Oct. 12 1905 



IHt AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



7U 



fungus which must be injurious to the plants. Plants and 

 animals rfo not work usually in Nature to effect their own 

 harm, but always their good. 



The Naturk of Honey-Dew. 



As I have said before, honey-dew is reducing sugar, 

 usually called glucose or grape-sugar. This, then, is like 

 honey, like the sugar of digestion, and like liver sugar formed 

 on the body, and is undoubtedly a sugar that takes less energy 

 on the pari of the bees 'o convert it into honey than does the 

 cane-sugar of the floral nectar. If, then, this honey-dew has 

 no distasteful elements, it is probably the best food for bees, 

 as bees are hard worked at best, and we can well imagine 

 that they might live longer with less of digestive labor to per- 

 form. The short life of the bee during the active season 

 argues an overdose of hard work. Dr. Miller objects to this 

 reasoning in view of the fact that organs arc stronger with 

 work. I think the Doctor would hardly urge that this were 

 true of overworked organs. As I believe that honey is the 

 best sugar for us — especially if our stomachs are of frail make- 

 up — so I believe that honey-dew may often be a godsend to 

 the bees. 



?UCR0SK IN Honey. 



In a recent number of one of our leading bee-papers, it 

 was stated that there was more sucrose in honey stored by 

 bees from cane syrup than that from floral nectar. And it 

 was further urged that this would enable the chemist to deter- 

 mine this kind of "adulteration," as the large amount of 

 cane-sugar o( sucrose would be certain evidence that it could 

 not be honey from floral sources. I believe this statement 

 needs to be taken with some allowance. Bees may be made 

 to take a great deal of syrup in a very short time ; I have fed 

 over 20 pounds of syrup at night to a single colony, and have 

 found it all stored in the morning. Some of this was extracted 

 from the comb in the morning, and some after it was sealed 

 over. The amount of sucrose had very greatly diminished in 

 the capped honey. This shows that digestion went on after 

 the honey was stored, or else that the bees took it again into 

 their stomachs, which is not probable. 



Bees usually gather nectar from the flowers very slowly, 

 and thus the digestive juices are ample, and the sucrose or 

 cane-sugar of the nectar is very perfectly reduced to graye- 

 sugar, or dextrose and Uevulose. I imagine that they might 

 gather so rapidly that this reduction would be much less per- 

 fect — there being too little time for full digestion — in which 

 case we would have a large percentage of cane-sugar in the 

 honey, although it would be from floral sour'^es. Hives on 

 the scales here now (May 18) show 24 pounds per day. On the 

 other hand, if we should feed cane-sugar syrup very sparingly 

 this would be fully digested. I do not believe any chemist 

 would be justified in pronouncing upon the soarce of honey 

 from the percentage of cane-sugar which it contains. This is 

 no guess with me. It is the result of actual test. 



Poisonous Honey. 



Again we have an article in one of the bee-papers giving 

 a case of severe poisoning from the eating of honey. I have 

 often expressed in the papers my doubt of the truth of such 

 statements. I doubt if bees ever collect nectar from flowers 

 or other natural sources which results in poisonous honey. 

 Else, it seems to me, this kind of honey would be very much 

 more common. We know honey is often poisonous to certain 

 people, and is it not more than probable that such sickness 

 comes from over-eating or individual idiosyncrasy of the per- 

 son, and not that the honey is really poisonous ? 



I have several times received this so called poisonous 

 honey, and have eaten it and received no harm at all. It 

 seems to me that the sickness can be explained with no accu- 

 sation against the honey in the explanation, while [ do not 

 see how we can believe in poisonous honey from flowers, and 

 find the occurrence so rare. I knew a whole lot of students 

 who were once made deathly sick by eating honey. They 

 found a bee-tree ; it was late in the forenoon, and they were 

 hungry. They ate immoderately, as boys will at such times, 

 and very few of them escaped the punishment for theii' in- 

 temperance. It would be folly to say that the honey that 

 they ate was poisonous. 



Let us inquire further before we give too much credence 

 to this matter of poisonous honey-plants. 



Los Angeles Co., (alii. 



Ameiikanlsche Blenenzucht, by Hans Buschbaucr, is 

 a bee-keeper's handbook of 138 pages, which is just what 

 our German friends will want. It is fully illustrated, and 

 neatly bound in cloth. Price, postpaid, $1.00 ; or with the 

 American Bee Journal one Year — both for fl.7S. Address 

 all orders to this office. 



Two Queens in One Hive 



BY DR. G. BOHRER 



DURING the present season I found in two different hives 

 two fertile queens, and both laying eggs in each hive. In 

 one case there was a 2-year-old queen with a clipped 

 wing. Early during the swarming season I opened the hive 

 and found several queen-cells sealed, and at once closed it, 

 expecting the colony either to cast a swarm or to supersede 

 the clipped queen, she being old. About one month later I 

 again opened the hive and found a fine young queen laying 

 eggs, and I set the frame she was on on the ground for safety 

 to her, as I wished to look through the hive for a frame of 

 brood with which to reinforce a weak colony. And on lifting 

 out the third frame I found the old clipped queen, still in 

 apparent health, and laying eggs. I removed her, and gave 

 her to a nucleus which she has built up to a fair colony. 



In the other case, I had taken a good queen from a colony 

 in the last days of February, that had almost died out. I put 

 her into a cage, made by bending a piece of wire-cloth, 4 

 inches square, into a flattened cylinder, and placed it between 

 two frames in a colony of hybrids, where she could have ac- 

 cess to honey in case the bees refused to feed her. I kept her 

 there until in April, and took the queen that belonged to the 

 colony and liberated the caged queen. The bees injured her 

 by crippling one of her legs, and in a few days started queen- 

 cells, which I destroyed on two different occasions, and 

 thought they had abandoned the idea of superseding her. But 

 about one month later 1 opened the hive to remove the crip- 

 pled queen with a frame of brood, for the purpose of starting 

 a new colony, but I found a young queen, and took it for 

 granted that the crippled queeii had been superseded by this 

 young one. 



I removed the hive to a new stand, thinking that I would 

 give them a queen I had sent for and was expecting in a few 

 days. On her arrival, I opened the hive to put in the new 

 queen, and began to look for queen-cells, knowing that there 

 would be some on the removal of their only queen, as I sup- 

 posed. I had not gone far until I found the crippled queen 

 and no queen-cells,' and also found plenty of fresh eggs ; thus 

 proving beyond all doubt that this queen had not been super- 

 seded, but that she was still fertile and laying eggs freely, and 

 is still doing so. 



But in the presence of all this, in both instances it is 

 highly probable that both of these old queens would have 

 been destroyed, and the young queen left at the head of the 

 colony in each case. 



I'have called attention to these cases not because they 

 will be of very great worth to the bee-keepers of the world, 

 but because they are interesting on account of the rarity of 

 such cases. In the first case, I feel quite confident that the 

 young queen had entered the hive through mistake, on her 

 return from her bridal trip, as I found no cells from which a 

 queen had lately emerged. Hut by the side of the hive I 

 found a nucleus deserted by nearly all the bees, their queen 

 being gone, and I supposed she had been lost on her bridal 

 trip until I found the young queen referred to. I have said 

 she had entered this hive through mistake, but possibly she 

 may have been reared in this hive, but I found no evidence to 

 that eftec, and it may be possible she entered this hive as a 

 matter of choice, it being far more densely populated than the 

 hive she was hatched in. There were so few bees in it that at 

 times no bees were visible on the outside, while the other 

 hive had more or less bees on the outside, about the entrance, 

 thereby possibly making it more attractive to a queen than a 

 hive with no bees in sight at the entrance. 



Rice Co., Kan. 



Advantages of Bottom Starters in Sections 



BY KPWIN BEVIN8 



ON page 485. it is asked who besides Dr. Miller has found 

 advantages in bottom starters. Thanks to Dr. Miller. I 

 have used bottom starters the last two seasons, and wish 

 I had begun their use when I began to keep bees. As I ship 

 most of my honey, I find their use a great help towards insur- 

 ing safe shipment. Better filled and therefore better looking 

 sections are made with than without them. 



A top starter that comes almost down to the bottom-bar 

 of the section does not answer so good a purpose. The starter 

 is liable to get swerved to one side, and perhaps attached to 

 the separator. 



I put in both starters with a Parker foundation fastener, 

 1 putting in the bottom one first. The work is done just before 



