1895. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



359 



What Dr. Miller Thinks. 



Foul Brood in Honey. — It seems to me Wm. McEvoy 

 might have confined his whole article to the one statement on 

 page 326, that Dr. Howard received honey from foul-broody 

 colonies " and then with a microscope e.xamined the honey 

 and found the living germs of foul-brood in it." Not that the 

 rest is not interesting reading, but the only way to get away 

 from the belief that foul brood can be carried by robbers is to 

 say that Dr. Howard was mistaken and didn't find foul-brood 

 germs in the honey. That one fact, if left undisputed, can- 

 not be smothered with bushels of theory. 



Planting for Honey. — Mr. W. H. Morse's encouraging 

 words with regard to planting for honey suggests the thought 

 that bee-keepers can often get their neighbors to do the plant- 

 ing. Although planting linden trees may not bring any im- 

 mediate return in honey, yet when shade trees are to be 

 planted it will be a good deal better for the bees if such trees 

 are planted as will produce honey. Where lindens are not 

 already plenty, it is plainly a gain to have a single tree planted 

 within a mile or two. So. if it will pay me to plant trees on 

 my own land, it surely ought to pay to plant them on my 

 neighbor's laud, for in that case I get my rent free. If I can 

 get him to plant trees that I furnish him free, so much the 

 better. 



Honey-Locust. — Dr. Brown, on page 330, places honey- 

 locust at the head of the list of mellifluous trees cultivated for 

 ornamental purposes. Does that mean it's better than linden ? 

 Possibly the Doctor thinks linden is not among the trees 

 planted for ornamental purposes, but I'm sure it is in some 

 places, and it's among the finest. 



Cutting Out Queen-Cells. — A plan is given at the bot- 

 tom of page 330, by Dr. Brown, to prevent second swarms, 

 but there's one trouble about it, as he mentions above, that 

 it's a dilBcut thing always to be sure of getting every cell. 

 Bees are smarter than bee-keepers, and when they undertake 

 to cut out queen-cells they don't miss any. So you can man- 

 age to get them to cut out the cells without missing, and with 

 much less time on the bee-keeper's part. When the prime 

 swarm issues, put it on the old stand, setting the mother col- 

 ony close beside it. In five to seven days remove the mother 

 colony to a new location, and the field-bees will desert it and 

 join the swarm. The depletion and the fact that no honey is 

 coming in discourages any idea of further swarming, and all 

 cells are destroyed after the young queen emerges, or if any 

 are left they are destroyed after emerging. 



Temperature of Cellar.^Ou page 387, O. E. Douglass 

 tells about his bees going safely through the winter in a cellar 

 with a constant temperature of 58^. According to the gen- 

 eral teaching those bees ought to have gone to brood-rearing 

 and then come out in bad shape in the spring. But is that 

 teaching always correct ? Bees stand for weeks in the fall 

 with the temperature above 50'-, and have no thought of 

 brood-rearing if no honey is to be had. The excellent venti- 

 lation no doubt played an important part in Mr. Douglass' 

 case, and I suspect that the trouble of Mark D. Judkins (same 

 page) may possibly have been want of proper ventilation of 

 the cellar. 



Double vs. Single Brood-Chamber. — Query 972, on 

 page 339, shows diversity of opinion. There seem a majority 

 who believe more brood will be reared if all the room is on 

 one floor. Very few, however, seem to know anything about 

 it, merely giving their guess in the case, and some frankly 

 say they don't know. Doolittle bases his answer on his ex- 

 perience, and so does Secor — but they reach opposite conclu- 

 sions. I wish Doolittle, Secor, and others, would give us par- 

 ticulars as to their observations. 



About Swarming. — On page 311, Adrian Getaz hints a 

 desire to have me tell what I don't know about swarming. It 

 would take more than one number of the "Old Reliable " to 

 contain it all, for I have a mass of ignorance on that topic that 

 has been accumulating for years. Just when I'd think I'd 

 found out some one thing about it, the troublesome bees would 

 cut up some caper that would knock my notions all endwise. 



Friend Getaz remarks : " The Dadants say emphatically 

 that the chief cause of swarming is the lack of room for the 

 queen to deposit her eggs, or for the bees to store their 

 honey." My own experience disproves that. I've had bees 

 take it into their heads to swarm when they had 16 frames, 

 not crowded in any way. And not so very few cases, either. 



May 28, this year, in spite of the preceding 10 days of such 

 cold weather, I found a colony with a number of queen-cells, 

 having two stories of eight frames each. I think those cells 

 meant swarming. I have entire contidence in the assertion 

 of the Dadants, that they have so little swarming with their 

 large hives, but with just as much room in my hives why 

 should the result be different ? Is it because my bees have 

 two stories instead of one ? But the queen seems to go back 

 and forth from one story to the other, and the colony I just 

 spoke of had brood in 11 frames. I don't seem to know much 

 about it. 



The opinion that Friend Getaz expresses, that the pres- 

 ence of the queen-cell is the true cause of swarming, seems to 

 be substantiated by the experience some one gave, that insert- 

 ing a sealed queen-cell caused swarming. And yet I had one 

 colony that after being balked several times, swarmed out 

 with only one cell of brood in the hive, and that only an egg. 

 Even supposing the queen-cell is the miscreant that causes so 

 much trouble, the question still remains — what causes the 

 construction of queen-cells ? I don't know. 



I think Friend Getaz is right in thinking the queen doesn't 

 lead or start the swarm. I had a swarm issue from a hive 

 from which I had removed the queen perhaps an hour pre- 

 viously. 



If any one knows exactly what it is that makes bees 

 swarm, let him please rise and tell. I don't know. 



Marengo, III. 



More " Talking Back " — Hives, Frames, Etc. 



BY F. L. THOMPSON. 



On page 237, Gleaner fishes for comments, by those who 

 want 10 or 12 frames an eighth larger in size, on the state- 

 ment that six 16x9 frames with a good queen will be found 

 all that is required to keep a hive well stocked with bees. 



In the first place, " frames an eighth larger" is something 

 new. I thought it was a fourth. Then, the statement may 

 be admitted without invalidating any claims. The word 

 "hive," and the phrases " good queen " and "well stocked" 

 are so elastic, don't you know ? 



But without any quibbles, just look this supposition 

 squarely in the face : If nobody had ever used a capacity of 

 more than /our frames, if none of us had experience with any- 

 thing else to look back on, do you suppose that if the capacity 

 question was brought up, that the vast majority would find 

 anything out of the way with the accommodations for their 

 bees ? Fun was poked at Dr. Miller because he said that if 

 small brood-nests were the thing, and eight frames were good, 

 six, according to that reasoning, ought to be better yet. But 

 I believe that his implication (thatsuch reasoning is fallacious) 

 was about right. 



Mrs. Heater said, in reply to Query 950, "Look at a 

 strong colony clustered on the ordinary frame, and you will 

 see by the shape and size of the cluster, that it is very well 

 adapted to their needs;" and Mr. Demaree said, "Time and 

 use have proven that the Langstroth frame is not too shallow 

 to hurt." I really don't know any reason why I shouldn't 

 look at a strong nucleus, then, on little frames made out of 

 sections, and say that the shape and size of the cluster show 

 that such a frame is very well adapted to their needs; or why 

 it should not be said that time and use has proven that the 

 Bingham frame is not too shallow to hurt. 



The truth is, bees will look just as contented and happy 

 on one kind of frame, or in one size of hive, as another; they 

 will have brood, and surplus honey, and drones, etc. Most 

 writers on the subject have been delightfully consistent in 

 evading the real point of the discussion, to-wit, that under or- 

 dinary circumstances, in large hives, the average colony at- 

 tains a certain degree of development : that it takes more than 

 one year (not merely one spring's growth) for it to become 

 thoroughly established in this development, which does not 

 depend upon the average queen more than it does on the bees; 

 that the question at issue is, whether it pays better to cut 

 down the bees every year (i. c, use a small chamber) and let 

 them climb up part way again, like a tree that is pruned (and 

 keep a greater number of colonies to make up the difference), 

 or let them attain their development unchecked, trusting to 

 the reserve power accumulated to retain it. 



It should be distinctly understood that the small brood- 

 chamber is abnormal for an established colony which does not 

 swarm — not perhaps the first year, or even the second — but in 

 the long run. When that is admitted, there is still plenty to 

 be said on both sides. So I haven't the least doubt that those 

 Australian bee-keepers find six frames enough to keep their 

 hives what they call "well stocked." 



