[Entered as second-class matter at the Post-office at Hamilton, III,, under Act of March !, 1871J.) 



Published Monthly at $1.00 a Year, by American Bee Journal, First National Bank Building 



C. p. DADANT. Editor. 



DR. C. C. MILLER. Associate Editor 



HAMILTON, ILL, DECEMBER, 1914 



Vol.. LIV.— No. 12 



Editorial 



Comments 



Bee Meetings 



The following meetings are already 

 scheduled for the luture as indicated. 

 Secretaries are urged to write, giving 

 date of meetings so that they may ap- 

 pear in these columns ; 



New York State Association of Bee- 

 keepers, Syracus*, Dec. 1 and 2. 



Minnesota State meeting, Minneapo- 

 lis, Dec. 2 and 3. 



Kansas State meeting Dec. 4 and 5, 

 Topeka, Kan. 



Missouri State meeting, St. Joseph, 

 Dec. 7 and 8. 



Michigan Beekeepers' Association, 

 La ising, Dec. 'nd 10. 



Akron, N. Y., meeting, Akron, Dec. 

 15. 



Chicago-Northwestern, Great North- 

 ern Hotel, Jackson Blvd. and Dearborn 

 St., Chicago, Dec. 17 and 18. 



Washington State, North Yakima, 

 Jan. tj and 7, 1915. 



National Beekeepers' Association, 

 February (date to be decided), Denver, 

 Colo. 



Smoke Method of Queeu Intro- 

 duction 



The reader will find in this number 

 several articles on the " smoke method " 

 of queen introduction. As this subject 

 has been thoroughly discussed already, 

 we will close it until a season's work 

 has given further chances of experi- 

 ment. 



Modern Beekeeping- 

 It is somewhat surprising for the 

 American beekeeper to read commen- 

 dation of ancient methods in some of 

 the foreign bee publications. The fixed 

 comb hive, ^«m in America, sAf/ in 

 the British Isles, /an/Vr or bourttac in 



France, is a "back number," used only 

 by the man who does not read, who 

 knows nothing about positive bee cul- 

 ture. That some sort of honey crop is 

 harvested with these old systems, does 

 not prove them good. TheiC are still 

 millions of bushels of wheat harvested 

 with the ancient sickle and cradle. 

 Profitable beekeeping depends upon 

 modern methods, upon the entire con- 

 trol of the hive, the brood, the queen, 

 the surplus, by the apiarist. We are 

 quite sure that not a dozen of our sub- 

 scribers are supporters of the " skep 

 system " for honey production. The 

 fixed comb-honey producers are in the 

 uninformed class. Their product is 

 inferior because not put upon the mar- 

 ket in best shape and t leir nuinbers 

 are constantly decreasing. In the 

 spots wher beek 'eping thrives with- 

 out modern methods, greater crops 

 will sooner or later be made by modern 

 ways. The transformation is slowly 

 but surely taking place. 



Dr. Miller on Superseding 



On page 305, September number, J. 

 L. Byer says: "How I wish my bees 

 were as sensible as Dr. Miller's, page 

 279. He says: 'The bees usually re- 

 queen in good time, if the matter is 

 left to them.' .'\nd for that reason he 

 does not do away with 2-year-old 

 queens, if they appear to be making 

 good. Sorry to say that I do not prac- 

 tice systematic requeening, but in my 

 case quite a large percentage of the 

 colonies fail to replace 2-year-olds be- 

 fore they fail, and often act this way 



just at the close of fruit bloom, and 

 this means a set back for the clover 

 harvest." 



To this Editor Dadant replies in a 

 foot-note, saying : "The answer ciiti- 

 cised by Mr. Byer is not by Dr. Miller, 

 but by the junior editor, as may be 

 seen by the initials, C. P. D. at the foot 

 of the reply. The question had been 

 asked of me. Dr. Miller might have 

 replied in a way more suited to Mr. 

 Byer's views." 



Prudence might counsel that it would 

 be well for me to keep entirely silent, 

 as it is no funeral of mine, and there 

 is not much chance to reconcile the 

 two engaged in the controversy, since 

 their experiences are unlike, yet the 

 matter is of so great importance that 

 it seems worth while to talk about it, 

 and of my own experience connected 

 therewith. 



One cannot help asking why it is 

 that in one case the bees can be safely 

 trusted to requeen in good time, and 

 not in the other. And why should it be 

 that some leave the matter of requeen- 

 ing entirely to the bees, while others 

 advocate that no queen should be al- 

 lowed to live even as long as two 

 years? I leave to others to answer 

 whether it may be due to the difference 

 in localities, in management, or in 

 bees. 



In referring to my own experience, 

 allow me to go " by the book," that is, 

 my record book of the bees' doings. I 

 find that in the year 1913 3 colonies of 

 the 91 changed their queens in May. 

 In 1914 there were 3 of the 84. Bunch- 

 ing the two years it makes 6 in 175, or 

 about one in 30. Of course, there is 

 the possibility, if not the probability, 

 that in one or more cases the queen 

 may have been accidentally killed. In 

 all other cases, I think, except one, 

 there was no superseding until well 



