I Entered at the Post-Office at Chicago as Second-Class Mail-Matten 

 Publi<4hed W^eekly at gl.OO a Year l>y tieorge W. York &. Co., 334 Itearbom St. 



aeORQE W. YORK, Bdltor 



CHICAGO, ILL, SEPTEMBER 14, 1905 



VoL XLV— No. 37 



/= 



€bttortaI Hotcs ^ (Eommcnts 



\=. 



=\ 



=j 



Requeening vs. Shaking 3warms 



Id an article in the Western Bee Journal 

 (recently discontinued), Adrian Gets/, ex- 

 presses his preference for caging queens or 

 requeening, as against shaking swarms. He 

 says: 



In my locality at least there is nothing bet- 

 ter than caging the queens or requeening. 1 

 have 60 far used the last process ia preference, 

 but I may change definitely to the other after 

 all. With one or several large apiaries and a 

 locality where a considerable proportion of 

 the colonies are likely to swarm, I would cage 

 the queens throughout a little before the 

 swarming-time. The cage should be placed 

 in the cluster of bees. The queens are then 

 well cared for. Furthermore, the bees are 

 likely to work better than when entirely de- 

 prived of the queen. In due time the queen- 

 cells are cut out, and the queens are released 

 a few days later. The condition of success 

 is not to release the queens until the colony 

 has been at least 4 days without unsealed 

 brood. 



Exactly how it works I could not tell posi- 

 tively. I think it is this way: During these 

 4 days or more without unsealer" brood, the 

 young bees having no brood to feed, take to 

 the field, and become actually field-bees not- 

 withstanding their age, or rather "young- 

 ness," It we can coin such a word. Later on, 

 when the queen begins to lay again, the ex- 

 cess of nurse-bees has thus ceased to exist, 

 and is not likely to occur until the swarming 

 season, or even the hooey-flow, is over, and 

 swarming out of the question. It is imma- 

 terial if the same or another queen is given; 

 it does not make a particle of difference. Dr. 

 Miller here, and (iravenhorstin Germany, say 

 that it does. That bees allowed torequeen will 

 not swarm again, but if a strange queen is 

 given them they will. I presume that they 

 gave the strange queens too soon, not know- 

 ing the condition mentioned above. I would 

 like Dr. Miller to try again, giving due atten- 

 tion to that condition. 



The requeening is doneaboutthe same way. 

 The old queen is removed and the bees are 

 allowed to requeen. It is best to do it only 

 when good queen-cells are already present, or 

 when the swarm has already issued and is 

 returned to thej)areot hive. The cells started 

 only after the queen is removed are liable to 

 give inferior queens. Furthermore, the col- 

 ony is too long a time without a laying queen, 

 and thereby too much weakened. 



My two apiaries are not very large. Further- 

 more, the locality is not favorable to much 

 swarming. Taking the average of several 



years, only 1 colony out of 10 swarms. Sol 

 putqueen-traps on all, and requeen only those 

 which actually swarm. It is far less work 

 than treating all. And those that do not 

 swarm do much better than if they had been 

 disturbed. Adrian Getaz. 



Knox Co., Tenn. 



Dr. Miller otYers the following in reply to 

 Mr. Getaz: 



It has long been known that the swarming 

 fever could be ocercome by having a colony 

 queenless for a certain time, and upon this 

 was based the treatment of swarms given by 

 Mr. Doolittle some years ago, which treatment 

 I used for a time with much satisfaction. 

 When a colony swarmed, the queen was 

 caught, caged, and the cage left in the hive. 

 Five days later all cells were destroyed, and 

 after another five days they were again de- 

 stroyed, and the queen freed. The plan is an 

 excellent one where there is any one to watch 

 for swarms, and where increase is not desired. 



But I think Mr. Getaz is the first one to give 

 so satisfactory a theory as to the why, namely, 

 that the colony is so long a time without un- 

 sealed brood that the nurse-bees have pretty 

 much all become fielders. To this he would 

 probably add the theory that the swarming- 

 fever has been induced by the throwing out 

 of balance o( the different forces, the nurse- 

 bees having become so numerous in propor- 

 tion to the amount of brood to be fed that 

 there is a glut in the market of food-material 

 prepared by the nurses. 



Mr. G«taz says, " The condition of success 

 IS not to release the iiueens until the colony 

 has been at least 4 days without unsealed 

 brood." In following out the Doolittle plan 

 mentioned, there is a seeming lack of that 

 condition, tor the queen is released 10 days 

 after the issuing of the prime swarm. If tiie 

 queen continued to lay up lo the time 

 the swarm issued, that would leave the 

 colony only a day or two, instead of 4 days, 

 without unsealed brood. But it must be re- 

 membered that duriot,' the last few days be- 

 fore swarming the queen has been tapering 

 off in the matter of laying, so that to all in- 

 tents and purposes the bees are 4 days without 

 unsealed brood. 



After a colony is ■ treated " by having been 

 kept without unscLiicd brood a sufficiently 

 long time, Mr. Geta - says it does not make a 

 particle of differture whether its own or 

 another queen is ^riven. He quotes me, in 

 company with sucli an eminent authority as 

 the lamented GravcnUorst, as holding a differ- 

 ent view, and express s the wish that I would 

 try again, keeping i'l view the proper condi- 

 tions. No need to ni.,l<e any further trial, Mr. 



Getaz, or, rather, I have tried it many times. 

 You are entirely right. 



Qravenhorst was right, too, as far as he 

 went, but he and I were ignorant of the whole 

 truth. He said that if you give to a colony a 

 young queen reared elsewhere, that would not 

 prevent the swarming of the colony, but it a 

 young queen were reared in the colony itself, 

 that colony would not swarm till the follow- 

 ing year. He said he didn't know why there 

 was such difference. In the light of the ex- 

 planation given by Mr. Getaz, the reason is 

 very clear; when the young queen is reared 

 in the colony itself, there is the proper 

 " treatment," the colony being left a certain 

 lime without any unsealed brood, whereas 

 when there has been no such treatment I have 

 had a colony swarm when a queen not a 

 mouth old was given — swarmed, too, in less 

 than a week after the youngqueen was given. 



Long since I have learned that " treating" 

 a colony by keeping it without unsealed 

 brood is an important requisite, and have 

 acted upon it, but without any satisfactory 

 explanation as to the why, and hereby thank 

 Mr. Getaz for such explanation. 



McHenry Co., 111. C. C. Miller. 



Mating and Swarming of Virgins 



Commenting on an editorial on this subject, 

 Wm. Muth-Kasmussen, of Inyo Co., Calif., 



writes thus: 



In an editorial, page .5S1, under the head of 

 " Mating and Swarming of Virgins," a very 

 important factor is omitted on which the 

 whole question hinges, viz., that the bees be- 

 have in the manaQT stated, only whfH there is 

 no young brood ia the hive from which another 

 queen routd be retired, if the present virgin 

 should be lust on her mating triji. When there 

 is suitable bruod for this purpose, I have 

 never known a swarm to issue with a virgin 

 queen when she goes out to mate, and for 

 this very reason I am always careful, when I 

 know in advance that a virgin will come out, 

 to see that there are eggs and young larva> in 

 the hive, or to supply them if necessary. 



I do not now remember if, in my letter to 

 Mr. Doolittle. I said that bees in such cases 

 "invariably" acted so. If I did, this was 

 perhaps too sweeping a statement. I should 

 rather have used the word " frequently." 

 But I had so rnauy cases of this kind during 

 the swarminf-'-iiuie of the present year, that 

 I could not help thinking and questioning 

 about the matter. 



I have since written to Mr. Doolittle, and 

 given him a iiore detailed statement of facts. 

 Though I feel sure that I have repeatedly 

 seen the same ;!)iag mentioned in print dur- 

 ing my 'ia years of bee-keeping, I could at the 

 lime of wrii'ii;,' lay my hand on only two 

 quotations, oue from Dr. Miller's book, page 

 165, 1st line 'ihh above; and one from •• A B 

 C of Bee Cuu ue," 1905 edition, page 2Sr, 2d 

 column, Jd liie from above. Dr. Miller says: 



