(D 



1861 ^ '^ 



^l^ERIGA.^ 



^t BEE-^APe^-^ 



4001 YEAR, 



CHICAGO, ILL. SEPTEMBER 13, 1900, 



Na37. 



^ Editorial Comments, i^ ^ 



Can a Man Support a Family on Bee=Keeping Alone ? 



is a question discust in the German Bienen-Vater by Jul. 

 Steigel. In lower Austria, he says, no one makes bee- 

 keeping an exclusive business, but he thinks it possible. 

 He figures that it is a conservative estimate to say that an 

 annual income of S200 might be had from bees, and says 

 many at other catlings work the year round for half that 

 sum. That would seem a very small sum to one in this 

 country', but expense of living is much higher here. As a 

 matter of fact, very few in this country depend entirely 

 upon the income from their bees ; perhaps not so much on 

 account of small returns, as on account of the exceeding 

 uncertainty of the business. It is probably true, however, 

 that the number is by no means small of those who get 

 their chief support from bees, holding on to some other 

 means of support to tide them over years of failure. 



Buying Queens of Queen-Breeders. — Referring to the 

 statement by Frank Coverdale, that nearly every one of SO 

 purchast queens felf short of common stock on the honey- 

 gathering point, E. E. Hasty propounded the question : 

 " Shall we ' edicate ' our breeders, or stop buying queens, or 

 what ?" Replying to this in the Ruralist, J. O. Grimsley 

 says : 



" It may be that Mr. Coverdale has been buying of un- 

 reliable queen-breeders or dealers, but I kind o' think he 

 does not realize the fact that queens hardly ever show up as 

 well after having gone thru the mails. The journey is 

 evidently a drawback so far as futute service is concerned. 

 But there are queen-breeders, and there are queen-breeders." 



This partly answers Mr. Hasty's question, but the im- 

 portance of the question warrants fuller consideration. 

 Besides the possibility suggested by Mr. Grimsley — buying 

 of unreliable dealers — there is also the possibility that what 

 Mr. Coverdale calls "common stock " may not be so very 

 "common." Mr. Coverdale is an intelligent bee-keeper, 

 by no means a novice, and it is not likely that the SO queens 

 were all obtained at one time, but at different times with 

 the view of improving his stock. The supposition is, that 

 most of the queens he bought did not show as good results 

 in honey-gathering as the queens he already had, leaving 

 the inference that one or several of the queens he got did 

 show better results than those already on hand. For the 

 sake of illustration, let us suppose that three of his pur- 

 chases showed an advance. It is not hard to understand 

 that the greater the improvement resulting from any of 

 these purchases, the more difficult it was for any subse- 

 quent purchase to show still further improvement. If at 

 any one time a purchase showed a great advance, a number 

 of succeeding purchases might show no advance, altho the 

 queens received should all be good. So if Mr Coverdale's 



stock should all the time be called " common stock," the 

 fact that only one or several of the purchast queens made 

 any improvement is by no means clear proof that any one 

 of the queens purchast was not above the average of queens 

 thruout the country. 



Suppose, however, that most of the queens were really 

 bad, much poorer than the average thruout the country, the 

 possibility is still left that the improvement from the few 

 good ones might more than pay for the whole cost of the 

 50; in which case Mr. Hasty's question, "Shall we stop 

 buying queens ?" must be answered in the negative. 



Referring to Mr. Grimsley's statement that "queens 

 hardly ever show up as well after having gone thru the 

 mails," the question might arise, " If the queen received by 

 mail, after being fully settled, shows no better results in 

 honey-gathering than the average colony already on hand, 

 is there any advantage in purchasing such queen ?" It 

 would be unwise hastily to decide that such a question 

 should always be answered in the negative. It is well un- 

 derstood that while some queens may pass thru the mails 

 unharmed, the injury to others is of all degrees. A queen 

 may be so injured that she ever after does poor work at 

 laying. But the direct result in honey-gathering by the 

 worker progeny of that queen is a very small part of the 

 object the purchaser has in view. What he wants is im- 

 provement in queen progeny, and that may be as great as 

 if the queen had never been thru the mail. 



The testimony of hundreds upon hundreds is that great 

 improvement has been made thru queens purchast and sent 

 by mail. If such were not the case it could hardly be pos- 

 sible that the trade in queens should have attained its pres- 

 ent proportions. And the probability is that more queens 

 to-day are sent by mail than ever before. 



All this does not in the least militate against the fact 

 that the intelligent honey-producer, whether he makes 

 further purchases or not, should aim at constant improve- 

 ment by careful weeding out of poor stock and breeding 

 from the best. 



Keep a Record of Your Colonies. — Every bee-keeper 

 has noticed the difference in the performance of different 

 colonies, and sometimes the question has been askt as a 

 poser : "Why is it that two colonies side by side, equal in 

 all respects, show such different results in storing ?" As a 

 matter of fact, they are not equal "in all respects ;" one is 

 more industrious than the other. It is important that a 

 written record be kept, showing just how many pounds of 

 honey have been secured from each colony. Other things 

 bearing on the reputation of a colony should also be re- 

 corded, for example, when for any purpose brood is taken 

 from or given to a colony. Other things being equal, a 

 colony that has had brood or bees drawn from it ought of 

 course to have some credit for that. 



If these things are not put down in writing somewhere 

 near the time of their occurrence, they are likely to be for- 

 gotten ; at most, the bee-keeper has a rather indistinct re- 

 membrance of them. 



