1896. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



163 



the queenless colony, from which she was removed, would 

 then be compelled to rear another, an inferior queen like her- 

 self. 



The colonies, from which these combs of brood and feed 

 have been removed, are at once supplied with frames full of 

 foundation, and in a few weeks those hives are again filled. If 

 we do not wish to use full sheets of foundation, we make it a 

 point to remove all, or nearly all, the combs, and furnish these 

 bees with a large lot of empty frames, with only starters, or 

 guides ; for we have noticed that, unless a colony is almost 

 without comb, it will, if strong, during a good crop, build a 

 groat many drone-cells. A swarm, beginning in an empty 

 hive, will invariably build 90 per cent, of worker-comb. A 

 colony with only three combs to build, if strong in bees, during 

 the harvest, will build half of these in drone-comb. For this 

 reason, we let only comparatively weak colonies, and colonies 

 with young queens, do the comb-building. Most important of 

 all, we do not give any empty space to a queenless colony, /of 

 tliey would build nothing but drone-comb. It is for this reason 

 that we do not wish our nuclei to have any more bees than are 

 necessary to keep the brood warm, until their queens are fer- 

 tile and laying. We also believe that a colony while queenless 

 is somewhat discouraged ; that the bees do not work with en- 

 thusiasm, and we want to use as few bees as possible for this 

 purpose. 



In about 10 to 14 days after the queen-cells have been in- 

 troduced, most of our queens are laying, and the little colonies 

 may be reinforced by giving them more bees, and more brood- 

 combs, if we have them. The same colonies that have been 

 used to furnish the bees, may be called upon to do this. The 

 swarms, according to their strength, may be given empty 

 frames, in which they will most probably build nice worker- 

 combs. If foundation is used, and we generally use it, the ad- 

 vance is very much more prompt. 



In all these manipulations, we must be careful not to leave 

 a swarm, that has brood with too few bees ; not to divide 

 a weak colony, or give a queenless colony any empty space, in 

 which they might build. 



The swarms which have been made must be examined, so 

 they may not rear additional queen-cells, and swarm with the 

 young queen first hatched. We nave seen very weak colonies 

 divide up in this way. The swarms, in which the young 

 queens are inserted, while yet in their cells, may destroy those 

 cells, and try to rear some of their own brood ; or the young 

 queen may be lost in her wedding-trip, and this must be all at- 

 tended to. These accidents may look as quite a hindrance to 

 the success of the method, and may annoy some people, but, 

 after all, they do not amount to anything, when compared to 

 the trouble given by natural swarming. 



In our eyes, the advantage of our system rests in the being 

 able to save, for honey-production, the very colonies that are 

 most likely to yield honey, and to use, for increase, such colo- 

 nies as would give little if any profit; while we are, at the 

 same time, breeding our bees from our best stock, and the in- 

 crease thus made is, so to speak, of the gilt-edge kind. It is 

 worth quite a little trouble to attain this end, and the profit 

 reaped is two-fold. Hamilton, III. 



The Cheshire Cure for Foul Brood. 



BY WM. F. CLARKE. 



On page 19, we are informed that several parties men- 

 tioned by name have tried the Cheshire drug treatment for 

 foul brood and found it a complete failure. It is further stat- 

 ed that any medicated syrup strong enough to cure foul brood 

 would kill all the sound larvaj and every bee in the colony. 

 One of the persons named is said to have "sprayed the diseased 

 combs with acids so strong, that the combs fairly smoked" and 

 then it failed to cure them of foul brood. 



.This is not the Cheshire remedy for foul brood. The 

 Cheshire prescription is simply to get the bees to consume 

 syrup medicated with phenol. In his great work. Vol. II, page 

 562, he speaks of many, who " with a perversity which is al- 

 most incredible say that phenol will not cure, for they have 

 given it in the food-bottle, but the bees would not take it." 

 On the next page he asserts that if the bees can be induced to 

 take the phenolated syrup they " will use a curative quantity 

 of it." 



So far as I know, I am the only bee-keeper on the Ameri- 

 can Continent who has patiently investigated the Cheshire 

 method and got to the bottom of it. He prescribes from the 

 500th to the 750th proportion of phenol. I am inclined to 

 think the drug is not always of the same potency. At any 

 rate, the main difficulty is to get the bees to take the mixture. 

 When they will do that, It is plain sailing. My eyes were 



opened when, after many failures I at last got a foul-broody 

 colony to take the phenolated syrup. I fed them 20 pounds 

 of it in the fall. Next spring and all through the following 

 season they were the best colony I had. Of all the many pret- 

 ty processes in bee-keeping, there is nothing prettier than to 

 see how the bees will clean out the foul brood when once you 

 get them onto a diet of phenolated syrup. It is like magic, 

 the way it works. 



Ridicule is not argument. I am not lecturing the people 

 with solemn airs on what science teaches. lam dealing with 

 facts and speaking of what I know. Deliberately, I wish to 

 put myself on record as asserting that the Cheshire treatment, 

 (ts he prescribes it, is what I have called it—" a cheap and easy 

 cure for foul brood," in all curable cases. It is also a remedy, 

 in comparison with which every other I have tried is " vanity 

 and vexation of spirit." I can bide my time, assured that 

 sooner or later, in this case as in every other, "magna est Veritas 

 et prevalebit." 



1 will only add that the man who does not know how to 

 feed a colony of bees medicated syrup without their being 

 robbed by other bees is not much of a bee-keeper, and had 

 better look into Mr. Benton's new book on " The Honey-Bee," 

 page 117, and learn the Cheshire way to prevent robbing. 



Guelph, Ont. 



The Past and Present of Bee-Keeping. 



BT G. M. DOOtlTTLE. 



Having occasion, lately, to look over an old diary to find 

 something that was called in question, I ran across an item 

 which was written by a friend to prove that bee-keeping was 

 always to be a lucrative business, which item read as follows : 



" Notwithstanding the great demand for bees, and the im- 

 mense quantities of honey that are produced from year to 

 year, the amount largely increasing each year, I do not see 

 any reason to think that overstocking or overproduction is a 

 factor that need trouble us in this generation. At any rate, I 

 don't see that the price of nice honey is any lower than years 

 ago." 



This was written in 1884, or about 12 years ago, and in 

 reading there was a strange sound to It; strange, not only 

 from the standpoint of 1896, but from the standpoint of 

 1869, as well, at which time I commenced to keep bees. I 

 fell to wondering if " this generation " that existed 12 years 

 ago had passed away, for surely, if I read our present bee-lit- 

 erature aright, both "overstocking" and "overproduction" 

 are causing a wail to come from nearly every hand. Hear 

 Mr. Hutchinson telling in the Review how the forests have 

 been cut off, the swamps been dried and the fence-corners 

 cleaned out, till the flora which we had a few years ago — 

 which invited the little busy bee to a sumptous feast — was be- 

 coming nearly as scarce as the trails of the Indian. Then 

 hear Dr. Miller, and others, asking if the good old times will 

 ever come again? All of which point to the fact, that wheth- 

 er overstocked or not, from some reason the average bee-keep- 

 ers does not secure the average good crops of honey that they 

 did years ago. 



Then look at the talk of low prices, the planning to form a 

 honey-association, and the censure of our commission-men, 

 who realize only 10 cents a pound fdr nice white comb honey 

 to their consigners, where they sell at 14 cents, and ask your- 

 self if overproduction is not figuring in this matter of low 

 prices. If it is not overproduction that makes the low prices 

 for honey, what is it? Commission-men were not formerly 

 criticised for charging 10 per cent., for that was the usual 

 charge during the early seventies. All must admit that the 

 market price of honey is much lower than it formerly was, 

 and when 10 per cent, is taken from a low price it hurts the 

 honey-producer much worse than it does to have the same per 

 cent, taken from a high price. Small honey-producers can sell 

 their honey to advantage about home, in neighboring villages, 

 but the large producer must always seek a market for his pro- 

 duce in the large cities, and the price obtained in these cities 

 has very much to do with home prices; hence the "market 

 price" is what we have to look to in determining whether 

 overproduction has had anything to do with the matter of prices. 



I commenced bee-keeping 27 years ago the present spring, 

 and at that time honey in six-pound boxes, having glass on two 

 sides, brought 25 cents per pound, delivered at the railroad, 

 while in the fall of 1869 I was offered by a party from New 

 York city, 50 cents per pound for the little I had, the advance 

 of 100 per cent, being caused by a very poor season during 

 1869, so that the supply was very much less than the de- 

 mand. 



The season of 1870 being an extra-good one, the price 

 fell back to 25 cents again, at which price I sold my crop of 



