516 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL, 



Beplies by Prominent Apiarists. 



[It is useless to ask for answers to 

 Queries in this Department in less time 

 than one montb. They have to wait their 

 turn, be put in type, and sent in about a 

 dozen at a time to each of those who answer 

 them ; get them returned, and then find 

 space for them in the Jouknal. If you are 

 in a " hurry " for replies, do not ask for 

 them to be inserted here.— Ed.1 



Priority RiElit of Location, 



Query, No. 292.— Mr. A started an 

 apiary 15 years ago. Two years afterward 

 an agricultural association established a 

 location for candy stands within 40 rods of 

 the apiary : then 3 years ago they estab- 

 lished horse-stalls opposite the fence where 

 the bees were, and within 40 feet of the 

 apiary. Would not the previous establish- 

 ment of an apiary take precedence as a 

 business location, with a sign, " Apiary of 

 Italian Bees," put up at the time of locating 

 the same ; establishing the fact that the 

 association knew well they were locating 

 their grounds and stalls close to an apiary?— 

 P., Wis. 



I hardly think so.— G. M. Doo- 



LITTLE. 



Experience in bee-keeping will 

 hardly help one to answer this. One 

 good lawyer ought to tell more about 

 it than ten bee-keepers. — C. C. 

 Miller. 



I think you are correct. But if you 

 were to take the matter into court it 

 would depend on how good a lawyer 

 you could get on your side.— H. D. 

 Cutting. 



I should vote " aye," and in addi- 

 tion I would say that anything that 

 Mr. A can do within the bounds of 

 reason, to prevent his bees from 

 annoying the horses and candy- 

 makers, should be done.— W. Z. 

 Hutchinson. 



Not at all. Bee-keeping as yet is 

 not so acknowledged as a business, 

 either in law or by custom.as to allow 

 it to become a nuisance or dangerous. 

 Priority of occupation gives no rights 

 in the matter.— J. E. Pond, Jk. 



There is no law that covers such a 

 case, so far as I know. It is a ques- 

 tion of moral bearing, and a man on a 

 horse will hardly see the rights of his 

 neighbor who "fools with bees." 

 Were I situated with my bees as you 

 describe, I would use due care to 

 prevent accidents and annoyances, 

 and would firmly stand for my rights. 

 Previous occupancy would have a 

 strong moral bearing in favor of the 

 bee-man.— G. W. Di^makeb. 



I am not lawyer enough to decide. 

 While Mr. A might and probably 

 does have justice with him numeri- 

 cally, and doubtless financially he is 



the weaker party, and sorry as we 

 may feel about it, " it is money that 

 makes the mare go," especially when 

 lawyers hold the reins. — A. J. Cook. 



I should say Mr. P. has an indis- 

 putable right to keep his bees where 

 they have had priority of location. 

 The association could protect the 

 candy-stands with screens at no great 

 expense, and if the bees are not 

 molested by the apiarist at the time 

 the stalls are in use, I do not think 

 the horses would be stung. Horses 

 are driven within a few feet of my 

 apiary almost every day without ever 

 beiug'stung, but I keep no ugly bees. 

 — G. L. Tinker. 



I think not, provided the annoyance 

 of the bees rests in the fact that they 

 sting animals outside of their in- 

 closure, to any considerable extent. 

 It is not a question of who began 

 business first, but no man has any 

 right at any time to keep bees in any 

 place where they will go off from 

 their owner's land to sting persons or 

 animals in defense of their homes. 

 It is my opinion that for no other act 

 can bees justly be declared a nuisance. 

 But if apiculture is a legitimate busi- 

 ness at all, the bee-keeper has a right 

 to keep bees, whether they eat grapes 

 or not, no matter who began produc- 

 ing honey or grapes first. Bees must 

 be considered free-commoners in 

 every thing except the use of their 

 stings, or else we must close up busi- 

 ness. This is where, I think, it will 

 end.— James Heddon. 



Is Late BreefliDE Necessary ? 



Query, No. 293.— Is it considered neces- 

 sary to keep up late breeding by feeding 

 during a dearth of fall pasturage, in order 

 to insure successful wintering ?— K. P., Ills. 



No.— James Heddon. 



No, we do not do it. — Dadant & 



SON. 



Opinions differ. I think not. — W. 

 Z. Hutchinson. 



Opinions differ. I think they might 

 be the better for the feeding.— C. C. 

 Miller. 



Not in my locality, if the bees have 

 stores enough for winter. Late breed- 

 ing is of no advantage in my apiary. 

 — G. W. Demaree. 



I think not, though at times it may 

 aid not a little. — A. J. Cook. 



Not by the writer. I have failed to 

 reap any benefit by such a procedure. 

 — G. M. Doolittle. 



It may not be absolutely necessary, 

 but I think the colonies are in a safer 

 condition to winter with a reasonable 

 proportion of young bees. — H. R. 

 Boardman. 



No ; old bees will winter as well as 

 young ones. For several years my 

 bees stopped breeding in September, 

 and came through in good condition. 

 — H. D. Cutting. 



While it may not be necessary to 

 keep up late breeding in order for 

 successful wintering, it is all-impor- 

 tant for a colony, either in the North 



or South, to go into winter quarters 

 with from 20 to 30 pounds of stores, if 

 we desire the colony to come out 

 strong and prove profitable the next 

 season.— J. P. H. Brown. 



Opinions differ. I am decidedly of 

 the opinion myself that it is neces- 

 sary ; others seem to think that old 

 bees will winter as well as young 

 ones. I prefer a full colony of young 

 bees to go into winter quarters with. 

 —J. E. Pond, Jr. 



No ; but they must have pollen or 

 bee-bread to begin breeding in late 

 winter at the usual time, about Feb. 

 1. In fact I know of no reason why 

 any bees should not have bee-bread 

 in winter as nature has provided. — G- 

 L. Tinker. 



Bnckf lieat for Honey. 



Query, No. 294.— If a bee-keeper has 

 one acre of buckwheat, and the season is 

 favorable for a good flow, would it do 100 

 colonies much good, if they have nothing 

 else ?— Indiana. 



Not much.— W. Z. Hutchinson. 



"No."— James Heddon. 



I cannot say, but I should think it 

 might be valuable if the season was 

 favorable.— A. J. Cook. 



Not much.— (t. M. Doolittle. 



No, though it will be better than 

 nothing.— Dadant & Son. 



One acre of buckwheat in the most 

 favorable season would ouly be a drop 

 in the bucket divided among 100 colo- 

 nies of bees.— J. P. H. Brown. 



I do not think it would ; 100 colonies 

 of bees require a number of acres of 

 the best bee-forage to make surplus. 

 To produce a large surplus there must 

 be hundreds of acres of white clover. 

 — G. L. Tinker. 



It might possibly keep them stimu- 

 lated to constant brood- rearing, but 

 would be of little value otherwise. 

 Still it would be of value so far as it 

 would go round.— J. E. Pond, Jr. 



It would be a little help to keep 

 them busy, but if there was nothing 

 else you would not get any honey from 

 the buckwheat. When it is a good 

 season for buckwheat it is good for 

 the blossoms of other plants.— H. D. 

 Cutting. 



It would keep the bees busy a few 

 hours in the morning and give them 

 a little honey for daily consumption. 

 I doubt if a single acre of buckwheat 

 will yield a gallon of nectar, accessive 

 to the bees, each day on the average, 

 and this perhaps would represent a 

 quart of honey— a mere taste for 100 

 colonies of bees. It requires a wide- 

 spread supply of honey-producing 

 flowers to give bees profitable em- 

 ployment.— G. W. Demaree. 



It would do them one acre of good, 

 and ten acres would do more good. 

 One acre might keep up breeding if 

 that is desired ; as, according to esti- 

 mates I have seen, an acre of buck- 

 wheat yields on a good day 25 pounds 

 of honey, thus giving M pound to 

 each of 100 colonies.- C. C. Miller. 



