1909 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



785 



HEADS OF GRAIN 



From Different Fields 



GIVING THE TRUE NAME OF HONEY-DEW; PLANT OR 

 ANIMAL ORIGIN. 



I should like to ask whether a chemical analysis 

 shows honey-dew honey to be "bug juice " as stated 

 on patre 540, Sept. 1. If so, should not we bee-keepers 

 be as honest as we expect the Klucose people to be, and 

 brand such honey as " bug juice"? 



In 1884 I secured about two tons of this honey-dew, 

 and at that time I had a lot of men cutting off sixty 

 acres of timber, and so I visited the woods every few 

 days to investigate the source of the honey-dew. I 

 found the bees gathering it almost entirely from the 

 leaves of the oak, hickory, beech, and wild grapevine. 

 These trees and vines bore no fruit that year; but from 

 the pores of each leaf, during hot afternoons, a small 

 speck of brown gum or sugar could be plainly seen 

 with a glass; but it was just barely visible to the naked 

 eye The dew the next morning thinned this gum, 

 and in some instances it was so abundant as to drip on 

 the other foliage. I never could see any bugs of any 

 kind, even with the magnifying-glass. 



The honey that I secured that year was very dark 

 but sweet. I sold several thousand pounds of it to a 

 large bakery, and could have sold ten times as much. 



For several years, including this year, I secured a 

 very black, ill-flavored honey, and a careful investi- 

 gation showed that it came from the gum timber, espe- 

 cially the black gum. In no case could I find any in- 

 sects, even when I cut the trees down. I use this hon- 

 ey only for brood-rearing in the summer and spring. 



Dupont, Ind. S. E. O'NEEL. 



[We do not know whether a chemical analysis would 

 show the difference between a honey-dew that has its 

 source in plant-lice and one that is in reality an exu- 

 dation from the leaves of certain plants. As we under- 

 stand it, there are two kinds of honey-dew. One is the 

 product of insects that secrete (or excrete?) it on the 

 leaves of certain plants, and the other is a real exuda- 

 tion of sai^charine matter from the leaves or stalks of 

 certain other plants. Of this latter there is so little 

 that we may almost say that all the honey-dtw we 

 know any thing about is of animal origin. 



There has been some controversy as to whether the 

 honey-dew, of which there was such a large quantity 

 gathered last season, was really an animal or vegetable 

 product. During the past summer, when this question 

 came up we found that insects t probably plant-lice) 

 were present in the vicinity and on top of the trees 

 from which the bees gathered this honey-dew. We 

 believe, therefore, that the larger portion of the hon- 

 ey-dew of last season was of animal origin. 



As to whetner this saccharine matter is an excretion 

 or a secretion, we may say that the impression has gone 

 out that it is an excretion. Prof. Cook has said that it 

 is a secretion. Prof. Surface, while apparently admit- 

 ting that it may be an excretion, appears to think it is 

 more probably a secretion from certain glands. 



A prominent English authority. Dr. D. M. Macdonald, 

 claims that it is all a mistake to suppose that honey- 

 dew is ever an excretion. If this is true, then the prod- 

 uct has received in years past a bad name it does not 

 deserve. 



But we do know this: A good many kinds of honey- 

 dew are of fine quality, sell readily, and some of them 

 are even light-colored.— Ed.J 



SOME PROOF SHOWING THAT SWARMS MAY CARRY FOUL 



BROOD; CAN FOUL-BROODY CO.MBS BE USED 



SAFELY FOR EXTRACTING PURPOSES? 



In your answer to the query of J. G. Crisler, Walton, 

 Ky., on page 677, you say, " We may say that a swarm 

 from a colony affected with foul brood will not carry 

 disease." I should like to take issue with you on that 

 statement, as 1 have observed time and again that if, 

 say. No. 44 casts a swarm which is hived in No. 45 hive, 

 and afterward it is found that No. 44 is affected with 

 foul brood, it will be only a question of a short time 

 until the disease appears in No. 45. I have followed it 

 even further, and found that a virgin swarm will de- 

 velop foul brood if it can be traced back to an origi- 

 nal foul-brood colony. I have kept a record for seven 

 years past; and when I discover a colony with foul 

 brood I immediately examine the swarm or swarms 

 cast by that colony, and invariably find the disease. 

 I have about made up my mind to hive such swarms 

 on starters, and in four days shake them on to full 



sheets, treating the swarm as by the McEvoy method. 

 I have always used full sheets of foundation; and why 

 is it not possible for the new swarm to carry sufficient 

 of the infected honey to have some stored in the cells 

 of the full sheets? It seems to me to be a very impor- 

 tant matter; and it may be advisable, in a communi.y 

 where the disease exists, to use only starters in the 

 brood-chamber. 



Along these lines there is another subject, closely 

 allied, which was brought to my attention a few da>s 

 ago. I was talking with Mr. Stewart, of Prophetstovin, 

 and he tells me that he has discontinued the practice 

 of destroying foul-brood combs, and now uses them 

 and the body holding them as an extracting-body. lie 

 informs me that for the past four years he has follow- 

 ed this plan with no bad effects — that even the queen 

 will go above and deposit eggs which hatch out, and 

 the parent colony will not show any signs of the dis- 

 ease. He does not use queen-excluding boards, as he 

 thinks he gets less honey with their use. Now, right 

 here would be an immense saving if one could use in- 

 fected combs for extracting-combs with impunity. I 

 melt up on an average 100 combs a year, some of them, 

 especially the outside ones of a hive, showing no indi- 

 cations of coming from a foul-brood colony. I should 

 be pleased to have your opinion on the matter. 



Morrison, 111. Chas. G. Macklin. 



[Referring to p. 677, we were discussing whether or 

 not a swarm would carry germs of foul brood into a 

 hollow tree where they expect to make their future 

 home, and in which they will necessarily have to build 

 comb before they can provide a place for storage. 

 Such swarm, to all intents and purposes, undergoes 

 the standard treatment for foul brood — namely, shak- 

 ing on to frames of foundation or foundation starters. 

 It is generally considered that the very act of building 

 comb, whether from starters or from a natural sup- 

 port, consumes all the honey in the honey-sacs of the 

 bees that may contain the germs of disease. To make 

 assurance doubly sure, Mr. McEvoy recommends that 

 the first set of combs built from foundation be melted 

 up, compelling the bees to build from a second lot; 

 but in actual practice we have found it quite suffi- 

 cient to shake or brush once on foundation in clean 

 hives. In all our experience we have never had a 

 failure. 



If a swarm out of a foul-broody hive goes into anoth- 

 er hive containing drawn combs, then it is altogether 

 probible that the disease will be carried to those 

 combs; for the bees would immediately empty the 

 honey they carried with them into them. 



The case referred to on p. 677 is quite different from 

 the cases mentioned by you, in which it is apparent 

 that the bees were hived on full sheets, for you say 

 you have since made up your mind to hive all such 

 swarms on starters. Now, then, if such swarms go 

 into a hollow tree they go further— they are compelled 

 to build their own virgin comb, and during the pro- 

 cess use up any honey they may have in their sacks ; 

 or, to put it another way, a swarm that flies naturahy 

 into a hollow tree subjects itself automatically to a 

 treatment that is practically the same, and is the same 

 to all intents and purposes as if that colony had been 

 treated by brushing or shaking on to starters a la 

 McEvoy. 



We would not approve of the plan of putting combs 

 from diseased hives into extracting-supers. While, 

 ordinarily, no disease will be carried in that way. we 

 would consider it a risky thing to use such combs, 

 and very dangerous advice to send out broadcast to 

 the public generally. We have, as we think, ample 

 proof that combs will carry the disease for years, even 

 when there is no honey in them.— ED.] 



CLEANING EXTRACTORS, DANZENBAKER FRAMES USED 

 FOR EXTRACTING, ETC. 



What is the best way to clean tanks, cans, extractors, 

 and utensils? I have some new hon»y tanks, an ex- 

 tractor, etc.; and I gave them a good cleaning and ex- 

 tracted some honey in them; but the honey tasted of 

 rosin, and I don't know what could have accounted 

 for it unless it was the rosin that was used in soldering 

 the cans and tanks. 



Is there any way that such honey can be used with- 

 out having that rosin taste to it? Could it be used for 

 making honey vinegar without having a rosin taste? 



Is there a comb-bucket made for Danzenbaker 

 frames? If so, how many frames will it hold? 



How can one space the Danzenbaker frames further 

 apart in the extracting-supers? Nine frames would be 

 plenty, for when there are ten frames the combs are 

 not bulged enough to be uncapped easily. 



May weak colonies be united any month of the year? 

 What time is recommended for uniting colonies for 



