1896. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



245 



used, but for some reason they appear not to invite the miller; 

 it may be because there is something repulsive to her in paper, 

 or, possibly, because the paper, extending outward from the 

 hives all around an inch or so does not allow her to take the 

 position she desires when she uses her ovipositor. There is 

 one function which it seems reasonable to suppose the paper 

 would perform, though, as yet, I have had nothing to test it, 

 that is, in case the moths should obtain a lodgment in one 

 hive, to impede their spread to the others. Tar paper unques- 

 tionably would be much more effective in this respect, and 

 quite likely fully as repulsive to the egg-laying miller. It is 

 worthy of a trial. The method here described, when the 

 combs are reasonably clean, has proved with me on the whole 

 the most satisfactory. 



3. Another way that is entirely effective against the 

 moths is to hang the combs up to the light and air with a 

 space of at least one inch between each comb and its neigh- 

 bors. This answers well enough for a season or two, or even 

 longer, when the combs have become toughened by the cocoons 

 of many generations of brood; but if the combs are new, the 

 the light seems to have a deteriorating effect upon the wax 

 composing them, causing it to readily crumble; besides, combs 

 so disposed, gather dust and the webs of other insects than the 

 moths. For convenience in practicing this plan, when I built 

 my shop I placed the joists overhead so as to freely admit the 

 top-bar of a Langstroth frame crosswise, then by nailing half- 

 inch strips near the lower edge of neighboring joists, each 

 space is made to conveniently accommodate a tier of combs, 

 their arms resting upon the half-inch strips. 



4. The other method I have to mention is the placing of 

 the combs in hives in the bee-cellar. It appears that a some- 

 what high temperature is necessary for the propagation of the 

 wax-moth, at least, I have never known them to breed in combs 

 placed in the cellar, so I think I may safely say that any good, 

 cool cellar would be a sure protection against the moths. Un- 

 fortunately my cellar is damp, on account of which there is a 

 liability to mold, unless the combs are free from flith and bee- 

 bread, and it is worse still if they contain any honey, since, by 

 attracting the moisture, it begins to run and thereby disfigures 

 both the combs and hives. 



Mice are particularly fond of bees and bee-bread, as well 

 as a hive of combs as a place for building their nests, conse- 

 quently, if they can possibly reach the combs they are liable 

 to do much damage in a short time. The only security against 

 them is to put the combs away in such a manner that they can 

 by no possibilty get them. — Review. 



(Concluded next week.) 



POISONOUS HONEY— DO BEES GATHER IT? 



POISONOUS HONEY SIMPLY THEORY. 



I was greatly pleased to read Novice's article on page 

 146, in regard to poisonous honey. He wrote me quite a long 

 letter about the time the report was heralded abroad, that his 

 bees had been poisoned by the honey from the yellow jessa- 

 mine, giving a detailed account of the surrounding bees kept 

 in his vicinity, which had access to the same pasturage, and 

 yet no fatality was observed. Consequently, he was justified 

 in denouncing the theory, that his bees suffered from that 

 source. In fact, his experience was a practical observation, 

 and not theoretical, and ought to go a good ways in breaking 

 down wrong conclusions from a theoretical stand-point, that if 

 a plant contained poisonous elements, the nectar it contained 

 was poisonous also. 



Upon the same theory we will say that honey would be 

 poisonous stored from nectar gathered from the buckeye, that 

 grows in such abundance in this State, and which yields 

 bountifully both nectar and pollen every season, but such is 

 not the case. If stock eat of either its foliage or fruit to any 

 extent, it causes the same symptoms of poison as the so-called 

 mountain laurel, and usually results in death. However, it is 

 claimed generally, I believe, that one can eat heartily of the 

 fruit without injury, so long as the heart, or germ, of the nut 

 is not eaten, which is said to contain the poisonous elements. 

 I distinctly remember, when but a small boy, being instructed 

 never to eat the heart of a buckeye because the squirrel would 

 not eat that portion of the nut, as it was poisouous. 



Again, conclusions of some of our good, honest, and most 

 worthy bee-keepers, from the same stand-point (theoretical), 

 have said that pollen gathered from the flowers of plants that 

 contained poison would cause destruction to bees that fed 

 upon such pollen. Then it that theory is founded upon a 

 practical experience, how does it come that in our and other 

 localities where the most deadly poisonous plant grows by the 



acre, and the bees revel for its pollen, are not annihilated, in 

 all of those districts in which this plant grows in profusion — 

 the wild parsnip ? 



Undoubtedly such reports as are referred to by Novice, 

 heralded broadcast, will greatly damage the pursuit of bee- 

 keeping in the various localities in which bees gather nectar 

 from the sources mentioned. Besides, I am like Novice, skep- 

 tical on the subject; indeed, I cannot be persuaded that the 

 great Creator of all things, animate and inanimate, would 

 instill into plant-life a poisonous substance, and cause it 

 to be accessible to any of His creatures through any natural 

 source in which created. It is an unjust criticism. At the 

 same time, through the art of man, plants and flowers may be 

 sprayed with poisonous fluids, and bees may and do gather, 

 and to which all cases of poisoning rightfully belong, so far 

 as it relates to honey being poisonous gathered from natural 

 sources. 



I am glad that Novice has called this subject up. I hope 

 to read such an array of testimony, from every section of this 

 country, in defense of unpoisonous nectar, that will forever 

 put to rest the theory that bees gather either pollen or nectar 

 of a poisonous nature. J. A. Golden. 



Reinersville, Ohio. 



MOUNTAIN LAtTREL 60 YEAKS AGO. 



I have noticed in the Bee Journal an item in regard to 

 laurel being a poisonous plant. My experience is quite limited 

 as to its poisonous nature, but 60 years ago, when a boy, 1 

 lived about 17 miles southeast of Lancaster, Pa., and we had 

 laurel on all sides of us, within a mile or so of our apiary. My 

 father used the box-hive, and in the fall after the first frost, 

 the poor bees were brimstoned, and we ate honey strained 

 through a thin cloth, in the comb, and every way. I never 

 heard of poisonous honey, and it seems strange that it was 

 never discovered until of late, although the laurel is poison- 

 ous. We turned our cattle out in early spring on the com- 

 mons to pasture, and as the laurel is an evergreen, the cattle 

 would seldom touch it, but when through mistake they got it, 

 it would kill them. I have helped to skin them. We would 

 open them and find it in them. Generally the flower is of a 

 pink color, and sends out a delicious perfume. 



Ionia, Mich. Jacob Moore. 



KALMIA, mountain LAUREL, OR IVY. 



On page 146, " Novice " asks for satisfactory proof of the 

 bees storing honey that was poisonous. 



In the spring of 1894 there was a very hard frost late ic 

 the spring that destroyed all the fruit-bloom and killed the 

 leaves on a great many trees. There was nothing for the 

 bees to get honey from until the kalmia, mountain laurel, or 

 ivy, bloomed. The plant is known by all these names. The 

 bees had used all the honey in the hives rearing brood. In 

 this part of North Carolina, where there was plenty of kalmia, 

 the bees stored some honey in the sections from the kalmia. 

 The other flowers that generally bloom at that time in the 

 year the frost had killed, so that the kalmia was the only 

 flower the bees could get honey from. This honey was bitter, 

 and a number of people were very sick after eating it. The 

 symptoms were alike in all cases, but some were worse than 

 others. 



A Mr. Ledbetter, who has about 30 colonies of bees, ate 

 quite heartily at dinner, of the kalmia honey, and fell down 

 in the harvest field unconscious. It was very hard work to 

 restore him, and there were a number of cases where the peo- 

 ple who ate the bitter honey came near dying. Mr. Ledbetter 

 has kept bees for a number of years, and is a close and accu- 

 rate observer of them. He knows just what flower the bees 

 are working on at any time in the year, and he told me the 

 honey came from the " ivy," "because from the freeze, you 

 know, there wasn't anything but the ivy to get honey from — 

 all the rest were killed, you know." 



Dr. Weaver, of Asheville, N. C, said that the symptoms 

 were those of poisoning from the poison of the "ivy." 



In the spring of 1895 Mr. Ledbetter told me he had a 

 great deal of the bitter honey, and asked if it would hurt the 

 bees if he fed it to them. I told him to " go slow, try a little 

 and watch the results." He took the honey from a number of 

 sections and put it on top of the frames in two hives. It killed 

 every bee in both hives. 



The summer of 1894 was very dry, and after the sour- 

 wood bloomed there was almost nothing for the bees. The 

 only flower I could find the bees working on was the night- 

 shade. In a short time there were thousands of young bees 

 lying dead in front of the hives. They were apparently the 

 nurse-bees. Upon examination, there was plenty of sealed 

 sourwood honey in the hives, and the brood looked all right. 



