61 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Jan. 15 



Wm. a. Stewart, p. 27, quotes Doolittle 

 as favoring combs solid full of brood, and 

 says, "I do not want the brood-combs quite 

 in that shape"— wants room for a little 

 honey and pollen. Don't worry, friend Stew- 

 art; you're not likely ever to have a brood- 

 chamber so filled with brood that not a cell 

 is left for honey or pollen. You've seen "a 

 room full of people," haven't you? Well, 

 that doesn't rnean that the room is entirely 

 full, the people being piled up on top of one 

 another clear up to the ceiling, nor even 

 that they're packed so closely together that 

 there isn't room to move. So in the ordinary 

 language of bee-keepers a hive with brood- 

 combs filled solid full of brood is never meant 

 as having every cell in the hive filled with 

 brood ; especially as such a thing never hap- 

 pened and probably never will. 



When bees are taken out of cellar, unless 

 smoked they fly out and sting on their way 

 to their stands, says G. M. Doolittle, p. 15. 

 When my bees are carried out, smoke is 

 always on hand, ready to be used if needed; 

 but generally no smoke is used, and not a 

 bee comes out of a hive until some time 

 after it is placed on its stand. Perhaps one 

 reason for the diff'erence is that the cellar is 

 thoroughly aired all night before taking out. 

 Very ikely another difference is that he 

 uses a wheelbarrow and mine are carried. 

 Possibly it might be better to use the wheel- 

 barrow and more smoke. [We always carry 

 our bees instead of wheeling them. One 

 man on each side makes the burden easy, 

 and the actual time consumed in moving a 

 hundred colonies from a cellar is very small 

 comparatively. A wheelbarrow with a pneu- 

 matic rubber tire and nice easy springs 

 might enable one man to move the bees in 

 and out as easily as two men could carry 

 them. — Ed.] 



The Doolittle plan of queen-rearing has 

 not fulfilled the expectations that were awak- 

 ened with regard to it, especially by the 

 endorsement of certain German theorists. 

 Even American bee-keepers are allowing it 

 to sink into ' ' innocuous desuetude, ' ' conclud- 

 ing that for queens of gflod quality nothing 

 can equal those obtained from after-swarms. 

 Such, in substance, is an item going the 

 rounds of the German bee journals. Our 

 good friends in the ' ' Vaterland ' ' may be 

 assured that some one has had the floor who 

 is little familiar with American bee-keeping. 

 The Doolittle plan, under whatever name or 

 with whatever variation, is more popular 

 to-day than ever before. For every queen 

 reared from an after-swarm by queen-breed- 

 ers, there are probably fifty reared from 

 Doolittle cell-cups ; and, moreover, there is 

 no lowering of the standard as to quality. 

 [Yes, indeed. All the modern systems of 

 queen - rearing, unless it be that of Mr. 

 Alley, are based on the principles laid down 

 by Mr. Doolittle in his book some years 

 ago. The Doolittle system is very much 

 alive, only it has been modified and probably 

 improved by Pratt, Laws, Pridgen, Phillips, 

 Wardell, Quirin, and others. —Ed.] 



Mr. Editor, I beg your pardon. If I had 

 looked up, as I ought to have done, just 

 what Mr. Marks said in Mr. France's report, 

 I would have understood you better on p. 

 1149. If I knew nothing of Mr. Marks' 

 views except from a hasty reading of what 

 he there said, the likelihood is that I would 

 think just as you, that he considered the 

 fight against adulteration of less importance 

 than furnishing funds to quarrelsome bee- 

 keepers to help them out in their lawsuits. 

 I have good reason, however, to know that 

 he favors cutting in two the expense of liti- 

 gation ; and I am sure, if all is done that he 

 suggests in the way of fighting adulteration, 

 that matter will not be neglected. I am not 

 authorized to interpret Mr. Marks' words 

 for him, but if you will take the words 

 "prime" and "secondary" in the parts 

 you have quoted, page 1149, as referring to 

 time, it will give quite a different meaning. 

 The "prime" object of national organiza- 

 tion had reference to litigation. Indeed, it 

 was the only object for some time. The 

 work in that direction has been so well done 

 that it may now be allowed to sink into the 

 background, and a matter "secondary" in 

 point of time come to the front and receive 

 more attention and more money. [I do not 

 know how I knew, but I knew that Mr. 

 Marks himself was in favor of giving more 

 attention to adulteration and less to bee 

 litigation. My purpose in referring to the 

 matter, however, was only to influence the 

 membership and the Board in a way that 

 would put the insurance feature, as Mr. 

 France puts it, in the background, and the 

 fighting of adulteration in the foreground; 

 for the Board must have the backing of the 

 membership before it can feel that it can 

 proceed along any line. — Ed.] 



The law against adulteration can hardly 

 be too severe ; but it will be a cold day for 

 bee-keepers if it is ever decided that honey- 

 dew can not come under the head of honey 

 commercially. It would shut most of us out 

 of the market. My location is exceptionally 

 free from honey-dew, but I never could sell 

 a pound of honey if I had to swear it didn't 

 contain a drop of honey-dew. "What ! put 

 honey-dew on a level with the best grade of 

 honey?" Not a bit of it. But it is on a 

 level, and above the level of some samples 

 of honey, and should be sold on its merits, 

 but not as adulterated. [The correspondence 

 in our oflfice shows there is a sentiment de- 

 cidedly against having the chemists declare 

 that honey-dew in honey is a foreign ingre- 

 dient. I can not imagine any severer blow 

 that could be administered to the bee-keep- 

 ing industry than to have our chemists adopt 

 a definition that would bar out honey-dew 

 from honey. I have written several of our 

 chemists, and hope our subscribers will flood 

 their local chemists with letters offering 

 their protests. Prof. H. W. Wiley, I am 

 sure, is desirous of serving bee-k^pers, and 

 I suggest that our subscribers write respect- 

 ful letters to him explaining how it would 

 drive them out of the business if such a 

 definition as was proposed should be adopted 



