10 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



January 



past. It is necessary, as suggested by 

 the title, to look both ways. 



The recent tendency to emphasize 

 the importance of winter protection, 

 the discussion of the use of larger 

 hives, the emphasis on the preven- 

 tion of European foulbrood rather 

 than its cure, and the many experi- 

 ments on methods for wiring frames 

 to prevent sagging, and thus to get 

 larger brood-nests, all point to a re- 

 alization that our colonies are often 

 not strong enough before the honey- 

 flow. Langstroth, in his first edition, 

 emphasized the necessity of keeping 

 all colonies strong, so this is no new 

 idea. During the period of depres- 

 sion, beekeepeii departed from this 

 ideal and we have not yet fully re- 

 covered from this. It is now coming 

 to be generally realized that only 

 strong colonies are profitable and by 

 some means or other the beekeepers 

 of the future will have even stronger 

 colonies than are found today, even 

 in the apiaries of many good bee- 

 keepers. 



The word "strong" is not suffi- 

 ciently accurate, because.it does not 

 mean the same to everybody. Our 

 books on beekeeping usually state 

 that a colony of bees in good 

 strength may consist of 50,000 to 

 70,000 bees. Years ago Charles Da- 

 dant had 70,000 cells of brood in some 

 of his colonies just before the clover 

 flow, and in the Bureau of Entomol- 

 ogy apiary it has been possible to 

 average this amount by the time of 

 the tulip-tree honey flow in early 

 May. Some of our colonies have had 

 brood enough at that time to fill IS 

 Langstroth frames, and as this is 

 possible this should, for the present, 

 be our aim for all colonies. One still 

 occasionally hears a beekeeper argue 

 that colonies should not be too 

 strong in the spring, but this idea is 

 rapidly passing away, as there is no 

 logical basis for such a belief, pro- 

 vided the proper swarm control 

 measures are practiced. 



Looking forward, then, it is safe 

 to predict that the future is to be 

 one in which the strength of colonies 

 is a prime consideration. Whether 

 we are to get this by the use of larger 

 hives is still a debatable question, but 

 the hive alone cannot produce large 

 colonies. Whatever hive is used, and 

 after all, the hive is only a tool, it is 

 clear that the essentials are better 

 methods of wintering, frequent re- 

 queening, and especially stores in 

 spring more abundant than is now 

 usual. 



If only these big essentials can 

 bore their way into the minds of 

 beekeepers there is scarcely any 

 limit to the beekeeping of the future. 

 Vast stores of nectar are now lost 

 from lack of colonies to gather ihcm, 

 and perhaps especially from the 

 weakness of the colonies at the 

 proper time. If beekeeping is to 

 grow, as we hope it will, it must be- 

 come more reliable by the use of 

 strong colonies. 



Since future success seems to de- 

 pend on greater efficiency in having 

 more bees to the colony, it will be 



clear that the future successful bee- 

 keeper will be a student of bee ac- 

 tivities. Looking backward, we have 

 seen that the foundations of the in- 

 dustry were built by such students, 

 and looking forward we must expect 

 a great revival in interest in such 

 work and many new investigations. 

 The recent rapid development of 

 commercial beekeeping has naturally 

 directed attention to the devising of 

 improved apparatus and to plans for 

 efficiency in systems of operations. 

 The depression of the comb-honey 

 era, however, resulted from undue 

 emphasis on these things, and we 

 may well learn a lesson from this. 



If the future successful honey 

 producer is to be a student of bee 

 behavior, and if success is to depend 

 on the proper application of the facts 

 that obtained to colony management, 

 it will be evident that the future of 

 beekeeping calls for specialization. 

 It can scarcely be expected that the 

 many thousands now owning bees 

 will sufficiently study the problems 

 of the beekeeper so as to make their 

 beekeeping financially profitable. The 

 spread of the brood diseases also con- 

 tributes to the confusion of the un- 

 informed, beekeeper. It does not take 

 the son of a prophet to predict a 

 great development in specialist bee- 

 keepers. 



Immediately the question arises, 

 what will be done with all the honey 

 produced when so many are engaged 

 in commercial beekeeping? The same 

 question has confronted man in all 

 branches of specialized agriculture. 

 The questions are not all answered, 

 but in enough cases increase in pro- 

 duction has been accompanied by ef- 

 ficiency in marketing and in making a 

 market to relieve us of fear on that 

 score. It is perhaps unfortunate for 

 the beekeeper that the honey market 

 is so influenced by the sugar market 

 but, in spite of this handicap, a 



proper organization of commercial 

 producers will help wonderfully. The 

 time is ripe for such organization. 



In looking back over the sixty 

 years since the first issue of the 

 American Bee Journal we can see 

 many mistakes and blunders. We can 

 see where well-intentioned men di- 

 rected the attention of American bee- 

 keepers into channels which resulted 

 into disaster. The industry has often 

 been hurt by poor leadership, yet 

 through the years there have been 

 constantly present wise leaders who 

 have counteracted with helpful influ- 

 ence. The grand total has led to the 

 present day success. To look forward 

 one must be an optimist. If we 

 profit by past successes and failures 

 our paths will lie in more pleasant 

 places. Any one can see that there is 

 coming on a new generation of bee- 

 keepers of wide vision, with keen 

 business sense and scientifically 

 minded. Under such leadership we 

 may expect a brilliant future. 



Washington, D. C. 



Andrew Joplin, of Santa Ana 



LOOKING BACKWARD 



By J. E. Crane 



THE sixty years from 1860 to 1920 

 well cover the development of 

 scientific beekeeping in the 

 United States. True, the Rev. L. L. 

 Langstroth had brought out the mov- 

 able-comb hive a few years before, 

 and Moses Quinby had published his 

 first book e-xplaining the mysteries 

 of beekeeping, yet, for the most part, 

 beekeeping went 'on very much as it 

 had, for the previous two or three' 

 thousand years. 



Langstroth and Quinby surely laid 

 the foundations deep and broad on 

 which the superstructure of scientific 

 beekeeping in the United States has 

 been built. In 1860 the first American 

 journal devoted to beekeeping was 

 published, a great step in advance of 

 previous conditions. At about the 

 same time Italian bees were first in- 

 troduced into this country, greatly in- 

 creasing the interest of beekeepers in 

 the business, for from some accounts 

 about them we thought they must be 

 nearly as large as bumblebees and 

 could work on red clover as well as 

 white. The publication of the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal was discontinued 

 during the Civil War, and again 

 started after the war, thus, increas- 

 ing the interest in beekeeping, and 

 the more careful study of the habits 

 of bees. 



Soon Beekeeping Associations, both 

 State and County, sprung up like 

 mushrooms over much of the north, 

 and interest in bees increased. There 

 were no supply houses in those early 

 days, and we had to make our own 

 hives as best we could. All sorts of 

 hives were invented and, of course, 

 patented, very few of which were as 

 good as the Langstroth hive, brought 

 out a few years before. 



It was in the spring of 1868 that the 

 first account of a honey extractor 

 was published in this country, and of 

 course in the American Bee Journal. 



