated cells after
this second crop of brood has hatched, as the whole hive, honey, and
comb, had been for so long a time so thoroughly saturated with the
disease, and at least two-thirds of the cells had, before the _medicine_
was used, been filled with putrid larvæ. If so, I shall treat it to a
third dose.

Now, Mr. Editor, as it is frequently of as much practical importance to
tell how to administer a remedy, as it is to know its name, I will ask
your indulgence a little longer, hoping that others may improve upon my
remedy or at least test it, if they are so unfortunately ignorant and
careless as I was, in bringing “the wolf home to the fold.”

The solution of hyposulphite of soda which I used, was one ounce to half
a pint of rain water. With this I thoroughly washed out every diseased
cell with an atomizer, after opening the cap; also spraying over the
whole of the combs and the inside of the hive. The instrument I use is a
spray producer, invented by Dr. Bigelow of Boston, and sold by Codman &
Shurtleff of that city. There are two small metallic tubes, a few inches
long, soldered together; and by placing the point of exit of the spray
at the lower part of the cell, the whole of the contents of the cell is
instantly blown out upon the metallic tubes. With a very little practice
there is no necessity for polluting the comb with the putrid matter.
Place the comb perfectly upright or a little leaned towards you, and
there is no difficulty; yet, if a drop should happen to run down the
comb, it would do no harm, but had better be carefully absorbed with a
piece of old dry cotton cloth. I quite frequently do this with the bees
on the comb, as it does them no harm, to say the least, to get well
covered with the vapor.

It is not at all injurious to the larvæ, after they are two or three
days old, though it may be before that time, as I have noticed that
after using the hyposulphite where there are eggs and very young larvæ,
the next day the cells are perfectly clean.

There are many interesting points which have come up during my summer’s
fight, which I would speak of; but I have already gone beyond all
reasonable bounds in this communication.

  EDWARD P. ABBE.

_New Bedford, Mass._, Sept. 18, 1870.

  [Translated from the Bienenzeitung,
          For the American Bee Journal.]




Queen Breeding.


To obtain not only purely fertilized queens, but fine, bright yellow
ones, I have for some years proceeded thus:

As all Italian queens do not produce equally fine drones, I mark those
stocks in the course of the summer which contain queens producing the
choicest of these. Then, in the following spring, when I desire to have
a plentiful supply of prime Italian drones early, and before common
drones make their appearance in neighboring apiaries, insert in the
hives thus selected and marked, combs of worker brood taken from other
colonies. I do this in order to make those colonies very populous, so as
to induce drone-egg-laying; for a queen will always be disposed to
commence doing so, if she is in a strong colony well supplied with
honey, or is well fed. As soon as I find that those colonies are
becoming populous under this management, I insert some empty drone comb
in the centre of the brooding space. These the queen, stimulated by
liberal feeding, will speedily supply with eggs; and when the drone
brood so produced is nearly mature, I subdivide these combs and insert
pieces in nuclei previously furnished with young bees, worker brood, and
eggs, taken from the colonies containing the choice queens from which I
design to breed, and which are known to produce the largest, most
active, and best marked workers.

As the drones form the brood thus introduced mature several days sooner,
than the young queens bred in the same nuclei, there is a strong
probability that the latter will be fertilized by them and consequently
produce fully marked choice progeny, as it is certain that queens will
almost invariably be fertilized early if they and the drones are bred in
the same hive or nucleus, since that secures the simultaneous flight of
both and obviates the necessity of a wide range in their excursions. I
adopt this process also, because if the Italian drones of the colonies,
which contain the young queens, are poorly marked and dark yellow in
color, we cannot reasonably look for bright and handsomely marked
progeny.

At about ten o’clock in the morning of a calm, clear day, when the young
queen is at least two days old, I feed the bees of the nucleus with
diluted honey. Drones and queens will then almost invariably issue at
the same time, and before common drones from other colonies or
neighboring apiaries are on the wing. Thus both disappointment and delay
are in a great measure precluded. I do not stimulate the bees of the
nucleus by feeding either on the first or the second day after a young
queen has left her cell, because she is then yet too feeble to make an
excursion with safety. But I have frequently succeeded in having
fertilization effected on the third or fourth day, in favorable weather,
when the nucleus thus stimulated contained both drones and queen; and in
many cases the queens began to lay on the third or fourth day
thereafter. In this way, I not only obtain many (I do not say all)
purely fertilized queens; but also very superior ones, large, vigorous,
and prolific, producing both workers and drones well marked and brightly
.

I do not indeed claim that this process gives us absolute certainty, but
only a very great probability, that the queens we rear will be purely
fertilized. Other bee-keepers too, who employed it long before the
Kœhler method was promulgated, regard it as furnishing the most likely
means of assuring success. Thus, for instance, the President of the
Bee-keeper’s Union of Moravia, Dr. Ziwanski, who is not a blind imitator
of others, but a careful and indefatigable inquirer, never recommending
aught for adoption till he has himself tested it with success, found my
method worthy of adoption five years ago already, for his annual report
for 1865 contains the following passage:--

“I made five nuclei this year, with fresh brood from pure original
Italians. When fitting them up, I recollected a suggestion of the Rev.
Mr.