1908 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



1443 



most uniform character. Well, I get that sort 

 of work sometimes — not so often as I like — 

 when I give a fresh super under to a strong colo- 

 ny in a strong flow. When I've given a super 

 on top I never had such a state of affairs — never. 

 The center sections were always well in advance 

 of the outer ones, if, indeed, the outer ones were 

 attacked by the bees at all. So, other things be- 

 ing equal, that matter of even starting all over 

 the super is enough to settle me in favor of put- 

 ting the empty super under, so long as I have 

 any reasonable hope that the season will contin- 

 ue until the super is finished, or nearly finished. 



When the season is well advanced, and it's a 

 question whether an additional super is needed, 

 that's another thing, and the super goes on top. 

 Besides, crowding late in the season doesn't have 

 the same effect as early. 



But I hear some one say, " Your locality must 

 be different from mine; for I've often given emp- 

 ty supers on top when the bees would commence 

 just as promptly at the corners as at the center; 

 in other words, I've had exactly the same kind of 

 work with supers given above that you brag about 

 getting with supers below." Well, I don't feel 

 like disputing your word; and it isn't locality 

 that makes the difference either. You don't give 

 the room till the bees are so crowded that they're 

 glad to occupy all the room at once. Let's not 

 quarrel. If you like your plan it's all right. 

 But I'd rather not crowd so much. I'd rather 

 have less crowding, less secretion of extra wax, 

 less inclination to swarm, and a little larger crop 

 of honey. 



Marengo, 111. 



[Like the doctor, we don't think that this idea 

 of putting the empty under the partly filled super 

 for the express purpose of securing more even fill- 

 ing of all the sections alike in the super has been 

 mentioned before in print. Perhaps this has not 

 been the experience of others. We should be 

 pleased to hear from any one who has or has not 

 observed the same thing. — Ed.] 



MAKING INCREASE. 



The Alexander and Somerford Methods 

 Compared. 



BY CHAS. REYNDERS. 



On the whole it seems to me there is scarcely 

 an authority in bee culture superior to Mr. E. 

 W. Alexander; at least, whatever conclusions 

 emanated from him seemed eminently correct; yet 

 in the ABC (1908 edition) there seems to me to 

 be a contradition which I ask you to explain. On 

 pages 279, 280, you set forth the Alexander meth- 

 od of increase. On page 310 you deal again with 

 the subject of increase together with that of nu- 

 clei. Considerin<T the method of Mr. W. W. 

 Somerford it would appear exactly applicable to 

 colonies as well as nuclei; and if Somerford's 

 method works (he says that each colony should 

 make four or fi-ue di'visions) what is the use of the 

 Alexander method, pages 279, 280.? Who would 

 merely double his colonies when there is a possi- 

 bility of increasing them four to five times.' If 

 both methods are equally reliable it would seem 

 that the Alexander method could be dispensed 

 with, however good it may be. 



Then as to the Alexander method itself. The 

 directions provide merely for doubling the num- 

 ber of colonies (every thing pertaining thereto 

 "being equal"); but in the instance given, Mr. 

 A. 's son is said to have made 20 colonies out of 

 9. Doubling 9 would make only 18, so some of 

 the colonies must have been triplicated. How, 

 then, was the triplicating done.'' Please explain 

 exhaustively as to the relative peculiarities and 

 reliability as between the Somerford and Alex- 

 ander way, and then as to the Alexander triplica- 

 tion. I have only one flourishing colony of Ital- 

 ians, which I am trying to bring through the 

 winter just as well as possible; and if I succeed I 

 want to do with the same as nearly best as pos- 

 sible. 



Finally, I should like to know how long queens 

 can be kept before being introduced. I expect to 

 see a predicament in the matter herein at first 

 dealt with, in having new queens at hand at just 

 the right time. How can one manage that? I 

 have a neighbor living a mile west of the Susque- 

 hanna River, while I live ten minutes' walk east 

 of the same. I may be able to get queens from 

 him, but he may need a few dozen himself, and 

 he has some fear that he and I together may over- 

 stock this country. The next apiarist of any ac- 

 count lives six miles further away. There are all 

 sorts of territory here — cultivated land with clover 

 and buckwheat; woods, pasture, waste land, etc. 



Ulster, Pa. 



[Why, friend R., there is no conflict whatever. 

 You did not read very carefully the first column 

 on page 279. The Alexander increase is based 

 on the idea of securing a honey crop as well as an 

 additional number of colonies. Indeed, the 

 very first sentence referring to this method reads: 



Increase. Under the head of Nucleus several methods of 

 forming nuclei are explained, but under this head we shall deal 

 with the subject more from the standpoint of the honey-producer 

 who actually desires increase and at the same time produce a 

 crop of honey. 



The Somerford plan involves only the largest 

 number of colonies possible from one without 

 reference to honey. You see there are two sep- 

 arate ideas — one aiming at a honey crop and in- 

 crease; the other, maximum increase only. 



Regarding the 20 colonies and the 9, it is 

 probable that two of that 9 were strong enough 

 to make two other colonies each. In following 

 an author one will, of course, be governed by 

 conditions and not by absolute rule, the rule be- 

 ing only a guide. 



Queens can ordinarily be kept a week after 

 they are received from the mails; but the sooner 

 they are put in the hives the better. It is not 

 necessary to prepare hives for the reception of 

 queens. As soon as queens arrive, go to the 

 colonies to which you propose to introduce 

 them; remove or kill their queens, and cage the 

 new ones at the same operation. Indeed, one 

 may cage a queen in a colony, fixing her cage so 

 that she can not be released for from 24 to 48 

 hours. During this time the old queen can be 

 allowed the range of the hive. At the end of 

 the time stated, the old queen should be removed, 

 and the cage with the new queen should be so 

 fixed that the bees can automatically release her 

 by eating away the candy. 



We wish we could do something to get rid of 

 the notion that a colony must be queenless three 



