1891 



GLEANINCrS IN BEE CULTURE. 



16<) 



I tliprefori^ found that, as far as practice is 

 concerned, the large majority were on or close 

 to the egg plan: and the reason advocated was 

 that the larv* should early receive an abun- 

 dance of food. The abudance of food is a very 

 good thing to advocate: but u|)on this point I 

 would giv(^ l)ut very little for an opinion or an 

 investigation that goes no f\u'tiiei' than the un- 

 aided eye can I'each. Upon turning to our 

 standard te.xt-books 1 found this visible abun- 

 dance prominently treated upon with more oi- 

 less modifying points brought out by closei- re- 

 searclies. 



I also found two divergent lines of belief. The 

 lii'st class of writei's would lead us to believe 

 that es)jecial royal jelly is given to larv;c desig- 

 nated to be queens frotii the very iirst moment 

 of hatching. Class No. :.' advocates that all 

 larv;e are fed alike until ;i() ho\irs old, and that 

 a coarsej' food is given to the lai'v;e destined to 

 become woi-kei's. As to whicii of these twt) 

 classes is right, is. perhaps, beyond the leach of 

 any one to definitely decide, until further re- 

 seai'ches aie made: but we can quote opinions 

 anri tests as far as nuuie. and find indications 

 tluit point toward c<'rlaiu I'esults. 



When the investigator considers the wonder- 

 ful changes that ai'e etfected. or. as Prof. Cook 

 says, the "marvelous transfoi'ination — ovaries 

 developed and tilled with eggs: mouth organs; 

 tlie \^•ings: the legs: the sting — aye. even the 

 size, foi'm. and habits, all are marvelously 

 changed,'" — that all this change has Iwen 

 wi'ought with nu^rely an abundance of food, or 

 a day's feeding, this." 1 say. is not a Sf tisfactory 

 explanation to him. and we find him studying 

 the bee structurally. oi)ening up to us a laby- 

 rinth of wonders which has been traced but a 

 short distance toward its most intricat(^ secrets. 

 Cheshire (piite conclusively shows that larval 

 food, or, at least, a portion of it, is a secretion 

 from the lower or head gland, and that this 

 food luis the singular power of developing the 

 generative faculty: but he is silent as to its 

 chemical qualities. 



We now turn to Cook, and tind. on pages 89 

 and 117, Dr. A. de Planta quoted as showing 

 from cliemical tests that this royal jelly is dif- 

 ferent from the food of both the worker and 

 drone larv;e. 



If the I'oyal food is different, as also hinted by 

 otlier writers, wlien is it given to the larvie? 

 Doolittle. in class No. 2, says, after 36 hours; 

 Cheshire, wliile substantially agreeing with 

 this elass. says, on page L'8'.t, Vol. :.', "The fact 

 thai ([ueens are started from the egg in normal 

 queen-cells is suggestive: but in addition it is 

 noticeable that the amount of food given in the 

 queen-cup (exceeds that supplied to a woi'ker, 

 even in th(> initial steps." And on page :J90. 

 "The laivie should be intended by the nurses 

 for a queen tVom the beginning.'" Cook, A H C, 

 and Alley, all stand in class No. 1. and would 

 agree with the above quotation. I, however, 

 lind that JNIr. Alley, who has been the most 

 strenuous advocate of rearing queens from the 

 egg. is tending toward class No. 2; for on page 

 171. last volume of the Apl.^hc. says, " When 

 eggs are placcul in a qu(H'nless eolony, the bees 

 will nf)t in all cases immediately commence to 

 feed the larva for a queen."' We also tind 

 Langstroth's Revised standing with class No. 

 '.'. As the case now stands, I find that class No. 

 1 ar(! in the majority, both in tlieory and in 

 practice; but I also tind strong evidence that 

 all classes arc? not satislied vvitli the investiga- 

 tions thus far, and would like still furth<'r ligiit. 

 Tluit good queens can be reared by both 

 classes is a fact not to be controverted: and I 

 think queen-breeders of every name and nature 

 can show a long list of testimonials. 



lint the question ever recurs, Are we rearing 



the best type of (pieens? and if not, how shall 

 we do it? The question can be answei-ed only 

 by a more searching investigation with the 

 microscope than has heretofoi'e ever becm made. 

 If we consult Cheshire we tind the wonderful 

 head gland No. I. while fully developed in 

 the woi'ker, is only rudinuuitary, if at all, in 

 the queen: but I (puite: "It is peculiarly im- 

 ])ortant to observe, that the higher the quality 

 of the (lueen the further will she be removed 

 from the worker in this matter — poor ciueens, 

 huriiedly raised, really possessing this gland in 

 an extivmely rudimentary form, while those 

 with the largest ovaries have (wen the plate 

 impei'forate. and no trace of a duct is discover- 

 able." To the microscopist we must therefore 

 turn for aid. If this duct is entirely absent in 

 (jueens reai'ed from larvie 36 or 7"^ hours old, 

 then they are good enough. 



A seiies of close e\aiuinations would certainly 

 teach us at what age to select larvie for queen- 

 rearing, whicli would be infinitely better than 

 tlie pi-esent guesswork. Let us employ the 

 mici'oscopist. Rambi.kr. 



DO^WN BRAKES 1 



I,. C. AXTI^;i.I. .\(iAl\ ON f'LOSED-KXI) FliA>yiS. 



Extremes exist in almost every thing, and I 

 am not sure but we hear of as numy who go to 

 extremes in apicultuic as in any other inu'suit. 

 I do not wish to belong to that class, and I real- 

 ly do not think I do. I notice in Gleanings 

 that A. I. Root is wliistllng "down brakes" in 

 regard to changing brood-frames: and from let- 

 ters I have received relating to this topic since 

 mv article was printed in (iLKAXiNCis on that 

 subject, I am led to think he is right, and that 

 there is danger that some may be led astray at 

 the present time by what is said in the journals. 

 In the Iirst ijlace, I wish it clearly understood 

 that I do not go back on what was said in my 

 article on closed-end frames, and I firmly believe 

 they have all the advantages claimed for them, 

 and more might be said in their favor. Still, I 

 do not think it would be wise for evei-y person 

 who keeps bees to drop every other fr'ame. 

 Those who are keei)ing but a few colonies of 

 bees, as a general rule had better retain the 

 frame thev have in use, whether it be the clos- 

 ed-end or hanging frame, for the reason there 

 would be so little ditference in the amount of 

 honey stt)re(l. Such as have the tinn-. ample 

 means, and a desire to experiment, let such test 

 both kinds of frames, and give to others the re- 

 sult of their experience. But to all who are 

 fully in the business as a pursuit, having either 

 style ot frame, and but one kind. I would say, 

 (/o slow in indhiiKj tiinj rlutiKjr. at least un- 

 til making a careful test. If only a part were 

 changed, there would be the continual annoy- 

 ance of two kinds— such an annoyance as I 

 could not think of enduring. Hut in making 

 an entire change In one or more large ajjiaries, 

 it would involve a heavy expense. This, some 

 could not meet without being involved in debt, 

 while toothers the loss in money would be more 

 than all that ever would be gained in time sav- 

 ed or convenience. 



Then, again, after using for years one method 

 and one set of implements, ev<'n though the 

 new were much sui)erior, for a time at least 

 they would be less wieldy and not satisfactory, 

 and probably a wish nuiily tinu's that they had 

 iu)t made the change would be the result. 



Hut to such as are beginners, and contemplate 

 tnaking bee-keeping a business pursuit.th is point 

 of closed-end brood-frames should, along with 

 many other points pertaining to the puisuit. re- 

 ceive careful consideration and then be tested. 



