1893 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



47 



greater per cent of the syrup fed will go into 

 the sections. But you see, Charles, that, If I 

 had figured the sugar at 7 or 8 cts. per lb., and 

 the sugar-honey, as it comes from the hive, at 

 only 11 cts. per lb., the margin in favor of feed- 

 ing sugar would be very small. Hence, taking 

 the labor of feeding, preparing the syrup, and 

 the liability of the 'stuff' selling at a lower 

 price than real honey brings, it is quite strong 

 proof— enough, I think, to prevent a majority 

 of bee-keepers from trying to get rich by feed- 

 ing sugar to be stored in sections. Of course, 

 my experiment has been with only two colonies. 

 It may be, that, with a more extensive trial, 

 and with more experience, the result might be 

 more favorable to the sugar feeding; but I 

 hardly think it would pay us to keep bees for 

 the purpose of producing an article of honey 

 made wholly of sugar and water." 



•• Manum, judging from present indications, 

 do you think there will be much sugar honey 

 put on the market very soon '?" 



'•Dear me, Charles! this is another of your 

 difficult questions, and one which I wish I 

 might answer with a decisive no! but I fear 

 some, if not many bee-keepers will try their 

 skill at feeding sugar, especially in poor sea- 

 sons. I judge not only by what I read in our 

 bee- papers, but also by the numerous letters I 

 have received from bee-keepers, who ask many 

 questions regarding the matter, such as to the 

 amount of water required for 100 lbs. of sugar; 

 'When is the best time to feed '?' 'How much 

 shall we feed at one time?' 'How often'?' 

 'How many sections shall we put on at one 

 time?' 'Would sugar honey, so called, be (ac- 

 cording to Prof. Cook's idea, that it is really 

 honey) a violation of our State law regarding 

 the adulteration of honey and maple sugar?' 

 'Can I pi'actice it and recommend it?' 'Is my 

 new feeder rightly adapted to the purpose?' 

 etc." 



" Well, well I Did you answer all these ques- 

 tions?" 



" No, I did not, for I was disgusted with some 

 of them. There was so much selfishness exhib- 

 ited in some of these letters that I would not 

 gratify such selfish motives as I thought I saw 

 in them; and, there not being even a postage- 

 stamp inclosed to pay the postage on an answer, 

 they therefore found a lodging-place in the 

 waste-basket. As regards the reference to 

 postage-stamps, I am accustomed to such neg- 

 lect on the part of the writer, for not one letter 

 of iiKiuiv]! in 50 contains a stamp. However, 

 if the tone of the letter indicates an honest pur- 

 pose on the part of the writer, I never hesitate 

 to answer. I am always ready and willing to 

 impart to others the tittle that I know about 

 bees; but, at the same time, I like to feel that 

 the inquirers are sincere, and will appreciate 

 what is given them, inasmuch as it is of their 

 own seeking." A. E. Manum. 



Bristol, Vt., Dec. '26. 



EXCEPTIONS TO ALL RULES IN BEE-KEEPING. 



DK. MILLER RECONSIDEKS SOME OF THE STATE- 

 MENTS IN grahame"s article. 



On page 916 Mr. Wilder Grahame very justly 

 says that more light is needed as to the matter 

 of reproduction in the bee; and in his attempt 

 to throw light upon it, as it seems to me, he il- 

 lustrates the fact that we are likely to follow 

 traditions and jump at conclusions without 

 sufficient knowledge. I hope he will take it 

 kindly if I try to show some ofj the things of 

 that kind in his article. 



He says, " Everybody, perhaps, knows the 

 queen-cell . . . opens downward." If you 



cut out a queen-cell and put it in a horizontal 

 position it will hatch all right. More than 

 that, I have seen queen-cells placed horizon- 

 tally by the bees between the lower edge of the 

 comb and the bottom -bar. So there are excep- 

 tions to that rule. 



Again, "If all things are favorable, the larva 

 becomes a queen in 16 days." That's according 

 to the books, but I am somewhat of the opinion 

 that careful observation under the usual condi- 

 tions in which bees raise queens, when left to 

 their own sweet wills, will establish the fact 

 that often, if not generally, queens hatch more 

 nearly 1.5 than 16 days from the laying of the 

 egg. Thirty years ago, sixteen days was not 

 the orthodox time. It was 17 or 18. The Baron 

 of Berlepsch says {A. B. J., Vol. I., p. 199) his 

 "experiments show that the opinion generally 

 entertained, that the queens emerge between 

 the seventeenth and eighteenth day after the 

 eggs are laid, is correct." 



In the same volume, p. 14,3. father Langstroth 

 reports a case in which the queen was 21 days 

 in coming to maturity; and it will be noted 

 that it was started in a nucleus, presumably 

 without a laying queen. So I do not dispute 

 that it may take, and perhaps generally does 

 take, 26 full days for a queen to mature in the 

 cases that have been generally observed: yet in 

 a number of cases my plans have come to grief 

 by trusting to 16 days: and I think it quite 

 likely that if, instead of taking nuclei, or col- 

 onies in any way out of their normal conditions, 

 a series of careful observations were made upon 

 full colonies when preparing at the usual time 

 for swarming, some deduction would be made 

 from the 16 days. 



Again, it is stated that "after the old queen 

 leads a portion of the swarm" — by the way. it 

 would be better not to say the queen leads, but 

 accompanies the whole rather than a portion 

 of the swarm— that '' if the young queen hatches 

 before the colony is ready for her, the workers 

 confine her in her cell, and care for her there 

 until the conditions are more favorable." Prob- 

 ably '■ matures " is meant instead of " hatches,'" 

 for the bees would hardly confine a queen to a 

 cell after she had hatched out of it. But even 

 with that correction, is the statement true? 

 Do the bees ever confine a queen in her cell be- 

 cause of the presence of a laying queen in the 

 hive? Is it not rather the case that, when a 

 prime swarm is delayed until the young queen 

 is fully mature, the young queen is allowed to 

 emerge and to kill the old queen, or else that 

 the workers themselves kill the old queen ? 



Next, the statement is made, that, if all the 

 other young queens are not destroyed when the 

 first one hatches out. a second swarm will re- 

 sult. Isn't that putting the "cart before the 

 horse"? Isn't the preserving of the young 

 queens a result, rather than a cause, of the de- 

 termination to swarm ? 



When a queen is lost, Mr. Grahame says, " If 

 the colony is healthy, and there is brood in the 

 hive not over three days old, worker larva? are 

 removed to queen-cells," etc. That is certainly 

 something new, but is it true? In the hundreds 

 of cases that have come under my observation, 

 where queen-cells were started after the re- 

 moval of the queen, I do not remember to have 

 seen a case which lent any color to such a 

 belief. In every case the bottom of the queen- 

 cell had the hexagonal foi'm, showing that the 

 bees had left the larva in the original worker- 

 cell. Has Mr. Grahame any proof for his state- 

 ment? 



The bridal trip of the queen, according to Mr. 

 Grahame's statement, is made, "if the weather 

 is favorable, the third day after hatching." I 

 think the books of the present day will not sup- 

 port this. Dadant, in the revised Langstroth, 



