1907 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



755 



is usually mentioned as "raw" sugar is 

 brown sugar from molasses, and is not fit 

 for bees. — W. K. M. 



Referring to the other question, that of 

 making wax out of sugai", we may state that 

 this is no idle dream. Beeswax is bound to 

 come up. Paraffine will be barred from foods 

 and drugs when the pure-food law goes fully 

 into effect, which will be next fall; then we 

 ought to see a marked advance in beeswax 

 unless the tropics (as they probably will) 

 furnish the product at a price that will not 

 be much in excess, if any, over the article 

 now sold. Some tropical beeswaxes, at least, 

 conform in every particular to the pui'e bees- 

 wax specified under the national pure-food 

 law, and there is no reason why they should 

 not.— Ed.] 



"To MAKE a practical application of the 

 idea is new." That footnote, p. 686, sounds 

 as if I had thought there was nothing new in 

 the Alexander double-queen plan. I hasten 

 to protest most earnestly against any such 

 view, and the Straw next to the last on the 

 preceding page ought to set me right. All 

 the more credit is due Mr. Alexander that 

 facts which had been kicking around for 

 years he picked up and put to good use. But 

 more credit than that is due him. The 

 knowledge that several queens might be in a 

 hive at the same time is not new. The knowl- 

 edge of how to get them there at will is new. 

 Set that down to Mr. A.'s credit. Set down 

 to him a vastly greater credit for the entire- 

 ly new discovery that a plurality of queens 

 in a hive will prevent swarming. If Mr. 

 Alexander makes good in telling us how the 

 thing is done — and I presume he will — he will 

 leave his name written hi^h up among those 

 who have benefited their fellow bee-keepers. 

 [But there are others now who claim that a 

 plurality of unrelated queens will keep down 

 or control natural swarming. Speaking 

 about our friend Alexander, it takes a man 

 of about his standing and stamina in the api- 

 cultural world to be bold enough to come 

 out and espouse an unorthodox theory or 

 practice. There have been some in our ranks 

 who, metaphorically at least, would have 

 been very willing to bvirn him at the stake 

 for telling some things "that are not so;'' 

 but somenow he has been able to hold his 

 own against all his critics. And right here 

 it is proper to explain that those who do not 

 agree with him should take into full consid- 

 eration his particular locality, which in many 

 respects is unlike the average locality in the 

 United States. — Ed.] 



Louis Scholl asks, p. 692, why the bees 

 gnaw around the splints, filling the space 

 with drone-cells. I don't know; I never had 

 a case of the kind. Perhaps Mr. Smith's 

 answer is the right one. Possibly the splints 

 were pressed too hard, cutting the founda- 

 tion in two. What's your answer, Louis? 

 My trouble is a different one. Most of my 

 frames were given when pasturage was poor, 

 and the bees gnawed away the foundation 

 more or less next to the bottom-bars, before 

 drawing it out. [You remember, doctor, we 

 have never been enthusiastic over these wood- 



en splints, just because we feared the bees 

 would gnaw around them. Our fears were 

 based on our experience with the metal tin 

 bar that we used years ago in our first wired 

 frames. Any thing larger than a 33 wire 

 seems to be met with disfavor on the part of 

 the bees at times. 



Referring to your particular difliculty, the 

 whole trouble can be solved by the use of re- 

 versible frames. This vacant space between 

 the bottom edge of the comb and the bottom- 

 bar is likely to be more or less in evidence 

 in all frames of the non-reversing type. 

 While you overcome it to some extent by 

 means of vertical splints, yet you admit that 

 the bees "gnaw away the foundation more 

 or less next to the bottom-bar." By having 

 reversible frames (this vacant space that is 

 just so much waste, and the finest hiding- 

 place in the world for queens) can be filled 

 up solid. This used to be the strong argu- 

 ment of the reversible-frame advocates of 

 twenty years ago — yes, almost twenty-five 

 now; but when reversing did not accomplish 

 all that was claimed for it we went to the ex- 

 treme and abandoned the whole business, 

 just as the owners of Belgian hares abandon- 

 ed the business, because it did not come up 

 to the expectations of those who pushed the 

 fad to the front; yet Belgian hares have some 

 merit. — Ed.] 



Prof. Cook says, p. 312, that bees venti- 

 late so effectively at the entrance that it is 

 best to have only one opening to the hive, 

 evidently meaning at all times, and W. K. 

 M., page 686, asks if I subscribe to that doc- 

 trine? Emphatically, no. If I'unning for ex- 

 tracted honey I would, in general, have one 

 more opening than the number of stories in 

 use— the regular entrance, and an opening 

 at the top of each story. Each year, for years, 

 I have had one or more piles thus ventilated, 

 and none has ever yet swarmed. Many years 

 ago I learned from Adam Grimm to have an 

 opening for ventilation at the top of the brood- 

 chamber at the back end when running for 

 comb honey. I gave it up because it inter- 

 fered with the finishing of sections near such 

 openings. But I have gone back to it again, 

 believing that such disadvantage is overbal- 

 anced by the gain in ventilation. You can't 

 make me believe that it isn't easier for the 

 bees to have one hole for the air to go out, 

 and another for it to come in, than to make 

 the air go both ways in the same hole. [There 

 are quite a number now who advocate the 

 use of more than one entrance. Among them 

 are Mr. R. F. Holtermann, the Dadants, and 

 Mr. W. K. Morrison, of our own editorial 

 staff. Your last sentence, doctor, suggests a 

 proposition that indicates that our present- 

 day practice of giving bees only one entrance 

 compels them to waste a large amount of vi- 

 tality and energy as well as bee-life when it 

 can be ill afforded. If we can prevent this 

 loss (we can hardly see how it can be other 

 than a loss), why shouldn't we do it by break- 

 ing down our old orthodox lines at this point 

 and make it mechanically easier for bees to 

 keep down the temperature of the hive in- 

 stead of keeping a lot of workers at home 



