3(52 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



Fl<:. 1. —Stock cl'.aniliri 



the shell." These hives he stocked with one 

 thousand to fifteen hundred workers, and 

 shut them in with a " wire grating " for 

 three days. These nuclei of De Gelieu were 

 for raising as well as for mating the queens. 

 We are struck by the remarkable similarity 

 of this system with that described by Quin- 

 by in 1860. 



Henry Alley appeais to have been the 

 first to operate them on a definite and ex- 

 tensive plan. Alley used miniature hives 

 liolding five frames, each about six inches 

 square. These hives he stocked each season 

 by pouring in half a pint, more or less, of 

 bees, confining them for a day or two, and 

 tlien giving them a virgin queen or a cell. 

 But he also had a " stock " hive. This con- 

 sisted of a body which held ten of the little 

 frames. Three or four such bodies tiered 

 up would hold a fair-sized colony and fur- 

 nish him with brood for the little hives. 

 But these stock hives were of awkward ])ro- 

 portions. He could not successfully winter 

 them out of doors, and even indoors the 

 results were often a disappointment to him. 

 So he depended mostly on bees shaken from 

 combs for stocking his small nuclei. He 

 recognized the value of a " stock " hive, but 

 failed to make one successful. 



Later E. L. Pratt, a pupil of Alley's, 

 brought out a nucleus \ery much smaller 

 than Alley's, and more thoroughly sysfem- 



\nv 11 llclcus-llivo outfit. 



atized, in that the frames were designed so 

 several would fit within a regular L. frame, 

 and were stocked with comb, brood, and 

 stores in standard colonies. This made 

 comparatively easy the seasonable stocking 

 of the nuclei and the economical disposition 

 of brood and bees at the close of the season. 



Alley's miclei were a great economy over 

 the use of standard frames, and Pratt's 

 were an advance over Alley's, but both 

 called for an almost constant oversight. 

 Alley's nucleus box and frames were sub- 

 stantial and easily handled, but he lacked a 

 satisfactory "stock" hive. Pratt's ''stock" 

 system was practical, but his nucleus box 

 and frames were frail. 



The principal di-awback to Pratt's sj'stem 

 of using the little frames inside of standai'd 

 ones for stocking was the time and trouble 

 of adjusting or removing tliem, which was 

 much aggravated by accumulation of pro- 

 ))olis. Also at first tliere was much breakage 

 of the small frames, but later they were 

 made stronger. 



Both Alley's and Pratt's nuclei needed 

 almost daily attention, and each had to be 

 alert that the little colonies did not get over- 

 ])opulous and swarm. Taken all together, 

 the troubles with the little nuclei are so 

 many that the average honey-producer pre- 

 feis to use nuclei of two or more full-sized 

 combs each. And T understand that the 



