-^1861 U" 



o 



^EHICA.1^ 



Fcf^^^ "^S^^" 



43d YEAR. 



CHICAGO, ILL, AUG. 20, 1903, 



No. 34, 



c 



Editorial Comments 



] 



Queen-Xurseries for Honey- Producers. — Queen-rearing 

 is quite a business by itself, and the man wlio maltes a business of 

 rearing queens to sell can afford to use plans and appliances not gen- 

 erally used by one who rears queens only for his own use. Yet if the 

 importance of having best queens were felt as fully as it should be, 

 the average honey-producer would in his plaus and appliances prob- 

 ably come nearer the commercial queen-rearer than he now does. 

 Probably few honey-producers use anything in the line of a queen- 

 nursery, but it might be an advisable thing to do for any one with 50 

 or more colonies. 



Queen-cells nearly mature are put in a queen-nursery where the 

 young queens may emerge from their cells and still be confined sep- 

 arately, and then instead of a queen-cell, a virgin queen may be given 

 to a nucleus or a colony. There are advantages in this. The cell 

 may contain a dead larva, or it may contain a young queen with 

 defective wings, making her worthless. No loss can occur from either 

 of these causes if the young>queens be allowed to emerge in a nursery. 

 A good cell is sometimes torn down by the bees, and as a young queen 

 ii not always easily found, days may be wasted by the bee-keeper 

 awaiting the laying of the queen when no queen is present, for he can 

 not always tell by the look of the cell whether a queen has emerged 

 from it or not. It is a nice thing to have a few virgin queens on hand 

 for emergencies, and with a nursery a number can be kept in one hive, 

 but without the nursery only one can be thus kept. 



A friend who rears queens only for his own use says he would use 

 a nursery if he never used queen-cells except by taking them from 

 colonies that had swarmed. He has used with satisfaction both the 

 Pridgen and the Stanley. The Pridgen has the advantage that there 

 is no possibility of the bees getting at the cells to destroy them, and a 

 cell may have quite a hole in it and yet hatch out all right. Neither 

 can a queen ever get out of its own compartment, as it sometimes does 

 in the Stanley. The Stanley has the advantage that being made of 

 excluder-zinc the bees can get to the cells as freely as if they were on 

 the combs, A cartridge containing a young queen can also be taken 

 out separately to be taken elsewhere, whereas with the Pridgen the 

 young queen must be allowed to come out of its compartment before 

 it can be taken elsewhere. 



Comb vs. Foundation. — In a previous issue of this journal, 

 Adrian Getaz suggests the prevention of sw-rming by taking out of 

 each colony every few days a frame of brood, and replacing it with a 

 frame of foundation, saying that empty comb will not answer the pur- 

 pose, as " the bees would often fill it with honey before the queen 

 could lay in it.'' In one of the two-men conventions held by Editor 

 Hill and 0. O. Poppleton, as reported in the American Bee-Keeper, 

 this matter came under discussion, and Mr. Hill says: 



It will be noted that Mr. Getaz advocate's the use of foundation 

 in preference to a brood-comb because of the additional advantage 

 thus secured by the queen. Here is where Mr. Getaz and Mr. Popple- 

 ton collide. According to the experience of the latter gentleman, 

 either a sheet of foundation or a comb which had never been used for 

 breeding purposes, are effectual barriers to the queen's progress — 

 acting, in tact, somewhat as a division-board would do in dividing or 



restraining the brood-nest, according to the position occupied by the 

 said new combs or foundation; whereas, if given a brood-comb which 

 has been formerly used for breeding purposes, she is quick to avail 

 herself of the opportunity to extend her egg-laying operations. It is 

 understood that during the height of the season, when brood-rearing 

 is being pursued strenuously, the queen will quite readily take to 

 "any old thing " in the way of combs, whether old or new, or whether 

 full sheets or starters are used; but the point is, the queen's individ- 

 ual interests are greatly assisted by the use of old brood-combs, under 

 all circumstances. 



" When " two such " doctors disagree, who shall decide?" It is 

 very certain that at least sometimes, when a, frame or two frames of 

 empty comb are given to the bees in the time of harvest, those combs 

 will be filled with honey before the queen could have the time to. fill 

 them with eggs. Tha.t does not, however, leave it a foregone conclu- 

 sion that in all cases this filling of honey into the combs would be an 

 effectual bar to their use by the queen. The question is whether, 

 when the combs are thus filled by honey, the bees will again empty it 

 out as fast as needed by the queen. 



Mr, Hill urges that the queen prefers old comb in which to lay; 

 Mr, Getaz, that the bees prefer old combs in which to store honey; 

 both are no doubt correct; the practical question remains. Will a 

 frame of foundation or one of drawn comb do most toward the pre- 

 vention of swarming? If a frame of drawn comb and one of founda- 

 tion were given side by side, would that help to settle it? 



Bee-Paralysis Reconsidered.— The following note has been 

 received from Dr. Miller: 



Mr. Editor: — I take pleasure in forwarding to you a letter re- 

 ceived from O. O. Poppleton, and although intended only as a private 

 letter, it is of such general interest that I am sure my good friend, Mr, 

 Poppleton, will forgive me for giving it entire to your readers. 



I must thank Mr, Poppleton for calling attention anew to his 

 method of cure, and ask his pardon that in the press of affairs it was 

 not given the attention it fully deserved. Mr, Poppleton is a man of 

 much and varied experience, whose word is entitled to thorough credit, 

 and it is to be regretted that of late years we see so little from his pen. 



C. C. Miller, 



The letter of Mr, Poppleton referred to reads as follows : 



Dade Co., Fla., July 11, 1903, 

 Dr. C. C, Miller, Marengo, 111,— 



Mt Dear Friend; — Will you grant me the privilege of hinting 

 at a change which ought to be made in some of the answers to ques- 

 tions you have made within the last few months? I refer to the idea 

 that there is no cure known for bee-paralysis, etc. See your answers 

 in the American Bee .Journal for .June 4 and .June 11, 1903, E. K. Root 

 makes the same statement in a still more positive manner. See Glean- 

 ings for Aug. 1.5, 1902, page 6T9; for Sept. 1, page 7'30; Feb. 1.5, 1903, 

 page 100 ; and May 1, page 396. 



There is- a certain cure known for the disease — one described by 

 myself several years ago in the Review, and a couple years ago in the 

 American Bee-Keeper. I enclose a copy of the latter, which you will 

 see touches on all the points raised by inquirers and writers in the 

 American Bee .Journal and Gleanings within the last few weeks. 



Please notice how extensive my experiments were — some 40 or 50 

 cases cured with considerably over a hundred untreated cases under 

 observation ; also the careful, thorough manner of conducting the ex- 

 periments, by treating only a few cases at a time, and comparing them 

 with other still untreated cases; then treating a few more at a time, 

 and so on until all were cured. The result of this careful work was 

 that every treated colony recovered in about the same number of days 

 after treatment, while 'ill the others remained diseased until treated. 

 Handling as directed in the article prevents all loss of brood or brood- 

 combs, and is a very important point. 



If the condition of my eyes would allow, I would gladly write an 

 article on this subject for either of the papers, which would fully an- 

 swer all the inquiries lately made. In lieu of that I thought that per- 

 haps calling your attention to what is already in print would give you 

 a chance to help any future inquiries. 



