January, i 



American Hee Journal 



living peaceably in the same hive, have 

 concluded that it would be a good thing 

 to cultivate that tendency, thereby se- 

 curing a greater amount of brood and 

 a greater force for the harvest of 

 honey. 



If we investigate the occurrences of 

 abnormal presence of two queens in 

 the same hive, we will find that in near- 

 ly every case (exceptions confirm the 

 rule) this happening is due to the rear- 

 ing of a young queen by the bees in or- 

 der to supersede the old one that is 

 losing her fertility. The writer has 

 found instances of this kind, quite of- 

 ten, in his experience, but in nearly each 

 instance one of the queens was practi- 

 cally a nonentity, being at the end of 

 her career, and laying but few eggs. 

 Evidently she was disregarded by the 

 bees, and by the young queen as well. 



Dr. C. C. Miller, who has the well- 

 earned reputation of being the most cau- 

 tious writer on bee-matters, because he 

 seldom advances a statement of which 

 he is not absolutely positive, made the 

 assertion, at the December meeting of 

 the Chicago-Northwestern Bee-Keepers' 

 Association, that when bees rear a young 

 queen to replace or supersede the old 

 mother, they rarely if ever destroy the 

 latter, but allow her usually to die a 

 natural death from old age. 



That the existence of two queens in 

 one hive, at the same time, one being 

 the mother of the other, has happened 

 oftener than the apiarist realizes, -s quite 

 probable. The elder Dadant, who had 

 a long experience in queen-rearing and 

 queen-introducing, often said that when 

 the bees refused to accept a queen that 

 had been properly introduced by keep- 

 ing her caged in the brood-chamber for 

 a number of hours, it was usually be- 

 cause they yet had another queen which 

 was not suspected by the apiarist. The 

 custom is to hunt the queen, and, when 

 she is found, to look no farther. In 

 most cases, we would be looking for 

 something that did not exist, if we 

 looked for a second queen, but we have 

 accidentally found two queens while 

 looking for only one. The writer re- 

 ported such an occurrence on page 52 

 of the new Langstroth Revised. In other 

 instances, finding a very decrepit queen 

 in a strong colony running over with 

 brood and young bees, we would at 

 once conclude that she could not be the 

 mother of all these bees. Looking far- 

 ther, we would find the daughter in full 

 vigor and probably already several 

 months old. 



But granting the fact that when a 

 queen is superseded owing to decreasing 

 fertility, she is allowed to remain and 

 to continue laying until she is entirely 

 sterile, and finally dies, does this make 

 it advisable to attempt the introduction 

 of valuable fertile queens in hives al- 

 ready supplied with good, prolific moth- 

 ers? In other words, will it be profit- 

 able to keep two or more queens in a 

 hive, and to expend money in buying 

 or rearing queens for this purpose? 



A number of instances are cited, in 

 which a queen has been introduced in a 

 colony already supplied, and the two 

 queens have apparently lived in har- 

 mony, and bred. But there is no doubt 

 that in many cases, such attempts at 

 forcing nature would be failures. When 



in possession of an observation hive, 

 who has not tried this experiment, just 

 out of curiosity? And how regularly 

 the new queen has been destroyed, often 

 by the bees themselves, without allow- 

 ing the two mothers to come to a bat- 

 tle royal. 



The principal instances in which ad- 

 d'tional queens may be accepted and al- 

 lowed to remain unmolested are during 

 a good, favorable season, when the bees 

 are prone to accept strange young bees 

 and drones without protest. They are 

 at that time in a pleasant mood, and will 

 suffer conditions which would incite 

 their anger in unfavorable times. 



The only purpose for which an addi- 

 tional queen in a hive might prove prof- 

 itable would be to secure a greater force 

 for the harvest. In order to do this, it 

 would be necessary to introduce the ad- 

 ditional queen early enough in the sea- 

 son to rear bees that would be profitable 

 by being on hand at the time of the 

 honey crop. It takes 21 days for a 

 worker-bee to hatch, from the time the 

 egg is laid. This worker is not a field- 

 laborer until from 14 to 19 days later, 

 in normal circumstances. Thus a queen 

 must be introduced to the hive from 35 

 to 40 days previous to the time when 

 her first workers are expected to be 

 of use in the fields. If the additional 

 force which she is expected to produce 

 comes near the end of the honey crop, 

 she will be furnishing a lot of consum- 

 ers that will lose more than they will 

 make. So it is very plain that an ad- 

 ditional queen, supposing her to be at 

 once accepted and not molested by either 

 the bees or the mother-queen of the col- 

 ony, which is always very doubtful, 

 must be introduced very early in the 

 season, if we expect her to help the 

 harvest. 



It would also be necessary that the 

 gain thus made be greater than it would 

 be if each queen occupied a hive of her 

 own. If the queen could be safely in- 

 troduced at any time without greater 

 risks than are incurred in the introduc- 

 tion of a queen to a queenless colony, 

 the proposed course would be much 

 more plausible, but such is not the case. 

 Queens which were accepted, during llie 

 reign of another in the same hive, after- 

 wards proved missing. Either the 

 queens had met and fought, while at 

 leisure during the idle months, or the 

 bees had concluded that one queen was 

 enough. Not only we can not depend 

 upon securing a safe introduction at 

 all times, but we may rest assured that 

 one additional queen or the other, as 

 the case may be, will be done away with 

 •n the course of the season. 



The question before us, then, is 

 whether it pays to sacrifice a queen for 

 a possible increase in the surplus. 



Some apiarists who have never reared 

 queens seem to be of the opinion that 

 the queen costs but little to rear. To us 

 it seems that the queen is the most ex- 

 pensive part of a good colony. A bee- 

 hive well made and painted costs be- 

 tween $2.50 and $4, according to size. 

 This lasts some 30 years. We have had 

 hives exposed to the weather which be- 

 came worthless at the end of 35 years. 

 Had they been sheltered, they might 

 have lasted longer, and a portable roof 

 which will keep the hive dry will cost 

 only a few cents, if made of rough lum- 



ber. So the cost, to the apiarist, of his 

 hive material, including interest on the 

 money and a sinking fund, to replace 

 the hives in 30 years, would not exceed 

 35 to 40 cents per year. The cost of the 

 foundation for the brood-combs of an 

 ordinary hive is $l or less. These last 

 as long as the hive, and the wax they 

 contain is still there at the end of the 

 time, returning at least half of the orig- 

 inal value. 



But the value of a good tested queen 

 in a hive, as early in the season as she 

 would be needed for a profitable rearing 

 of brood, is from $1.50 to $3, and she 

 lives only about 3 years. So the aver- 

 age cost of the queen in the economy 

 of the hive is the greatest, and the life 

 of the colony, the number of bees which 

 carry it through the winter, depend upon 

 her. The colony itself, in the busy sea- 

 son is not considered as worth any more 

 than the queen, and is practically worth- 

 less without this most indispensable 

 member. 



If we introduce a good queen in a 

 hive having one already, we are taking 

 chances upon the life of either, or both. 

 We are risking the most useful mem- 

 ber of a colony, one which would 

 promptly build another, if put with the 

 other parts, less expensive than herself, 

 for a problematical and very doubtful 

 possible increase in production. 



If the queen we have to spare is 

 worthless, pinch her head off, and let us 

 not risk having her fight the other and 

 destroy her. If she is as she ought to 

 be — a good tested queen — let us hunt up 

 a colony having a worthless queen and ' 

 make the exchange. If we have none 

 such, let us make a nucleus, giving the 

 prolific queen to this nucleus, and in a 

 very short space of time we will have 

 one more good colony for honey pro- 

 duction. 



Instead of believing that the queen is 

 the cheapest and easiest supplied capital 

 of our apiaries, I believe that she is 

 the most important, and the most diffi- 

 cult to supply, at the time of the year 

 when such capital is needed. I there- 

 fore strenuously object to jeopardizing 

 such capital by making introductions 

 that are at best a forcing of Nature's 

 ways, and of only possible success. 



Hamilton, 111. 



A Wonderful Queen-Food— 

 Overstocking 



By PROF. A. J. COOK. 



I notice in a late number of one of 

 our leading bee-papers, and that from 

 one of our leading authorities, the state- 

 ment that the prepared food that is fed 

 to the queen, young bees, and brood, 

 is a glandular secretion from the "lower 

 head-glands of the worker-bees." This 

 statement is made in one of our leading 

 bee-books, but not in Cowan, who is al- 

 most always, if not always, correct. I 

 am sure that it is not true, as I once 

 tried an experiment that was crucial in 

 settling this matter. 



The facts in the case are as follows : 

 The bees take the pollen or other pro- 

 teid food down into the chyle or true 

 stomach, and as it is passed down, they 

 mix with it copious amounts of this 

 secretion from the lower head-glands, 



