474 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 1 



The other manipulations described by Mr. 

 Sibbald are surprisingly identical in sub- 

 stance with mine. I refer particularly to 

 the scheme of removing the parent colony 

 from side to opposite side of the old or to a 

 new stand in order to augment the field- 

 working force of the comb-honey colony. 

 The basic principle of this non-swarming 

 system announced by him being the same as 

 the one announced by me in Gleanings, as 

 above stated, it will be seen that he has been 

 anticipated by nearly two years in its an- 

 nouncement; and that the "scoop " is clear- 

 ly on the other fellow will be readily seen 

 when the description of my system, devel- 

 oped and used by me, and published in 1903, 

 is read in connection with this and your re- 

 cent editorial discussion of the same. 



The practice of this system in the produc- 

 tion of extracted honey is especially advan- 

 tageous, whether increase is desired or not. 

 After the first shift of the lower brood-body 

 and queen to one side, and the substitution 

 of the brood-body containing frames with 

 starters therefor, allow it to remain until 

 the new queen has emerged, after which she 

 may be confined below by a queen-excluding 

 honey-board. You will be surprised to see 

 how fast the honey will come into this hive, 

 containing field workers in great numbers 

 and no brood to nurse. 



Buffalo, N. Y. 



[The two systems of non-swarming, the 

 Sibbald and the Hershiser, are somewhat 

 alike, and I should perhaps have noted the 

 similarity when I described the Sibbald plan 

 in our March 15th issue; but on referring to 

 Mr. Hershiser's article on page 435, May 

 15th, last year, I see that the plan is some- 

 what obscured in the mention and discussion 

 of several other plans for getting the col- 

 onies in prime condition for comb-honey 

 production; for that was in reality the sub- 

 ject of the article, the plan of non-swarming 

 mentioned being only incidental and a part 

 of a larger system of management. As to 

 who may have priority in having first de- 

 scribed the plan under discussion, it is a lit- 

 tle difficult to say just now. * Several have 

 written that they have tried it and that it 

 is all right. One correspondent in particu- 

 lar (Swarthmore) says he described it in 

 one of his circnlars a number of years ago. 

 See his letter in the editorial department of 

 this issue. —Ed.] 



IS THE SIBBALD PLAN NEW? 



Infinitely Inferior to the Brushed-swarm Plan. 

 The Chambers Plan of Non-swarming. 



BY J. E. CHAMBERS. 



In the March Review, the article by H. G. 

 Sibbald, entitled "Something that Promises 

 Better than Shook Swarming," was read 

 with interest, but I failed to see any thing 

 of much real value in it. Imagine my sur- 

 prise to see in Gleanings that you think 

 this motherless method hkely to prove 

 superior to the brush or shook-swarm plans 



that have been tried and found so valuable. 

 But as one long familiar with the latter 

 plan, and by no means a stranger to this old 

 new plan of division, I desire to call your 

 attention to the fact that I described a plan 

 in Gleanings for Nov. 15, 1903, much like 

 it, but with this important difference: I 

 drew the working force from two full colo- 

 nies instead of one; and, instead of a cell 

 due to hatch in perhaps ten days I gave a 

 laying queen from one of the colonies; and, 

 by using two colonies thus, I was often 

 enabled to get both sections and combs 

 partly drawn before the swarming season 

 came on. I also wish to draw your atten- 

 tion to the following points of advantage 

 that this plan offers over the Sibbald meth- 

 od: First, it gives twice the force of work- 

 ers to begin with, and I claim that this large 

 force will be ample for twenty days, and, if 

 given enough breeding room, will need no 

 reinforcing either by shaking or your jump- 

 ing process. Second, I claim that, with a 

 laying queen in the hive, there is no deser- 

 tion after the bees once settle down; but 

 with only a cell and no open brood it goes 

 on continually. Third, a swarm with a lay- 

 ing queen can be trusted to build comb any- 

 where; but a motherless one, never. Fourth, 

 such a swarm as I have described will store 

 more first-class section honey in ten days 

 than a motherless one will in a month. 

 Fifth, there is no trouble looking to see if 

 queens have mated or got lost, and supplying 

 laying ones to the queenless. Sixth, these 

 big swarms do not get the swarming fever 

 again, for the reason that all have become 

 field bees before there is enough brood to 

 induce swarming again. Seventh, such colo- 

 nies are in a more natural and favorable 

 condition for the perpetuation of their exist- 

 ence than is a motherless one. 



Now with regard to the requeening of col- 

 onies when practicing this method, I have 

 told how it was done, in the columns of 

 Gleanings, more than once, and it is exact- 

 ly as you state in your description of the 

 Sibbald method; but I have never claimed 

 that it was new or original; neither is this 

 Sibbald method new or original— that I well 

 know for I have been familiar with it ever 

 since I knew how to draw combs, brood, and 

 cells from colonies preparing to swarm in 

 order to make increase ; in fact, the one 

 suggests the other; and if you care to look 

 up my article in Gleanings for Nov. 15, 

 1903, you will see that the Sibbald method is 

 very near what I described there, with the 

 difference that I have already mentioned, 

 and, certainly, I must have known some- 

 thing about it or else I am a fine antici- 

 pator. Now, do not understand me to say 

 that I lay the lea-t claim to Mr. Sibbald's 

 method, for I am not that kind; but I do 

 insist that it is infinitely inferior to the 

 brush swarm, for the production of honey; 

 and while if may suit some apiarists in cer- 

 tain localities, yet for the majority it will 

 not prove satisfactory. 



In conclusion I will say for the benefit of 

 those who may not be able to refer to 



