THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



581 



ror the American Bee JoumaL 



Preventing After-Swarms, etc. 



JAMES HEDDON. 



To Mr. A. A. Decker's article on 

 page ■")22, 1 will respond by saying that 

 our experience here has been that we 

 get more prolit by having the second 

 influx of l)ees with the prime swarm, 

 than as though we had left them with 

 the parent colony. As it is about IM 

 days before young bees begin to re- 

 place the rapidly decreasing numbers 

 of a swarm, and the fact that at the 

 time of swarming, the swarm not only 

 leaves a portion of its bees in the old 

 hive, but at least thrice as many un- 

 hatched bees, we think we get the 

 better and more prodtable division of 

 the colony by taking what the old 

 colony would send out in second and 

 third swarms, and adding them to the 

 prime swarm. 



We have sometimes waited more 

 than 7 days and never yet under any 

 circumstances have we known the 

 bees to quarrel. They all seem to 

 recognize each other as members of 

 one family. Here we are never 

 troubled with swarms swarming, and 

 have hardly any swarms of any kind 

 during the basswood flow. 



I very much object to Mv. Decker's 

 plan of doing away with the queen- 

 cells in a colony which has cast a 

 swarm, by introducing a fertile queen 

 to tear them down. I will tell why : 

 1 . You are at the expense of buying 

 or rearing a queen. 2. Under such 

 conditions the bees are much less in- 

 clined to receive her. 3. The gain 

 Jlr. Decker speaks of is not there. 

 All good, average queens fill all the 

 combs with eggs that they should 

 have, up to their full capacity just 

 before the swarming period. This 

 rest of 12 to ].5 days that the combs 

 get between the time of the exit of 

 the old queen and fertilization of the 

 new one. is needed to allow the young 

 queen room to give you the full benefit 

 of her fertility. Every now and then 

 we have been, for 1.5 years past, pre- 

 sented with the immense advantages 

 of tilling this brooding-gap with a 

 fertile queen, but yet the general 

 practice of our bee-keepers does not 

 adopt it. The principal is incorrect, 

 as I discovered and said 10 years ago 

 when it had ten times as many ad- 

 vocates as now. 



SHALL VTE BREED HYBRIDS ? 



The last statement in the first 

 paragraph of Mr. Shearman's article, 

 on page .519, is not true as far as my 

 experience goes. When I first ad- 

 vocated that if Italians and Germans, 

 if of the right strain, were bred to- 

 gether, they would produce hybrids 

 not "cross," I do not remember of a 

 secon ding voice. Now Mr. Shearman 

 and numerous others have had some 

 exp erience bordering upon the fact, it 

 seems, and I have no doubt but 



further on in the line of practical ex- 

 periment (for lie is one of our practi- 

 cal honey-producers), he will see that 

 he was liiistakcn when, on page .519, 

 he said that if these crosses were bred 

 together, tlie result would be cross 

 hybrids. My students, my visitors, 

 and myself know to the contrary. 



These hybrids. I think, after being 

 bred together under the supervision 

 and weeding of tlie bee-master, should 

 be as much entitled to the name 

 " strain," as the different strains of 

 Italians and (iermans in their purity, 

 dift'erentiated by undirected local in- 

 fluences. Mr. Shearman calls them 

 " strains," and I know of no other 

 term by which to better express what 

 we mean ; and just what we mean of 

 these pure bees, we find exists with 

 crosses judiciously conducted by the 

 reason of the breeder. Now, who 

 ever starts out on a new plan of 

 breeding such strains, I think is cor- 

 rect in naming such bees a " new 

 strain." 



I approve of the advice given by 

 Mr. S. : '• Do not breed hydrids in- 

 discriminately." I also add : Do 

 not breed or allow to be bred in your 

 apiary any strain or race of bees in- 

 discriminately. If you cannot dis- 

 criminate, it will pay you to buy 

 queens of some one who can " Pay 

 you " in surplus honey. 



That crosses are the very best sur- 

 plus-honey bees, I fully agree with 

 Mr. S. and the numerous bee-keepers 

 that he quotes, but that they swarm 

 more than Italians in their purity, I 

 And untrue in my practice. I have 

 never had a race or strain of bees that 

 failed to breed to the fullest extent of 

 their capacity all through the fall 

 bloom. During the first half of that 

 bloom, includiiii;- the dearth just pre- 

 ceding it, is the time when our bees 

 breed more than at any time of the 

 year. I am fully persuaded that Mr. 

 S. will find that the extra safe winter- 

 ing of the neighbor farmers' bees was 

 a matter of "present condition," and 

 not a trait susceptible of being bred 

 in or out, or liable to repeat itself. I 

 will not say that it is impossible to 

 breed up a race of horses that could 

 not catch the distemper, but even if 

 that mark could be struck, it is so far 

 off I have no disposition to shoot or 

 even aim at it. 



On page 534, iMr, Pond says he does 

 not quite understand me, which, as 

 usual, is correct. I never meant to 

 say, and did not say, and did not 

 write any thing that can be tortured 

 into my saying, or even intimating that 

 the " natural ferocity of the Italians 

 was what made them orgave them the 

 slightest tendency to stick to the 

 combs " when handled. Mr. P. says 

 that he has not yet found any race or 

 strain of bees equal to the pure Ital- 

 ians for indisposition to sting. There 

 are numerous others who have. 



HONOR TO WHOM HONOR IS DUE. 



Since reading Mr. Fradenburg's 

 article on page 535, 1 have no reason 

 to doubt his originality in the dis- 

 covery of the " pollen theory." Mr. 

 Robinson, no doubt, has equal rights 

 to the same claim, and I amquite sure 

 that I have. 



At the time that Mr. F. and Mr. B. 

 wrote upon the subject in Gleanings, 

 I did not take that paper, but occa- 

 sionally borrowed copies and wrote an 

 article for it now and then. I never 

 thought or claimed that any positive 

 proof on my part dated from my ob- 

 servation of the condition of my col- 

 onies last spring. I thought that, as 

 the best of additional evidence only, I 

 look upon Mr. F.'s experience and ob- 

 servation during the same spring, in 

 exactly the same light. 



My article of .May 11, 1S81, in Glean- 

 ings, shows for itself that I had for 

 some time entertained the idea that 

 floating pollen in the honey might be 

 the cause of the disease. 



On page 409 of the Bee-Keepers'' In- 

 structor for February, 1881, will be 

 found the following concerning bee- 

 diarrhoea, written by me on Jan. 29, 

 1881 : " For years past I have sus- 

 pected that the mischief, or first 

 cause, lies in the honey, and is pro- 

 duced either by its containing bac- 

 teria (living animal germs similar to 

 those said to produce foul brood), or 

 an undue amount of fine pollen always 

 more or less found in honey." But 

 why multiply words V I am pleased 

 to look upon ^Ir. Fradenburg as a co- 

 worker in our chosen pursuit, and ad- 

 ditional evidence to the theory which 

 now remains in little doubt with me. 



I have not been working for honors, 

 yet I am not without pride and grati- 

 tude in receiving them, which i con- 

 sider just and right. These honors 

 are like love, they cannot be meas- 

 ured, and were there a dozen of us to 

 share them, there would be just as 

 many for each of us. I am sorry that 

 Mr. F. was silent for so long an in- 

 terval. I will here invite him to 

 share with me the future labor of de- 

 fending the theory which we believe 

 to be not only correct, but of the 

 greatest importance to onr fraternity, 

 and receive a fair proportion of the 

 slurs of those who are frightened lest 

 some important discovery should be 

 credited to other than themselves. 



Of course it is not strange, after 

 my labors in the matter, that bee- 

 keepers should at once respond to the 

 shock given them by Mr. F.'s radical 

 claim of priority ; and I here wish to 

 express my thanks, especially to Mr. 

 Hutchinson, for the timely and vigor- 

 ous defense offered. I think all ot us 

 are not only willing but glad to pay 

 the tribute of honor to all who dis- 

 cover and disseminate important 

 truths relative to our adopted pro- 

 fession. 



I have had much to do with patent 

 soliciting, and I think Mr. F. is mis- 

 taken in regard to who would receive 

 the right, were the discovery patent- 

 able ; but this point is of no moment 

 in this case, and not worthy of con- 

 sideration. Let us all rejoice that we 

 are. no doubt, .soon to get at the true 

 cause and prevention of the (what has 

 been) greatest enemy to our success. 



Dowagiac, Mich., Aug. 22, 1884. 



t^ The Progressive Bee -Keepers' 

 Association meets on the first Satur- 

 day in October, 1884, at Bedford, O. 

 A general invitation is given. 



J. R. Reed, Sec. 



