78 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Feb. 1. 



right direction, and the editors of Gleanings 

 have seriously considered the same move. If 

 Bro. York's subscribers do not protest, we may 

 follow suit.— Ed.] 



" It costs two pounds of honey to rear one 

 pound of brood; and as a Langstroth frame is 

 capable of containing two pounds of brood, I 

 hold that one such frame of brood costs four 

 pounds of honey." That's R. L. Taylor's notion 

 in Review, and I'll pin my faith to it till some- 

 thing different is proved. And I suppose a 

 frame of drone brood costs about five pounds of 

 honey. [Nothing unreasonable or improbable 

 In this; if, therefore, it does cost 2 lbs. of honey 

 to rear a pound of brood, bee-keepers should be 

 careful not to allow brood-rearing to go on out 

 of season. The thrifty Italians will seldom if 

 ever waste their energy in this way.— Ed.] 



It is a new thing to me that " bees will not 

 work upon a section with full-depth cells 

 as readily as they will upon new foundation," 

 as stated by friend Martin, p. 43. I know that 

 my bees have filled full-depth cells many a 

 time before working new foundation, when the 

 yield is poor, and they always commence on the 

 full-depth cells first. If B. Taylor were alive I 

 think he would deny that he used the leveler 

 because he wanted shallower cells. Friend 

 Martin, wasn't there something wrong with 

 your full-depth sections ? [We tested this mat- 

 ter pretty carefully in our apiary last summer, 

 and invariably the bees took the drawn comb 

 first, then afterward the foundation. What I 

 mean by "drawn comb " is some that had been 

 leveled down to cells about % in. deep. This 

 seems to have been the experience of the great 

 majority of other bee-keepers. — Ed.] 



Prof. Cook is getting to be revolutionary. 

 He says in Am. Bee Journal that he thinks a 

 swarm never goes with a young queen when 

 she goes forth to mate. That in all such ap- 

 parent cases it was merely a swarm issuing, 

 and the queen accompanying or following. I 

 wonder if that's another of the things we didn't 

 know but thought we did. [Prof. Cook may be 

 right, but it does not look reasonable— to me at 

 least. Time after time I have seen young 

 nucleus swarms go out with a young queen not 

 yet fertilized. In some instances, according to 

 my observation, they come back with the 

 queen. Their very small quarters, I have 

 thought, made them discontented; and when 

 the queen went out they simply " lit out " with 

 her, probably assuming that any quarters would 

 be more agreeable than the ones they were 

 having, so cramped up.— Ed.] 



A QUIET SMILE, I faucy, must spread over 

 Prof. Cook's face as he notes how a late article 

 of his is having the commendation of the bee- 

 journals, in which he says the bees "digest" 

 nectar, and then remembers what a howl was 

 sent up when he made the same statement once 



before. It's not safe, professor, to get too much 

 ahead of the times. I remember a man getting 

 into trouble once because he said a bee-keeper 

 ought to have legal control over the territory 

 his bees occupied. He merely said it a few 

 years too soon. [Yes, the renowned Galileo got 

 a little ahead of the limes, and they made him 

 recant; but he was of the same opinion still. 

 On the subject of digested nectar I do not think 

 Gleanings ever took issue with Prof. Cook. 

 While perhaps we did not indorse him at the 

 time, we did later on. More and more the facts 

 go to show that bees do actually prepare nectar 

 in such a way as to make it more easily assim- 

 ilated by human beings than ordinary sweets. 

 In my own case, for instance, I can eat honey 

 without any inconvenience; but I can not eat 

 cane or maple-sugar syrup. This I know lo be 

 true of a good many others. I do not, however, 

 think, as some do, that an admission that bees 

 convert or change sweets is also an admission 

 that sugar honey is a legitimate article of sale, 

 for this reason: Raw nectar, as it is gathered 

 from the flowers, is taken very slowly, a little 

 at a time, and is digested by the bees. Syrup, 

 as it is ordinarily fed to the bees, is taken so 

 rapidly that they have little time to prepare it 

 or digest it, therefore sugar honey should not 

 in any sense be classed as honey. In talking 

 with Mr. R. F. Holtermann, of the Canadian 

 Bee Journal, this week, I found he was of the 

 same opinion. — Ed. 



I'm discouraged— almost. You box my ears, 

 Mr. Editor, on p. 43, for persisting " in saying 

 the plan of selling thin sections is thievish," 

 right after my saying, "I'm for ihin sections 

 just as much as you," and when I never for a 

 minute thought it was thievish to sell them. 

 [1 should not be surprised, doctor, after we get 

 through talking, that we shall be found to be 

 actually on the same side of the fence. I do not 

 think I misunderstood you; but unwittingly I 

 made you, perhaps, stand sponsor for things 

 which you did not ; but in your previous Straw 

 on this subject you say you are condemning 

 "the thievish plan of selling light-weight sec- 

 tions for full pounds" — italics mine. It seems 

 to me right here you are going on the wrong as- 

 sumption thatlight weights are sold for pounds 

 even generally; and you very properly say that 

 retailers selling such for pounds are dishonest. 

 Right here we surely agree, if not on all. But 

 from the best information I can get, retailers al- 

 most universally sell by the piece; in fact, I do 

 not believe that consumers or purchasers have 

 any idea of the weight of a section. It is the 

 price and not the weight that is prominent in 

 their minds; heuce I can not see how there can 

 be any thing thievish about selling light-weight 

 sections, for the average consumer, when he 

 buys honey, does not have in mind a pound but 

 a certain chunk of honey which he sees before 

 him.— Ed.] 



