192 FIFTY YEARS AMONG THE BEES 



I would for a minute trust to it as a sole means to 

 prevent swarming. But I do know that in a good many 

 cases it is efficient. Perhaps one cause of my change 

 of view is the change in my bees. Breeding constantly 

 for improvement in storing, and at the same time 

 giving preference to those least inclined to swarm, it 

 is possible that destroying cells has more effect than it 

 formerly had. 



It may be well to give some examples, taking just as 

 they come in order some colonies that needed no other 

 treatment to prevent swarming. I take them from the 

 }ear 1908, one of the best honey years. The first one 

 I come to had a 2-year-old queen, and Ji-^ne 23 I de- 

 stroyed a grub in just one queen-cell. No other queen- 

 cell was started. If that had not been destroyed, I 

 suppose the colony would have swarmed, and that would 

 have lessened the number of sections produced, which 

 was 181, beside finishing up some "go-backs." The 

 next had a three-year-old queen, and gave 244 sections. 

 June 23 one egg in a cell was destroyed, and that was 

 all for the season. The queen was superseded after 

 August 8. The next had a 2-year-old queen, and gave 

 2T6 sections. I destroyed, June 15, one egg in a queen- 

 cell, and June 24 one grub. The next had a queen of 

 the previous year and gave 100 sections. It never had 

 even an egg in a queen-cell the whole season. The next 

 had a yearling queen, and gave 145 sections, besides 

 having taken from it, in May, 3 brood with adhering 

 tees. Not an egg in a queen-cell. The next had a 

 yearling queen, and gave 211 sections. It had one egg 

 in a queen-cell June 6, also July 27 and August 6. That 

 may be enough to show that at least in some cases de- 

 stroying cells was worth while. Perhaps one colony in 

 three will behave thus well. 



DEQUEENING TREATMENT. * 



Latterly no one plan of treatment is followed ex- 

 clusively. It may be the "put-up" or the excluder plan. 



