888 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 1 



A LITTLE misunderstanding' seems on p. 

 844. I think Geo. Shiber and I are agreed 

 that the queen prefers old black comb for 

 laying- eggs in; the bees prefer it for stor- 

 ing honey in; they prefer it for a winter 

 nest, and in every respect it is preferred by 

 queen and bees to new comb or foundation 

 except for the starting of emergency queen- 

 cells. [Your comment on page 844 reads 

 just as though you disagreed with Mr. Shi- 

 ber; but in reading it over again I now see 

 how you probably intended to ag^ree with 

 him. But I am of the same opinion still — 

 ferninst _vou both. — Ed.] , 



Four points in favor of forced swarins 

 are given, p. 854, and they're good, all but 

 the third: "that starters are just as good 

 as full sheets of foundation, under some 

 conditions at least." That has no bearing- 

 upon the case whatever, for it applies just 

 as well to natural swarms. [Correct. But 

 I could not forbear giving emphasis to the 

 fact that a bee-keeper might save some mon- 

 ey by using- only starters. A penny saved 

 is a penny earned; and if any class of peo- 

 ple are entitled to all they can earn b}'^ 

 short cuts, it is our friends who are try- 

 ing to get bread and butter by getting- hon- 

 ey and putting it on the bread and butter 

 of other people. — Ed.] 



In shaking bees off combs when making 

 a forced swarm, there is likely to be more 

 or less honey shaken out upon the bees, and 

 some speak of this as if it were a thing to 

 be regretted. On the other hand, M. A. 

 Gill, p. 850, seems to feel all the jollier 

 about it the more the bees are doused with 

 honey. Certainly it is more like natural 

 swarming to have the bees well loaded with 

 honey, and I suspect such bees are just a 

 little more contented when they find their 

 combs of brood gone. It is a common prac- 

 tice in some parts of the world to feed a 

 swarm for the first day or two, and it is no 

 doubt a profitable thing to do. It ought to 

 be a good thing for a forced swarm as well. 



Mr. Editor, you misunderstand my po- 

 sition with regard to forced swarms, p. 844, 

 if you think I have the slightest desire that 

 they "be turned down." Bless your heart, 

 I have just as much respect for them as you 

 have — yes, more. You are probably wise in 

 being a little cautious about claiming- too 

 much for them; but after they have been so 

 thoroughly tried by cautious German bee- 

 keepers I have no hesitation in saying about 

 them some things that you precede by an 

 "if." Forced swarms are away ahead of 

 natural swarms ; and the nuisance of the 

 latter may be largely avoided by anticipat- 

 ing them with the forced swarming. But a 

 colony that will stick right to its knitting, 

 without any thought of swai-ming, is ahead 

 of either natural or artificial swarming; 

 and all through my bee-keeping life I've 

 been chasing after the non-swarming will- 

 o'-the-wisp, and so I can't be so very en- 

 thusiastic about any thing that doesn't 

 point straig-ht in that direction. [But you 

 spoke just as though the method had been 



a failure with you, for you said, referring- 

 to these same brushed swarms, "I was nev- 

 er very enthusiastic about them." In speak- 

 ing so forcibly in favor of them, I endeav- 

 ored to "brush" you into line. But I am 

 very glad to know if you are already and 

 have been in the front rank of the brushers 

 or shakers. You still feel, however, that a 

 colony that will " stick right to its knitting, 

 without any thought of swarming," is 

 ahead of either natural or brushed swarms. 

 But, say, doctor, what is the matter of tin- 

 kering up a colony by brushing-, shaking, 

 or forcing, so it will not have any " thought 

 of swarming-"? Will not such a colony do 

 just as well as a colony not tinkered up 

 that never has thought of swarming? or, in 

 other words, what will be the difference? 

 If both sets of bees are energetic, and keep 

 on working- without thinking of swarming, 

 why shouldn't both, other things being 

 equal, be equal.'' — Ed.] 





'"' r7 d ■ "I ^ 



5) 



But even if our bright days pass, 



Bringing winter drear, 

 It's always noon and summertime 



Somewhere on the sphere. 



Centralblatt reports a great many cases 

 of robbing of hives, but by two-legged 

 thieves. The bees are first smothered with 

 fumes of sulphur, and then the honey, if 

 any, is taken away. It is proposed to set 

 a premium on the heads of the thieves. 



\i/ 

 BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 

 The issue for October is one of special in- 

 terest to all bee-keepers, as it contains a 

 full account of a visit made by the editor to 

 the home of Dr. J. L. Gandy, Humboldt, 

 Neb., during the fore part of September. 

 We have a view of Dr. Gandy in his apiary 

 near home, already shown in these columns; 

 a picture of the doctor's home; a patch of 

 catnip in the orchard; a view of a field of 

 buckbush; a load of catnip from which the 

 seed is to be thrashed; a view of the finest 

 patch of catnip found b^' Mr. Hutchinson, 

 near the hedges; a view of one of Dr. Gau- 

 dy's out-apiaries; a picture of an orchard 

 on one of the doctor's farms. The descrip- 

 tion accompanying all these views is very 

 readable. Mr. Hutchinson infers that there 

 are no large fields of catnip around Hum- 

 boldt, but that the aggregate of the strag- 

 gling patches must be very considerable. 

 This was the opinion of the editor of this 

 journal, who was at Dr. Gaudy's at the 

 same time Mr. Hutchinson was. As to 

 their reception at the Gandy homestead, 

 Mr. Hutchinson says: 



