«i@^e^^.®®®@€P@^^^^^^^^®^@€^®^^^ ®^^^^^^^®^^^^^^^€^^^@^€^^' 



Entered at the Post-Ofl5ce at Chicago as Second-Class Mail-Matter. 

 Publisbed Weekly at $1.00 a Tear by Ceorge W. Vork & Co., 334 Dearborn St. 



QBOROe W. YORK, Editor. 



CHICAGO, ILL,, APRIL 27, 1905. 



VoL XLV.— No. 17. 



=^ 



(£bttortaI Hotes 

 anb (Eomments 



J 



Putting Weak Colonies Over Strong Ones 



Reference to page 262, shows considerable interest at the Michi- 

 gan State convention in the plan of putting weak colonies over strong 

 ones in spring. The plan was first given by E. W. Alexander, in the 

 Bee-Keepers' Review for April, 1904, where he says: 



After the bees have been taken from the cellar, and had a good 

 flight, we commence at one side of the yard and examine every colony 

 carefully. Those that are weak in bees, yet have a good queen, we 

 mark ; and, as soon as they have some larvse in their combs, which is 

 usually in about 5 days after setting out, each is taken to a good, 

 strong colony and set on top, with a queen-excluding honey-board be- 

 tween. If there is no larvic at this time in the weak colony, I give it 

 a frame from the strong colony, so as to keep the bees from leaving 

 their queen, and all going below. I close up all entrances except that 

 of the strong colony. The bees will divide themselves about equally 

 between the 3 queens; and in about 4 or 5 weeks I can separate them, 

 and, in nine times out of ten, I have 2 good, strong colonies. For JO 

 years I have treated all of my weak colonies in this way in early 

 spring. Sometimes I have had 100 weak colonies on top of strong 

 colonies, and I don't lose 5 percent. I think it a much better way 

 than to try to build them up alone ; as there is no trouble from rob- 

 bers, and no attention is required until it is time to separate them. 

 Don't keep them together too long, as the young bees, when over 2 

 weeks old, are liable to sting one of the queens. 



Commenting upon this in the latest number of the Review, Editor 

 Hutchinson says : 



When I published the foregoing there was no doubt in my mind 

 that it would work out as Mr. Alexander said it would, that the weak 

 colonies would be saved and build up, but I had a lingering suspicion 

 that the strong colonies might lose as much as the weak ones gained— 

 that it was robbing l^eter to pay Paul — and I don't feel sure yet that 

 there is anything gained except saving the queens of the weak colo- 

 nies; however, I am more than willing to be convinced to the contrary. 



There can be no question that any accession of bees to the upper 

 colony from below means a loss to the lower colony. Another thing 

 not mentioned is the fact that the upper colony will lose its flying 

 force not once, but twice. When it is placed over the strong colony, 

 any bees that have well marked the old place, when they return from 

 the fields, after the removal, will go straight to the old location and 

 join some colony close by. The number will not be large when the 

 removal occurs as early as Mr. Alexander mentions; but in the cases 

 mentioned on page 262, the removal was no doubt much later, for Mr. 

 Pearce says in the last Review that he got his hint from the April 

 (1904) Review, and the others probably did the same. 



When the upper colony is returned to its old stand after 4 or b 

 weeks, the loss of the entire field-force will be a somewhat serious 

 matter. 



After looking all these objections squarely in the face, there stil! 

 remains one great advantage, an advantage so great that if the loss of 

 queens is no greater than reported, a debt of gratitude is due Mr. 

 Alexander for giving as the plan. Compare 2 colonies in the spring. 

 one with bees enough to cover 2 frames of brood and another twice as 

 strong. The weaker colony will stand still as to strength, if indeed it 



does not progress backward, while the other will increase right along. 

 That is, the proportionate increase is very much greater with the 

 stronger colony. Later in the season, when the weather is warm, the 

 weaker colony will increase with the same proportion as the stronger. 

 Now if we can. after a fashion, unite the forces in the cool, spring 

 weather, there will be great gain. We have practically given the 

 upper colony warmer weather, in which it can have a fair show. 



The editor of the Review says " it is really, in one sense, a division 

 of the strong colony, a drawing off of bees and heat for the building 

 up of another colony." The drawing off of heat is admitted; but 

 not so much heat is withdrawn as if no bees were in the upper story. 

 •Just a bit doubtful as to drawing off bees. No bees are likely to go 

 above that are needed to cover the brood below, and the bees above 

 can keep warm a much larger amount of brood in the now warmer 

 atmosphere. 



On the whole, there seems good reason to believe— always suppos- 

 ing no loss of queens — that the advantage .to the upper colony will 

 largely overbalance the harm to the lower. The loss of the field-force, 

 when the upper colony is returned to its old stand, will be just so 

 much gain to the lower colony, and if desired things may be evened up 

 by giving the upper colony one or more frames of brood from below a 

 day or two before the time of the second removal. 



It is not too late yet to make a trial of the plan in the North, and 

 let us hope that others will succeed so well that a vote of thanks may 

 be given the Review for blazing the way. 



Sugar Syrup Not All Inverted 



Analysis reported in the British Bee Journal showed 3.8 percent 

 of sucrose (cane-sugar) where sugar syrup had been fed, against 

 mere traces in honey obtained from the nectar of flowers. This, the 

 British Bee .Journal says, is in accord with the statement of Mr. Cowan 

 at a California convention, where he said: 



" When bees have been fed with cane-sugar syrup only part of 

 this is transformed into dextrose and levulose, so that it is easy to de- 

 tect the presence of cane-sugar in the way I have pointed out before, 

 when this method of fraud has been adopted." 



Missouri's Unfortunate Foul Brood Bill 



Mr. Robt. A. Holekamp, who was perhaps the most active bee- 

 keeper in all Missouri in getting the Apiary Bill passed by the Legis- 

 lature of that State, wrote the following letter to Gov. Folk, who had 

 vetoed the Bill : 



St. Louis, Mo., March 23, 1905. 

 To His Excellency, .Joseph W. Folk, 



Governor of the State of MisEonri. 



Dear Sir .—1 have just read in the St. Louis Republic your mes- 

 sage to the Secretary of State vetoing Senate Bill No. 268, the Apiary 

 Bill. 



I take the liberty to send you these lines explaining why this Bill 

 was introduced and passed by both houses of our Legislature. 



We have diseases amongst the bees of this State which can not tje 

 eradicated through the efforts of the individual bee-keepers, because 

 the infection is constantly carried back to bis apiary if other apiaries 

 in his vicinity are diseased. 



The disease which has a strong foothold in this State is foul brood, 

 which is caused by a microbe called Bacillus alvei; this Bacillus kills 

 the larv.T in the brood-combs before they mature Into bees, and colo- 

 nies infected with this disease become weak and finally die out. When 

 a colony is in this weak state, or has died out, bees from other colo- 

 nies enter the hive, rob the honey left in it and carry it into their own 

 hives. The colony to which this honey, which contains the Bacillus 



