THE BEE-KEEPHRS' REVIEW. 



^I 



thcro is no I'mU How at lliis yard, this 

 t'luls tlic season. 



If it wore not for kcciiint;- tlu- cloviM' 

 separate, it would not be ni'eessar.v to 

 make more tlian three visits a years. 



A LITTLE HELP FROM AN ASSISTANT. 



I have an assistant iivin.u' about 

 one-half inih' from tills yai'd, and lie 

 looks o\-er the colonies, and adds up- 

 per stories where needed, visiting tlie 

 yard twice during the honey flow; 

 oiico about June 24th, and a.i;ain .Inly 

 TJth. He also helps me extract, and 

 pack the bees for winter — in all. 

 about eis'ht or ten days" work. This 

 yard is one-third nnle from any house 

 and there is no o!ie thiM'e to watch 

 and hive swarms when I am away. 



Now for results. The crop of 1901 

 was 10.4(H) pounds, and. last year, it 

 was 4..W0 pounds, making 15,000 total 

 for the tAvo years. This was sold at 

 wholesale at TVL' to cents per pound, 

 at an average of about 8 cents, mak- 

 ing .$1,200, or .$150 each for the eight 

 tri(is. 



The object of this article is to prove 

 how unnecessary is constant handling 

 or manipulation of the brood-nest, or 

 liracticing what some term intensive 

 bee-keeping. When the lioue.v harvest 

 comes, there is but little difference 

 between a colony that has been tink- 

 ered with, au-d one left to itself, i)ro- 

 vided they have plenty of honey. If 

 there was a difference, it would not 

 Uiake any change necesary in this sys- 

 tem: one would onl.y have to add a 

 few more colonies— enough to gather 

 vliat honey the field supi)lies. In my 

 CJise I try to keep in each yard as 

 nearly KH) fall-count as I can. The 

 above yard has only averaged about 

 ninety. In the spring I buy enough 

 colonies to make up any loss that may 

 occur duriiig winter, as I can buy 

 cheaiier than I can raise them. 



Renius, nkh, Feb, 1, 1903, 



RGANIZATION SHOULD 

 NOT RE ABANDONED ON 

 ACCOUNT OF DIFFICUL- 

 TIES. BY S. E. MILLER. 



The discussion regarding a Nation- 

 al Honey I'roducers' Association 

 seems already to be flagging. The 

 Review for Decendier gave quite an 

 exhaustive digest of the sub.ject; and 

 (i leanings, in the latter part of 1902, 

 had several good articles from prom- 

 inent writers; but in Gleanings Feb- 

 ruary 1, the subject se<>ms to have 

 been dropped entirely, while the Re- 

 \ iew of .Tanuary contains only two 

 ni'ticles on National organization; and 

 one of these seems intended to dis- 

 c-ourage the idea rather than to help 

 push it along. I refer to the article 

 on page 8. by H. H. Hyde. 



IS THE ORGANIZATION DISCUSSION A 

 SOAP BUBBLE? 



I wish to ask the bee-keepers of 

 :: r'c- whether this subject is to 

 - :ike a soap bublile; to be blown up 

 until it bursts and the breath of air 

 within it mi-; with the common air, 

 and the particle of suds drop to the 

 tloor. leaving only a mere speck? Or 

 have we men within our ranks who 

 :ire possessed of enough energy and 

 business tact to push it on to com- 

 pletion? We certainly have a few of 

 such in some parts of our country, for 

 already they have organized in Col- 

 orado and California. 



What caused me to write this, how- 

 <ner, is that I wished to combat the 

 pessimistic views that Mr. Hyde takes 

 of the subject. 



THERE W^LL BE ENOUGH OBSTACLES 

 WITHOUT HUNTING FOR THEM. 



To 1)0 sure, if we ever get so far 

 as to start this association, we must 

 not expect everything to be plain sail- 

 ing right from the start. There will 

 1)6 many obstacles to surmount ber 



