220 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



Apr. 1 



his yard all the time, this seems to me an 

 ideal way to prevent increase, and at the 

 same time get the full benefit of the increased 

 energy from natural swarming. Every hive 

 treated this way produced much more hon- 

 ey than where placed in separate hives, and 

 the two counted as one. Colonies treated 

 as I have outlined made no more trouble 

 about after-swarms. 



I am away fiom home quite a bit, and 

 could not treat all this way; and the man I 

 employed was unable to ao it. He simply 

 hived the swarms, and then I just doubled 

 them up afterward. I treated about 30 this 

 way, and did not lose 500 bees by fighting. 

 This certainly was good luck, for, next year, 

 when I tried to unite two weak colonies it 

 resulted in the total annihilation of the 

 weaker. 



With the exception of a few ten-frame 

 hives I use ihe eight-frame. They seem to 

 meet my needs much better; and, while my 

 hives all take Hoffman frames, the entrances 

 are not all alike. I am unable to notice 

 that the size of the entrance has much to 

 do with swarming. I have not tried top 

 ventilation or raising the hive off the bot- 

 tom. I think both need close watching to 

 prevent trouble. 



Jerseyville, 111. 



[It is a question whether hiving back on 

 the old stand, after destroying the cells, will 

 give as good results as hiving in a separate 

 hive beside the parent hive, then removing 

 the parent hive altogether, after shaking its 

 bees at the end of three weeks in front of 

 the swarm. Of course this would call for 

 the elimination of one of the queens, which- 

 ever might be the inferior. As a general 

 thing we do not believe it is good practice 

 to hive a swarm back on the old stand on 

 the same set of combs and brood. If any 

 of our readers disagree we hope they will 

 give the reason for the faith that is in them. 

 —Ed.] 



REPORT OF CALIFORNIA STATE CONVEN- 

 TION. 



BY MRS. H. G. ACKLIN. 



The twenty-first annual convention of the 

 California State Bee-keepers' Association 

 was held in the Chamber of Commerce, Los 

 Angeles, on the evening of Feb. 27, 1911, 

 and held over to March 1st inclusive. Pres- 

 ident B. G. Burdick, of Redlands, opened 

 the session, and was present at all the meet- 

 ings during the entire time. 



The attendance was a record-breaker, and 

 enthusiasm never waned. An excellent 

 program had been prepared by the executive 

 board, and the president kept things going 

 at such a lively pace that there was barely 

 time to discuss more than the important 

 questions. If every one on the program had 

 been present with his paper, another half- 

 day would have been needed. 



Much committee work is always necessary 

 at such conventions, and it seems almost a 

 hardship that many of the members are 



obliged to miss papers they would especial- 

 ly like to hear, just because of this extra 

 work. Several sections in the constitution 

 and by-laws were amended, which meant 

 considerable work for that committee. 



Our State society expects to occupy the 

 same position in California that the Nation- 

 al does in the United States. Provisions 

 have been made for all other societies inter- 

 ested in bee culture in the State to affiliate 

 with the State association on the same basis 

 that the State associations go into the Na- 

 tional. When that is accomplished our bee- 

 keepers will be nearer a unit than ever be- 

 fore, and better able to demand protective 

 legislation. 



The report of the committee on honey 

 adulteration was a revelation. The com- 

 mittee were unable to find spurious honey 

 in this market, and were also unable even 

 to conjecture what becomes of all the glu- 

 cose that is shipped in, billed as syrup — 

 sometimes as corn syrup. Who is going to 

 be able to ferret out this nefarious business 

 of adulterating honey? This same commit- 

 tee was continued, and we all sincerely hope 

 they will succeed in running down the mis- 

 creants. 



As usual at such times there was consid- 

 erable discussion of bee diseases. The sec- 

 tions infected with European foul brood to 

 the north of us are causing much uneasiness 

 in our midst — especially so, as the claim is 

 now made that those germs are carried by 

 the atmosphere. The disease is coming 

 along at the rate of twenty miles each year. 



Great interest was taken in the subject of 

 organization and cooperation. One can 

 easily see that this is the one great object 

 bee-keepers are working for. To have an 

 organization similar to that of the orange- 

 growers means untold benefits to the bee 

 industry. But I will not discuss this sub- 

 ject now, as I went over it pretty thorough- 

 ly in the last issue. Mr. J. B. Nefl's paper 

 on this subject was excellent. A committee 

 was named to look this matter up. 



Many other subjecls of vital interest to 

 bee-keepers were discussed; and, all together, 

 the session proved instructive and profitable. 

 A committee of four took charge of the ques- 

 tion-box. 



Those on the program for papers were: L. 

 L. Andrews, Corona, " Establishing an Api- 

 ary where there are no Conveniences." 



Delos Wood, Santa Barbara, "Keeping 

 Bees in Pioneer Days." 



Albert Dodge, Pasadena, "Requeening 

 an Apiary." 



John G. Corey, Santa Paula, "Shade in 

 the Apiary." 



C. A. Wurth, Washington, "Queens." 



.1. W. Kaifus, San Jose, "Building up 

 Bees for the Honey- flow." 



S. L. Griggsby, "Non-swarming." 



Louis Sinn, Reedley, "European Foul 

 Brood." 



C. C. Schubert, Santa Monica, "Deputy 

 Inspectors." 



Z. Quinsey, Ramona, "Way I Find 

 Things in San Diego Co." 



