94 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Feb. 1 



FERTILIZATION IN CONFINEMENT. 



Failure of the Experiment to Mate Queens in a Tent 



30 Feet High, a la Davitte; Mating Queens and 



Drones in a Large Glass Carboy Reported to be 



a Success; some Interesting Suggestions. 



BY R. F. HOLTERMANN. 



The question of controlling- fertilization 

 with queens is one of varying interest. 

 Time and again it has come to the front, 

 and again taken a less prominent place. 

 When with D. A. Jones, of Beeton, Ontario, 

 as a student, 22 years ago, the question 

 was often discussed; and, aside from fertil- 

 izing queens on various islands in the Geor- 

 gian Bay, nothing came of it. I remember 

 well the operations in connection with the 

 islands were carried on at great expense. 

 Aside from the expense of keeping and get- 

 ting men there, andshippingnuclei there and 

 back, there was a great loss of queens. If 

 I mistake not, in the act of copulation the 

 drone perishes; that and perhaps the natural 

 condition of the queen caused both to drop, 

 and probably many queens were lost in the 

 water. 



The next time the question was promi- 

 mently brought to my attention was at the 

 International Bee-keepers' Convention at 

 Detroit, when Prof. McLean gave the re- 

 sults of his test under the direction and ex- 

 pense of the government at Washington. 

 I was at the convention, and Prof. McLean 

 struck me as a man thoroughly in line with 

 his work, but a man who lacked, as a be- 

 ginning for his work, much practical experi- 

 ence which might have been obtained from 

 many bee-keepers who attended that con- 

 vention. 



The next deep impression which the ques- 

 tion made upon bee-keepers was whenMr. 

 Hutchinson, in his Review, brought the 

 question forward. I wrote to Mr. Davitte, 

 and received a very kind reply. He is cer- 

 tainly honestly convinced that he made a 

 success of this method of fertilization. 

 We know that he was unable to answer 

 certain questions Editor Hutchinson asked, 

 but that does not prove that they were not 

 answered. 



This resulted in the erection of a large 

 tent of netting fastened on a framework 25 

 ft. high and nearly 30 ft. in diameter. 

 Great pressure of work in connection with 

 honey production prevented me from mak- 

 ing as extensive tests as I should have lik- 

 ed, but I had on the side between the tent 

 and the bee-yard, which contained from 90 



to 185 colonies, a covered shed with board , 

 back. In this board back, fly-holes were 

 bored, covered at will. On shelves the 

 nuclei with virgin queens were placed. 

 On the other side of the tent two colonies 

 with choice drones were placed; the en- 

 trances were guarded, as also were the en- 

 trances of nuclei, with perforated metal. 

 The drones had liberty only through the 

 fly-holes into the tent; and, more, these 

 drones knew not what greater liberty meant 

 than what the tent afforded. I mention 

 this because I consider it very important. 

 Now as to results. 



A large number of drones flew and re- 

 turned to the hives. To my knowledge, not 

 a queen entered the tent. They remained 

 unfertile as long as the perforated metal 

 was kept at the entrance. In two cases, 

 after 15 days I removed the metal, and the 

 queens were then mated. Frequently, how- 

 ever, about the middle of the day I saw the 

 j'oung queen attempting to get out through 

 the perforated metal, and I pointed this out 

 to a young man I took as a student for the 

 summer. 



Many would say this is complete proof 

 that queens can not be fertilized in the way 

 attempted ; but I am not so sure, even now. 

 The queens were in nuclei, practically, be- 

 tween the tent and the main apiary. There 

 were, perhaps, 200 drones flying on the side 

 which had the perforated-metal entrance to 

 one on the open side. Did this cause the 

 queens to attempt to get out in this direc- 

 tion? Perhaps it did — some may tell. 



It w^as rather a surprise to me that prac- 

 tically not a bee journal has noticed the 

 announcement of Mr. Rowsome, another ex- 

 student of mine, who is lecturer on bee- 

 keeping at the Ontario Agricultural Col- 

 lege, Guelph, Ontario, and who spoke of 

 this very method when with me, but in 

 which he did not get much encouragement 

 from me. In his report, Ontario Agricul- 

 tural College, 1901, page 125, Mr. Rowsome 

 states: 



Some have tried buildings of netting and also of 

 glass; but queens and drones fly directly to the net- 

 ting or glass, and devote their whole attention to get- 

 ting out, without seeing each other. I,ast July I made 

 the following experiment: I placed a large carboy of 

 gla.ss, neck downward, and introduced two virgin 

 queens into it. As they were flying up the glass sides 

 of the carboy, trying to get out, a dozen drones which 

 were in a cage were introduced also. The drones im- 

 niediateh- fluttered up the glass to the queens above, 

 and coition took place. This experiment was tried 

 with eight queens in all, and seven were fertilized. 

 The eighth may not have been virgin before being 

 introduced into the carboy. A little patience is some- 

 times necessary. When drones do not see a queen 

 the drones and queens must be shaken down to the 

 bottom of the carboy so as to induce them again to 

 flutter up the glass; and when drones and queens are 

 flying with their wings almost touching, coition is al- 

 most sure to take place. 



In conclusion led me to ask, "Can we af- 

 ford to override selection in nature to the 

 extent of giving to (other things being equal ) 

 the less active drone the power to influence 

 the future worker bee? Is variety and hu- 

 man selection better than natural? It may 

 be desirable for the queen-breeder who has 



