520 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



June 15 



perhaps manj^ times as much smoke as an- 

 other. Why? I can not tell, but have ob- 

 served this much : that the smoke affects 

 thDse combs with the thinnest cappings 

 first. I am inclined to think that either 

 the sulphur or light alone would do the 

 work of bleaching, given time enough; but 

 it seems evident that both working together 

 do the work more promptly and satisfacto- 

 rily. 



1 ran some 6500 combs the past year 

 through the bleaching process with very 

 satisfactory results. Combs that are only 

 a little off would come out almost as white 

 as snow, while those a little darker would 

 be greatly improved. A few hundred, how- 

 ever, had so much propolis mixed with the 

 cappings that no amount of bleaching would 

 make them white, as I held some of them 

 to it for three months, and finally conclud- 

 ed I might as well try to change the skin 

 of an Ethiopian. It takes more time at 

 best than one would expect. Even those 

 combs that are but slightlj^ stained usually 

 require several days to make them look 

 bright. 



I«. If I were building a room new for bleach- 

 ing I would use glass overhead as well as 

 at the sides, so that the combs would be 

 exptosed to sufficient light on both sides at 

 the same time, and so save the work of 

 turning and length of time to do the bleach- 

 ing. 



I had almost forgotten to say that, when 

 combs have received an overdose of smoke, 

 and any of the cappings have turned green, 

 as may happen when sulphuring to destroy 

 the larvs; of the wax-moth, the green can 

 be taken oft" by placing in the direct rays 

 of the sun for a time, when it will change 

 to a light brown, or look like a thin coat of 

 propolis, which, although not desirable, 

 looks much better than the green. 



After all would it not be much better to 

 produce comb honey without stains? Can 

 it be done? I believe it can; but the dis- 

 cussion of it will need be left till another 

 time. 



Middlebury, Vt. 



[I do not know that it would be possible 

 for our engravers and printers to show all 

 the difference that has taken place in the 

 combs before and after bleaching; but the 

 photos show quite a difference. 



When this idea of bleaching by means of 

 sunlight and sulphur first came out I felt 

 very enthusiastic about it ; but after the 

 matter was exploited in our columns about 

 two years ago, I had almost entirely forgot- 

 ten about it until Mr. Crane sent in the 

 manuscript and photos for this article. 



Our friend furnishes additional proof 

 showing the results that may be obtained 

 by bleaching otherwise dark combs ; and 

 while his bleaching-house cost him quite a 

 little sum of money, I estimate that he prob- 

 ably paid for it in one season's use. If 

 that be the fact, the investment has paid for 

 itself and he has it for years to come. When 

 one can convert a No. 1 honey into a fancy, 



and a No. 2 into a No. 1, he is actually 

 making anywhere from one to two cents per 

 lb. on his honey. At one cent, on a basis 

 of 10,000 lbs. he would make a clean profit 

 of $100. I do not know of any way that the 

 bee-keeper can earn good money more easi- 

 Ij'^ after the honey-flow and the rush is over 

 than he can to bleach up some of his off- 

 colored combs. Mr. Crane is a ver3'^ care- 

 ful, conservative bee-keeper; and what he 

 says he has accomplished I know he can 

 do.— Ed.] 



CARELESS HANDLING OF EXPLOSIVES. 



The Selection of Breeding Stock; on what Traits 



should the Selection be Based ? A Reply 



to Arthur C. Miller. 



BV G. M. DOOLITTLE. 



My attention has been called to an arti- 

 cle bj' Mr. A. C. Miller, found on page 240 

 of Gleanings for March 15, in which he 

 thinks he has found some good material for 

 making explosives, and proceeds to what he 

 considers a proper combination of these 

 materials; but he evidently handled them 

 so carelessly that an explosion took place 

 in his oivn hands, so it was Arthur w^hogot 

 hurt rather than the other Miller. When a 

 man starts out on a wrong premise, it is 

 very eas3' to make a comparative logical 

 showing from the same; but as soon as it 

 appears that the premise is false, then the 

 "structure" falls, and all the argument 

 counts for naught. If Mr. Miller's reading 

 of Darwin, and about heredity, has been 

 as careless as was his reading of my arti- 

 cle on pages 975 and 976 of December 15th 

 Gleanings, his conclusions arrived at there- 

 from may be as erroneous as are those in 

 his "Explosive Comparisons" article. On 

 page 976 I positively stated that the queen 

 in the colony giving the "261 completed one- 

 pound sections" was from my stock which 

 I had been 30 years in perfecting, and as 

 plainly told that none of the other queens 

 were from this stock. And when A. C. 

 Miller ignores such a plain statement, he 

 shows that he is a very careless reader. 

 Nearly every year I am trying queens from 

 other parties to see if I can not find some- 

 thing better than what I have; and queens 

 Nos. 2 and 4 were gotten with the hopes of 

 improving my old stock, as the parties from 

 whom I got them claimed to have the best 

 in the world. But as they give only 44 and 

 65 completed sections respectively, as 

 against the old stock's 261, with the same 

 strength and working plan, it became very 

 evident that I could gain nothing by breed- 

 ing from them. Mr. Miller seems to wish 

 to convey the impression that it is impossi- 

 ble to make any real improvement in bees 

 during 30 years, and to strengthen this im- 

 pression goes on record with these words: 

 "To claim that radical changes in struc- 

 ture and habit in a desired direction could 

 under these conditions be secured in 33 years 

 is, scientifically, an absurdity." Well, I 



