1895. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



391 



in the Green Mountains of Vermont, and white Mountains of 

 New Hampshire, it yields largely, for the nights are cool and 

 damp, which are the conditions necessary for its secretion. 



We hear much said about orange-bloom honey, yet I heard 

 a bee-keeper assert in Florida, that bees did not gather honey 

 from the orange, and I've seen bees work very shyly upon 

 peach-bloom. Will some of our vSouthern bee-keepers tell us 

 whether bees gather surplus honey from orange groves ? If 

 they do, why does the seed of oranges and peaches produce 

 trees that bear fruit like the original ? During the War, a 

 returning soldier brought home a half-bushel of peaches, and 

 his wife planted the seed, which produced quite an orchard, 

 and they all bore fruit alike, and the same as the original half- 

 bushel. If bees carry pollen from bloom to bloom of the 

 orange and peach, as they do in many other kinds of fruit, 

 why does not the seed produce trees bearing different varie- 

 ties of fruit? . 



EXTRACTING HONEY WITH HEAT. 



The idea ! Are we retrograding ? Going back to the use 

 of our " daddy's hive ?" (See page 335.) 



After many experiments, in melting honey, I've come to 

 the conclusion that it cannot be done without imparting to it 

 a waxy flavor. I've put it in a bright new tin pan, and placed 

 it over a kettle of water, stirring it continually, and as soon 

 as it was melted removed it, and yet with all the pains I could 

 take, it would have a twang. Our grandmother's way was 

 better: Put it in a sack and hang near the lire. It should 

 not be called " extracted honey," either, for it will give a bad 

 name to the true product. 



Bees in this locality have gathered but little nectar since 

 fruit-bloom. Part of the time it has been very cool, and now 

 a severe drouth prevails, which shrivels the clover leaves. 



Peoria, 111. 



Large and Small Hives — Some Big Bees. 



BY C. DAVENPORT. 



On page 360, Mr. Thompson makes some comments on 

 my article on page 231. He says I argue the matter as if the 

 man who preferred large to small hives would necessarily keep 

 the same number of colonies in both cases. I have not, and 

 do not argue any such thing. What I claim is, that I can, 

 with a few very rare exceptions, get more surplus comb honey 

 with a colony in a hive not larger than the 10-frame, than I 

 can with the same colony in a larger one, no matter whether 

 this colony, or any number of colonies, is located on a range 

 that is over or under stocked. 



Mr. T. also says the only statement I make which seems 

 to give positive advantage to the small hives is: "With big 

 hives, where no feeding is done, the season is often an entire 

 failure." He then says : " But it is not unlikely that a con- 

 siderable percentage (enough to account for the 'often') of the 

 big hives referred to, contained colonies in the first or second 

 year of their existence." That was not the case, Mr. T. If 

 it had been, that article would not have been written the way 

 it was. Continuing, he says : " Which were further embar- 

 rassed by being in an apiary of just as many colonies as would 

 be needed for the locality if they were all in small hives." 



Most of Mr. T.'s theories are too deep and complicated for 

 me to understand. I thought, though, when I first read his 

 comments on my article, I understood that part of it, but upon 

 second reading I find this last of his that I have quoted may 

 be interpreted to mean two, cr perhaps more, different condi- 

 tions. As I do not know what he meant. I can only say that 

 the big hives referred to were in a yard where there were 

 many times their number of small ones ; their range was at 

 all times heavily, perhaps, overstocked. Now, if under these 

 conditions Mr. T. thinks the big hives were " embarrassed " 

 so that they could not show their superiority, if they had had 

 any, over small ones, he and I do not agree. 



Let us suppose that Mr. T. is as good a man physically as 

 he is mentally. It would then perhaps be natural to think 

 that he could do a good deal more work than a common man 

 could. Now say he and I, and 10 more ordinary men like 

 myself, have a cornfield containing a large number of rows to 

 hoe. If I, or none of the others, interfere with Mr. T. in any 

 way while at work, when we get done if he has hoed only 

 about two-thirds as many rows as each of the rest of us, 

 would there be any reason for him to say that he could have 

 done more in the same length of time if he had been alone, or 

 that he could if there had been less men, but all good ones like 

 himself? This is just what Mr. T. would ask us to believe, if 

 he claims that the big hives referred to did not have a fair 

 chance to show their superiority, if it had existed. 



SOME BIG BEES THAT IMPROVED THEMSELVES. 



I will describe those bees that I said in a former article 

 would double discount the best I then had, although that did 

 not express exactly what I meant. 



One day, three years ago, early in the spring, when I was 

 returning home from one of the out yards, an old gentleman, 

 who lived on the way, asked me if I was the man that kept so 

 many bees. When I told him I was, he said he had some bees 

 that he would like to sell. He had rented his land, sold most 

 of his stock, and was going to town to live. He did not wish 

 to take the bees, but was unable to find anybody that would 

 buy them. I had all the bees I wanted, but he finally offered 

 to sell them all — 9 colonies — for .Slo, and haul them where I 

 wanted them. I thought they were worth this, or more, so I 

 boug'ht them and had them hauled to the home yard. 



The bees were in large box-hives that were about 13 

 inches square, and from 18 to 24 inches high, having been 

 kept in such hives over 15 years. The bees themselves were 

 very large. All of them had three, and some had four, light 

 yellow hands. They were all powerful colonies, and the hives 

 were heavy with honey, although they had been out-doors all 

 winter. The owner always left them out without any protec- 

 tion whatever, and he did not remember ever losing a colony 

 that had enough to eat. 



Soon after I got them I transferred 5 of them to frame 

 hives, and I was greatly surprised at the size of the queens. I 

 thought I had some, and had seen, large queens before, but 

 some of these were nearly one-half larger than any I had ever 

 seen, and as large again as some I have bought. But I did 

 not think they would be as good as some of my own stock, so 

 1 doubled up some weak colonies and superseded them with 

 the extra queens thus obtained. The previous summer I had 

 sent for a queen, and when she came she was about the size of 

 any ordinary worker, but the man I bought her of insisted 

 that it was a good-sized queen. I took one of the largest of 

 these big queens and sent her to this breeder. I told him it 

 was a queen, and what I called a fair-sized one. 



The 4 colonies that were not transferred each swarmed 

 two or three times in spite of the fact that the location of the 

 hives was changed each time. I intended to rear queens from 

 some of my best stock, and supersede all of these queens after 

 the main flow, but I did not that first year, for the first 

 swarms from those big box-hives gathered more honey than 

 any other colonies in the yard, and counting what the after- 

 swarms and the old colonies gathered, each of them would 

 have secured as much again as the best of the others. 



These queens were prolific, but not more so than others I 

 have, and have had, but the workers lived longer, and a good 

 deal longer than ordinary bees. They were also hardier ; 

 they would often be busily at work wtien the weather was 

 such that the others did not leave their hives. They capped 

 their honey whiter than pure Italians, filled the sections much 

 better, especially if only starters were used, and as a general 

 thing they sealed all the outside cells. 



But I have none of these bees now that are pure, or as 

 pure as when I got them, for although they were by far the 

 hardiest and best honey-gatherers I ever had, they had some 

 very undesirable qualities. In the first place they" were hard 

 bees to handle — were very vicious and vindictive. The bees 

 of a colony that had been handled, even for a day or two after- 

 wards, would go a long ways out of their way in order to sting 

 somebody, and a person that was stung by one of these bees 

 remembered it for a long time. Contrary to the general rule, 

 the swarms were also often ugly and hard to manage. The 

 first summer I got them the man that was helping me was 

 nearly stung to death in trying to hive a swarm from one of 

 these colonies. Personally I never had much trouble in hand- 

 ling them, but there are a number of reasons why bees as 

 vicious as these were are not desirable. 



But the worst fault they had was their great robbing pro- 

 pensity. They were the worst bees to rob that I ever saw or 

 heard of. They never robbed each other, but when no honey 

 was to be had in the fields, they seemed to consider all the 

 others fair prey. But for all their faults — and they had 

 Cithers — I think these bees had certainly greatly improved 

 themselves in regard to honey-gathering, hardiness and lon- 

 gevity. Southern Minnesota. 



Only One Cent a Copy for copies of the American 

 Bee Journal before April 1, 1895. We have them running 

 back for about 10 years. But you must let us select them, as 

 we cannot furnish them in regular order, and probably not 

 any particular copies. Just send us as many one-cent stamps 

 as you may want old copies, and we will mail them to you. 



