574 . GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



■ENEMAL COERESPONDENCE 



THE ALEXANDER -MILLER -FOWLS -TOWN SEND METHOD OF MAKING 

 INCREASE AND KEEPING DOWN SWARMING 



BY' CHALON FOWLS 



[In Gleanings for last year, page 979, was an article by Dr. C. C. Miller in reply to Mr. A. Swahn, 

 in which he criticised some of Mr. Alexander's statements as made in the ABC and X Y Z of Bee Culture, 

 on his method of increase. In this connection it is proper to state that the Alexander method of increase 

 has called forth more favorable comment as well as adverse criticism than anything we ever published. Some 

 statements made in the original article, if construed literally without poetic license, will not stand the test of 

 experience, and to this Dr. Miller called attention in his article, page 980, 1914. Mr. J. G. Brown, former- 

 ly a member of our editorial staff, and now in Colorado, came back with a reply to Dr. Miller in our issue 

 for Jan. 1, page 27. In this article Mr. Brown showed that he had used the Alexander methrtd in his Colo- 

 rado apiaries with considerable success. He poked a little fun at the doctor for slightly misquoting Mr. 

 Alexander, and not allowing sufficient leeway for poetic license. Then he gave the names of several prom- 

 inent Colorado beekeepers who, like himself, had used the )iiethod with a great deal of satisfaction. More 

 discussion back and forth followed till finally an article was written by Miss lona Fowls, who, with her sister 

 and father, has Ijeen doing a large business in producing extracted honey for the bottling trade at Oberlin, 

 Ohio; but instead of going into a defense of the Alexander method she told how she and her father had used 

 a modification of the Alexander plan for keeping down swarming. Dr. Miller in his Straws, in the follow- 

 ing issue, page 261, calls her to task for making a statement which in his experience in his locality does not 

 prove true. Miss Fosvls comes hack at him in our issue for May 1, page 377, in which she says that Dr. 

 Miller is talking about one thing and she another; and then in the last paragraph she gives Dr. Miller credit 

 for giving the basic principle of the new method in our issue for Aug. 15, 1911. It will, therefore, be seen 

 that in this new or old metliod of swarm control several have had a hand, and hence the heading of this 

 article. 



Mr. Fowls, in the following article, in referring to the Townsend article in the Review, brings out one 

 point that deserves especial emphasis right here; namely, that the ordinary shook-swarm methods take in 

 bees of all ages, and for that reason the shake plan cannot he regarded as an unqualified success. In the first 

 place, it does not follow nature; and in the second place it does not always work. In the Fowls modified 

 Alexander plan he follows nature in that he makes his swarm have nothing but old bees. We believe that 

 Mr. Fowls or Mr. To'.vnsend or Dr. Miller (we would not now say who, but probably Mr. Fowls) has struck 

 on a good point in making an artificial swarm that involves the principles of natural swarming. 



This whole question is a most opportune and important one, and we hope that every reader of Glean- 

 ings will go through the discussion very carefully. If you have back volumes of Gleanings, and the last 

 issue of the Review, you will do well to read all the articles. 



We asked Mr. Fowls to repeat his method,- notwithstanding it was nearly all given by his daughter in 

 the references cited, because we believe it is one of the most important tricks of the trade that we have 

 published in a decade. A good thing will bear repetition. 



We have known Mr. Fowls for many years. He is a man who, notwithstanding his locality is a rather 

 poor one, succeeds with his bees. He has sent his daughters through college. He has built him a beautiful 

 home with all modern conveniences on one of the principal streets of Oberlin. He has plenty of home com- 

 forts, end, the last we knew, money in the bank — all this and more from the bees, for he has no other 

 business. Mr. Fowls is not, therefore, a merely theoretical virriter, but one who makes money from his bees 

 in a locality that is rather mediocre. If our readers can wade through this long introduction we hope they 

 will take pains to read his article and those of his daughter very carefully. It might be too late to try out 

 this method yet in some localities. If so, mark it, and save it for next year. Here it is. — Ed.] 



In the June number of The Beekeepers' many " shook " swarms previous to 1912 



Reviexv Editor Townsend describes a meth- (when we adopted the new plan), and I 



od of swarm control in outyards which he often thought the bees acted uneasy and 



worked out last year, and which he calls dissatisfied, which I attributed to the pres- 



" Our modified Alexander plan of swarm enee of so many young bees. No doubt 



control." Readers of Gleanings will find many of these were cell-builders primed 



the same plan given in an article by my with royal jelly, which would go right to 



daughter, page 242, March 15, also page building another batch of cells. 



377, May 1. In 1911 we had a poor season here, (he 



But, to return to Mr. Townsend's article, bees getting just enough honey to induce 



I notice he gives as a reason for abandon- them to swarm, and we practiced "shook" 



ing the shook-swarm plan, that there is "too swarming until we became convinced that 



much absconding of swarms" to be profit- the plan was wrong in principle for the 



able, but gives no reason for such abscond- aforesaid reasons. 



ing. Now, I think that, in the system we About this time Dr. Miller answered an 

 have worked out and put in practice the inquiry in Gleanings, Aug. 15, page 490, 

 last three years, we have eliminated the 1011, explaining that the presence of queen- 

 conditions which caused the absconding in cells above a comb-honey super would not 

 the old " shook " metliod. have enough effect on the lower story to 



Let us consider for a moment the differ- start swarming there. Probably ] got the 



eiice between a natural swarm and a "shook" idea from this, and the next year (1912) we 



swarm. A natural swarm is made up of pnt it in practice, making over forty swarms 



the bees old enough to fly; but a shook by (he new plan. The next year (1913) we 



swarm consists of bees of all ages — nurse- Iiad a bumper crop, and the bees directed 



bees, cell-builders, all sorts. We have made (heir energies to storing, so we did not need 



