r.'O'j 



GLEANINGS IN DEE CULTURE. 



175 



THE QUESTION OF OVERSTOCKING. 



Has it been Exploited too Much in Our Late 



Bee Literature ! Blind Leaders of 



the Blind. 



BY J. E. CHAMBERS. 



Mr. Root:— I notice in your footnote to my 

 article on page 22 you seem to be under the 

 erroneous impression that I intended to 

 criticise your editorial position on the ques- 

 tion of overstocking; but if so, I beg to say 

 that such was not my intention. That ar- 

 ticle was intended more in the nature of a 

 warning to bee-keepers in general and to be- 

 ginners in particular, and not as a criticism 

 leveled at you. However, I wish to state 

 that there are several bee journals circulat- 

 ing among the very same men who read 

 Gleanings, and I very much fear that the 

 editors of some of these journals are indors- 

 ing views regarding overstocking that ulti- 

 mately must lead to harm and serious loss. 

 Furthermore, you know well enough that 

 many small bee-keepers and beginners are 

 now looking to the big fellows who do the 

 writing, for correct advice I'especting these 

 perplexing questions. They expect, and have 

 a right to, that those who have made a study 

 of the pursuit, and who pose as worthy and 

 trustworthy advisers, should know some- 

 thing definite about the subjects they 

 write on; and when one of these big guns 

 goes off half primed, and with a loud report, 

 sounding to the uttermost limits of the earth 

 —says put 750 colonies in one yard, and don't 

 have any outyards, there is sure to be an 

 echo from some admiring small giin, with 

 the result that somebody gets hurt, and, of 

 course, it is generally the admiring small 

 gun. 



Now, be it understood once for all that I 

 am not saying that the big gun has misstated 

 his achievements; but I do say that, in all 

 such cases, th^re were exceptional conditions, 

 such as the admiring small gun can not com- 

 mand; and this fact the big gun has proba- 

 bly never taken into consideration. It was 

 just this fact that induced me to say that a 

 warning from you was needed— not that I 

 think you have been remiss in your duty as 

 an editor. However, I want to call your at- 

 tention to the article of Mr. Louis C. Koehl- 

 ers. From the heading of that article one 

 would be apt to think that his yield of 15.000 

 pounds was a great crop, when in truth it is 

 only 59J pounds per colony. But he has 252 

 colonies in one apiary. Of course, I do not 

 say that the large number of colonies in his 

 yard was in any way responsible for this less 



than average yield of extracted honey; but 

 unless the .■^eason was a poor one it would 

 seem that it must have cut some figure. 

 You will find the article on page 439, May 1. 

 I have not found any note of warning under 

 this 'article, but it maybe that you have 

 overlooked it— not that I think all large 

 apiaries should be criticised, for, as I said 

 before, there are exceptional localities where 

 from 250 to 700 maybe kept; but even these 

 extra- fine locations will probably fail to yield 

 any surplus in bad seasons. It is just such 

 exceptional cases as these that lead the be- 

 ginner astray; and unless some one points 

 out the danger, what will the ending be? 

 And, again, I will say that it seems to me 

 you have entirely overlooked the fact that 

 these advocates of large apiaries do not ad- 

 mit that overstocking is at all possible, and 

 thus their position stands on books as a con- 

 tinual menace to sound conservative bee- 

 keeping. It is no answer to say that every 

 man has a right to his opinion, for I grant 

 that as readily as any one; but that right 

 ought to be no more than a personal one, 

 and should not, I think, entitle him to con- 

 sideration when his doctrine is unsound and 

 hurtful to the business or pursuit to which 

 he may belong; and this does not mean that 

 I think such articles should be excluded from 

 publication, or that the authors should be 

 sat down on. But it should be made per- 

 fectly plain in every instance that such 

 teaching is not considered sound, and that, 

 for the majority of bee-keepers, it would 

 not be profitable or safe, and that none 

 try it on a very extensive scale. 



Again, I notice on page 695, July 15, 1904, 

 an article on overstoclc ing and priority rights, 

 that, while not coming at this manner of 

 overstocking in a direct way, yet argues the 

 legal rights of any one to force overstock- 

 ing by going into fields already fully stocked, 

 and asserting his right to keep bees even 

 though it results in ruining those already 

 there. Such writing I consider to be dan- 

 gerous in its tendency, no matter what may 

 be the intentions of its author; yet I find no 

 word of protest from you, Mr. Editor. I 

 think it a mistake to argue the purely legal 

 a.spect of such things, to the exclusion of the 

 higher moral side. Just imagine what would 

 he our standing and position if we were 

 forced to adopt that standard by which to 

 regulate our conduct toward each other, and 

 if there never was to be any respect for a 

 right that was not a legal one. Why, we 

 should perish from off the earth. 



Now, I do not know whether I have suc- 

 ceeded in making my ideas clear to your 

 mind or not; but you will now understand I 

 think that my intentions were good, and 

 free from any selfish interest, and directed 

 solely in behalf of the interest of the pursuit. 

 NO need of pollen in shallow brood- 

 chambers. 

 The third paragraph of your footnote in 

 regard to pollen in sections is a rather puz- 

 zling question. You say that even Dr. Mil- 

 ler finds the Danzenbaker hive to favor the 

 storing of pollen in the sections. Of course. 



