110 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



always a failure, for in this case the 

 bees have plenty of larvae that were 

 still convertable into queens, and the 

 question of swarming was only delayed 

 a few days longer; and as this delay 

 only gave them more strength, of course 

 they would swarm all the more. 



Years ago when I tried this plan in 

 proving what was correct in the 

 " books," and what was not, I so cut the 

 cells in a good colony five days after it 

 had swarmed, when eleven days later, 

 or sixteen days, dating from the issue of 

 a prime swarm, a rousing second swarm 

 issued. 



Leaving them clustered on the limb, 

 I opened the old hive, and by actual 

 count there were 39 queen-cells in that 

 hive which were built after I cut them 

 out, the one left when cutting out before 

 having been destroyed, and most of 

 these had queens just ready to gnaw 

 out. These were all clipped off, the 

 queens in them being destroyed, and 

 the swarm returned, with no swarming 

 afterward. 



From this I learned to wait eight days 

 in case where a swarm had issued, and 

 twelve days where the queen had been 

 taken away, when, as a rule, the first 

 young queen would be hatched, when a 

 sure thing is made of it, both as to no 

 more cells being built, and also in know- 

 ing that the colony would have a young 

 queen, neither of which is sure by the 

 old method. 



In cutting cells at any time, it is 

 always best to shake the bees off each 

 comb as it is inspected, otherwise some 

 cell is liable to be missed, in which case 

 swarming is sure to result. 



Borodino, N. Y. 



Young Queens as Drone-Layers, 



W. C. FRAZIER. 



The communication on page 46 is 

 interesting, but there are a few things 

 in it to which I must take exception. 



I am certain that I have had queens 

 swarm naturally and not be superseded 

 for more than a year after. However, 

 as I do not let my bees swarm, I will 

 leave this to some other to answer. But 

 to the assertion, '• Again, when a queen 

 begins to fail, she begins to lay drone- 

 eggs — a young queen never does." This 

 I do not find to be correct. I have 20 

 young queens reared this season, whose 

 worker progeny has not yet hatched, 

 that have some of them more than a 

 brood-comb full of capped drone-brood. 



It depends much upon the condition of 

 the colony about the queen laying drone- 

 eggs ; these had been queenless long 

 enough for all brood to be capped, and 

 all drone-brood was destroyed ; the 

 young queens layed the brood-combs 

 full of eggs as they came to them, and 

 where there was drone-comb they filled 

 it the same as the worker-comb. 



In my colonies there is now but one 

 queen that has not been reared this 

 season; nearly all have had their queens 

 " shipped " 24 days or more. Not ten 

 of them have young bees hatched from 

 this season's queens to-day, and I be- 

 lieve there is capped drone-brood, more 

 or less, in 40 of them. 



Atlantic, Iowa, July 9, 1892. 



Prof, H, W, Wiley and Bee-Keepers. 



PROF. A. J. COOK. 



Dear Editors : — Excuse me if I take 

 considerable space in your excellent 

 paper regarding a matter which is of no 

 small interest to bee-keepers, and which 

 well merits careful consideration. 



In 1881, Prof. H. W. Wiley published 

 an article in the Popular Science Monthly 

 (Vol. XIX, page 252) in which occurred 

 the following words: 



"In commercial honey, which is en- 

 tirely free from bee-mediation, the comb 

 is made of paraffine, and filled with pure 

 glucose, by appropriate machinery. This 

 honey for whiteness and beauty rivals 

 the celebrated white clover honey of 

 Vermont, but can be sold at an immense 

 profit at one-half the price." 



Of course, this was entirely a fabrica- 

 tion. As our best informed bee-keepers 

 knew then, and as thorough investiga- 

 tion has proved since, there was not a 

 shadow of truth in any part of the 

 statement. Yet Prof. Wiley had had 

 the statement from an able, candid 

 scientist, and believed it wholly true. 

 He thought he was telling the truth, 

 and, as is his wont, he put it in an inter- 

 esting, not to say humorous, setting. 



This article -was widely copied, and 

 from the well-recognized ability and 

 high standing of its author as a chemist, 

 it was generally believed. In these days 

 of wonderful inventions, we can hardly 

 blame either Prof. Wiley, or his readers, 

 for such credulity. Thus the influence 

 of the article was great, and its effect 

 very serious to the bee-keeping interests. 

 Bee-keepers had their comb honey re- 

 fused, over and over, with the taunt 

 that it was artificial. 



