Part 1

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 colored.

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. Stahala, and inserted both drone and worker brood in four of them, omitting the drone brood in the fifth. The queens of the first four mentioned were purely fertilized, while the one in the fifth nucleus mated with a common drone. This result induces me to invite your attention to the fact, for it is reasonable to presume that queens making their excursions will be more likely to mate with drones from their own hives flying simultaneously, than with drones from other and distant hives. The queen usually makes such excursions only at periods when drones are flying, and there is then generally great commotion in the hive, as though there was much eagerness to get abroad and enjoy the genial air. Still, too much must not be expected from this suggestion and its adoption. It is not supposed that any preliminary arrangements or appointments are made by drones or queens, before the excursion is undertaken; but merely that there is a much greater probability that parties flying at the same time and necessarily in close proximity, will mate, than those starting from remoter points. Hence since it can do no possible harm to supply our nuclei with drone and drone-brood in this manner, the plan should by no means be disregarded when preparing to Italianize an apiary.”

By means of this process, having selection to a great degree in my power, I frequently obtain queens nearly entirely yellow, having black only at the extremity of the abdomen. I have procured queens for breeding from both Dzierzon and Mona. The young queens breed from Dzierzon’s stock were at first handsomer than those bred from Mona’s. But in later years, since using the method I now recommend, I obtain equally fine queens from the latter’s stock. The drones from Mona’s queens were, from the start yellower than those from Dzierzon’s, which were only faintly tinged with yellow on the sides, and had dark orange bands. Observing this, I then took worker brood and queen cells from the Dzierzon’s queens, with drones and drone-brood from the Mona queens, to furnish the same nucleus, and thus obtained regularly very handsome queens, bright workers, and very fine drones.

J. STAHALA, _Pastor_.

_Dolein, near Olmutz_, Feb. 5., 1870.

[For the American Bee Journal.]

Purity of Italian Queens.

Your correspondent, E. L. Briggs, in the August number of the Journal, has stirred up the bee-keepers a little; and for fear they will not discuss the point which most interests me, I drop you a line, hoping that those who have had more experience may be able to settle the question.

It is a fact which I think no one will deny, that it would be for the interest of every one selling queens, to send only such as are purely fertilized. It being as easy to rear queens from pure eggs as from any other, we may look to some other cause than selfishness or cheapness of the price for the difficulty. I have managed my apiary under the impression that the Dzierzon theory is correct, that the drones from a pure queen which had mated with a black drone, were pure.

I have failed in keeping my stock pure enough to breed from; and in my opinion, other bee-keepers who have reared queens in the same way, are as badly off as myself. If we wish to improve the Italian bee, we may do so by selecting the best of its race, both male and female, to breed from; not by crossing with the black bee. The type of the Italian bee should be so fixed, that the bees all show the same marking. We may fix the type of any admixture of the German and Italian bees, so that they will have similar markings. The crossing has been so recent in many cases, that there is no uniformity of color. Breeders of choice stock look as much to the quality and purity of the male as the female parent. It is my present belief that bees are as much subject to the rule, as the animal creation are.

I look for higher results than any yet attained, when we control (as we soon shall) the mating of our queens; and the low priced ones have given me the most satisfaction so far.

L. C. WHITING.

_East Saginaw, Mich._

[For the American Bee Journal.]

Italian Queens.

MR. EDITOR:--Since so much has been said of late about Italian queens, (especially cheap ones,) I feel it my duty, in justice to Mr. Alley, to say, that I purchased one of his $2.50 queens last June and have bred sixteen queens from her, besides a host of drones and workers; and the facts are, first, her progeny are all three-banded; second, she is the most prolific queen in my apiary; third, her workers are very industrious; fourth and last, I am not at all out of patience because she cost me only $2.50. Five dollars will not buy her to-day; and if I have the good luck to keep her till next June (supposing she is young, as claimed by Mr. Alley), I shall not want to part with her for two fives. All who have seen her and her workers, pronounce them beauties; and Italian bees are nothing new in these parts.

JAMES HEDDON.

_Dowagiac, Mich._, Sept., 1870.

[For the American Bee Journal.]

Novice.

Mr. EDITOR:--Sometime ago, in one of our articles, we mentioned that we considered the “Apiary” department in the “_Rural New Yorker_” of more real worth than some of the periodicals specially devoted to bees.

We had then seen about half a dozen of the “Rurals” that contained some very good articles, from the pens of intelligent bee-keepers who were well up to the times. Since then, however, we have seen so much else there so greatly behind the times, that we must think our decision then a little hasty. For instance last week a bee-keeper takes the trouble to inform the public that “hives should be moved in the night _when the bees are all in_, for he had just moved some in the day time and a large number that were out, never found their hive on their return. So take notice everybody, always move your bees at night!” As this was given as a piece of valuable information, we looked in vain for some note from the editors, cautioning their readers against falling into the same error, and pointing it out. And then we wondered if the editors knew any better, or anything about bees at all, for many of their articles seem to imply that they are uninformed and publish anything they come across, indiscriminately, truth and error, without note or comment.

The editor of the Apiculturist thought it the height of absurdity because we seemed to consider him in any way responsible for what his correspondent wrote. We certainly _were_ so innocent as to suppose that an editor _knew_ what he was going to publish, and that should a correspondent send him an article containing a very gross error, calculated to lead beginners astray, he would tell such correspondent his mistake, without using his article; or if it contained something else good and valuable, and he decided to publish it, he would kindly mention the mistake or error, in a little note somewhere, and give his readers confidence by letting them know that some one _was_ “running the machine” “somewhere.”

There are a large number of good farmers who refuse to read agricultural papers, because they say, and with considerable reason, that more than half that is written is “impracticable nonsense.” We believe the American Agriculturist and the American Bee Journal are at least two noble exceptions. None of their readers can fail to know that each of those papers is _edited_ by some one who is fully posted, and is _at home_ too _every time_.

The Apiculturist intimates that we think no one else has a right to _start_ a bee journal. So far from that we would be glad to subscribe this minute for half a dozen more; if they were in charge of competent men and had the broad platform before them that our own Journal has--namely, the advancement of bee culture for the nation at large.

We should have replied to the Apiculturist before, but he “called names,” and when we were a small boy we used to make it a principle that when our comrades called us names, we “wouldn’t play any more,” and we feel just so still.

We, too, Mr. Editor, noticed the mention in the “Scientific American,” of the chicken roost bee arrangement to stop moths, and felt pained to think that anything, so far behind the times, should be found in that paper. Then, again, we noticed shortly after where they advised a correspondent to _chop_ up his combs and strain the honey out, and mentioned too that it _was said_ that the outside combs contained the nicest honey! Have Munn & Co., too, been sleeping in Rip Van Winkle style, or do they think us Bee Journal people not to be depended on?

We have had many letters from highly intelligent people, even professors in colleges, asking about the melextractor and inquiring whether there was no serious objection to such unnatural treatment of bees?

“Unnatural treatment,” indeed! About the 25th of last June, a farmer called on us to know where he could sell his honey best. On asking him how he had got it so early, he coolly informed us that he had _taken it up_, as _it seemed full_! But how about the brood? He didn’t know what we meant by brood, but had thrown away the young bees and did not think that they were of any use! Murdered thousands of young innocents before the end of June! Of course such treatment is perfectly _natural_ and right. He didn’t get much for his honey.

Mr. Editor, we are getting hoarse in trying to explain, and all we tell inquirers now is to get the “_American Bee Journal_.” Yet many, many times they can’t afford it, and many more times don’t get time to read it. Yet the same persons will say--“Why, Novice, your forty-six hives of bees have been worth more to you than any hundred acre farm in Medina county,” and go home quite excited.

We have had a few weeks’ drouth, the first this season, and it soon stopped the honey from autumnal wild flowers.

Since Mr. Tillinghast suggested our being called “Expert” (or some such foolishness), we think we could hardly be honest without confessing some of our work this fall. For instance, we removed queen from No. 23, August 9th, and ten days after cut out thirty-two (32) queen cells. We have mentioned before that we tried hatching some of them in cages, and the rest were put in hives from which we had removed hybrid queens. We were such an _expert_ at the business that we hatched about one-half the thirty-two, and after they were hatched, we _bungled_ the life out of _every one_--some by artificial fertilization experiments; and the rest wouldn’t lay and finally died their “own selves.”

Well, (we have considerable patience,) we tried again; removed queen from No. 16, August 28, and cut out twenty-one (21) cells ten days after. Of these we _did_ raise five laying queens; and most of the other cells were destroyed by laying them on the top of the frames when the weather was too cool. In fact we have had more cells destroyed this fall than ever before, and only saved five by inserting them carefully in place of one _cut out_. Now, Mr. Editor, we should have felt somewhat better at this result, had we not discovered that the original queen removed from No. 16 had been killed, and only a miserable, small, black queen reared in her place. She was put in a hive in which we had a caged, unfertile queen, and we neglected to look whether they had raised any more. _Inexcusable carelessness_, we call it.