1921 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



131 



some of tlicin arc so strikingly sug- 

 gestive tliat it seems worth while to 

 make them public at this time. 



Just before the honey flow began, 

 four colonics, numbers 5, 6, / and 8, 

 were selected to be used in this ex- 

 periment. The hives were weighed 

 early in the morning, before the bees 

 had started lo the.licld. and then later 

 the total weight of the hives and hive 

 'parts were subtracted from the 

 weights taken earlier in the morning, 

 the difference in the weights represent- 

 ing the number of pounds of bees in 

 each hive. 



For the purpose of this experiment. 

 we estimated 5,000 bees to each pound, 

 and in this way we were able to close- 

 ly approximate the number of bees in 

 eadh hive. In addition to learning the 

 number of be«s in each hive, the 

 amount of brood was measured, and 

 by allowing 5,000 bees to each frame, 

 we were able to arrive at w'hat we 

 termed the potential sti-ength of each 

 colony. 



The actual number of bees and the 

 potential number are given in Table 1. 



Table 1. — Number of Bees in the Fall 

 and Spring 



Hive \o. Actual No. Potential No. 



5 12,500 19,375 



6 19,375 35.625 



7 20,000 42,580 



8 18,750 37,500 

 The reason for using the potential 



number of bees was to indicate 

 wTiether any of the queens were lag- 

 ging behind the others in brood-rear- 

 ing. It will be seen that although 

 hive No. 5 was not as strong as hives 

 6, 7 and 8, yet the difference among 

 the three latter, both in the actual 

 number of bees and the potential 

 number, is very small. 



Throughout the summer 10 worker 

 bees returning from the field were 

 captured daily at each one of the four 

 hives, and when possible two daily 

 collections were made. The bees were 

 then taken to the laboratory, where 

 each bee's tongue was measured, and 

 the length recorded. The honey stom- 

 ach was removed from each bee, and 

 the nectar in each stomach was 

 weighed and recorded. The tongue, 

 the empty honey stomach, and the 

 bee's body Were then weighed in 

 order that we might learn the relative 

 weights of these bees with empty 

 honey stomachs. 



In the fall of the year, by the same 

 system of weighing that we used in 

 the spring to determine the number 

 of bees, we again ascertained the 

 number of bees in each hive. The to- 

 tal amount of honey in each colony 

 was also learned from these weigh- 

 ings. During the summer, 720 bees 

 were examined from each one of the 

 four hives, and at the end of the sea- 

 son the average was taken of the 

 length of tongues, the weight of the 

 bees and the size of the honey stom- 

 ach, and these averages were then 

 compared with the amount of honey 

 stored in each colony. It was found 

 that hive No. 5, which had a potential 

 strength of 19,375 bees in the spring, 

 increased this number during the sum- 

 mer to 33,333, but in the length of its 



tongue stood fourth, and third in the 

 weight of the bees, fourth in the size 

 of its honey stomach, and had gath- 

 ered 61-3'^ lbs. of honey during the sea- 

 son, which entitled it to third iplace. 

 Hive No. 6, with a potential strength 

 of 35,625 in the spring, increased this 

 to 43..S40 bees by the fall. It had the 

 second longest tongue, the second 

 heaviest bee, but in its honey stom- 

 ach, or carrying capacity, it far ex- 

 celled any of the other three. It 

 brought into the hive 116>^ pounds of 

 honey, which was the greatest amount 

 Iiroup^ht in by any one of the four 

 colonies. Hive No. 7 had a potential 

 strength in the spring of 42,580. This 

 was lowered in the fall to 41.2.S0. It 

 had the second largest honey stomach, 

 but had by far the largest bees. It 

 brought in and stored 74^ pounds of 

 honey, which was the second largest 

 amount stored. Hive No. 8 had a po- 

 tential strength in t'he spring of 37,500 

 bees, and this was reduced by fall to 

 .•?7,082. It had the third longest 

 tongue, ranked fourth in weight, third 

 in the size of its honey stomach, and 

 as it only stored 53j^ pounds of honey, 

 it ranked fourth in the amount of 

 honey stored. 



The comparison of these figures 

 shows that hives 6 and 7 were either 

 first or second in the length of 

 tongues, weight of each bee, the size 

 of each honey stomach, and in the 

 amount of honey stored. This sug- 

 gests that the length of the tongue, 

 the weight of the bee (or its size) and 

 the size of the honey stomach inay 

 account for its honey-storing abilities. 

 It would seem very probable that 

 where the bees were gathering from 

 flowers which had a deep nectary, 

 that the length of tongue would be a 

 very deciding factor. However, the 

 bees gathered the lioney this year 

 from two main forces — alfalfa and 

 sweet clover — and it is evident from 

 the above figures that the tongue 

 length was not the most important 

 factor, but rather it was the size of 

 the honey stomach which determined 

 how much honey could be gathere'd 

 during the season. When colonies 

 No. 5 and No. 8 are studied, it will be 

 seen that there was a difference of 8 

 pounds of honey stored, but the fact 

 that colony No. 5 gained about 14,000 

 bees during the season, whereas No. 8 

 lost 500, would easily account for the 

 difference in the amount of honey. 



Table 2, showing the standing of 

 each colony for the different points 

 considered, is rather interesting: 



Table 2. — Summary of Results 



This exi)eriment will be continued 

 over a number of years, and the re- 

 sults of each year will be compared in 

 the hope that we can definitely de- 

 cide just what it is that enables one 

 colony of bees of comparably equal 

 strength of another colony to store 

 more honey during the honey flow. 



PASTE FOR TIN 



I have seen numerous inquiries in 

 the American Hec Journal for a paste 

 that would slick labels on tin. 'We 

 have tried all kinds of pastes and 

 glues that we could get hold of, but 

 with poor success, until we tried pure 

 gum shellac, such as painters use for 

 covering knots. It sure does the 

 work. It is not necessary to put it 

 on so very thick, and only around the 

 edge of the label. S. D. Mason. 



Minnesota. 



WAX FROM OLD BROOD COMBS 



By F. Dundas Todd 

 Over a dozen years ago I spent a 

 couple of weeks experimenting on a 

 small scale with various methods of 

 rendering beeswax from old combs. 

 I fairly well satisfied myself that the 

 weight of wax in four ordinary combs 

 was about one pound, but I also 

 learned that combs in which brood 

 had been raised accumulated a sur- 

 prisingly large amount of dirt, in fact, 

 I found many old black combs that 

 alone weighed a pound— 75 per cent 

 dirt and 20 per cent available wax. 

 Furthermore, I found that the more 

 dirt on the. comb, the less of the 

 available wax was secured by such 

 ordinary methods of rendering as 

 boiling in water, or heating in the 

 oven. 



This year, having had no honey 

 crop, I had no cappings to melt down, 

 but I had made a final roundup of 

 old combs, principally on account of 

 drone cells. Altogether I had 35 

 pounds weight of these, varying from 

 very black to fainter hue, so I con- 

 sidered I should get not less than 9 

 pounds and not more than 12 pounds, 

 that is from a fourth to a third, of 

 wax from the mass. The actual re- 

 turn was exactly 11 pounds. 



These days, when it is becoming 

 more and more the custom to send old 

 combs to the foundation manufactur- 

 ers to be rendered, it is advantageous 

 to know just about what one may ex- 

 pect to get in return. 



3 4 3 

 2 1 1 

 1 2 2 



CO^TMlCHT e* JOHi 



NET WeiCHT OUNCES 



A suggestive label used by a California 

 beekeeper. 



