162 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



March 12, 



In regard to the construction of houses, I have been un- 

 able to discover anything better than my new house-apiary. It 

 is cheap and simple, and fills all practical demands so /ar as I 

 can see. Some have advocated building with packed walls, 

 and made warm enough so the hives would need no packing, 

 but the cost would be greatly increased, and no practical 

 good gained. Several good houses have been illustrated in 

 the bee-papers in the last year or two, but in principle they 

 are the same as my own. Some have used the shelf to set the 

 hives on, without a bottom-board. This is not good. We need 

 to handle and change hives in the house, and when the hives 

 set directly on the shelves, every time a hive is lifted the shelf 

 will be left covered with crawling bees, and they must be 

 brushed away to give place for the new hive that must be set 

 down. I have the same bottom-boards for the hives in the 

 house as for the out-yard work. When I lift a hive I move 

 bottom and all to a table near by. If I need to move the hive 

 from the bottom, I carry the bottom with its crawling bees 

 outside, and they will return home. 



In the swarming season, if we want increase, we will need 

 to move the hive that has swarmed to a new stand outside, 

 and a movable bottom-board is needed for the reason I have 

 given. I mention this seemingly trifling part because some 

 may wish to build, and Mr. Root says in the " A B C of Bee- 

 Culture," that the bees you must necessarily have under foot 

 in a house is a great nuisance. I have not crushed a gill of 

 bees on the floor in my five years' practice. Gentle Italians 

 that will not rush from the hive when opened are a great 

 comfort in the house. It is also a great comfort to have hives 

 with frames that can be taken out and returned with certainty 

 to their proper place quickly, and without any prying and 

 scraping ; and frames handle more conveniently when placed 

 lengthwise of the shelves. 



I like the plan of building house-apiaries on posts raised 

 two feet from the ground, for it is the only cheap, practical 

 way of entirely getting rid of that unbearable nuisance — rats 

 and mice — which are sure to undermine stone-walls and dirt 

 floors. In my house rats and mice have no place they can sit 

 on to gnaw, and I have entire immunity from them. 



I regard house-apiaries as especia,lly adapted to out-yards, 

 having all the facilities for properly caring for bees in them- 

 selves the year around, and without increased cost over open 

 yards; I contemplate increasing my honey-business in that 

 way. 



In writing this I have only tried to give general helpful 

 thoughts to those who may wish to build. A house-apiary is 

 not easily changed after once built, and I caution you to in- 

 vestigate and know what you want before you build. If you 

 make no mistakes, you will not afterward regret having made 

 "a house-apiary." Forestville, Minn. 



The Amalgamation Ouestiou Again. 



BV HON. J. M. HAMBAUGH. 



There has probably been enough said on this question al- 

 ready, but as the matter is still open to discussion, I trust no 

 one will take exceptions to me having my "say;" and now 

 that I have become a citizen of the banner honey-producing 

 county of the banner honey-producing State of the United 

 States, with once more a small apiary at my command, I feel 

 somewhat disposed to arise and make myself known. 



When this subject first came to my notice from the mas- 

 terly pens of quite a number of the Bee Journal contributors, 

 I was favorably impressed with the idea, and was disposed to 

 give it my hearty approval, but after mature deliberation, and 

 reading the able arguments on the opposite side in the contro- 

 versy, I have become convinced that the amalgamation of the 

 North American and the Bee-Keepers' Union would not be in 

 accord with the best interests of the two societies, and the 

 bee-keepers' interest in general throughout the United States. 



In the first place, I will state that the Bee-Keepers' Union 

 is National and not international, and to conbine the two so- 

 cieties under one code, would necessitate an entire change of 

 constitution, by-laws, and the entire modus operandi. And 

 now the question naturally comes up, are the two societies rec- 

 oncilable ? 



In a financial point of view, which of the two old societies 

 would have the greater amount of money to replenish the 

 treasury of the new society ? Our General Manager of the 

 Bee-Keepers' Union reports the balance in the Treasury, Dec. 

 31, 1895, to be §771.61 ; while the report of the Secretary 

 of the North American, at Toronto, Sept. 6, 1895, reports a 

 balance of $7.53. Is there not a chance here for a bone of 

 contention ? 



Again, by our abandoning the National feature to become 

 international, do we not embrace in our territory the entire 



northern hemisphere, which would take in Canada, Mexico, 

 and the British Possessions of North America ? In so doing 

 would our brethren across the borders be willing to accept 

 a tax that would place them on an equal footing with us finan- 

 cially? or would we have to hold the amount from the Bee- 

 Keepers' Union as a gratuitous fund to be used alike in the in- 

 terests of the pursuit regardless of boundary lines ? 



Now, friends, in all fairness and justice, would it not be 

 more consistent to have the mfitter fairly explained before the 

 members of the Bee-Keeper's Union, and give them an oppor- 

 tunity to vote for or against the amalgamation, ere you seek 

 to change the situation that prompted them to contribute their 

 money ? 



The Bee-Keepers' Union was organized for the mutual 

 protection to its members against unjust encroachments and 

 " assaults of the enemies of the persuit;" and with this ban- 

 ner in the hands of our bold and indefatigable General Mana- 

 ger — Thos. G. Newman — success has perched upon our ban- 

 ner, and bee-keepers have had a bulwark of defense, that few 

 pursuits can boast of ; and with all due defference to other 

 members composing the organizers and promoters of the Bee- 

 Keeper's Union, to Thos. G. Newman belongs the honor of its 

 universal beneficence to the bee-keepers' cause; and to de- 

 throne him from a position in which he has proven himself our 

 greatest benefactor, we believe would not be in accord with 

 the true rules of etiquette and the best interests of the pursuit. 



The Union as it now stands with our highly-esteemed 

 General Manager, Thos. G. Newman, at the helm, is too po- 

 tent a power for good to be destroyed by the cohesion of other 

 societies. It is our safe-guard against unjust encroachments, 

 and a terror to wrong-doers. What more could we desire of 

 one society ? Let the Union stand, is our motto. 



Escondido, Calif. 



Artificial Swarming, or Dividing for Increase. 



BY CHAS. DADANT & SON. 

 (Continued from page 145.) 



Now that we have our queen-cells reared — for we aim to 

 make enough of the colonies quoenless to rear all the cells we 

 need for our swarms — our next step is to make small swarms, 

 something like what queen-breeders call "nuclei," after Lang- 

 stroth, but these nuclei, instead of being made in diminutive 

 hives with microscopic frames, are made in the ordinary style 

 of hives, with from two to four frames of brood, bees and 

 honey, and a division-board, or dummy, to reduce the space. 



To make these swarms we do not take anything from our 

 honey-producing colonies. These are left in full possession of 

 all their strength, which they need to produce a good crop. 

 In an apiary of, say 50 colonies, only enough of the best are 

 broken up, as previously stated, to furnish all the queen-cells 

 we need ; after this, we make the divisions from the colonies 

 which would not be likely to produce any honey. In every 

 apiary there are a- number of colonies, which, either owing to 

 weakness in early spring, to lack of fecundity in the queen, to 

 a shortage in their supplies, or to other unaccountable cause, 

 are late in their brood-rearing, and become strong only when 

 the crop is at its height, or past its best. They are then in 

 possession of a large lot of brood, and will hatch many bees 

 that will only serve to consume the stores ; for they will be fit 

 to work only after the crop is over. These are the colonies 

 that we use to make our swarms. In a state of nature, not 

 one swarm would be harvested from them ; and if they did 

 swarm, their progeny would not be desirable, since, in all prob- 

 ability, their queens are only second-best in prolificness. As 

 we have our queens all reared, and all from the best stock, it 

 does not matter from which hives we take our increase. 



On the 9th day after the queens have been removed, as 

 mentioned in the previous article, we open our queenless hive, 

 or hives, and count the queen-cells. We then make as many 

 nuclei, with two frames of brood, and two frames of honey, 

 and pollen, and bees enough to cover them, as we have queen- 

 cells left, after leaving one to each hive. On the next day, 

 after the bees have ascertained their loss, we insert the queen- 

 cells (after the method of queen-breeders) in these queenless 

 nuclei. We can take as many as two swarms from one hive; 

 but this is not advisable. We prefer to take only one from 

 each, with nearly all the young bees that the hive contains; 

 for many of them will return to the parent hive. If the 

 weather is cool, and we can keep the hives shaded, we close up 

 these nuclei until the next day ; so they become accustomed to 

 their new habitation. Care must be taken, of course, not to 

 remove the queen with the bees, and it is always best to find 

 her. If we took her with the swarm, our aim would be foiled, 

 for she would destroy the queen-cell when we insert it, and 



