48 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



With artificial comb, an elimination of 

 them in all but the one colony would, 

 in my judgment, be the best course to 

 pursue. However, by limiting their pro- 

 duction, except in their choicest colonies, 

 a steady gain may be expected. 



Referring to desirable characteristics, 

 I made no mention of hardiness, or the 

 ability to withstand severe winters, hav- 

 ing no difficulty in wintering my bees. 



What I most desire is an improvement 

 in size of the workers, queens and drones, 

 together with honey gathering qualities. 

 Any improvemement in size must nec- 

 essarily be slow; unless we allow new 

 combs to be constructed every season by 

 the improved bees. Although having 

 made slight progress in this respect as 

 already stated, also in honey gathering 

 qualities, still, using the old combs year 

 after year, must tend to keep them 

 dwarfed. 



Jackson, Mich. Jan. 24, 1900. 



;^>^>'^^r^^^^^^j,:f<:^ 



IZE OF HIVES AND THEIR 

 PROPER MANAGEMENT IN 

 PRODUCING COMB HONEY. 

 BY L. STACHELHAUSEN. 



In the hive-question the discussion is 

 stopped. I think myself that nothing 

 new would come 

 PP'^^T'^"''^'^"^^ out of further dis- 

 cussion; neverthe- 

 less, I am not con- 

 vinced that your 

 opinion is right. 

 If you say it is no 

 diiference, wheth- 

 er the same num- 

 ber of bees is in 

 one hive or in two, 

 this is against all 

 practical experi- 

 ence. I know, that a colony of 20,000 

 bees may store no surplus honey at all; 



one of 30,000 may store 20 lbs. and one 

 of 60,000 not only stores 40 lbs., but 120 

 lbs., may be more. This is my and many 

 other bee-keepers' experience. Old rule: 

 — Get your single colonies as strong as 

 possible for the main honey flow. 



It is against the theory of the useless 

 consumers to keep more and weaker col- 

 onies. I want my colonies just strong 

 enough to secure their existence from the 

 time after the honey flow till early spring, 

 not stronger, as yours are; and we get 

 this, if the queen is worked to her fullest 

 capacity from early spring till to the 

 honey flow. The queen overworked, as 

 you say, does not lay so many eggs dur- 

 ing the honey-flow as before. This is 

 the reason why I said that in small hives 

 will be more brood comparatively, when 

 we do not need it. Rule:— Get as many 

 bees for the honey-hars-est as possible 

 and as few as possible .vhen they are con- 

 sumers only. 



But I understand your position as a 

 comb-honey-man very well. You and 

 many other bee-keepers know, by practi- 

 cal experience, that you get more honey 

 from small hives, but the question is why? 

 When the honey-flow commences the 

 large brood-nest will be in such a condi- 

 tion that the bees will hardly work in 

 the sections at all. You want the brood- 

 nest full of brood during the honey-flow, 

 so the honey is forced into the sections, 

 but an overworked queen may not fill 

 even a contracted brood-nest. That is 

 all true, and the production of comb-hon- 

 ey will be unprofitable, so much so that 

 years ago I quit it entirely. You over- 

 come this difficulty by using small brood 

 chambers in the spring, but hereby re- 

 nounce a full development of the colony, 

 and raise more useless consumers, as 

 Doolittle puts it. 



The problem is, to use a hive and man- 

 agement, bv which a single colony is de- 

 veloped to the most possible strength be- 

 fore the honey-harvest, and then to bring 

 it into a condition which forces the bees 

 to work in the sections at once. Since I 

 do this I can get nearly as much comb- 



