AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL, 



277 



I Contributed Articles. | 



No. 3— Drone-Bees and Their Itility. 



Can We, and Shall We, Control their Production ? 



BY C. P. DADANT. 



SINCE writing the two previous articles on this subject, I 

 have met with some private arguments. I have been 

 told that it is a mistake to try to change Nature, that 

 even if I can reasonably argue that it is best to prevent the 

 rearing of drones in most circumstances, it is an error to 

 change natural conditions. I can not agree with this. 



When we breed any kind of animals in domesticity, 

 their natural conditions are already changed. No one 

 thinks of trying to prevent the free breeding of wild fowls 

 in the proportions which Nature has dictated. But where 

 is the breeder of domestic fowls who will allow all the 

 roosters to live? Where is the farmer who will keep all his 

 male calves as bulls ? And do we not succeed best by arti- 

 ficial selection ? See with what care the farmer's wife 

 picks out the finest roosters for the following season's use. 

 And if she were careless, and killed or sent to market the 

 finest of them, would you think she stood any chance of 

 improving- the breed? What is done with chickens or with 

 cattle — can it not be done with our bees, in the measure of 

 our powers ? It is true that vee can not absolutely control 

 the reproduction, owing to the peculiar habits of the bees 

 in their mating, but we can, in a great measure, direct the 

 greater or less rearing of good or bad stock, and if we 

 would succeed, we must do all that can possibly be done. 



In natural conditions, a colony may be several miles 

 from other bees and probably requires all the drones that it 

 may produce. On the other hand, in domesticity, we may 

 keep a hundred or more colonies in one spot. In that case, 

 we have, if we leave it to the nature of the bees, a hundred 

 or more times as many drones as will be needed for all the 

 young queens that we may rear. We are therefore feeding, 

 if we leave the bees alone, hundreds of thousands of 

 drones that cost both food and heat to be reared, and whose 

 problematic usefulness is in the possibility of their keep- 

 ing the brood warm for a few days after the colony swarms. 

 Some of these drones are certainly more desirable than 

 others, for our colonies are not all equal in honey-produc- 

 tion. In an apiary of one hundred colonies, we may have 

 half a dozen colonies which will yield twice or three times 

 as much honey as the average of the entire apiary, and at 

 the same time we have a few colonies that will produce 

 little if any more than enough for their own consumption. 

 Not only must our female reproducers — the queens — be 

 reared from some of those best colonies, but if we would 

 encourage in all possible ways the breeding of the best, we 

 must also try to breed the greatest number of drones from 

 some of those preferable colonies. Yet, to avoid in-and-in 

 breeding, which Nature so abhors, we should not breed both 

 queens and drones from the same colonies. 



These propositions being well establisht, it remains for 

 us to decide not only how to get the greatest possible num- 

 ber of drones from the best colonies, but also how to pre- 

 vent the fertilization of the queens by inferior drones. 



Let me here open a parenthesis. I see that the question 

 of the fertilization of queens in confinement is again agi- 

 tated. If this were a success the fertilization of queens 

 would be comparatively easy. But these things have been 

 tried many times before, many sensible men have shouted 

 " Victory!" only to find a little later on that they liad 

 allowed themselves to be deceived by appearances. Time 

 will settle the question, but even a satisfactory solution 

 would not affect the question of producing valuable drones 

 and doing away with the valueless ones. I will now return 

 to the matter on hand. 



To secure a great number of drones from a colony is 

 not difficult, especially if the queen is prolific. We need 

 but to place drone-combs, one or two, in the center of the 

 brood-nest. Altho the queen dislikes to lay eggs in these 

 cells, until after she has bred a large number of workers, 

 the situation of these combs will induce her to lay in them 

 earlier in the season than she would have done otherwise, 



and we will readily secure a large number of valuable 

 drones early. As to the hive from which no reproduction 

 is desirable, we must confine the drones to the hive, or catch 

 them with a drone-trap as they emerge on sunny days, or 

 behead them in the cells before they hatch, or simply pre- 

 vent their being produced by removing the drone-comb 

 before the laying has begun, and replacing it with worker- 

 combs. 



The first of these methods is certainly the worst. 

 Many apiarists use the well-known drone-guard in front of 

 the hive. This is a sort of "yard" made of perforated 

 zinc placed at the entrance, and thru which the worker-bees 

 alone can pass. The drones and the queen are compelled to 

 stay in. It is also used to prevent swarming. Tho it 

 answers the purpose, it is not practical because when the 

 drones are induced to take flight by the warmth of the sun, 

 they congregate within this guard and are in the way of 

 the bees. Some people open the guard to let the drones out, 

 and close it again to keep them from coming back. It 

 would serve the purpose in compelling them to stay on the 

 outside and starve if they were all to issue at the same 

 time, but they are going and coming, and no satisfaction 

 can be had out of such a method. The drone-trap is much 

 better, for as the drones get into it they are caught and can 

 not return, and are out of the way, but it must be attended 

 to and emptied out regularly or they will die there and cre- 

 ate a pestilence. 



The third method, of beheading the sealed drones with 

 a honey-knife, before they hatch, is efficient, but like the 

 other two it has the very bad fault of having allowed the 

 expense of rearing those drones almost to the perfect 

 insect, without any returns. Then the comb in which they 

 have been reared is very soon again filled with eggs, and 

 the work must be done again. The last and only practical 

 method of getting rid of the drones satisfactorily is to pre- 

 vent their being reared, by removing the drone-comb before 

 any drone-eggs are laid, very early in the spring, and 

 replacing this comb with worker-comb, taken from deceast 

 colonies or from extracting supers. This replacing of 

 comb is a necessity, for the same reason that has caused the 

 bees to build the drone-comb in the first place will cause 

 them to rebuild the same kind in the same spot, if they are 

 allowed to do so. But it is useless to expect to be able to 

 remove every cell of drone-comb. In nearly every hive 

 there are quite a number of little patches of drone-cells 

 scattered here and there, and many of these pass unnoticed 

 even on the closest examination, unless they are already 

 full of brood, in which case the peculiar rounding shape of 

 the capping of the drones will make them noticeable. But 

 the production of a few drones in any hive is not objection- 

 able. It is the pieces of six or eight inches square that 

 give us the hosts of useless males, since the comb contains 

 36 of them to the square inch. 



In my estimation, the prevention of drone-rearing is of 

 importance especially because of the cost of breeding 

 them. I have always been of the opinion that they are 

 nearly as expensive to rear as they are to keep after they 

 have hatcht. Yet, they certainly consume considerable 

 honey after they have emerged from their cell, but I would 

 be inclined to think that nearly half of the total cost of 

 their support during their short life is to be reckoned while 

 they are in the cell. So it seems to me of the greatest 

 importance, on this score alone, to prevent their being 

 hatcht. 



I am told that the bees will not accept the removal of 

 their drone-comb, and that they will cut down worker-cells, 

 to change them to drone-comb, when all the drone-comb has 

 been removed. This I disbelieve, as it is contrary to my 

 experience. Tho they will rebuild drone-comb where 

 drone-comb has been removed, they do not seem to feel the 

 need of it enough to tear down good worker-comb. In 

 order to convince me that this has ever been done by bees, 

 it would require a very thoro experiment, made on old 

 combs that would not sag under the weight of honey._ I 

 believe that what has led some bee-keepers to this opinion 

 is the sagging and consequent elongating of cells tf)' heat. 

 This sometimes happens when the comb is new and heavily 

 loaded, or by the use of defective foundation, which by 

 stretching has become large enough for drones to hatch in 

 it. But I doubt that bees have ever seen fit to tear down 

 worker-comb to build drone-comb in its place. If they 

 were prone to do so, they very probably would be inclined 

 to do the reverse where too much drone-comb existed, and 

 in the case of the Drory experiment, mentioned by me in a 

 former article, when a colony had been furnisht with noth- 

 ing but drone-comb, they certainly would have torn down 

 some of this comb to replace it with worker-comb, while 



