Thanks for the interesting history from Pellett’s book Tracey. Beekeepers in BC during that period (1900+) were also switching from the black bee to Italians in pursuit of resistance to EFB.

I haven’t seen Pellett’s 1938 book but I do have his 1918 book “Practical Queen Rearing”. In it he wrote: 

“ Black bees are very generally supposed to have been first introduced into America from Germany but very probably came from Spain. The native black bees of Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain are said to vary but little.”

He also quotes Dadant, “Langstroth on the Honey Bee”:

“According to the quotations from the American Bee Journal, common bees were imported into Florida, by the Spaniards, previous to 1763, for they were first noticed in West Florida in that year. They appeared in Kentucky in 1780, in New York in 1793, and west of the Mississippi in 1797.” 

This may be true but conflicts somewhat with a two part article in the July and Oct, issues of the 1921 ABJ, 

“Some Early Beekeeping History, Incidents in Massachusetts Colony Prior to 1654”  and “Some Early Beekeeping History continued” by George W. Adams. 

On the subject of foulbrood Adams wrote:

“After 1670, bee culture declined so rapidly that a colony, which three years before would have been of equal value with three sheep, would bring but three shillings. There appeared to be no reason for this, either in change of purchasing power of money or in the presence of any substitute for honey and wax. Although sugar was becoming into more general use, it could have had no appreciable effect on beekeeping.”

“The fact remains however that in the space of less than ten years an economic asset greatly valued by the settlers had depreciated in value more than 75 percent and the production of an article of food highly prized and for which there was no cheaper substitute, was practically abandoned.”

“Probate records show a decline in value to about 15 percent of values three to five years earlier, and an apparent decline in the number of bees kept, fully equal to the decline in value.”

“Seeking a reason for this, we find in the inventory of John Neale, filed 1672; ‘Three hives of bees, 10 shillings, being somewhat decayed.’ This is not a bad description of American Foulbrood, and the writer is inclined to believe we have here the explanation sought....”

“....So rapid was the decline in beekeeping that for the next thirty years – the period of a generation – we find nothing to show commercial value of practical interest.”

“It was not until the second half of the 18th century that the interest revived, although there is little doubt that a few widely scattered farms still maintained their little apiaries. Perhaps their remoteness had been their protection, and from 1770 to 1800 there was a considerable increase, as is plainly shown in certain old diaries.”

Some of the dates Adam quotes for events in his articles are a little confusing  –  for example, he states the town of Newbury; “...received it’s first settlers in 1535 and five years later the ‘seven men’, or, as we should say now, the select men, established a town apiary, which was undoubtedly intended as an ‘experimental station’...”

Most history books give a date of 1620 for the first settlers arriving in New England – I admit to being over my head on this subject – could these conflicting dates be explained by the Julian calendar being replaced by the Gregorian calendar in 1752? Or maybe it is just a typo and he meant to write 1635? Whatever the case, Adams states that honey bees were imported by the early settlers before 1645 under the current Gregorian calendar. If that is true, it seems likely (to me) that the bees were imported from England, rather than Florida.

Given that Italian bees were later found to be resistant to EFB, it also stands to reason that they had long been exposed to the bacteria responsible for the disease. I’m uncertain where AFB originated. Hopefully someone will weigh in.

Some other details mentioned by Adams that I found interesting – 

He reviews details of a court case that took place on January 13, 1641, in which a beekeeper named Mr. Kirtland accused his neighbour  Mr. Deacon of stealing one of his swarms the summer before. Adams wrote:

 “The details of the trial are quite fully given, but as the testimony was taken in long hand, the peculiar long hand of a man who wrote in the characters of the 16th century, and as the tongue of the witness frequently out ran the quill of the clerk, I found it by no means easy to read. It is of course, devoid of punctuation, and the paper crumbling with age.”

My understanding of the trial is that Deacon came to Kirtland one spring and reported one of Kirtland’s hives had swarmed. Deacon took Kirtland to the location where he had seen the swarm land, but it was gone. 

That fall, Deacon came to Kirtland again to report some damage Kirtland had inadvertently inflicted on Deacon’s corn crop. Deacon asked that Kirtland give him a tree from his bush as compensation. Kirtland agreed, but later learned that the tree Deacon had requested contained bees. 

At trial Kirtland testified, “ I gave him ye tree but not ye bees.”

Adams reports, 

“The jury found as follows, 

‘We find for the plaintiff his bees and if living and well in spring only to pay ye charges of court; if all dead to pay thirty shillings.’ Court charges were 15 shillings, and two days later an execution was entered in that amount, but the court, with a leaning to mercy, ordered that, considering, ‘it was ye first time, and ye estate not great, the punishment shall be only a fine of 20 shillings.’ “

Adams also reported, 

“The first use of the word “hive” to appear in our county records is in the inventory of Thomas Barker, of Rowley, in 1650... the usual term being ‘stak’, ‘stake’, ‘stall’ and very rarely ‘stand’ “

He adds:

“The familiar word ‘skep’ appears but once and that is in 1665....” and 

“In 1662, John Andrews, of Ipswich, had, ‘tow stocks of bees and tow swarmes’ “ 

 Getting back to the subject of foulbrood – and maybe approaching the maximum length of an Allan Dick post – A. J. Cook, prof of Entomology, Michigan State Agricultural College, published a revised edition of his book “The Bee-Keepers’ Guide; or Manual of the Apiary” in 1884. At that time there was a prominent beekeeper named Mr. D. A. Jones located in Ontario. On the topic of foulbrood Cook wrote: 

“Mr D. A. Jones is successful with, what he terms the starvation method; The bees are removed to an empty hive, and given no food for three or four days till they have digested all honey in their stomachs. They are then given foundation...”

I don’t know where Jones learned this technique but it seems to have been forgotten in B.C., as I can find no record of the shook swarm being used here until the late 1890s/ early 1900s.

In the same book, Cook also references Jones unique method of introducing queens:

“Mr. Jones finds that chloroform is very useful in quieting bees. He put a dry sponge in the tube of the smoker, then a sponge wet in chloroform – it takes but a few drops – then puts in another dry sponge. These dry sponges prevent the escape of the chloroform, except when the bellows is worked. Mr. Jones finds that bees partially stupefied with chloroform receive queens without any show of ill-will. As soon as the bees begin to fall, the queen is put into the hive and no more of the vapor added. I tried this last summer with perfect success. This was recommended years ago in Germany, but its use seems to have been abandoned. It is more than likely that Mr. Jones method of applying the anesthetic is what makes it more valuable. The smoker diffuses the vapor so that all bees receive it, and none get too much. I should use ether instead of chloroform, as with higher animals it is a little more mild and safe.”

I bet professor Cook found his smoker easy to light after using the ether. Ted   

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html