420 



-THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



July 7, 



less, I shall keep on eating It, for the considerations in Prof. 

 Cook's article on honey as food, a year ago, aflfect me power- 

 fully. But it goes without saying that the vast majority of 

 those who don't like a thing, won't have It, and that settles it. 



And yet, in spite of my poor success, I am of the opinion 

 that all those who would like honey well enough to buy it con- 

 tinuously, if it was brought to their notice, are numerous 

 enough to take all our honey at a good price. My point is, 

 that they are not numerous enough to make the attempt of 

 the average bee-keeper, and average salesman, to reach them, 

 a paying job. 



I think that those who advocate home marketing in gen- 

 eral terms without qualification, are making a mistake. They 

 are advocating something that it will not pay the average man 

 to undertake. 



All the foregoing is an argument for organization, as the 

 one thing left. I need not enlarge on the familiar topic. But 

 two thoughts occur to me that I have not elsewhere seen men- 

 tioned, except a hint or two in foreign papers. One Is, that 

 advertising by means of honey leaflets does not hit just the 

 right spot. Do we generally read the printed matter that 

 comes with " Rough on Rats," or " Hood's Sarsaparilla ?" If 

 we depended on that, we wouldn't have much idea of those 

 articles, or any other proprietary drug or food. But we have 

 a pretty vivid Idea of many such things — Ivory Soap, and 

 Scott's Emulsion, and Llebig's Extract, etc. How did we get 

 that idea ? From newspaper advertisements, of course. That 

 is my second thought — that it is possible to properly advertise 

 honey. But only a powerful oroanization can ever do it. Bar- 

 gain store grocery advertisements show that common foods, 

 also, come under advertising with profit. "The newspaper 

 habit" is a bad one ; but It is an ill wind that blows no one 

 any good, and we might as well take a pecuniary advantage 

 of the fact that the average American citizen does depend for 

 his mental sustenance on that species of literature. There is 

 no question that it would pay if once consistently carried out. 

 It is what all successful firmsdo. Montrose Co., Colo. 



Feeding Back Extracted Honey to Produce 

 Comb Honey. 



BY HON. R. L. TiYLOR. 



It has been thought worth while to repeat the experiment 

 in feeding back extracted honey for the completion of un- 

 finisht sections. It has also been found more convenient and 

 desirable) to do so owing to the fact that the character of the 

 season has been such that the percentage of partially-filled 

 sections has been greater during the past season (1896) than 

 ever before. This was owing to the shortness of the honey 

 season and the slender character of the honey-flow. The ex- 

 tent of this was such that but now and then a colony com- 

 pleted even one case. 



For the purposes of the experiment four colonies were 

 selected. All were hybrid bees, so-called, and very strong. 

 For a brood-chamber, each colony was given a single section 

 of the Heddon hive, containing frames equal to five Lang- 

 stroth frames. Doubtless a brood-chamber even smaller — 

 perhaps as small as 'Z'i Laugstroth frames — would have been 

 better, and this for two reasons: 



First, much less of the honey would have been required 

 for the rearing of brood, as the extent of that would have been 

 reduced by one-half. I have heretofore given reasons tending 

 to show that it requires two pounds of honey for the produc- 

 tion of one pound of brood, and that a section of the Heddou 

 hive, if almost entirely devoted to brood, would contain about 

 ten pounds of it. If this is substantially correct, it will be 

 seen by consulting the table presented herewith, that 20 

 pounds of honey would be required every three weeks to pro- 

 duce the brood of each of the colonies used in this experiment. 

 This amount of brood might have been reduced by one-half 

 without detriment to the well-being of the colony, and one- 

 half the colony saved. 



Second, what I have just said appropriately introduces 

 this point. The number of bees continually hatching from 

 five Langstroth frames full of brood constantly increases the 

 strength of the colony so that if feeding is continued any 

 length of time, with the crowding necessary for the produc- 

 tion of comb honey, swarming is induced. This would be 

 detrimental to the highest success of the work. With about 

 half that amount of brood the strength of the colony would be 

 kept good, and swarming avoided, for it must not be too read- 

 ily accepted that a small brood-chamber without reference to 

 the degree of smallness conduces to swarming. 



The feeding was begun July 15, sqon after the closing of 

 the flow from clover and basswood. Two or more cases of 



sections were kept upon each colony, and the honey given as 

 rapidly as the be'is would take it. The honey was prepared 

 for feeding by thoroughly Incorporating with it about one- 

 half its own weight of water, on the supposition that in this 

 condition the bees would handle it more rapidly. 



The work with colonies 2, 3 and 4 was closed Aug. 0, one 

 day more than three weeks, owing to the fact that on that 

 date, or shortly before, they had cast swarms, rendering it un- 

 desirable to continue them in the work. Colony No. 1 was re- 

 tained in the experiment until Aug. 2',i, nearly 6ii weeks. 

 This colony was particularly adapted to comb-building, and 

 showed that, during the first half of the period, but later 

 owing probably in part to the low temperature which pre- 

 vailed during August, its work was less satisfactory. 



Up to Aug. 10 there was no noticeable amount of honey 

 coming from the fields, but later there was some considerable 

 being gathered, tho colony No. 1, being fed, seemed to partici- 

 pate to a very small extent in it, not bringing enough to tinge 

 the color of the comb honey in process of construction, and so 

 I judge not sufSclent to make it an appreciable element in the 

 problem under consideration. 



Turning now to the table, we find some questions pre- 

 sented which are not altogether easy to answer. We find 

 there so striking a difference between the work of colonies as 

 that one requires more than two pounds of honey to enable it 

 to add one pound to its store of comb honey, while another re- 

 quired but a trifle more than a pound and a third. It might 

 be surmised that the one requiring the larger amount had ex- 



pended it in the production of a larger amount of brood. If, 

 however, we allow that No. 3 reared an amount of brood 

 equal to that reared by No. 4, viz.: eight Heddou frames full, 

 and deduct from the amount fed each the 20 pounds supposed 

 to be necessary for the rearing of the brood, we see No. 4 ac- 

 counts fully for all the remainder in its case, while No. 3 

 lacks 1S;4' pounds of doing so. 



In like manner, on the above supposition. No. 2 accounts 

 for nearly all the honey given it, while No. 1 comes short of it 

 by more than 30 pounds. It can hardly be that the amount 

 of honey required by different colonies for the rearing of the 

 same quantity of brood can vary very greatly, nor the amount 

 required by the adult bees for food where the strength of the 

 colonies is about equal. At present I see only two other ways 

 of accounting for the deficit, viz.: quiet robbing and varying 

 amounts required for the production of wax. Robbing as an 

 outlet is hardly to be relied upon ; wax-production seems more 

 likely to afford snme measure of relief. 



If the table is examined closely it will be seen that the 

 sections given Nos. 1 and 3 averaged much heavier than those 

 given Nos. 2 and 4. Can it be then that the much greater 

 proportionate amount of cappings of the honey to be done in 

 the one case calls for the production of wax for use in the 

 capping as to account for the apparent discrepancy? It may 

 in some measure, and, besides, some colonies may practice 

 putting more wax into a given extent of comb so as to make it 

 stronger and safer. It is plain there are abundant subjects 

 yet for investigation in bee-culture. 



Figures may be made in different ways to determine the 

 amount of profit there is in feeding back. I consider the 

 value of the unfinisht sections as about equal to that of the 

 extracted honey, say <3 cents. This would make the value of 

 these two articles entering into this experiment $50.38. I 

 compute the value of the 679% pounds of comb honey pro- 

 duced, at 12 cents per pound, which gives a total value of 

 $81.57, or a profit of nearly 62 per cent, — Review. 



Lapeer Co., Mich. 



