206 



GI.EANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Mar. 15. 



more than a brood-chamberful of honey in a 

 .30-days' flow, yielding, for a good colony, 2 

 lbs. of nectar per day. If such a colonj^ had 

 the ready-made surplus coaibs you could get 

 quite a lot of honey in them, it is true, but at 

 a sacrifice of winter stores, and of the colony 

 in the end. Take, as an illustration, the two 

 colonies used a^ scale colonies in 1897. That 

 was a year in vvhich ni}- general average sur- 

 plus was 4-5 pounds, the stock as a whole being 

 in about average condition of strength, etc., 

 when the flow was on. Scale colony No. 1 

 was not quite an average one; and during the 

 main part of the flow they were contracted to 

 a very small brood-chamber — about five L. 

 frames capacity. I took from this about 50 

 lbs. of surplus in sections, leaving, I think, 

 not over 20 lbs. of stores, proVjabh- less. Their 

 total gain was about 88 lbs. during the flow 

 proper — a little being gathered outside the 

 record dates. This colony's average daily 

 gain was Ig lbs. in a .55 days' flow, or, rather, 

 two flows of 30 and 25 days respectively, di- 

 vided by about two weeks in which a ver)^ 

 trifle over their li\'ing was obtained. 



Colony 2 was better than the average, had a 

 nine-L. -frame brood-chamber throughout the 

 season; made a daily average of a trifle over 

 2 lbs. gain; gave 75 lbs. of section honey, and 

 probably 25 lbs. of stores. This colony did 

 not show as much shrinkage as the other — 

 that is, gave a greater j-ield of honey in pro- 

 portion to the gross g^in in nectar; but I at- 

 tribute this to a quicker ripening, because the 

 colony was much stronger; hence the greater 

 evaporation during the da}' between morning 

 and evening weighings would account for the 

 discrepancy. 



This season of 1897 was very close to an 

 average one as to condition of colonies and 

 amount of surplus; but the strength or freeness 

 of flow was rather weak, and its duration 

 somewhat extended. While both of my scale 

 colonies were managed for comb honey, it is 

 a significant fact that mj' average yield of 

 extracted was just about the same as my comb- 

 honey average, though I think the extracted- 

 honey colonies have a little the advantage in 

 the amount of stores on hand. Knowing the 

 tendency of the extracted stock to store in the 

 super combs at the expense of winter stores, I 

 gave them larger brood-chambers to insure 

 sufficient stores. 



It appears, then, from the foregoing, that in 

 this average season I was able to take just 

 about as much of section as extracted hone}-, 

 but it was done with colonies that did not 

 swarm. I said my stock was in average 

 strength, but I suspect ni)- standard of strength 

 is above tljat of the average apiarist. They 

 were in very fair condition at the opening of 

 the flow, all increase made carefully by divi- 

 sion, and at the rate of about two new ones 

 to three old ones. A few of the weaker colo- 

 nies gave no surplus at all, some of the best 

 giving almost (a very few quite) 100 lbs. 



It appears, then, that the colony of only 

 fair to average strength will not usually gather 

 more than necessary stores during an ordinarj^ 

 flow ; while if the daily gains reach 2)4 or 

 more pounds they wil' take to comb -building. 



An average daily gain of 4 lbs. will give a net 

 gain in honey of about 75 lbs. in a 30-days' 

 flow, and will cause any ordinary colony to 

 secrete wax and build comb freely. If, how- 

 ever, the average colony can not gain at least 

 2 lbs. a day of raw nectar, we should not ex- 

 pect any surplus of either comb or extracted 

 unless the flow exceed 30 daj's' duration. 

 Such a rate of gain, long continued, will in- 

 duce wax secretion and comb building, and 

 average to strong colonies will build comb 

 and store in sections after brood-combs are 

 filled, if swarming does not occur. 



My understanding of California honey-flows 

 is that, as a rule, they are slow but steady. 

 If this is true, I should say that the average 

 apiarist there would get a greater yield of 

 extracted than of comb, because, to have comb 

 built, requires a reasonably free flow or very 

 strong colonies. For years I have maintained 

 that the ratio of yield, as between the two 

 products, comb and extracted, has been greatly 

 overestimated in favor of the extracted, though 

 at no time have I claimed that the extracted 

 did not lead a little. 



There are three conditions under which the 

 yield of extracted may exceed that of comb 

 by quite a little, one of which appears in the 

 foregoing paragraph. Another condition is 

 one in which it is so cool that comb can not 

 be built successfully, and yet a free secretion 

 of nectar, and weather such that the bees can 

 bring it in. The third condition is a very 

 abrupt and profuse flow. 



The second condition I think rarely exists, 

 though it was claimed at the Lincoln conven- 

 tion in 189() that such was the case frequently 

 in Nebraska. I think a little protection and 

 strong colonies would overcome most of that 

 difficulty. If such conditions came about 

 when a colony was well provided with old 

 or field bees, and no young or comb-builders, 

 I can see that the difference would be quite 

 marked. This would be much more likely to 

 occur in a very late flow than in an early or 

 midsummer flow. 



The difficulty about an abrupt or profuse 

 flow is that, coming on so suddenly, every 

 thing may be filled to overflowing before wax 

 secretion gets under way. The principal loss 

 in such case is in the interim between filling 

 the readj'-made comb and getting wax secre- 

 tion and comb-building started. I have had 

 one case of that kind in eight years, and not 

 over two in over twenty years. The case 

 eight years ago was one in which the change 

 was so rapid that, from a condition in which 

 old stores were being rapidly used for support 

 of brood- rearing, four days' time filled all 

 empty comb, including a number of bait- 

 combs in supers. Only these very abrupt 

 changes from no flow at all to a free one can 

 have much weight under this head. 



The argument about the quantities of honey 

 consumed in wax secretion, and the labor of 

 building comb, I consider of very little weight. 

 I need not prove that the secretion is an in- 

 voluntary act on the part of the bee, in order 

 to sustain my position. The fact that much 

 wax is secreted when not needed is sufficient 

 evidence to show that that factor does not 



