THE APIARY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3098, 30 July 1913, Page 12

THE APIARY.

(By J.A.)

In a short note offering congratulations in connection with J. A.’,6 promotion to the red ribbon of beedom, Mr W. E. Barker, of Waikonini Orchard, draws our attention to an article in Gleanings on a “Modification of the Baldridge Plan for Curing Fold Brood.” Mr Barker claims that this article bears out his contention as to tbo origin of the disease, or, at any rate, what ho contended for in his paper. Before, however, giving this article, we give a report of the Foul Brood papers and discussion at the recent conference;— Dealing with “The Scientific and Practical Aspects of Foul Brood,” Mr K. Gibb said the disease had been known almost from time immemorial, for Aristotle refers to it over 2000 years ago in Italy. The disease, in the coarse of time, had killed out the weaklings in Italy, and, possibly, that was one of the reasons why the Italian bee was a better resistor than others. As Mr Kirk had said, it was about the year 1833 that foul brood was introduced into New Zealand. Mr Gibb went on to say that lie had examined many colonies of New Zealand wild bees, and found that where the bees were in a state of nature in the bush, away from centres of infection, they were clean, and not affected by disease. It went to prove that New Zealand was clean to begin with until in 1888 the disease madeits appearance and swept through the country like a plague. All the bees at the time were black, and had not been subject to any breod disease. It was the real foul brood they had in New Zealand, and not black brood or any other disease. This bad been established beyond doubt by the tests conducted by Dr Phillips from specimens sent from this country. When they got right down to the lowest forms of life it was hard to tell which was vegetable and which animal, but he believed that the cause of foul brood was a vegetable growth, a lowlv kind of fungus. They might have got it iu New Zealand through the importation of honey from infected areas or conntrie'-. in*! he had heard it hinted that it came from the imported Italian bees, but did know about the truth of that. No doubt the means by which it was spread throughout New Zealand was by the assistance of the now much-condemned box-hive. Mr Gibb went on to deal with some of the many cures which had been advanced to cope with the disease, and said that the crux of the whole thing was to get to know just what each man’s idea of rottenness was. The M’Evoy treatment, with it s variations, was nrobablv the best means of coping with the disease that they had. Another paper, read by Mr W. E. Barker, dealt with the poss hie origin and spread of foul brood. Mr Barker said that what was wanted was strong constitution. Bacteria could not find lodgment in man or bee if the constitution were strong enough to resist their invasion, but if once the constitution became weakened by in-hreeding (by trv ng to breed bees true to colour, for instance! effete matter collected in the fluids of the body suitable to the sustenance of b-.cteria : then they annealed to consume it. This held .good whether it were the eonsumntive bacillus of man or the bacillus of foul brood that decimated the bees. It was bis strong opinon that it was the sickness of the infected bees that made some refuse to clean up dead larvae, and that that was one of the wherefores of the M’Evoy treatment, being so successful—hv forcing the bees to consume the bacteria in their body fluids in their endeavours to make wax. That Italians as a race were more immune than blacks bad not been bis experience altogether. He was convinced that the breeding of a foul brood resisting bee was not altogether chimerical, if they dropped the colour line and bred

for constitution only. The secret of success in dealing with foul brood was to keep the colonies piping strong; if it was found that, notwithstanding every endeavour, they continued to dwindle and languish, then shake them unmercifully, according to the M’Evoy plan. It was the very rapid transmission of the foul brood bacillus from one bee to another that accounted for its exceptional virulence. It was this fact that also gave to him the hope that careful bacteriolog.cal experiment might prove that foul brood would lend itself execptionallv well to the anti-toxin treatment. He “would like to see some such experiments carried out in the Government Bacteriological Laboratory, in the endeavour to produce what Pasteur not ineptly called a “virus fixe.’’ Mr Hopkins described his experiences in dealing with foul brood, and mentioned their success in stamping it out. Mr Ireland thought the M'Evoy treatment of the disease was the best extant. Mr Cottrell mentioned some examinabons of wild bees which he had made in five of the South Pacific Islands, each widely separated and not in a highly civilised state. The bees wore in a si ate of nature, 1 but were badly infected with the disease. The president did not think it advisable to allow the bees to clean out infected cells. It was best to do away with them. Mr Langford asked what the results-were of the experiments being conducted by the department. The president said the results would later on lie published in detail, but so far there had been no signs of the disease from foundation wax made from badly-diseased combs. 1 lie same colonies would be kept next year to see if they still kept dear of d.sense. Mr E. G. Ward said ho had supplied some of the diseased comb to make the foundation wax, and it came from one of the rottenest foul brood colonies they could wish to see. Mr Hutchinson said that in Professor Cheshire’s experiments it had been found that, foul brood would stand being boiled for eight hours. He would not bo too sure of the result of the Government experiments until the colonies had had another spring. Mr Gibb, reiterated that, contrary to Mr Barker, he had found Italian bees more immune to disease than the black. When Italian bees were being treated they worked along the same lines as the apiaristdid, but the black bees did not. The germ could only be carried from one hive to another through the honey; if it could ho carried in the air, there would bo no hope for aparists. In a microscopic examination of foul brood, he had found that the germ® of disease wore so thick that the longer one looked the more one could see. Therefore, he said that the bees could not clean out the cells properly. There must bo .a distinct break when they wanted to get. rid of foul brood. (“Hear, hear.’’) Op the motion of Mr Brickell, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Messrs Gibb and Barker for their papers. MODIFICATION OF THE BALDRIDGE PLAN FOR CURING FOUL BROOD. —Running the Bees from the Diseased Colony into a Healthy Colony.— (By Chas. M. Musgrove.) The foul-brood situation in this part of Berkshire County is discouraging. Since the inspection in 1911 nothing has been done except by individual beekeepers; and in many cases where disease was found in 1911 nothing has been done in the line ol treatment. The consequence is that we are surrounded with diseased colonies to such an extent that 1, for one, made up my mind that I would go out of the bee business unless some way -could be found whereby 1 could control matters in my own yard indeuendently of the surroundings. In the fall of 1911 Dr Stock well, of Stoekbridge, Mass., at our beekeepers' meeting read a paper in which he argued from a medical standpoint that it is possible, by constant selection, to develop a race of bees that will be practically immune from the disease. With every method of treating foul brood so far given to the public there is constant danger of spreading the disease through opening the hive and shaking our honey as well as bees. With the Baldridge plan the shaking is eliminated; but even then in o|>ening the hive and catching the queen there is danger that healthy bees will get some of the honey. Perhaps with experts there is no danger; but we arc not all experts. In any case, if we wait according to directions until the beginning of the honey-flow, and then treat by either plan, our harvest, is over before the bees nave time to build up strong enough to take advantage of it. In my experiment I have used the Baldridge plan as part of the treatment, and Dr Miller's plan for requeening comes in also. Early in May, 1912. when 1 found colonies with European foul brood 1 immediately closed the hives a.s they were before, and placed by the side of each an empty hive. This, I think, is an important step in the treatment. Instead of doing anything more with the diseased colonies, which wo will number 1, 2. 3. 4. and 5, I proceeded to treat a colony which did not have the disease. In 1911 I had one colony located between two diseased colonies which did not contract the disease, and which produce d more comb honey than any other which I had. I went to this colony, winch we will call No. 6. and commenced feeding for the purpose of forcing a swarm. The result was that on May 18. which is very early for this location. 1 had a large swarm. This was hived in the usual way. Parent colony No. 6 was removed, and the new swarm put in its place. So far there is nothing new. 1 then went to colony Net. 1 removed the empty hive before mentioned, and put No. 1 in its place*. Then 1 put No. 6 (which had just cast a swarm) where the diseased colour had been. lie* result, of course, was that most of the flying bees from No. 1 went jute> No, 6. T nen in the evening I placed over the entrance of No. 1 a hollow tube extend'ug to about Hie centre of the entrance of No. 6. fine] ending with a Porter bee-e-.-cape. so that, as bees from colony No. 1 came out they were forced to enter No. 6. No. 6. being reinforced with the lx es from No. 1, became so strong that, as soon as the young ouecn could flv. they cast a larger swarm than the prime swarm headed bv a voung queen, 'i i- : s swarm gev<* me more honor than any other I had. Colony 6 swarmed the second time; was removed, nnd the new swarm put in its place without removing the bee-escape tube from No 1 The remaining bees and hatching brood reinforced this new colony, and. for a time, two queens were working for the benefit of this colony Colonv No. 6 was then taken to No. 2,

and the same process repeated. In this way I treated live diseased colonics from hive No. 6—yetting, in place of live diseased colonies, live strong ones ready for the harvest. From four of these I had more surplus than from any other four colonies I had ; and up to the time for final packing for the winter I had no trace of foul brood. After all the ucoe had left these five hives I waited for a rainy day, removed the hives, and melted the combs. This was the last of July. 1 think there was not 11b of honey in all the hives. It had all been converted into bees. There are many advantages in this method of treatment; and, so far as my experience goes, no disadvantages. , .1. No loss of brood or honey. 2. No chance to spread the disease. 3. Ease of operating (a box hive can bo treated as easily as any). 4. Improving the stock, and working toward immunity-. 5. Automatic requeening. 6. Strong colonics ready for harvest. Of course, more than one healthy colony could bo used in this treatment; but I wa.nted to give it as severe a test as possible. It would seem as if bees from diseased colonies carry the disease with them when they leave the hive. In other words, if the Baldridge plan is rot safe, then the hive through which five colonies had passed would show some sign of the disease before fall. It did not. Pittsfield. Mass., January 7. flf this article is correct it, somewhat upsets some common beliefs with regard to foul brood, and shows more than over that there is much to learn about the disease. Ihe fact that all the bees of five diseased colonies could be passed through one clean colony without infecting it is. to say the least, remarkable. Wo are of those who believe that much has to bo d-scovored about foul brood yet, anel would not bo surprised if the d iseoveries come along the lines of manipulation rather than from the scientific man. No one knows now just why the M'Evoy method succeeds. Scientific men tell us it ought not to succeed; but it docs. Tt hal we want is that missing link that would explain the seeming contradic-tion.-J. A.]