GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Jan. 15 



PREVENTION OF SWARMING; COMB = HONEY 

 PRODUCTION. 



The Veteran of the Brushed=Swarm Method Tells 

 How his Method Diifers from those Recently 

 Spoken of in the Bee Jounais; the Caged° 

 Queen Plan of Preventing Swarming. 



BY L. STACHELHAUSEN. 



In the last few months I have found in 

 Gleanings nearly ."^0 articles about brush- 

 ed swarms. Nearly all of the writers crit- 

 icise or recommend brushed, shook, or forced 

 swarms for increase in place of natural 

 swarms. Only three of the writers seem to 

 pay any attention to my method, described 

 in Gleanings for Nov. 1, 1900, which de- 

 signs to prevent all swartning and all in- 

 crease. We see that both manipulations 

 are just opposite; they are similar only in 

 this respect, that in both cases the bees are 

 shaken or brushed from the combs. This 

 shaking of bees from the combs is one of the 

 most common and regular operations in the 

 apiary — nearly as much so as smoking the 

 bees. If we need a single brood comb for 

 any purpose we shake the bees from it. If 

 we sell bees by the pound we shake and 

 brush them through a funnel from the combs 

 into a box. In artificial swarming we 

 shake. Before the invention of the bee-es- 

 cape we had to shake and brush the bees 

 from the honey-combs for extracting; and 

 for a few 3'ears we have jounced the whole 

 super, a la Martin, and that is a w-holesale 

 shaking. 



That artificial swarms can be made bj' 

 shaking and brushing the bees from the 

 brood-combs, I have known at least since 

 1878. In 1883 I worked an out-apiary for 

 comb honey, and controlled swarming to 

 my full satisfaction by shaking the bees on 

 starters; that is, by artificial swarming, 

 and had a good honey crop too. It is only 

 about 4 years that I have experimented to 

 prevent swarming entirely by this manipu- 

 lation of shaking and brushing. I caught 

 the idea by scientific speculation, and the 

 whole thing was new to the bee-keepers 

 when I published m3' article in Nov., 1900, 

 and it is still not understood as j-et, as so 

 many prominent bee-keepers do not see the 

 diff^erence between my method and the forced 

 swarm for increase. That these forced 

 swarms, known more than twenty years, 

 have gained more attention, I was glad to 

 observe; but it seems to me this is a very 

 slow progress, as, for instance, Doolittle 

 recommended the plan repeatedly iji Glean- 

 ings. 



My method of preventing swarms is some- 



thing quite different. In the spring, and 

 before the honey-flow, we can generally 

 prevent swarming by the use of very large 

 hives, and our colonies develop in them to 

 an admirable strength. When the honey- 

 flow commences, I remove all the brood, be- 

 cause the young bees, which would hatch 

 every day in large numbers, would not find 

 enough young larva; to be nourished, and 

 this causes an extension of the blood, and, 

 in consequence, the swarming fever. A 

 surplus of 3^oung bees compared with the 

 number of young larva; in the hive, will 

 soon cause swarming under favorable con- 

 ditions. This is not merely theory, but it 

 can be proven by experiment. 



This brood taken away must be given 

 back to the colony as soon as it is changed 

 to bees of such an age that they will not 

 cause swarming any more, and will be able 

 to help in gathering honey. 



This giving back all the bees when they 

 are ready for doing field work is the main 

 point in my management. It can be done 

 in difi'erent ways — either by shaking the 

 bees from the brood-combs twice in front of 

 the main colonj% or by moving the hive with 

 the brood-combs, and so, a la Heddon, draw- 

 ing the bees from it to the main colony, at 

 last by shaking all the bees 21 days after- 

 ward from the now emptj' combs in front of 

 the main colony. Of course, this shaking 

 can be done only once, and earlier — for in- 

 stance, on the tenth daj% and the capped 

 brood-combs used elsewhere. This is some- 

 thing between the two manipulations. 



When all the brood is removed, the brood- 

 chamber is contracted, and starters are 

 given. This forces the bees up into the sec- 

 tions and causes them to work there at once. 

 I think this is the best possible condition of 

 a colony for storing honey in the sections. 



The difference between a forced swarm 

 and my method is that, bj^ forming a swarm, 

 we divide the colony permanently, giving to 

 one part nearly all the bees and the queen; 

 to the other part, only a few bees and all 

 the brood. 



By my method for producing comb honey, 

 and at the same time preventing swarming 

 and increase, I remove the brood and a few 

 bees temporarily only. The idea is to re- 

 move the young bees and give them employ- 

 ment in a separate hive till they are old 

 enough to do field work in the main colony. 

 We see that, by this method, the field force 

 of a colony is not diminished at all. 



The only objection worth mentioning is 

 that the colony has to build a set of new 

 combs, and this will take some work and 

 some honey. I am of the opinion that a col- 

 onj^ during a good honey-flow produces wrix 

 arbitrarily, especially if little or no brood 

 is present — that is, if the colony is in the 

 condition of a swarm. The production of 

 wax will consume some honey; but this is 

 more than balanced by the multiplied vigor 

 of the swarm. This is of so much value 

 that sometimes during a short honey- flow 

 we may get a considerable amount of sur- 

 plus honey from strong swarms, while oth- 



