^ •DELVoTE.D^ 

 •To'BE.E.S' 



•ANdHoNLY-'A 



•AND home:- '' 



•INTELF^EST^. 



^^.biishedy theT^ 11^001' Co 

 Si°°pe>iyIar ^ Medina- Ohio- 



Vol XXXil 



SEPT. 15, 1904 



No. 18 



I'm thankful to say that the lame back 

 mentioned last time is now in good repair. 

 What a nice thing it is to be able to get up 

 and down like other people, and to turn over 

 in bed without making faces! [We are very 

 glad, doctor, that you are now better, and 

 that it was nothing worse than a lame back. 

 -Ed.] 



Crowed too soon! Two weeks ago I said 

 a queen less than a day old would be accept- 

 ed anywhere. Since then I've lost three, 

 dropping each into a nucleus at time of re- 

 moving laying queen. Other cases of the same 

 kind have worked all right; also two full 

 colonies with laying workers. [In a regular 

 queen-rearing yard one will see several cases 

 of this kind, although it is a rule that young 

 virgins are usually accepted without trouble. 

 -Ed.] 



Further experience with baby nuclei 

 makes me less satisfied with no brood and 

 just a few bees. Sometimes it's all right, 

 but too many times the queens are a long, 

 long time without laying, or turn up miss- 

 ing. My apologies to ye editor. [As I have 

 before stated, we have succeeded very well 

 with these baby nuclei without brood; but 

 experience has taught me, at least, that 

 bees do better with brood in any hive 

 than without. If an expert like Mr. Pratt 

 can operate these miniature hives without 

 brood it does not follow that the beginner 

 could do likewise. The reason I advocated 

 the use of brood was because I believed that 

 the reader needed every favoring condition. 

 -Ed.] 



A DISCOURAGED young friend who has foul 

 brood wants me to say here whether it's 

 best to give it up or make a fight. It all 

 depends. If you love the business — as you 

 say you do — make the fight by all means. 



If foul brood should attack my bees — it's 

 within 12 miles of me — I'd take a certain 

 grim pleasure in seeing how well I could 

 keep the fell disease at bay; and I don't be- 

 heve it need interfere such a great deal with 

 getting regular crops of honey. Indeed, the 

 treatment of foul brood is much the same as 

 making shaken swarms, and shaking each 

 colony is much the same as treating each 

 colony. A genuine bee-keeper give up for 

 foul brood? Never! [Hear! hea>-!— Ed.] 



Stenog says, page 836, ' ' Who has ever 

 made a quotation on propolis by the pound? " 

 Who has ever made an ofl'er? If a fair 

 price is offered I think I can furnish a few 

 pounds when sections are scraped. [A gen- 

 tleman connected with the manufacture of 

 some kind of shoe-polish called me out of 

 the convention of the National Bee-keepers' 

 Association that was in session in Chicago 

 some two or three years ago, and asked me 

 if I could get for him some propolis by the 

 pound. He said he would be willing to pay 

 a good price. I put an announcement in 

 Gleanings, and I think we secured for the 

 party enough to test some of his formulae 

 on which he was working. I have never 

 heard any thing more, and so I suppose that 

 propolis is either too expensive or was not 

 adapted to the purpose. If any one is in 

 position to give us information we shall be 

 glad to hear from him. —Ed.] 



Two men, both of them careful observers, 

 give us different times for the development 

 of a queen. Doolittle says 16 days, p. 838; 

 T. W. Cowan says 15, British Bee-keepers' 

 Guide Book, p. 10. Is it a difference in lo- 

 cality? Mr. Cowan would no doubt have 

 good ground for his view, seeing it has stood 

 for years in a text-book of wide circulation; 

 and seeing that, previously, 16 days was the 

 shortest time given. He would hardly want 

 to butt his head against all previous author- 

 ity without having it padded with well-as- 

 certained facts. In this connection it is in- 

 teresting to recall that, only about forty 

 years ago, the accepted time was between 

 17 and 18 days. See American Bee Journal, 

 Vol. I., page 199. [DooHttle's article, if you 

 read it carefully, harmonizes, I think, very 

 nicely the statements made by different 



