“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.