44 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



Bee-Keepers' Review. 



PUBLISHED MONTHLY. 



W. Z. HOTCHHSlSOri, Ed. & PPop. 



Teems : — $1.00 a year in advance. Two copies 

 $1.90; three for fli.TO; five for $4.00; ten or more. 

 70 cents each. If it is desired to have the Review 

 stopped at the expiration of the time paid for, 

 please say so when subscribing, otherwise it 

 will be continued. 



FLINT, MICHIGAN. FEB. 10. 1894. 



" Accidents will happen," and a small one 

 happened when this month's Review was 

 being printed. One of the " guides " against 

 which the paper is placed when fed to the 

 press became loose and dropped down on 

 the " form." The result is shown in the 

 blurred appearance of some of the words in 

 first column of page 33. 



@ 



Sweet Cloveb is praised by Mr. H. R. 

 Boardman in Gleanings, both for honey and 

 for hay — yes, and for pasture. It is only oc- 

 casionally, however, that such wholesale 

 praise is met. This plant seems to be all 

 right when once it gets, a start in waste 

 places, but as a cultivated crop the successes 

 have been very few indeed, so few that I 

 don't remember to have seen one mentioned 

 before in years — don't know as I ever did. 



A Watee Bottle in a queen cage contain- 

 ing a queen that is to be sent a long distance 

 in hot weather is recommended by W. A. 

 Pryal in the American Bee Journal. Com- 

 menting on this, the editor of Gleanings 

 says that after the introduction of Good 

 candy they dropped the water bottle princi- 

 pally because it was not always possible to 

 adjust the small piece of caudle wicking in 

 the cork of the bottle in such a way that it 

 would not feed the water too fast, thus wet- 

 ting the candy too much and soon exhaust- 

 ing itself. Years ago, when I was using a 

 water bottle in queen cages, I stopped the 

 mouth of the bottle with a cork made of a 

 piece of sponge. If the sponge is of the right 

 size it does not slip out, neither does the 

 water run out nor evaporate too rapidly, yet 

 it is furnished to the bees at all times on the 

 moist sponge in the best possible manner. 

 This plan was a success in every sense of the 

 word. 



Foul Beood is receiving considerable dis 

 cussion just at present ; in fact, this issue of 

 the Review might also be called a " foul 

 brood " number. Perhaps too much space 

 is being used in discussing some of the finer 

 points. They are very interesting from a 

 scientific point of view, but the practical 

 bread and butter bee-keeper does not really 

 stand in much need of them. The symptoms 

 have been given so clearly and repeatedly 

 that it seems that no one need be deceived — 

 that nothing more in the way of descriptions 

 of the malady is needed. The ways that are 

 at all likely to spread the disease have been 

 told and re-told. Cautions to be observed 

 are not unknown for the lack of telling. 

 And, best of all, the only method of cure is 

 so simple that no elaborate treatise is needed 

 to make i. understood. What more is 

 needed ? 



HOW to make the best foundation. 



The experiments at the Michigan Experi- 

 mental apiary have brought this topic up- 

 permost. Why do we use foundation, what 

 are its most desirable characteristics, and 

 how may they be obtained, are questions 

 that must interest all bee-keepers. One of 

 the reasons for using foundation is to secure 

 straight, perfect, all-worker combs, but I am 

 inclined to think that the principal object in 

 its use is to furnish the bees an opportunity 

 of rapidly making storage room for their 

 surplus in abundant honey flows. That 

 foundation that is the most readily accepted 

 by the bees, and the quickest made into 

 comb, yet containing the least unavailable 

 amount of wax, would seem to be the most 

 desirable. This last point is one t: at de- 

 serves careful consideration. A very light 

 foundation might contain no unavailable 

 wax, yet if it contained more wax in the 

 right place it might be much more valuable 

 because it would the sooner be made into 

 comb. It is for this reason that Mr. Hed- 

 don, Mr. Oatman, and some others have 

 urged the use of heavy Given foundation in 

 sections, asserting that it was the sooner 

 made into comb because of the greater 

 amount of wax in its side walls, yet the 

 thinness of the base of the cells was such that 

 no thicker "fish bone" resulted from its 

 use. 



The character of the wax and the treat- 

 ment that it receives in being made into 



