In 1922 Dr. J. C. Hutzelman, of Glendale, Ohio, announced that it was possible to save the combs by sterilizing them in an alcohol formalin solution. This was made with one part of formalin and four parts of alcohol. The combs were immersed in this solution for a period of forty-eight hours. There was wide discussion of the method in the bee magazines of that time, and some success attended the method. The solution, under the name of "Hutzelman's Solution, " was put on the market and sold through the bee supply houses. Where sufficient care was given to the work, the combs were used again and remained clean. However, so many cases of failure resulted because of carelessness or because some cells of dead brood were not uncapped that it gradually declined in popularity. The method was expensive and disagreeable to handle and that added to the decline in interest.

At about the same time that Hutzelman was working with the alcohol-formalin mixture, Dr. A. P. Sturtevant, of the United States Department of Agriculture, tried water-formalin. His experiments demonstrated that water-formalin was cheaper, was easier to make and equally effective. The publication of these facts caused increased interest in the treatment of combs, but more care seemed necessary to insure penetration of all cells containing diseased matter and some failures resulted as before. The difficulty probably was caused in part by inability on the part of the beekeeper to get formalin of the proper strength and to prepare the mixture in correct proportions.

When interest was still high, G. H. Vansell, of the California College of Agriculture, published an account of work done at that institution with the addition of soap to the water-formalin solution. By the use of rain water to which was added soap and formalin, he found it possible to completely sterilize the combs. It was contended that the addition of soap increased the efficiency of the solution and that it penetrated the cells more completely while offering a very economical method. This solution was generally tried and met with success in many cases. However, the difficulty of procuring complete sterilization and the discomfort attending its use led to its general abandonment.

In 1928, while beekeepers were still experimenting with the various combinations of formalin and water or alcohol, Jay Smith came out with a plan of vaporizing formalin in a tight chamber in which the combs were exposed to the gas for a considerable time. It was shown that, when properly done, this method, like the others, was effective. Again there was a wave of enthusiasm and thousands of combs were treated by the plan described. So many failures resulted, and the same disagreeable effects produced, that beekeepers soon lost interest.

Confidence that some such method would succeed never entirely subsided, and experimental work along this line continued. The next offering came from the University of Minnesota when H. G. Ahrens and M. C. Tanquary came forward with the chlorine sterilization of combs. Liquid chlorine was stated to be the cheapest and most efficient of sterilizing agents. The combs were immersed in water to which chlorine was added, in somewhat the same way as used with the alcohol-formalin treatment. Since chlorine is only slightly soluble in water, the problem was to secure a stable solution. The gas was released at the bottom of the tank and rose in the form of bubbles to the surface. While under properly controlled conditions the combs were effectively sterilized, in practice the method did not prove practical for the average beekeeper. There was no way to ascertain when the solution was of the proper strength, and in too many cases the disease immediately reappeared when the combs were returned to the bees.

Thus, to date, the problem of practical control of American foulbrood still remains unsolved. Each of the above-described methods worked under properly controlled conditions, but failed when put to the test of ordinary apiary practice. The search for a practical method still continues as this is written.

After centuries of effort, we still remain at the point reached by Jacob more than 300 years ago. We can still rid our colonies of contagion by removing all the honey, brood and wax and starting them anew in clean hives. Many regard that as too much trouble and prefer to bum hive, bees, and combs.

Losses through disease have reached enormous figures. Some heavy losses have come through ill-advised efforts to save equipment by some of the sterilization plans which were not given sufficient care. Other losses have occurred through permitting the disease to run its course until all the bees have died.

Other heavy losses came through the well-intentioned efforts of inspectors who, in their zeal to clean up disease, have destroyed whole outfits with little consideration for the interest of the owner. In some cases, bees, hives, and even the entire honey crop have been completely burned. Thus, the beekeeper lost not only his current income, but also his capital investment.

Inspectors point to limited areas from which they have eliminated disease, but in no case, to the author's knowledge, has American foulbrood been eradicated from any large area for long at a time.

No attempt is made here to include the work of European beemen like Dzierzon, who distinguished the two forms of disease and their treatment after the time of Jacob and prior to the time of Quinby. It appears that Quinby was unaware of their efforts and learned his lessons from personal experience. Since the aim is to deal only with American beekeeping, foreign workers are mentioned only when there is some direct relationship with the subject under consideration.

There were many Americans, also, who gave serious study to the problems of disease, but who are not included here because they failed to achieve sufficient success to make a permanent impression on the industry. Among them may be mentioned N. W. McLain, apicultural agent of the United States Department of Agriculture, who in 1886 gave much study to the subject. He advised the use of a spray composed of salt, soda, and salicylic acid in rain water for combs after the honey had been extracted.

Dr. Wm. R. Howard, of Ft. Worth, Texas, attracted much notice to his work and in 1894 published a pamphlet entitled Foul Brood, Its Natural History and Rational Treatment. Numerous others might be mentioned.

In the year 1906, in a bulletin entitled Bacteria of the Apiary, Dr. G. F. White, of the United States Department of Agriculture, published the results of some experiments with formaldehyde gas in which he reported that it was a good disinfectant but penetrated very slowly. His conclusions have been sustained by later investigations. Because there was no recommendation of the treatment on the part of the department, or explanation to the public of the proper use of formaldehyde, White's work attracted but little attention among the beekeepers.

With reference to the use of formalin gas, it should not be overlooked that several experimented with it in the years 1902-04 with little success. Prof. F. C. Harrison reported in the Canadian Bee Journal, several writers in the American periodicals commented at length, and many tried with insufficient care to treat combs by this process. C. H. W. Weber, of Ohio, and N. E. France, of Wisconsin, made extensive experiments. France proved rather definitely that the fumes would not penetrate the wax cappings, and his results are reported in the third annual report of the Illinois Beekeepers' Association and in the American Bee Journal for November, 1903. Since all these efforts were failures, they were soon forgotten.

In spite of enormous public expenditures and very sincere effort on the part of inspection forces, but little permanent progress has been made. The results of all such work have been temporary, and the disease reappears again after the inspectors leave the field.

All methods of dealing with it so far attempted have held something of promise, and most of them have offered some relief under proper conditions. None of them have proved foolproof, and the disease has remained to plague each new group of beekeepers as it plagued their forefathers.

American foulbrood still remains to be conquered, and it is not too much to expect that some means of control yet will be found. In the meantime, it offers both an opportunity and a challenge to the present generation.