1893 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



887 



For extracted honoy he would give an abun- 

 dance of room and tier up. He did not indorse 

 the idea of Mr. Simniiiis. that an empty hive 

 placed under the brood-nest would prevent 

 swarming. Ho had tried it, and found it would 

 not work. If he put tin; emitly chamber any- 

 where, he would put it aliove. He was then 

 asked to give his system for i)roducing comb 

 honey, in response to which he said he preferred 

 new swarms. He hived them on an extra 

 brood-nest having only starters — starters at- 

 tached to top- bars, a plump inch wide, and the 

 frames themselves spaced close. Over this he 

 put a qu< en-excluder and then sections. When 

 he hived on starters there was much less liabil- 

 ity of swarming. 



As discussion up to this point had been large- 

 ly on the matter of preventing swarms, some 

 one asked the question as to what was the best 

 method to secure increase, when increase alone 

 was the object. Pres. Miller asked those who 

 considered artificial swarming or dividing the 

 most rapid means for accomplisliing this end, 

 to rise. vSixty - three responded.* Then he 

 asked those to rise who preferred the natural- 

 swarming method. No one got up. 



EVENING SES.SION. 



The grading of honey was the first thing un- 

 der discussion. The plan adopted at the Wash- 

 ington convention was then read. For some 

 reason or other the members seemed to take 

 very little interest, and finally it was voted to 

 take no action one way or the other. This was, 

 no doubt, somewhat of a surprise. Either the 

 convention had got tired of the subject, or else 

 it seemed impracticable to do any thing with it 

 at all. A paper was then read from Mr. Muth, 

 on the grading of honey. He took the ground 

 that any scheme that might bf propo'^ed by any 

 body of bee-keepers would not be accepted by 

 honey-buyers and commission men generally. 

 Their own markets required special grading, 

 and they would adhere to whatever suited 

 their purpose best. He gave some good sugges- 

 tions on putting up extracted honey for market. 

 It was surprising, the lack of knowledge that 

 bee-keepers seem to show in putting up their 

 honey. A short time before, a consignment of 

 extracted honey had been shipped to him, put 

 up in barrels that had previously been soaked 

 with water to make them tight. This was the 

 worst thing that could have been done, for it 

 was a well-known fact that honey would ab- 

 sorb water. When the honey-buyer or commis- 

 sion man came to mak(^ out his report, that so 

 many pounds had leaked out, the shipper would 

 complain, and begin to doubt the statement of 

 the consignee, and the result would be trouble 

 all around. Barrels sliould be thoroughly 

 dried, and the hoops driven down before put- 

 ting honey into them. 



QUEENS GETTING THROUGH PERFORATED 

 ZINC. 



DIJ. Mir.LKR SAYS THAT THOSE QUEENS WHICH 



GOT THROUGH PEKFOHATION8 ^^''0^7 WIDE 



WEKE KEAHEI) DURING 8WAHM- 



ING TIME. 



That letter of Dr. Tinker's, on page 829. to- 

 gether with the lengthy footnote, makes very 

 interesting reading. According to the testi- 

 mony tliere given, it appears that the best size 

 for queen-excluding zinc is somewhere not less 

 than '■^"(i'a of an inch, and not more than -^'()^(i'(^, a 

 range of yTili'lTo of an inch to settle, or about f of 



*As tViere was an atteiidance at most of tlie ses- 

 sions of at least 200, it must nut be understood that 

 all voted on tliese questions.— Ed. 



•,V of an inch. I would say that, if all my ex- 

 cluders had perforations of the same size as the 

 sample sent, tlu^n I am of the opinion that ^^Q^a 

 is not too small, for I had no evidence that the 

 workers were hindered in passing through, 

 unless possibly more loads of pollen were found 

 lying loose than if no excluder had been there. 



But after reading the conclusions reached — 

 conclusions which seem to have been reached 

 with care— and after comparing with them ray 

 own experience, I confess I am all in a muddle. 

 Without further delay, however. I'll try to com- 

 ply with your implied request, Mr. Editor, "to 

 give a history of that queen which got through 

 perforations only i\;ip„ inch wide." There were 

 several of her — just how many I can not posi- 

 tively say. Dr. Tinker has given a diagnosis of 

 the case, according to which the queens were 

 abnormally snuiU, raised in a time of dearth by 

 removal of the queen from a strong colony. 

 Couldn't have got much farther oft', doctor, 

 although your diagnosis may be pefectly justi- 

 fied by the data you had to work on. Instead 

 of " a time during the season when little or no 

 honey was coming in,"' the queens in question, 

 at least those which were virgins, were laised 

 during a flow of honey, never exceeded during 

 my experience, if. indeed, it was ever equaled. 

 Instead of the queen being removed, thus forc- 

 ing the bees to rear another, in every case the 

 queens were the result of natural swarming, 

 pure and simple. As to their being undevelop- 

 ed, and thus below the normal size, I can not 

 speak minutely on that point, as I had no 

 means of measuring their size, even if I had 

 thought of such a thing; but measuring by the 

 eye after seeing a good many queens, I should 

 say they were fully up to the average size. One 

 of them, at least, was an old laying queen, and 

 one of the virgin ijueens was daughter of a 

 queen sent me from Florida by Dr. J. P. Mur- 

 dock, a queen remarkable for her large size. 



Other queens tried, and tried repeatedly, to 

 go through the excluders, and failed. Why 

 that should be, or why queens of full size should 

 go through when they ought to have stayed in, 

 according to all measurements, are things I 

 don't pretend to say. You, gentlemen, are the 

 lawyers in the case, the judge and the jury, 

 and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. 

 I await with much interest your verdict, 

 whether it be that there were some perforations 

 larger than others, or that I was mistaken en- 

 tirely in my observations, or that there is some 

 other way of explaining what seems to be inex- 

 plicable. All that I know at present is. that 

 swarms issued accompanied by these queens 

 that went through the excluders, some of the 

 swarms being hived and some of them escaping 

 to parts unknown. 



THAT SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT IN FRAMES. 



I'm glad to see full discussion as to what is 

 best in a frame, and friend Scudder's letter on 

 page 830 is quite interesting. If the extreme 

 ends of the top bars do not touch each other, I 

 see no reason why they may not just as well be 

 narrowed down to % as to be left wider. That 

 will !eav<' a space of % between; but at that 

 point there is not much likelihood that brace- 

 combs will be built. Mnt I bc^lieve I would 

 rather have the ends l-*s than :^<. Then there 

 will be no need of the tin rabbet, and it may be 

 a question whether there is need of more finger- 

 room to handle the framiis. Even if a space of 

 X be allowed to take hold of the frames, will it 

 not be nec(^ssary to pry th<>m loose before tak- 

 ing hold of them? and. while prying loose, may 

 we not just as well pry them apart far enough 

 to take hold of them readily? Is that open 

 passage through the ends of the top-bars an 

 advantage? Do the be(!s go directly up the 



