3- 







42dYEAR. 



CHICAGO, ILL, MAY 6, 1902, 



No, 19. 



^ Editorial. ^ I 



Number of Bee« in a Swarm. The 



number of bees goinff with a swarm, Editor 

 Root ;^uesees, iiiaj' be 75 percent of the whole. 

 leaving 25 percent in the old hive. Wonder it 

 others would make the same guess J 



Returning Bees to Cellar After a 

 Plight. — This in early spring has been un- 

 derstood to be a thing not to be commended. 

 Possibly it may, after all, be one of those 

 things as to which traditions are not reliable. 

 At least it looks a little that way, according to 

 the following item from Gleanings in Bee- 

 Culture for April 15: 



The bees in our bee-eellars have wintered 

 nicely. The larger portion, as will be remem- 

 bered, were in our home cellar, comprising 

 nearly 300 colonies, and these, many of them, 

 two and three frame nuclei ; and yet they 

 came out bright and healthy. One or two 

 nuclei succumbed, but they were very weak. 



During the last days of March there was 

 considerable roaring among the bees, and it 

 seemed necessary to (|uiet them down. Mr. 

 Warden finally suggested taking them out on 

 the flrst warm day and giving them a flight, 

 and then returning them. This was done 

 with the bees in both cellars, and the results 

 were eminently satisfactory. In our flrst 

 test, we took out 25 or 30 colonies that were 

 quite uneasy. We gave them a flight, and 

 put them back, and, presto! they were iiuiet, 

 while those that had not had a flight were un- 

 easy as before. These were put out, and they, 

 too, became contented. 



I believe it has been stated that it is a waste 

 of time and labor to give indoor bees a flight 

 during mid-winter or early spring: but our 

 own experience does not seem to prove the 

 statement. 



When we put the bees out in the first place 

 we numbered and marked their location, so 

 that in a month hence, when they are put out 

 again, they will go back in exactly the same 

 places. 



•■ 



Whipping Up the Queen. — One of the 



things upon which the novice in bee-keeping 

 seizes with especial eagerness is the idea that 

 by some special measures he may secure more 

 rapid laying on the part of the queen, and so 

 have an extra number of laborers when the 

 harvest is ready. One way in which he at- 

 tempts this is by what is called stimulative 

 feeding, or feeding a certain amouat every 

 day. or every other day, so as to imitate to a 

 certain extent a natural flow. If this is done 

 at a time when the weather is cold, wet, and 

 windy, it will almpst certainly result in loss, 

 for it will start the bees to flying out. If done 

 at a time when the weather is warm and bees 

 are flying all day long, doing at least a little 



at gathering natural stores. It can hardly 

 make any increase in the queen's laying, for 

 such times the queen is already laying 

 freely. If at a time when the weather is con' 

 tinuously warm, yet no flowers yielding, the 

 dearth continuing sufBciently long to stop the 

 (|ueen's laying, the feeding may be a good 

 thing. 



Another way by which increased laying is 

 sought is by making such change in the posi- 

 tion of the brood-combs as to bring an addi- 

 tional number of empty cells within the 

 brood-nest, usually called brood-spreading. 

 This matter is (|uite fully discussed by Mr. 

 Doolittle on page 247. The fear is that the 

 beginner will pay too little heed to the dan- 

 gers mentioned. 



Still another way advocated by some is to 

 reverse the position of the hive and all its 

 contents, making the front and back ends of 

 the hive change places. The reasoning is that 

 bees naturally prefer to have their brood close 

 to the entrance and the honey at the back 

 end, so when the hive is reversed the bees 

 hasten to bring the brood again to the front. 

 In this plan there seems little chance for 

 doing harm. 



The probability is that beginners have an 

 exaggerated estimate in nine cases out of ten 

 of the gain that can be made by any inter- 

 ference. Many seem to have an idea that 

 brood-spreading and stiuiulative feeding will 

 in all cases result in an increase of brood, 

 whereas either one may have the opposite 

 effect. Even in the hands of the most ex- 

 perienced it is not certain that gain can be 

 made in every case. What possible gain can 

 be made in a case in which a colony is carry- 

 ing already all the brood it can cover ? Before 

 whipping up your queen make sure that she 

 is not already doing her best. 



Maeterlinck's Book seems to be judged 

 quite differently by different minds, both in 

 this country and abroad. By some it seems 

 to be considered as rather a bad book, by 

 others as of mixed i|uality. and by still others 

 as of faultless beauty. This appears in the 

 American Bee-Keeper : 



There are one or two among us to whom 

 the beauties of Maeterlinck's delightful book 

 are overshadowed by the trifling inaccuracies 

 which are but the iuiprint of humanity. 



And this in the British Bee .Journal : 



I should say that the greater portion of his 

 figures are open to criticism, and this is a 

 circumstance the more to be regretted', inas- 

 much as the work is one that is evidently ob- 

 taining a wide general circulation. What, for 

 instance, is to be said of statements that con- 

 vey such ideas as ttie following? 



1. That the common size of swarms is from 

 12 pounds to 14 pounds (page '^). 



2. That bees on swarming commonly leave 



behind thetij a compact mass of honey aiiit 

 pollen reaching about 1 cwt. (page 3!)). 



3. That drones visit and sleep on the near- 

 est flowers (page 2.S7). 



4. That the (lueen bears in her flanks close 

 on two million lives (page 84), etc. 



Such statements might \x multiplied almost 

 indefinitely, but I think the wildest flight of 

 poetical license, or whatever it may be, is 

 reached in the following, with which I con- 

 clude, although I can not pretend to be ((uite 

 certain of the author's precise meaning; 



" immense fields of flowers that have 



been visited daily one or two thousand 

 times" (page "293). Does .M. Maeterlinck really 

 mean to saddle our poor little servant with 

 the task of a laborious journey during every 

 half-minute of a lon^ summer's day ? 



Sulphur Smoke and Blaok Brood. — 



In European countries there are frequent 

 reports of foul brood and kindred diseases 

 being cured with drugs, but in this country 

 little reliance is placed upon anything of the 

 kind. It has been suggested that across the 

 water bees are more nearly immune to the 

 disease because it has existed there for a 

 longer time, and so drugs that are not effect- 

 ive here may succeed there. In (ileanings in 

 Bee-Culture T. F. Bingham reports what may 

 be a possible cure with the fumes of sulphur. 

 He says : 



Mr. Hetherington was at my place, and I 

 wished to show him my first buckwheat col- 

 ony. When opening it we found a non-lay- 

 ing queen and a few black, dead larvEB scat- 

 tered at intervals among the empty cells 

 when, evidently, the brood had just matured. 

 Mr. Hetherington said there was no doubt 

 that the dead brood was such as had made 

 trouble in eastern New York. It filled the 

 description given in the journals so far as we 

 could decide. I told him I would try an ex- 

 periment, and watch results. I gave them an 

 unfertile queen five days old ; and when dark- 

 ness came I smoked the bees thoroughly at 

 the entrance and at the top of the hive, and 

 at the two joints between, with pure sulphur 

 smoke. The following night I gave them the 

 same treatment, but stopped the exits from 

 the hive and compelled the bees to stay 

 awhile. .Just as the young queen had begun 

 to lay, Mr. H. was again at my place, and, of 

 course, we examined the first prime buck- 

 wheat swarm to see if the combs had still in 

 them evidence of disease. Nothing could have 

 been cleaner or in better order. The ques- 

 tion, so far as cleaning out the few dead 

 larvae was a factor, was complete. One fac- 

 tor, however, remained; viz.. would the dis- 

 order develop again 1 I kept watch of the 

 brood, and nothing could have been finer or 

 more abundant. The queen laid abundantly 

 till the flowers failed, and no signs of weak- 

 ness or dead brood appeared. 



The query will naturally arise, " Was the 

 sulphur smoke the cause of the change ?" 

 The reason I have given this experiment pub- 

 licity is because I am not likely to have an 

 opportunity to test the experiment again; 

 and while I do not like to say much, based on 

 a single experiment, others may find it of 

 value. 



