452 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



July 19 1900. 



would be disastrous. As a rule the rations of the worker 

 are carefully measured out, not an iota remaining unused ; 

 and if the larva should be sealed up a day or two before the 

 usual time, the worker would be dwarft if not starved. 

 With a royal larva it is different. From first to last it has 

 an excess of food, and if sealed up while quite small it has 

 a sufficient supply to last. McHenry Co., 111., Jan. 12. 



[This article, as will be seen by the date, was written 

 about the first of the year; but I have held it till now so 

 that the interesting conclusions can be verified or disproved 

 in the apiary. I should like to have our readers, especially 

 queen-breeders, go into the matter carefully ; for in a prac- 

 tical way it involves the matter of choice queens, and that 

 means honey. 



What surprised me is that in one of the experiments 

 conducted the bees should have apparently waited so long 

 before starting the bulk of the cells ; for Dr. Miller says 

 that 16 fresh queen-cells were started on the 13th of July, 

 just 8 days after the eggs were laid, or S days after the 

 larvae were hatcht. We have heretofore assumed that larva; 

 just hatcht, or larva? not more than three days old, was the 

 preferred age ; but here is a case Where the bees evidently 

 had a preference for the five-day limit. Now, the question 

 is, was this exceptional with this colony, or is it the com- 

 mon average ? Now, don't you see a great deal of impor- 

 tance attaches to this? — Ed.] — Gleanings in Bee-Culture. 



Moving- Bees Short Distances. 



BY I. W. BKCKWITH. 



UNDER the above heading G. M. Doolittle, on page 291, 

 makes some statements that are likely to do mischief. 

 In the first place, he moves his bees with as little jar 

 as possible ; why, he does not say. It can hardly be on ac- 

 count of the danger of breaking down the combs, for unless 

 they are new and full of honey, there is no such danger 

 loaded in a wagon without any protection. Neither can it 

 be that he thinks it necessary to avoid disturbing the bees 

 with so much jarring, for when he gets them home he finds 

 it necessarj' to pound on the hives and disturb them for a 

 considerable time. 



But the more important error that he makes is in the 

 statement that the bees will not find the hive that is left to 

 catch the returning bees, provided it is moved more than 

 five feet from where their hive had formerly stood. If the 

 hives had stood more than five feet apart it would be neces- 

 sary to leave at least every other hive, which would allow 

 very little choice in the strength of the colonies to be left ; 

 and then, when these were taken home there would nearly 

 as many bees return and be lost as tho he had moved all at 

 once ; since those that returned from the first lot moved are 

 the field-bees that would be liable to return again. And if 

 the distance between hives should be more than ten feet, 

 there would be no use in leaving any. 



He says : " If you move the weaker colonies more than 

 five feet you lose all the bees that fly from that ;" and a lit- 

 tle further along on the same page he says : " But after 

 careful watching for many years I am satisfied that all such 

 bees finally go back to their new location, if they have been 

 treated as here given." I would like to ask Mr. D. which 

 of these two statements is correct ? I might report cases to 

 show that neither is true, but will only relate one case, and 

 I think the universal experience of observing bee-keepers is 

 the same as mine. 



On May Sth I bought nine colonies of bees from a 

 neighbor living about 40 rods from my place, and that even- 

 ing I moved .seven of them home, leaving two very weak 

 ones to catch those that should return. Four of the hives 

 were scattered, having been left where the swarms were 

 hived last summer, and two of them were 50 feet or more 

 from where I left the "catcher." The other five were on a 

 stand together. The next day I went there to see how they 

 were getting along, and found that those two were catch- 

 ing the bees all right, the one where the five had been 

 catching most of the bees. 



After two days I brought home the one that had caught 

 the most bees, and set the other in its place. Again, after 

 two days, I brought this one home also, and took a very 

 weak colony from home to put in its place, which caught 

 quite a number or bees. The bees were working vigorously 

 at this time. Fremont Co., Wyo. 

 < • » 



The Premiums offered this week are well worth work- 

 ing for. Look at them. 



The National Queen-Breeders' Union. 



BY J. O. GRIMSLKY. 



AFTEE reading the editorial on page 360, relative to the 

 National Queen-Breeders' Union, I am convinced that 

 Mr. York, like many others, has formed a wrong idea 

 — probably from not being informed as to the real object 

 of the organization. One thing leading to this conclusion 

 is this, that he says : " Suppose the supply-dealers should 

 form a union, telling how honest they are," etc. This has 

 no bearing whatever on such an organization as the union 

 of queen-breeders, and proves that he does not understand 

 us. His reference to the " free advertising " is still further 

 evidence that he misunderstands us — and my editorial in 

 The Ruralist. 



I can not accuse Mr. York of being so selfish and short- 

 sighted as wilfully putting an error before his readers ; in 

 fact, I must say he is a clean editor, always looking to the 

 interest of his readers. Had I any other opinion of him I 

 could not write for his columns at this time, or any other. 

 I believe him sincere when he says : " We bear not the 

 slightest ill-will toward the National Queen-Breeders' 

 Union, or its members." Really, I believe a mutual friend- 

 ship exists between Mr. York and each member of the 

 Union. I make these remarks to show to the readers of the 

 " Old Reliable " that no ill-will exists — his comment was 

 timely, and, barring his lack of information regarding the 

 Union, nothing can be said against it. 



He says : "The National Bee-Keepers' Association is 

 an organization of which every one at all interested in bees 

 should be a member, It is not restricted to a half dozen or 

 so people who have something to sell to bee-keepers, but it 

 is in the interest of all who keep bees." Every word of 

 that is true, and I might add further that bee-keepers every- 

 where stand in their own light by not joining the Associa- 

 tion. I keep the card of the Association standing at the 

 head of my column in The Ruralist, and give it all the 

 " free advertising " I can. The " half dozen or so people 

 who have something to sell to bee-keepers " has an indirect 

 reference to the National Queen-Breeders' Union. Of course 

 the Union can't number up into the hundreds like the Na- 

 tional Bee-Keepers' Association, for every bee-keeper can't 

 be a queen-breeder, neither, indeed, will such ever be the 

 case, but a majority of the bee-keepers are dependent upon 

 the queen-breeders for just such stock as they need. Mr. 

 Root recognized the fact that queen-breeders were not 

 numerous when he wrote to me that " the queen-breeders 

 can be counted on the fingers of your hands." I can hardly 

 think they are so scarce as that, but the real, honest, up-to- 

 date breeders may be — I can't say. 



The National Queen-Breeders' Union blows its horn of 

 "honesty " because no dishonest breeder caw remain a mem- 

 ber, and in case a member " beats " a customer, the Union 

 is bound to make the loss good. That is no bad feature, is 

 it ? We number but few, I admit — always will, for there 

 are few breeders — but we want every honest breeder in our 

 ranks — they belong there, the bee-keepers are interested, 

 and will be benefited. 



"Free advertising" of the Union is like " free adver- 

 tising " of the Association. The members of the Union are 

 individual advertisers of queens, while the members of the 

 Association are individual advertisers of honey, queens and 

 supplies — in each case, of course, so far as advertising is 

 required. 



The fact that the Union guarantees honest and square 

 dealings upon the part of individual members will make 

 breeders slow to join, but we tvill number all hottest breeders 

 in our ranks when they fully understand what we are doing. 



The Union fixes a standard for Italians, Golden Ital- 

 ians, Carniolans and Albinos, and will, as occasion requires, 

 add others. In this we settle the name Golden Italian, and 

 show what each class of queens must produce. Heretofore 

 no standard was recognized, except as individuals might fix. 



An application for membership must show how the sur- 

 roundings are, as regards neighboring bees, and chances 

 for pure mating — everything, in fact, tends to encourage 

 every possible improvement, both in stock and methods of 

 rearing. The organization is looking to something more 

 than individual interests. It wants to benefit all, and is ex- 

 actly the same class of organization as the National Bee- 

 Bee-Keepers' Association, except it is composed exclusively 

 of queen-breeders, and the members must be received by a 

 vote. If its rules were not strict in that regard unscrupu- 

 lous breeders would soon outnumber the honest, and the 

 organization would be a farce. 



Of course, it will take time to perfect the organization, 

 and get its objects and good features properly before the 



