52 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



hering bees, carry them to a new location, 

 and put them in a new hive. Once a 

 hive was placed, there it sat for good and 

 all. Honestly, it fairly makes me ache to 

 think of managing an apiary upon this 

 plan. 



■M^^' •JUt'^FiJi 



"Good Things from other jonrnals" 

 is to be the name of a new department 

 that the Review expects to inaugurate with 

 the next issue. In one sen.se it is to take 

 the place of Hasty's "View of Current 

 Bee Writings." Mr. Taylor points out 

 the faults of other bee papers, and, in 

 order to round out the Review, and make 

 of it a well balanced journal, it ought to 

 set forth the good things. To be sure, 

 the editor himself might do all of this 

 work of selecting the good things, also 

 that of criticising, and the pointing out of 

 errors, and so he does, to a certain extent, 

 in the Editorial and Extracted Depart- 

 ments, but by bringing in the assistance of 

 other minds the Review is thereby broad- 

 ened. Who is to preside over this new 

 Department.'' Oh, that's to be a secret — 

 until next month. 



■M'Wtflif^fm* 



IS EXTRA PROI^IFICNESS IN A QUEEN 

 DESIRABLE? 



Perhaps enough space has been used in 

 this issiie upon the subject of the size of 

 hives, but there is one point touched upon 

 by Mr. Dadant in one of the articles that 

 appear in the Extracted Department, 

 about which I wish to say a few words; 

 and that is the prolificness of queens. 

 Those favoring large hives say that we 

 small hive men never know which are 

 our most prolific queens, as our hives are 

 so small thst any ordihan,' queen can fill 

 the combs with eggs; ( true ) and, not 

 knowing which are our most prolific 

 qneens, we can not choose them to rear 

 queens from. True again; but there is 

 no object, to us, in breeding for prolific- 

 ness. Our hives are of such a size that we 

 do not need to pay any attention to the 

 prolificness of our queens. Ordinarily 



prolific qneens always fill with eggs the 

 number of combs that we give them. To 

 the man who is always trying to get as 

 much work as possible out of a queen, 

 who is always giving her just a few more 

 combs, fearing that she may be cramped 

 for room, to him, prolificness may mean 

 something. But why work in this way? 

 Why strain every nerve to get as much as 

 pos.sible out of one queen, when we can 

 have just as many queens as we wish, 

 simply by letting the bees rear them — -by 

 saving one-half the number that they nat- 

 urally rear ? 



In this connection there is still anoth- 

 er point claimed by some; viz, that prolif- 

 icness, or quantit}', is at the expense of 

 quality. I know nothhig whatever as to 

 the soundness of this view, as applied to 

 this case, but, if any of my readers do, the 

 columns of the Review are open for them 

 to tell what they know. 



MICHIGAN BEE-KEEPERS WORKING FOR 



A REVISION OF THEIR FOUL 



BROOD LAW. 



At the last two meetings of the Mich- 

 igan State Bee-Keepers' Association, the 

 needed revision of the State foul brood 

 laws has received unanimous endorse- 

 ment. The old law was passed at a time 

 when bi:rning up the infected colonies 

 seemed to be the most sensible thing to do. 

 We now know that there is no necessitv 

 for this; but, according to law, that is the 

 only lawful thing to do. It not only has 

 the objection mentioned, biit it is cum- 

 bersome and full of perplexing provisions 

 that tend to discourage its enforcement . 



A bill has now been introduced in the 

 legislature to repeal this law and enact one 

 similar 4.0 that in Wiscon.sin; which the 

 Inspector of apiaries in Canada pronoun- 

 ces as perfect;and underwhichMr. France 

 is doing most efficient work. If the legis- 

 lature thoroughly understands the matter, 

 knows how badly the law is needed, and 

 why it is needed, there is no doubt of its 

 passage. It is the business of the bee-keep- 



