462 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



Aug. 1 



giving young brood in this case, but have 

 been greatly annoyed by swarms following 

 the virgins on their mating trip. When 

 several come out at the same time they gen- 

 erally cluster together, causing a bad mix- 

 up, and sometimes resulting in absconding. 

 As it is not always possible to tell the exact 

 time when a queen will hatch, giving young 

 brood in advance might cause this brood to 

 become too old to be used for queen-cells, if 

 the virgin should happen to be lost on her 

 excursion. I have, therefore, waited until 

 she was out of the call, whether I saw her 

 or not. What is your practice, experience, 

 and success in this case? 



Wm. Muth-Rasmussen. 



[Dr. Miller repHes:] 



It is not always easy to reconcile state- 

 ments. Sometimes there is a difference in 

 conditions that makes a difference in results, 

 although that difference in conditions may 

 escape observation. Then there is that old 

 legend, "Bees do nothing invariably." 



If we refer to the practice of the bees un- 

 der normal conditions we find that, after a 

 prime swarm issues, the virgin emerges 

 from her cell when young brood is no longer 

 present. If that proves any thing, it proves 

 only that the presence of young brood is not 

 necessary. In cases of natural supersedure 

 it often happens that the old queen continues 

 laying until the daughter has begun to lay, 

 and in that case the young queen finds eggs 

 and young brood present during the whole 

 period of her virginity. Certamly in that 

 case Dame Nature does not consider it an 

 error to give young brood where a virgin is 

 not yet laying. So there are at least some 

 cases in which the presence of young brood 

 does not cause the bees to kill the virgin and 

 start fresh cells. 



As to my own practice, I have never hesi- 

 tated to give young brood to a nucleus hav- 

 ing a virgin. Looking at my record for last 

 year, the first entry to which I open shows 

 that I gave to the nucleus a fr?.me of young 

 brood at the same time I gave a virgin, and 

 in due time the virgin was laying. In the 

 next case there was young brood present in 

 the hive when the virgin was given, the lay- 

 ing queen having been removed a day or 

 two previously. Perhaps neither of these 

 two cases is exactly what we want, for, 

 strictly speaking, the question before us is 

 whether it does harm to give young brood 

 when a virgin is present. In the next five 

 or six cases I found again that young brood 

 was present when the virgin was given, and 

 the virgin in each case became a laying 

 queen. 



Then I turned to this year's record, and 

 ti.o rirst nucleus to which I turned furnished 

 a case in point. A sealed cell had been 

 given May 29. June '6 1 found the virgin had 

 emerged from her cell, and I gave the nu- 

 cleus a frame of young brood. June 14, on 

 opening the hive I saw the queen on the 

 combs. That was clear proof that at least 

 in one case the giving ot young brood had 

 not resulted in the bees killing the virgin. 



Next time I looked she was laying finely. I 

 have had many like cases. 



I may say that my object in giving young 

 brood is, for one thing, to help next time 1 

 look into the nucleus to know whether a 

 queen is present. If no queen-cells are 

 started I may feel confident there is a queen 

 in the hive, although cells are sometimes start- 

 ed while a virgin is present. 



Another reason is the belief that the pres- 

 ence of young brood may have, at least in- 

 directly, a tendency, as A. I. Root teaches, 

 to incite the young queen to laying. Still 

 another is that giving young brood helps to 

 keep up the stock of young bees in the nive; 

 for, later on, this brood will become young 

 bees. Perhaps of still greater importance it 

 is, that giving unsealed brood will help to 

 keep young the bees already in the hive. Of 

 course it can make no difference in the 

 actual age of the bees; but it may keep them 

 nurse bees; whereas if there were no brood 

 to be fed they might assume the role of field 

 bees. 



Some one may still insist, "But others 

 find that giving young brood makes the bees 

 kill the virgin and start queen-cells." Well, 

 as I have already said, it is certain that 

 young brood brings no such result in cases 

 of superseding; and it is just possible that it 

 was taken for granted that the bees killed 

 the virgin because of the presence of young 

 brood, when young brood had nothing to do 

 with it. There are ways in which a virgin 

 may be lost v/ithout the workers killing her, 

 and workers may kill a virgin without being 

 egged thereto by young brood. 



At any rate, however it may be with others 

 I do know that for many years I have been 

 giving young brood to nuclei with virgins, 

 and have had those virgins live and be nap- 

 py ever after. C. C. Miller. 



GLEANINGS' FIRM STAND FOR PURE FOOD 

 COMMENDED BY DR. WILEY. 



On page 356 of our issue for June 15 we 

 published a comlimentar>' reference to Dr. 

 Wiley and the work he was accomplishing 

 in the interest of pure food. It is only one 

 of a good many other notices of like charac- 

 ter that have appeared in these columns. 

 But, apparently. Dr. Wiley has been keep- 

 ing in touch with what we have been doing, 

 and in the letter that follows it appears he 

 appreciates the backing we are giving him. 



United St.vtes DEiwRTMEiNT of Agkiculture, 

 Bureau of Chemistry, 



Mr. E. R. Root:— I had already read your very nice 

 article. I am grlad to have your support. I believe 

 that the cause of pure food will triumph, for tiie peo- 

 ple of this country are opposed to adding preserva- 

 tives and other substances to foods. They want the 

 foods pure; and if they drink whisky they want it 

 straiffht. I appreciate the firm stand wliich GLEANINGS 

 has taken !n support of the fitrht I am inakins- for the 

 purity of our foods. H. W. WILEY. 



Washintnon. D. C, July 3. 



There are a few journals of influence that 

 are trying to discredit Dr. Wiley. Whether 

 they are biased by certain advertising patron- 

 age from the adulterators, or honestly misled 

 by articles inspired by the same source, we 

 can not say. 



