Ai-Rir,. 192: 



GLEANINGS IN B E K CULTURE 



235 



FROM THE FIELD OF EXPERIENCE 



flooding is related to the skin-casting pe- 

 riods. Queen larvae have abundance of food 

 with no break, but drone and worker larvae 

 are not fed freely while they are in the 

 quiescent period just prior to the moult. It 

 would be a very easy matter to select 100 

 larvae, then to select another hundred of 

 apparently the same size, and then to find 

 that in one case the food was ten times what 

 it was in the other. 



It does not seem at all reasonable that 

 bees should waste food on the drones, nor 

 that the drone larva because of its sex 

 should waste food in its feeding. Now, as 

 drones are only 11/5, that is, only a trifle 

 over twice as heavy as workers, they should 

 need only twice as much food. Mr. Aeppler 

 finds them fed over five times as much. 

 Something is wrong here, or rather has been 

 overlooked. Possibly the drone food has 

 much more water in it. 



My real subject, however, is not the rela- 

 tive cost of producing drones and workers, 

 rather is it the value of drones in spite of 

 their cost. In the efforts to cut down the 

 number of drones there is, in my opinion, 

 danger of going too fnr. Drones are expen- 

 sive to rear, although it is quite possible 

 that they are reare'l at a time when there 

 is an excess of food, much of which would 

 otherwise be wasted. It requires only a lim- 

 ited number of nurse bees to care for all the 

 worker brood of a colony, and if the nurse 

 bees are in excess the condition is much like 

 that of a family with a new milch cow. Said 

 family o^ets a pig to use up the excess of 

 milk. Bees should at seasons appear able 

 to rear a horde of drones with but little ap- 

 parent drain upon their resources. 



When we limit a colonv to combs all 

 worker this colony is all right until this ex- 

 cess-f'^od ■^eriod "omes then thev seek a 

 remedy. They will put drone cells anywhere 

 they can. 



Why will beekeepers persist in proing con- 

 trary to the instinct of bees? Bees came 

 into their own while our remote ancestors 

 were just coming out of the seas and acquir- 

 ing lungs. These instincts are prettv well 

 fixed, and the wise beekeeper will go no fur- 

 ther than trv to guide these instincts rather 

 than try to thwart them. If. then, miscel- 

 laneous drone comb is a nuisance, whv not 

 give in to the bees and let them have a rea- 

 sonable amount in a place where it will 

 prove least annoving. Users of the cross- 

 wise frame find that the best place is the 

 lower tliird of tlie front comb. 



Drones may cost, but trving to eliminate 

 them is also costly. But suppose we could, 

 in some cheap fashion, succeed in eliminat- 

 ing drones almost entirely, would it pay? In 

 regard to this proposition, T have no abso- 

 lute data. Such are diflficult to get. Honey 



flows, colonies, treatment, local condition, 

 etc., etc., offer such a variety of conditions 

 that one finds it almost impossible to make 

 an exact conclusion. For these reasons I 

 offer the following only as my belief, not as 

 a proved fact. 



In my experience I have been led to con- 

 clude that those colonies which lead in 

 honey production are colonies with numer- 

 ous drones, that rarely does a colony pro- 

 duce a bumper crop of honey and not also 

 rear a lot of drones. I have seen exceptions, 

 but these exceptions are of such a nature 

 that one is unable to deduce anything from 

 them. I am led to conclude that the pres- 

 ence of numerous drones in a colony acts 

 upon that colony as a whip. Let us put this 

 into exact figures. 



Suppose two colonies are exactly equal 

 except for this one thing — -colony one rears 

 few if any drones while colony two rears 

 5,000. Admit that it took 10 pounds of 

 honey or its equivalent to rear those drones. 

 Colony one is ahead of colony two by 10 

 pounds of honey. A. heavy flow of honey 

 comes and lasts for three weeks. Colony one 

 has stored a surplus of 100 pounds, while 

 colony two has stored a surplus of 140 

 pounds. It will be seen that colony two has 

 not only wiped out the 10 pounds advantage 

 which colony one had, but has gained an 

 advantage of 30 pounds. The 5,000 drones 

 cost 10 pounds of honey, but their presence 

 in the hive caused the' colony to gain a net 

 profit of 30 pounds. 



Those figures are all suppositional, and 

 not backed b^^ any experimental data. Yet 

 in my study of colony life I have been 

 amazed again and again that apparently 

 colonies supported a numerous drone prog- 

 env Avith no apparent loss. How account for 

 it? I never have been able to account for 

 this paradox except in the way putlined 

 above. Whether T am right or not, I think 

 it will be wise for us to go slowly in this 

 matter of seeking to eliminate the drone. If 

 the drone reacts iipon colony activity and 

 so actually pays well for his board and keep, 

 in spite of the fact that he can himself 

 gather no honey nor do anv work about the 

 hive, then he must be considered of econom- 

 ical value. 



We call worker bees neuters. They arc 

 undeveloped females. What do we know 

 about their sexual reactions? How can we 

 say with any confidence that they desire in 

 no way to shine in the presence of the male? 

 My study of bee life has led to me to think 

 that we should go slow in thinking that 

 worker bees are entirely without sexual in- 

 stinct. 1 believe that it is residual sexual 

 instinct in them that brings on the swarm- 

 ing fever, but that is another subject. 



Norwichtown, Conn. Allen Latham. 



