Sept. 1, 1904. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



597 



fixed as possible, b. " Colony " is a word that generally 

 answers the purpose ; sometimes " swarm," and sometimes 

 " nucleus." 



Jas. a. Stone (111.)— a. I had never thought of such a 

 need. b. I know of no word more suitable than the one 

 now in use — " colony." 



O. O. POPPLETON (Fla.)— I don't believe that I under- 

 stand these questions. The word " colony " covers what is 

 asked for, but it also includes more, viz.: combs and hive. 



R. C. AiKiN (Colo.)— I use the term "colony." 'Tis 

 probably not strictly correct, but I know of no better, and 

 it is common usage so to describe or name. Guess better 

 keep 6n so. 



James A. Green (Colo.) — a. There would be some ad- 

 vantage in having a definite name. b. Until something 

 better is brought forward, I think the present term " col- 

 ony " should be used. 



E. S. LovESY (Utah) — a and b. I don't think so. The 

 main thing to do, as I take it, is to keep track of the age of 

 the queen and her working capacity, then you know how to 

 operate under almost any condition. 



Dr. J. P. H. Brown (Ga.)— a. It is very desirable, b. 

 Jl/o^/ier-bee would hs much better than the word "queen," 

 which does not express anything functional or character- 

 istic of the insect. The names that are now applied to the 

 other inmates of the hive are sutSciently expressive. 



R. L. Taylor (Mich.) — a. Certainly, if I comprehend 

 the question, but not an exclusive one ; but is there not 

 one already adopted? b. The word " colony," to be modi- 

 fied by an appropriate adjective to indicate any defect or 

 excellence as "a queenless colony;" while nucleus is a 

 convenient word for a very small colony. 



E. Whitcomb (Nebr.) — a. I never could see any use in 

 such a procedure. Animals have more or less intelligence 

 and learn to know their names ; insects never do. If in 

 order to identify them, I would use numbers instead of 

 names as the least liable to confusion, b. I would number 

 them from one up, of each family, which would render 

 them easy of identification. 



Rev. M. Mahin (Ind.) — a. There ought to be uniformity, 

 so that all would understand just what is meant, b. If we 

 were starting anew some other name might be better than 

 " queen " for the mother-bee, but I doubt whether any other 

 name can be substituted for it without too much trouble 

 and confusion. As for the progeny of the queen, etc., 

 when located in a hive, " colony " seems to me as good a 

 name as we can find. 



G. W. Demaree (Ky.)— a. To make our bee-literature 

 comprehensible to the reading public, I answer yes. b. 

 Well, now, you suggest a problem, a real head-swimmer ! 

 The mother honey-bee, and her brood or family, if she 

 could read our ancient and modern bee-literature — well, she 

 would surely " scratch her head " in wonderment to know 

 who she and her family was, and is, and " where she was, 

 and is at." The unfortunate royal old mother, with her 

 single family, is called by the learned moderns a " colony 1" 

 — that is an indefinite number of families, and while quietly 

 and peaceably at work in her domestic hive-home — she is 

 called a " swarm " — commotion in the air or on the earth ; 

 and sometimes she is called a " shook swarm," and a 

 " shaken swarm," or a " brushed swarm," and all this while 

 the poor old slandered mother with her family is quietly 

 domiciled in her hive-home. When the writer was a young 

 man — SO years ago — the old men of those days called the 

 old mother "king," and her brood, a " gum of bees," and 

 they were nearer right than are our hifalutin, educated 



shookers, and shakers, and swarmists, and colonizers 

 Well, I believe the mother honey-bee with her brood would 

 be satisfied with the name of " hive-hold of bees." 



( 



Contributed Articles 





Alfalfa for Honey— Second Mating. 



BY PROF. A. J. COOK. 



FEW of US appreciate the remarkable productiveness of 

 alfalfa, and its importance as a forage plant, or its 

 promise as an aid to the bee-keeper. I just saw in the 

 paper that three carloads of bees had been shipped the past 

 week from California to Nevada. This means that, con- 

 fronted with a honey-dearth in California, the bee-keepers 

 had cast about, and noting the unoccupied alfalfa-fields of 

 Nevada, they had bethought themselves to hie thither with 

 their bees in hopes to secure a crop despite the California 

 drouth. One of these bee-keepers was no less a personage 

 than our old-time friend from Illinois, J. M. Hambaugh. 



I have wondered much of late if we are utilizing the 

 alfalfa pasturage to the limit in our own State. We know 

 that in this part of our State if the rainfall is scant, or is 

 untimely in its fall and distribution, we are sure to be 

 confronted with a honey famine. We also know that where 

 alfalfa is grown, there the flowers and nectar-secretion are 

 independent of rainfall, as this plant is grown in many sec- 

 tions entirely by irrigation, and so is as little disturbed by 

 peculiarity of season as any honey crop known to man. I 

 think that the honey product in the great San Joaquin Val- 

 ley is very sure, and that comes largely from this source. 

 In many parts of Southern" California there are fine alfalfa 

 fields that are unused by apiarists. Who knows but what if 

 these were utilized the bee-keepers could get a good honey 

 product without the great expense of moving bees by the 

 expensive way of the railroads ? 



It is worth while to study into this marvelous plant 

 somewhat, as it is of such importance to our bee-keepers. 

 In some respects it is unique among all plants. In the first 

 place it roots very deeply. I have actually seen its roots 

 reaching down 10 feet, and have heard of them stretching 

 down for 20 feet in search of water and other food. It is 

 plain to be seen that in this wide reach they come in touch 

 with a vast deal of fertility, and use, or may use, abundance 

 of water, if it is to be had at all. In California the soil is 

 rich, fertile, and productive away down, often for many 

 feet. Dig a well or any pit, or grade off the top soil and we 

 often grow as fine a crop on this lower soil newly exposed 

 as we grow on the topmost soil. Thus ours is the soil for 

 alfalfa. If we can only get the water alfalfa will do won- 

 ders in our region. 



And what a crop alfalfa is ! Think of growing, in ex- 

 treme cases, 10 crops in a single season ! Six or seven 

 crops in a season is the average in case of a good stand in 

 a good section. Often two tons per acre per cutting are 

 secured. Thus it would be possible, I suppose, to secure, in 

 a single season, 20 tons of hay per acre of this excellent 

 hay. Is there any other crop that any one knows of that 

 reaches anywhere near this great accomplishment? 



Of course this means an immense amount of water. It 

 takes an inch of water to an acre to grow alfalfa. While an 

 inch to 10 acres is often as much as the orchard can claim, 

 and as much as it can get. We see, then, in regions where 

 water is very valuable it is tremendously expensive to grow 

 this crop. Few know or realize the amount of water that it 



