SKI'TKMRKK. Itl'JIl 



A .\ I N C S 1 N 



(■ r 1, 'I' r li !■; 



535 



FROM THE FIELD OF EXPERIENCE 



that? "A largo part of what I say is en- 

 titled to (|uotation marks." Please don't 

 be disagreeable, but go on with what we 

 were talking about. You arc giving the 

 Hed<ion plan, whieh I niust say is likely on 

 first acquaintance to appeal to one. The 

 theory is that by liaving the old hive at first 

 face backward all the old bees will go to 

 the swarm. 8o they will. Then by gradu- 

 ally turning the old hive about the bees it 

 contains will follow its entrance. You say 

 "moving it a little each time," but don't 

 say how often. I think Heddon said "each 

 day once." That would mean six extra 

 moves, and what have you gained by it? At 

 the end of the week the hive is just where it 

 would have been if you had set it there in 

 the first place without the daily moving af- 

 terward, the only advantage being that you 

 have more honey in the new hive and less in 

 the old. Maybe you will think that pays 

 for the six movings and maybe you won 't. 

 At any rate, in either way all the field bees 

 will join the swarm at the end of the week; 

 and that's what you want. You say "all 

 but the best queen-cell are torn down." I 

 don 't think Heddon gave that, but it 's a 

 frill of your own or somebody's else. But 

 wliy do it .' The whole gist of the plan is to 

 get the bees to tear down the cells, and here 

 you are taking the job out of their hands. 

 Ami if you're going to do the job, why not 

 shorten it by setting the old h'wo in the 

 first place at a distance and then killing the 

 cells? 



Now if you three ha \e anything to say in 

 defense of your wicked course, come on, but 

 please come one at a time. 



C. C. Miller. 



I That is right. Dr. Miller, get right after 

 us whenever we need it. Knowing that you 

 are on our trail makes us more cautious in 

 our statements. 



In regard to the plan given by Mr. Deneen 

 I (not Mr. Root) have plainly misinterpreted 

 his meaning in the comment suggesting the 

 tearing down of all capped cells, for that 

 woulil make it certain that no virgin could 

 issue with a swarm for eight days, and prob- 

 ably not at all. Since he found as many as 

 one in four or five issued, he evidently did 

 not take this wise precaution. You say that 

 the "prime swarm issues aV)Oiit the time the 

 first cell is sealed and eight days later a 

 virgin issues with the first afterswarm. " 

 .S«» it is clear that if only capped fpieen-cells 

 are torn down when the swarm issues the 

 first after-swarm will be delayed a very 

 short time, only the length of time it takes 

 to cap a queen-cell. So why worry about so 

 short a delay ? But we all know there is no 

 certainty as to the exact time of the issu- 

 ing of the first swarm: the time may vary 

 several ilays. In case some queen-cells had 

 been sealed several days when the first 

 swarm issued, then, of course, tearing down 

 the capped cells would cause a longer delay, 



but even then the time between the first and 

 second swarms would be about the same as 

 in the case of a swarm issuing as soon as 

 the first cell was sealed. It seems to us 

 that if colonies always swarmed when the 

 most advanced queen-cell was at a certain 

 stage in its development, then a rule might 

 easily be given as to the exact time the old 

 colony should be moved in order to get the 

 fielders to desert the old hive at ' ' the 

 ])sychological moment," but unfortunately 

 swarms do not issue with any such regular- 

 ity in regard to the age of the most ad- 

 vanced queen-cell. To be sure it is more 

 trouble to tear down those capped cells, as 

 we suggest, but it prevents the possibility of 

 after-swarms before rnoving away. After 

 being moved away, with the consequent loss 

 of fielders, we believe no one need have fear 

 of after-swarms. So much for theory and 

 now for actual practice. This same feature 

 which Dr. Miller criticises, we employ in the 

 plan we use and yet do not remember hav- 

 ing had an after-swarm for years. 



As we stop to think of it, our plan is prac- 

 tically the same, only we put the old hive 

 above the supers on the new stand instead 

 of beside the new hive. We tear down all 

 the capped cells and seven or eight days 

 later move the old hive to a new location. 

 For us the plan works finely. 



In commenting on "Talks to Beginners," 

 Dr. Miller asks why we do not set the old 

 hive in the (irst place at a distance and tear 

 down all but the best queen-cell. Now that 

 is exactly what we do in ease a swarm issues 

 in spite of the swarm-prevention plan given 

 on page 359 of the June Gleanings, and that 

 is the plan we also gave on page .'561 of the 

 same issue; but you see in the plan we gave, 

 page 360 — the plan w^hich Dr. Miller criti- 

 cises — we were telling the beginner how to 

 keep together as large a working force as 

 l^ossible in order to obtain the most comb 

 honey from a colony that is inconsiderate 

 enough to swarm. Now, altho my father 

 used the plan with success years ago, we 

 frankly admit that we do not now use this 

 plan because we are not beginners and we 

 are handling more than two or three colo- 

 nies. If we were handling only one or two 

 colonies, and if we wanted as large a surplus 

 as possible from the colony, we would prob- 

 ably use the plan in question. We certainly 

 would not leave the old hive with en- 

 traTice beside the new one, even altho Dr. 

 .Miller and other good authorities recom- 

 mend it; for, in order to get as much honey 

 as possible in that new hive, we want all the 

 returning swarm to enter it. To have those 

 bees in that hive one week later would not 

 satisfy us; we want them there without de- 

 lay, the same day they swarm. When I 

 was a child and my father allowed natural 

 swarming, I used to hive swarms when I was 

 not strong enough to lift the old hive and 

 supers of honey, and I accordingly swung 



