224 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 



with the same management they will need but little, 

 if any, feeding to fit them for winter quarters, while 

 mine, with scarcely an exception, need from 5 to 30 

 lbs. per colony. 



>ly bees are nearly all pure Italians, or hybrids of 

 selected strains, while those with which I have com- 

 pared them have been, in nearly every instance, 

 blacks; so it can not be in the bees, for I found the 

 same difference when my apiary was all blacks. 

 From what experience I have (and I have given the 

 matter my loarticnlar attention with a view to de- 

 termine the number of colonies I should keep) I can 

 say that, to get the very hcst yield, not over fifty old 

 colonies should be kept in one locality; and if I kept 

 over 100 I should expect to keep them at an ex- 

 pense instead of a profit. N. F. Case. 



Glendale, Lewis Co., N. Y., March 27, 1883. . 



I think, friend C, you have put it a little 

 strongly in favor of small apiaries, although 

 doubtless lOU is vather too many for most lo- 

 calities. In an average locality, if I were 

 going to work 100 colonies for honey alone, 

 I think I should put them in two, if not 

 three, apiaries, and I should prefer to have 

 them from three to live miles from each oth- 

 er. In rearing queens as we do, I should 

 not hesitate to have as many as 500 nuclei 

 in one place; but very likely these would 

 not make, all together, 100 good strong colo- 

 nies for honey-gathering. He who keeps 

 100 or more strong stocks in one place, must 

 expect to feed a great deal that would be 

 saved, by having them scattered in apia- 

 ries of about 20 or 30 hives each. 



MEIiOMETEK IIVDKATIONS. 



{Continued.) 



l^ltlEND ROOT, I want to I 

 JiN brick" at you for wet-bla: 



heave a " whole half- 

 lanketiug me with the 

 reckless and incorrect statement that you 

 made on page 204, "That heavy showers always put 

 a stop to the honey-yield, and that it recovers only 

 gradually." Say sometimes, or frequently, instead of 

 always. Bees not infrequently do a staving busi- 

 ness when it rains "like suds" every few hours. 

 That the flowers should be so prostrated by a 

 shower that they could only recover gradualij', like 

 a man getting up from a fit of sickness, is a trifle 

 absurd. In point of fact, there is sometimes a ces- 

 sation of honey-flow, and gradual i-enewal, some- 

 times a pretty steady continuance of honey-flow, and 

 sometimes even an increase. These varying results 

 show that it is some other cause, and not the mere 

 sprinkling of a little water on the bloom, that de- 

 termines the cessation or flow of honey. The fig- 

 ures given last month afford of themselves the 

 means of refuting the above-mentioned explana- 

 tion; but I need not cite them, as there is abundant 

 evidence in the figures of 1881, which I now proceed 

 to give. When there has been little or no decline 

 after a rain, I will put in an asterisk (*); and where 

 there has been an actual increase I will put in two 

 of them {**). 



In the spring of 1881, not a single ounnc was indi- 

 cated by the scale until May 30th, after which we 

 had showings as follows:— 



May 3)th, 3, 7, rain. So much rain soaked into 

 things that the drying-out overbalanced the honey- 

 run of the next day. I noted down the fact, how- 



ever, that honey was coming in, and the next day 

 there was more rain. 



June 4th, 0, 4, slight rain. 



June Otb, 0, rain, rain, rain. It was cloudy on 

 June 6th, and rather too cold for bees to work, 

 which may account for the cipher. 



June 10th, forgot to weigh at morn. 



June 11th, 7, 9, rain. 



June 13th, 5, 7, 6, rain. The apparent decline of one 

 ounce on the 15th was probably not an actual de- 

 cline. The bees were disturbed that day, and were 

 also making preparations to swarm. I repeat the 

 last scries to show its connection with the next rain. 



June 13th, .5, 7, 6, rain, 10 (**), and rain again the 

 same day. 



June 17th, 3, 8, 7, slight rains. (Rule VI.) 



June 31st, 2, 0, 0, 3, rain, 8 (**), rain. 



On June 28th, the honey record suddenly ran up 

 to 38 oz. (**), more than twice the yield of any previ- 

 ous day this season ; and the next day there followed 

 a shower with violent wind, unroofing hives, and 

 making muss generally. (Rule III.) 



June 30th, 0. 3, in, 13, 19, 16, 18, rain. This run of 

 honey is the opening of the basswood bloom. 



July 7th, rain and 13 (*), rain and 6, 13, rain and 13 (*). 



July nth, 0, 10. rain. 



July 13th, 0,0, 1,0, rain. (RuleV.) 



July 18th, 0, 3, 6, rain, great rain and 2, heavy rain. 



July 33d, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, slight rain. (Rule V.) 



July38th, 3,0, 0, 3, 9, 8, 9, 9, 13, slight rain. Rule 

 VII.) 



Aug. 8th, 3, 13, in, 10, 13, slight rain. (Rule VII.) 



Aug. 14tb, 5, 16, 18, 23, rain. 



Aug. 19th, 34 (**), 30, 33, 39, 34. The next day could 

 not be fecorded, as the hive swarmed. The suc- 

 ceeding day give an 0, perhaps because the flying 

 bees had nearly all gone with the swarm. The se- 

 ries seems to be an example of a fair-weather run, 

 not eventuating in rain. 



Aug. 26th, 17, 14, (41 in 2 days), 38, 33, rain. Two or 

 three days of showery weather followed, with the 

 honey yield about steady at 19 oz. (*). The next day, 

 Sept. 4th, the scale indicated no gain, but the secre- 

 tion of honey may not have ceased — the colony had 

 resolved to swarm again. Sept. 5th, the issuing of a 

 3-lb. swarm made a record of the honey-run impossi- 

 ble. Sept. 6th, I neglected to weigh the hive. 



Sept. 7th, 9, 3, 0, no rain. 



Sept. 10th, 3, rain, 1, 0. This is the last ounce indi- 

 cated for the season of 1881. 



The present season, early as it is, has already giv- 

 en two runs of honey, both of them followed by 

 rains. 



Perhaps I am not the proper person to judge, but 

 I shoul J say that there is assuredly a direct connec- 

 tion between the approach of rain and the rise of 

 the honey-secretion, not a mere accidental coinci- 

 dence. The real question is. How will the new in- 

 strument compare in utility and reliability with the 

 instruments already in use? 



While my figures are before the public, I am 

 tempted to give tongue a little on another subject. 

 Quite likely some of our fraternity have inwardly 

 accused me of cutting a pretty big swath in the pa- 

 pers for a man whose honey-harvests have been so 

 moderate. Please notice that the figures for 1880 

 aggregate only 99 lbs. The figures for 1881 add up 

 only 52 lbs., about the same as our Texas comrade 

 claims as the yield of one day! Upon this meager 

 yield I realized an average of 63 lbs. of sections to 

 the colony, spring count. Of course, it would be 



