The Foulbrood Question.
The following remarks, made by the Rev. Mr. Kleine, before a convention of bee-keepers in the town of Meppen, province of Hanover, Prussia, present a succinct account of the present state of this subject abroad.
“The question propounded in our programme,” said Mr. Kleine, “and which I have been requested to consider, may properly be thus subdivided—first. Has any efficient remedy for foulbrood been devised? and, secondly, What are we to think of Lambrecht’s theory?
“I wish I could answer the first interrogatory with a positive aye. If I could, I should regard myself entitled not only to your thanks, but to those of the entire bee-keeping community; for foulbrood is confessedly the direst evil that can befall the bee-keeper, and the appearance is, at present, that it is likely speedily to spread everywhere, where bees are cultivated.
“Remedies in abundance have, indeed been suggested, and recommended as efficient and infallible. But when we come to investigate them, we seek in vain for any solid reason why curative qualities should be attributed to them; and we usually find that the alleged recovery of diseased colonies can fairly be ascribed to something else than the application of those vaunted remedies. Possibly, too, the real disease,—the genuine, virulent, contagious foulbrood, did not exist, and the boasted cure consisted merely in the apparent arrest and removal of some simple malady which, in the course of nature, would speedily have run its harmless course and disappeared, and with the cure of which the medicaments or treatment employed had, in reality, no connection whatever. How indeed can it be possible to devise and apply an efficient remedy for a disease of the origin and nature of which entire ignorance has still prevailed.
“Dr. Asmusz conceived, some years ago, that he had discovered the cause of foulbrood in a minute winged insect—the Phora incrassata; and the Baron of Berlepsch coincided with him in opinion. The doctor supposed that the parent fly deposited her eggs in the larvæ of the bees, which, dying in consequence and putrifying, thus generated the devastating disease. It happens, however, that the Phoridæ do not deposit their eggs in living organisms, but, under the impulse of native instinct, in dead bodies only. Consequently it does not and cannot cause the dreaded disease.
“Again, Mr. De Molitor assigns to it a similar origin,—but instead of the Phora, regards some ichneumon-fly as the perpetrator of the evil—unless, indeed, he regards the Phora itself as an ichneumon. But this notion, too, is obviously untenable, for if ichneumon-flies laid their eggs in the larvæ, those eggs must surely hatch and the insect develop there, at least in its first stages; but on placing a foulbroody comb under glass, and watching it closely, nothing of this sort is found to take place.
“The Baroness of Berlepsch supposes the cause of foulbrood is to be found in the use of movable comb hives, and the various manipulations—oftimes needless—which the facilities afforded tempt the apiarian to undertake. Were this diagnosis correct, the remedy could readily be found. It would only be necessary to discontinue the use of such hives, and return to the ancient fixed comb system, to be safe from the inroads of this pestilence. But alas, it is only too well known that foulbrood existed extensively long before Dzierzon was born, and that it prevails where the fixed comb system is most rigidly adhered to.
“Others imagine that the disease has its origin in malarious vapors, in some kind of fungus, in a diseased condition of the sexual organs of the queen, in an imperfect fecundation of the egg, or even in a noxious state of the fluids of the bee-keeper’s body, &c., without, however, by any of these surmises or suggestions, furnishing us with an available clue to a remedy, from the application of which a favorable result might be expected. Obscurity and doubt still involve the inquirer, and he quietly ‘gives it up;’ while the more practical bee-keeper, perplexed and baffled, finally resolves to resort to the radical remedy of the brimstone pit and the ‘parlor match’—thus effectually curing his colonies.
“So matters stood in regard to this puzzling question, till, in consequence of a communication from the Directors of the Central Committee of the Hanover Agricultural Society, respecting an alleged cure of foulbrood which Mr. Fisher claimed to have devised and successfully employed, the Hanover Centralblatt opened its columns for further discussion of the topic.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by Samuel Wagner, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
“I had given it as my own opinion that the disease was probably, in most cases, produced by feeding infected honey derived from foulbroody colonies; but that we were still constrained to believe that it had also an independent origin, which would probably be found in some deleterious substance mixed with the nutriment of the bees.
“A reason for this assumption I found in a communication from Mr. Hoffman to the Eichstadt Bienenzeitung, in which he stated that in all foulbroody colonies examined by him, he found most of the pollen in the cells covered by a slimy, fatty substance and the pollen itself in a state of fermentation. I then said that if this discovery be confirmed by further observation and scientific investigation, deteriorated pollen would probably be found to play an important part in the production of the disease in question, and perhaps account for the well known fact that in colonies infected with foulbrood, the larvæ die only after being sealed up. I also expressed the hope that we should have the aid of science—especially of physiology and chemistry—in the further prosecution of the inquiry; as it is only by ascertaining the nature and origin of the disease, that we could hope to obtain the means of effectually counteracting and controlling it.
“We had to wait long for these elucidations, but they have come at last, and we may well be proud that the Hanover Centralblatt contributed so materially to the result so far.
“I now come to the second subdivision of the question—What is to be thought of Lambrecht’s theory?
“This theory is briefly thus: Pollen, in peculiar circumstances, and under the influence of heat and moisture, begins to ferment; and the fermentive process is then communicated to the honey. If this fermenting nutriment be now fed to the larvæ, their organism becomes thereby deranged and disorganized, they die and putrefaction follows. Here we find the original source and cause of foulbrood. The detailed explanation of this so simple theory, given with the directness of scientific demonstration, yet in popular language readily understood, is contained in the pages of the Centralblatt. Its correctness is not to be doubted, for the proof of it is clearly furnished by this simple experiment: Expose a mixture of pollen and water to the heat of the sun, or otherwise to a temperature sufficiently high to bring on fermentation, and feed therewith the bees of a colony containing larvæ just hatched, and foulbrood will speedily be produced in the hive. I made this experiment myself in the summer of 1868, and though I felt some misgivings before, every doubt was dissipated by the result obtained, for the thus infected colony might have claimed a premium as a prime prize case of the disease. I here submit to the convention, for inspection, a piece of foulbroody comb thus obtained. The contagiousness of the artificially originated foulbrood is also demonstrated by the fact, that the disease has been communicated from it to several other colonies in my apiary. Other bee-keepers have repeated this experiment with like results; so that there is no longer room to doubt, or to suspect deception.
“The fermented or fermenting condition of the nutritive matter with which the larvæ of bees are fed, is thus, according to Lambrecht’s theory, the cause of foulbrood. I doubt much whether this scientifically grounded doctrine will ever be scientifically refuted.
“We have here, accordingly, the point at which the insidious foe is to be attacked, if we would hope for success. This, Lambrecht alleges that he does, and claims that he has devised a reliable method of cure, as shown in the experimental case at Brunswick. To doubt the truth of the statement made by the committee superintending that experiment, would be to impugn the untarnished honor of those gentlemen. But unfortunately, we are not yet made acquainted with the composition of Lambrecht’s remedy. For the present, he treats it as a secret, intending to publish it in a pamphlet and thus compensate himself for his discovery. For this, he has been subjected to reproach and abuse. Allow me to express my surprise at this. We find fault with Lambrecht for that which we approve in ourselves and others. The inventor strives to secure to himself the profits of his invention by taking out a patent; and the author indemnifies himself for his labors by procuring a copyright, or accepting a premium from his publisher. I have not hesitated to accept such compensation myself, when the opportunity was properly presented; and others, here, I presume, may find themselves under like condemnation. Why then cast stones on Lambrecht, who, probably, has very valid reasons for imitating our example, for his experiments presuppose a large sacrifice of time and money on his part.
“I will not deny that, for one, I should have preferred if Mr. Lambrecht had disinterestedly published his curative process in a communication to the Centralblatt. For if No. 7 of the volume for 1868 is now out of print, in consequence of the increased demand created for it by his first article on the subject, there is no doubt a very large edition would have been required of the number containing his cure; and what a powerful impetus that would have given to the success of the Centralblatt! But I should have been ashamed to approach Mr. Lambrecht with a request based on calculations so selfish, when I understood that he intended to reserve the information for his own benefit. But there is thus within our reach a secret of great importance and value to all bee-keepers; and since we have no prospect of obtaining a knowledge of it in any other way than by the publication of his pamphlet, I advise you all to subscribe for it and induce others to do so likewise, so that the work may speedily be published, and the veil withdrawn that possibly conceals a matter of vital importance to bee-culture.
“Mr. Lambrecht was requested by the President of the Nuremberg Convention to attend its meeting, and present his theory among the regular orders of the day, for discussion. I felt confident he would comply with the request, and considered that the most suitable mode of bringing his theory to the knowledge of the bee-keepers generally and securing the required number of subscribers to his pamphlet. But, according to the report of the proceedings, the result was just the reverse. Mr Lambrecht, we are told, failed altogether! And how? He was refused a hearing! How this is to be explained, I know not. Heretofore, the Convention was ever disposed to invite and allow free discussion of all questions pertaining to bee-culture, whether of a theoretical or practical cast; and to accept, with enthusiastic applause every new invention or device tending to advance the favorite pursuit of its members. But this I know for certain, that Mr. Lambrecht’s theory, despite of this opposition, will work its way, and finally meet with universal acceptance. I therefore beg this respected assembly not to withhold due attention to this important matter, but to contribute all they can towards a full compliance with the stipulations on which the speedy promulgation of Mr. Lambrecht’s curative process depends.”
[For the American Bee Journal.]