Oct. 30, 1902. 



THE AMERICAN BEE .JOURNAL. 



697 



reared <|ueens, at that. At that time I knew as much about 

 rcariiifj (iiieeiis as I now dn about l)iiil(liii)^ telescopes, lint 

 the know-how didn't botlKi" me much, as I never let sucli 

 small matters trouble me, when I have a scheme to push 

 tlirouf^h. However, I had had sullicient experience with 

 bees to know that if a colony was deprived of its queen tlie 

 bees would soon provide another. Of course I worked on 

 this theory. 



How this must surprise my friend, Dr. Gallup. Why, 

 the idea of anyone rearing;- f,'ood queens by the nucleus sys- 

 tem, even before the Doctor pot acquainted with bee-keep- 

 inp ! Isn't it funny that such a thing could be done ? Such 

 was a fact. After half a century's e.\perience in (jueen-rear- 

 ing we can rear no better ijueens, or, in a word, no improve- 

 ment has been made in the quality of the ([ueens, notwith- 

 standing- the fact that the rearing- of queens has been 

 brought down to a science. 



In my first attempt to rear queens, a piece of comb 2x3 

 inches, in which were eggs and quite young larva;, was fas- 

 tened to the top-bar of a Uangstroth frame by strings. The 

 frame was then placed in a single-comb observatory hive, 

 in which there was glass on either side, so that any move- 

 ment of the bees could be observed ; only about a pint of 

 bees were used. 



In those days queens were not reared for sale — merely 

 for experiment and amusement, and that is why a glass 

 hive was used. This was the starting-point in my queen- 

 rearing experience. 



In 1860 I commenced to rear queens in 3-frame nuclei. 

 This is how it was done : One of the 3 frames contained 

 brood in all stages, from the egg just laid to capped brood. 

 The 3 combs were removed from a strong colony and all the 

 bees adhering to the combs, minus the queen, were placed 

 in the hive. The bees were then confined to the hive from 

 12 to 24 hours, and water was supplied. Bees thus prepared 

 would commence to build from 3 to 8 or more queen-cells. 

 As some of the bees would return to the parent hive, when 

 released, other bees were given the nucleus each night for 3 

 or 4 days. By this operation I at once saw how bees could 

 be induced to rear quite a number of queens on one comb, as 

 I found that each fresh lot of bees given the nuclei would 

 commence a new lot of cells. The bees built the queen-cells 

 in positions of their own choice, and selected either eggs or 

 larva; for the coming queen. 



Now, Dr. Gallup, with all due respect to your opinion 

 and experience with nucleus-reared queens, I want to say 

 that queens reared by the above method were in all respects 

 equal to any swarm-reared queen ever produced. For rear- 

 ing queens on a small scale there is no better method known 

 than the nucleus system, as above described. In those days 

 no one ever heard of short-lived queens ; all queens, as above' 

 reared, were first-class. 



Now, can any-one give a method so simple, and perhaps 

 so scientific, for rearing a few queens ? Does it not come 

 as near Nature's way as it is possible to reach ? So far, so 

 good. 



But right here comes the trouble in rearing queens on a 

 large scale by the above plan. When the time comes for 

 the queens to hatch, then the trouble begins. It will be 

 seen that if bees are constructing new cells for 4 days con- 

 tinuously, it will be 4 days before all the queens will hatch 

 out. It will be impossible to cut out and save all the cells, 

 if one desires to transfer them to other nuclei, or to the 

 nurser)',as the cells are built on both sides of the comb, and 

 many of them are very near each other. So it will be seen 

 that there is a disadvantage in this last method for rearing 

 queens. For the above reasons I had to abandon that 

 method, and adopt the strip-of-comb plan, and have used 

 this latter method many years. 



In the days of 18S9 to 1870 we knew little or nothing 

 about the "missing link;" more in fact, there was no " miss- 

 ing link." All we then lacked was a way to rear queens so 

 that all the cells could be preserved, and the strip-of-comb 

 method does it. All went well in those days ; everybody 

 seemed pleased with the queens they purchased, yet knew 

 nothing about science as applied to queen-rearing ; nor did 

 we care to know the scientific part, beyond adoptin g 

 Nature's way, and by so doing only the most perfect queens 

 were produced. 



Since 1870 advancement has been made in many re- 

 spects in queen-rearing, but when it comes down to the 

 quality of queens no advance has been made. In fact, many 

 queen-breeders are not up-to-date. 



Mr. Doolittle says hundreds and thousands are 

 quietly smiling at my statements. I am glad to know this. 

 I always make it a point to keep people good-natured, and if 

 I have succeeded in thousands of cases, as evidenced by Mr. 



Doolittle's statement, I can only gay I am well plcaHcd at 

 the result. I know of many bee-keepers who do not smile at 

 all, and, 'tis " Amen " with many of them. I refer to the 

 class of beekeepers who write me thus : " Send me a queen- 

 bee. Have bought queens of all the breeders and never 

 got a good queen.'" Who does this strike? The names of 

 these people arc all new to me ; not one of them has ever 

 " smole a smile " at my statements. 



I have no time to reply to Mr. Doolittle's article on 

 page .Sf.'J, but I will do so before spring. In fact, I don't 

 know that I can get time to write all that is necessary on 

 the subject of queen-rearing. It is the biggest and most 

 important subject connected with bee-culture, and volumes 

 can be written. I will say, however, that I am ready to 

 back up any statements I have made, notwithstanding- Mr. 

 Doolittle takes no stock in them. 



Dr.Gallup also remembers me when he says, " I have two 

 queens of Alley and they petered out before spring." Does 

 any one who has had any experience in queen-rearing and 

 shipping queens see anything unusual in this? I have 

 reared queens as Dr. Gallup says they should be reared (the 

 correct and Nature's way), and they didn't even peter in ; 

 they were worthless, and of course were destroyed as soon 

 as tested. The queens I sent to Dr. Gallup were reared by 

 the method I am now so strongly condemning. The meth- 

 ods then used were long ago abandoned by me. but other 

 queen-breeders still use them. I call upon those who have 

 purchased queens of me in 1902 to speak of their quality ; 

 yea, I call upon those people who have written to me the 

 past summer to say the same in public as they say to me 

 privately, as to the quality of the queens I have sent them 

 in years past. [Of course the American Bee Journal is not 

 going to publish a lot of testimonials for any queen-breeder, 

 unless paid for at regular advertising rates. — Editor.] 



Now, all queens sent out, however reared, do not prove 

 to be good ones, but of this and the reasons why, we speak 

 later on. Dr. Gallup knows as well as others, that the fault 

 of this " petering out " is not always the method of rearing 

 queens. Why, bless you. Dr. Gallup, bees are subjected to 

 diseases as well as the human race. We all know, too, 

 about how queens are treated in going from Massachusetts 

 to California in a mail-bag. Such treatment may improve 

 the quality of the queen, but I cannot think so. 



One more reference to Dr. Gallup and Mr. Doolittle : 

 Mr. Doolittle would have the readers of this paper to under- 

 stand that he can rear good queens as he " learned the 

 trade " of Dr. Gallup (page 579). Now, Dr. Gallup say-s on 

 page 585, that " Mr. Doolittle's queens fail the second sea- 

 son." How's that, gentlemen ? Doctors seem to disagree. 

 At any rate, I can't seem to make the two statements har- 

 monize. 



When Dr. Gallup says my queens fail the second year, 

 that is, if he includes any number of them, he makes a de- 

 cidedly wrong statement. Some queens do fail the second 

 year, yes, some fail the first year, and they will continue to 

 do so, and it won't matter who rears them, or how they are 

 reared. 



I first observed the lump of royal jelly in the cells of the 

 first queens I reared, and I am not only " on to " that point 

 as indicating good queens, but on to man)- others that no 

 one has mentioned, and none of them are new to me. 



Who is getting bit when Dr. Gallup and Mr. Doolittle 

 speak about rearing queens in nuclei ? Surely it can't be 

 this man, as I was obliged to abandon that system years 

 ago, that is, long before any bee-keeper of the present day 

 knew anything about rearing queens. If it were practical 

 to rear queens on a large scale by the nucleus system I 

 surely would use no other method, as I know by actual ex- 

 periment that just as good queens can be so reared as can 

 be reared by any method ever given the public. 



Now, the reader can easily decide whether or not I am 

 right, by simply testing the nucleus system. Try a few 

 queens by the nucleus plan given at the beginning of this 

 article. Of course, this} statement does not agree with the 

 theory of Dr. Gallup, but it is an easy matter to prove or 

 disprove my theory early in the year 1903. 



I am not writing for the fun of it, but am in dead earn- 

 est in what I say, and I'll risk my reputation as a queen- 

 breeder on the result. Essex Co., Mass. 



Please send us Names of Bee-Keepers who do not now 



get the American Bee Journal, and we will send them sam- 

 ple copies. Then you can very likely afterward get them 

 subscriptions, for which work we offer valuable premiums 

 in nearly every number of this journal. You can aid much 

 by sending in the names and addresses when writing us on 

 other matters. 



