AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



83 



We have tried several experiments, 

 during the past season, which are of 

 interest. We found that bees could 

 winter perfectly well on sugar-syrup, fed 

 in wooden combs, and also fed in comb, 

 which had never been used for breeding, 

 also on section-honey, with no show of 

 pollen, except what might be in the 

 honey. These experiments prove that 

 in the quiet of Winter, bees may live 

 and be quite as well off, on a diet of the 

 carbo-hydrates alone. Indeed, there is 

 good reason to believe that the queen, 

 drones and older worker bees receive 

 their albuminous food wholly from the 

 nurse-bees, and it is not probable that the 

 nurse-bees, during the profound Winter 

 quiet, prepare and distribute this nitro- 

 genous food. 



Elaborate experiments, tried during 

 the past season, show that drones die 

 very quickly, if deprived of access to 

 honey, even though the worker bees may 

 freely visit them. That is, the drones 

 must have much honey, and must take 

 it themselves. Again, drones will live 

 much longer if given honey, when the 

 worker bees have access to them, than 

 when they are beyond the reach of the 

 nurse-bees. This, and other reasons, 

 make me quite sure that drones must 

 depend on the nurse-bees for their albu- 

 minous food. We see, then, there is a 

 double reason for limiting the number of 

 drones in the apiary. They are not only 

 great consumers of both sugar and nitro- 

 genous food, but they also take some of 

 the energy of the nurse-bees, which may 

 better be given to the queen, the other 

 workers and to the inchoate bees. Thus, 

 this point has, practically, no less than 

 scientific interest. 



We also tried experiments during the 

 past season, to see if different kinds of 

 food affected bees differently. We made 

 the Good candy, of coarse as well as fine 

 sugar, and gave this, also honey, honey 

 and syrup, half-and-half, and pure cane 

 syrup, to bees in confinement. The bees 

 were all kept in a cage, in the quiet, and 

 the outcome was not without interest. 

 We found that bees caged with honey, 

 or with honey and syrup, half-and-half, 

 lived in seeming perfect health for 

 weeks, while those fed on Good candy, 

 made of coarse granulated sugar, or on 

 pure cone syrup, made of granulated 

 sugar, lived hardly more days than the 

 others lived weeks. 



We see, we must use only very fine 

 sugar — minutely pulverized, to stock our 

 cages, especially shipping cages. This 

 caution is imperative, in case we are to 

 ship for long distances. We note, too, 

 that cane syrup is not a safe food, and 



that it is better to mix sugar syrup and 

 honey, half-and-half, than to feed pure 

 sugar syrup. Some of our experiments 

 in feeding syrup for Winter may seem 

 to contradict this ; but we must have a 

 very accurate knowledge of the experi- 

 ments, to speak positively in the 

 matter. 



We know that honey is only modified 

 or digested nectar. Honey, as Winter 

 food, is all ready for absorption ; while 

 sugar syrup must be digested, as it is by 

 the bees when gathered as nectar, in 

 transforming it into honey, en route to 

 the hive. We easily see then why this 

 may not be a healthy food for bees in 

 confinement. In activity, they, like our- 

 selves, may be able to digest, while when 

 quiet they cannot safely do this import- 

 ant work of nutrition. This hints at a 

 suggestion which I have often made, 

 that honey may be a safer food for man 

 than cane sugar. The latter he must 

 digect, the former is prapared for 

 absorption already by the bees. This 

 question is so important and so fraught 

 with interest that I shall pursue the 

 investigation farther another season. 



I have associated not a little with 

 people of various pursuits, and I have 

 always thought that bee-keepers were 

 rather exceptional as planners and 

 thinkers. The very nature of the pur- 

 suit, I think, incites to thoughtfulness. 

 But in the matter of the Rees cones, I 

 think that trait has not been very fully 

 manifest. This valuable discovery by 

 Mr. J. S. Rees, of Kentucky, serves such 

 a valuable purpose in the apiary, and is 

 so obviously practical and helpful, that 

 we would suppose, that immediately 

 upon its announcement, bee-keepers 

 would generally put it to the fullest use. 

 But, notwithstanding the fact that it 

 was tested by the inventor in 1877 and 

 described fully in the bee-periodicals 

 early in 1888 : yet, even now, 3 years 

 later, it is but little used. Worse than 

 this, while some of us commenced at 

 once to use the invention, we seemed to 

 use it and not our minds. Else why 

 should we use it simply as suggested by 

 the inventor, to remove bees from the 

 sections, and not at all in the equally, 

 yea, more important work of freeing the 

 extracting combs of bees. For 2 years I 

 never saw a line in any of the periodicals, 

 even hinting at such use. 



When a bright bee-keeper of northern 

 New York suggested such use to me a 

 year ago, I felt much as, I suppose our 

 good fathers did, who first saw the meal 

 replace the stone, that had long done 

 service in balancing the bag on the 

 horses' back. I find the cones very 



