35 S 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 1 



COMB FOUNDATION NOT ADULTERATED, AND 

 WHY. 



Some time ago Prof. H. W. Wiley, a most 

 strenous advocate of a national pure-food 

 law, and a man whom we believe is disposed 

 to help bee-keepers and their allied interests 

 rather than injure them, has given out a 

 statement to the effect that the manufactur- 

 ers of foundation were putting out adulter- 

 ated goods. At first we thought we would 

 pay no attention to it, as we did not think 

 there was one bee-keeper in ten thousand 

 who would believe it; but as two of our 

 brother- editors have denied that such prac- 

 tice has been going on on the part of foun- 

 dation-makers, it now seems pertinent for 

 us to say that, out of between 300,000 and 

 400,000 pounds of foundation made annually 

 in the United States, we will guarantee 

 there is scarcely a pound of it adulterated. 

 I say scarcely, because foundation-makers 

 are buying wax from everywhere, and they 

 might, in spite of their careful inspection, 

 allow a single cake of adulterated wax to 

 get in with the good, with the result that a 

 single sample might show a very slight 

 adulteration. The makers of foundation in 

 this country know that, if they wish to ruin 

 their business, and that right speedily, the 

 quickest and easiest way to do it would be to 

 begin to adulterate their goods. Paraffine 

 and ceresin foundation are something that 

 can be detected by bees and bee-keepers al- 

 most instanter. Again, the modern methods 

 of making foundation will show up adulter- 

 ation in the wax very quickly. Indeed, it is 

 practically impossible to make adulterated 

 foundation on Weed machinery. The reason 

 why we know, is because we once tried mak- 

 ing some sheets of wax and paraffine for the 

 dental trade that called for it, and had to 

 give it up as a bad job. 



"SOMETHING THAT PROMISES BETTER THAN 

 SHOOK SWARMING." 



The heading above is the title of an ar- 

 ticle by Mr. H. G. Sibbald, of Claude, Can- 

 ada, in the Bee-keepers' Review for March. 

 Whether the plan is new or not I do not 

 know. 



The article by Mr. Sibbald is very brief— 

 so brief, indeed, that one must read between 

 the lines in order to comprehend fully the 

 whole plan. The trouble is, Mr. Sibbald 

 presupposes that the practical bee-keeper 

 would supply the missing links, and many 

 of them undoubtedly will; but I was not able 

 to until the second and third reading. But 

 as I understand the plan I believe it to be 

 an excellent one, and possibly shorter and 

 better than the shook-swarm method. Well, 

 here is my version of it: 



When a colony is discovered building 

 queen- cells, Mr. Sibbald says we are to 

 move it off its stand a little to one side. I 

 uiderstand he means to move it sidewise so 

 chat it will be a few inches to the right or 

 left of the exact position where the hive 

 formerly stood, the entrance pointing in the 

 same direction. In the place where the old 

 hive No. 1 stood, hive No. 2, just like it, is 

 placed. It may contain empty frames; but 

 Mr. Sibbald prefers that it have two empty 

 combs and a few frames with starters of 

 foundation. As the relative position of these 

 two hives will be changed about in this gen- 

 eral manipulation, we will call the old hive 

 with its combs, bees, brood, and all. No. 1, 

 while the new hive, now on the stand of the 

 old one, No. 2. Be sure to keep these in 

 mind in order that we may not misunder- 

 stand the process that follows. 



Well, the next step is to take out of hive 

 No. 1, or the old colony after the shift, a 

 frame of brood with queen-cells, making 

 sure that we do not get the queen, and place 

 it, with the adhering bees, between the two 

 empty combs in No. 2, or the new hive 

 on the old stand. In addition the supers and 

 the bees which they contain on No. 1 are 

 given to No. 2 on the old stand. In the two 

 combs will be stored the pollen, thus prevent- 

 ing it from being carried into the supers. 

 The result of this operation will be that the 

 field bees from No. 1 will go into No. 2 on 

 the old stand. The field bees now in No. 2, 

 having been robbed of nine-tenths of their 

 brood and their queen, but with good pros- 

 pects of soon having a new one, and having 

 very little brood to care for, will soon lose 

 their swarming-fever and go right to work 

 in the supers. They are not likely to build 

 much if any comb in the partly empty lower 

 hive. There is no laying queen below, and 

 no particular incentive to build combs for 

 egg-laying, for the virgin yet to be hatched 

 will not be laying for two weeks. The old 

 colony having lost its field bees will not 

 have any honey coming in; and the young 

 bees will naturally conclude there must be 

 "a famine in the land, or that the season 

 is over," as Mr. Sibbald puts it. As a 

 natural consequence, they remove the larvae 

 from or destroy every queen-cell. The 

 swarming-fever of both colonies, 1 and 2, 

 has been entirely abated, and for ten days or 

 even a longer period there will be no danger 

 that the fever will come back. 



At the end of this time the bee-keeper has 

 the option of increase or no increase. If he 

 desires the former he will proceed on the 

 following plan: 



THE SIBBALD NON-SWARMING PLAN FOR IN- 

 CREASE. 



Remember now that the old colony. No. 1, 

 is a few inches to the right or left of the 

 new hive, No. 2, now on the spot that the 

 old colony originally had. For the sake of 

 clearly understanding the method we will 

 suppose No. 1 is on the right. Now jump 

 No. 1 right over the new hive, No. 2, so it 

 shall be on the left side, facing the same di- 



