1894 



GLEANINdS IN BEE CULTURE. 



905 



terms, gentlemen — come to terms and end the 

 war. Now, Mr. Eight, you put in just one 

 more frame (it is not much to do), and meet 

 your opponent half way. Very well. Now. Mr. 

 Ten, will you not throw overboard one frame — 

 ■only one? Why. you didn't kick against nine. 

 Do you want your brother to do all the compro- 

 mising? For shame, man! Give up one frame 

 and end the war. 



BEE-PARAIASIS. 



No man can say a word against Prof Cook, 

 and hold fast to my good opinion. Prof. Cook 



.is always right, even when he is in the wrong. 

 But I must differ with him in politics as to the 



• cause of the " nameless bee-disease." Starva- 

 tion is not the cause of it. I took out of my 

 apiary over fifty hives last summer, in which 

 the bees starved to death (you know we had no 

 honey this year), and not a trace of the disease 

 was found. In fact, I have now but one case of 

 it— one hive— and that hive is heavy with hon- 

 ey. Three years ago you could gather up quarts 



-of bees in front of almost any hive. I did noth- 

 ing for them. I just concluded I was " busted," 

 and let them go. But they " weathered the 

 storm" till the flowers came. As the honey- 

 flow increased, the disease decreased, and final- 

 ly disappeared altogether. All my experience 



•establishes two things: First, the disease will 

 rage in a hive that is full of honey, therefore 

 starvation is not the cause of it. Second, an in- 

 flow of honey, whether from the flowers or the 



-sugar-barrel, will cure it ; therefore Prof. Cook 

 was right when he said feeding would cure it. 

 But the full hive must be fed, as well as the 



■empty one, to effect a cure of all. 

 Escondido, Cal., Oct. ~^4, 1894. 



[I should like to know what Prof. Cook would 

 say of those '"storms of bee-moths." I know 

 you are an old veteran, but are you sure those 

 destroyers of the leaves were really and truly 

 bee-moths, or \v pre tliey something that looked 

 just like them? You know the carpenter-bee 

 looks just like the bumble-bee, but is quite dif- 

 ferent in habits and instincts. 



Regarding bee- paralysis. Mr. Dayton, on page 

 828. explains pretty well how you and Prof. 

 Cook may both be right.— Ed.] 



APICULTURE IN GERMANY. 



KEPOKT OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION. 



By C. J. H. Omvenhorst. 



The 39th annual convention of the German, 

 Austrian, and Hungarian bee-keepers was held 

 at Vienna, Austria, Sept. 3 — .5, 1894. More than 



:3.iO delegates were assembled, from (Termany, 

 Austria, and Hungary, and among them Dr. 

 Dzierzon, of Lokowitz. Germany, in spite of his 

 83 years. After Pres. Rittervon Beck's address. 

 Dr. Dzierzon, amid great acclamation, stepped 

 up on the platform. He answered the question, 

 '• Whom have we to thank for the convention, 



• and the exhibits thereof ?" 



Dr. Dzierzon said he had been a contributor 



to the BienenzeitMmj ( Bee Journal) for .")0 years, 

 and he could tell under what difficulties that 

 paper was established. It had greatly favored 

 the organization of this general movable con- 

 vention, and all that has been gained by it. He 

 said that, in 18r)3, he imported the first colony 

 of Italian bees from Italy. This had proved to 

 be of great importance. With the aid of the 

 Italian bee he had solved many problems, as, 

 for instance, the duration of life of the worker- 

 bees; parthenogenesis, etc. Then Dr. Dzierzon 

 praises the superiority of the Italian bees, as 

 they gather more honey than any other kind. 

 He does not understand why it is that there are 

 bee-keepers who do not see this superiority. 

 Without conventions and expositions, modern 

 bee-keeping would not have spread so rapidly 

 over the world, and the use of the movable- 

 comb hive, honey-extractor, comb foundation, 

 etc., would not have been so general as now. 

 Finally, Dr. Dzierzon said that the most perfect 

 movable-comb hive is his " Twin " hive. In be- 

 half of the assembly, Baron von Ambrozy, of 

 Hungary, thanked the venerable man for his 

 good lecture. 



F. W. Vogel, of Leitschin, Germany, the sec- 

 ond speaker, endeavored to unite the three 

 opinions of the bee-keepers concerning the ori- 

 gin of honey-dew. Some bee-keepers say that 

 honey-dew is simply the product of plant-lice. 

 This view was the oldest, and for half a centu- 

 ry all bee-keepers had supported it. Other bee- 

 keepers said, '• No, there is no plant-louse hon- 

 ey; the bees do not gather the excrement of 

 plant-lice. What they do gather in this line is 

 only the juice of the plants, secreted by the 

 leaves, and has nothing to do with plant-lice." 

 Other bee-keepers were of the opinion that 

 honey-dew is as much a product of plant-lice as 

 a secretion of the plant itself. Vogel says there 

 is a mistake about this. So far as he had ob- 

 served, the plant-louse would suck the sap from 

 the plants, and mix it with its saliva. In the 

 chyle-stomach the sap is again mixed with the 

 gastric juice, and then comes forth as a sweet 

 sap, but not as excrement. According to Vo- 

 gel's experiments and observations, all honey- 

 dew is the product of plant-lice, and not a se- 

 cretion. Bogdahn, of Germany, is of the opin- 

 ion that the natural philosophers and microsco- 

 pists must solve the problem as to whether 

 honey-dew is the product of plant-lice or the 

 secretion of plants, or both. 



Dr. Dzierzon says: "'The richest sources of 

 honey-dew are the pine and fir trees. Linden 

 and other leaved woods do not yield much hon- 

 ey-dew. The bark-beetle pierces the twigs of 

 the pine and fir trees, then the juice comes forth 

 out of the wounds. But this is not honey, and 

 the bees do not gather it." The juice of the 

 pine-tree is changed into sweetness, and this 

 is done by the plant-lice and cochineal-kermes. 

 The honey of the latter is very valuable. 



Karl Gatter, Vienna, Austria, answered the 



