154 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



LARGE COLONIES. 



Do They Store More Honey, in Proportion to 

 Their Size, Than Small Colonies ? 



The advocates of large colonies are now 

 laying special stress upon the theory that 

 large colonies store more honey, in pro- 

 portion to their numbers, than is the case 

 with small colonies. Gleanings for 

 March 15 has the following on the sub- 

 ject:— 



In the Bee-Keepers' Review for Febru- 

 ary appears a symposium on this question, 

 the subject-matter being made of extracts 

 from various l)ee-journals, followed up by 

 an extended footnote by the editor. He 

 sets forth fairly the views of the different 

 writers, but still clings to the opinion 

 himself that the smaller hive is the thing. 

 He finally summarizes the matter in this 

 way: 



Bro. Dadaut's trouble comes from expecting 

 and GETTING too much out of each queen. In- 

 stead of "horsewhipping" the queens, I would 

 get more queens to help them. Hive j'our swarms 

 in smaller hives, give fewer combs to each queen, 

 and another year you will have more queens in 

 proportion to your number of combs than you 

 have now. Bro. Dadant .says to himself. "Here 

 I have 1000 combs and only So queens. I must 

 give these queens all the room pos.sible, so as to 

 get just as many bees as I possibly can." Mv 

 way of looking at it would be like this: "Here I 

 have 1000 combs, and I want to get just as many 

 bees out of themaspo.ssible, so I will have plenty 

 of queens, and thus get the combs just as full 

 of eggs as I can." Yon see that Bro. DadaiU and 

 myself are both after bees, but we goat it in a 

 different way. 



It does not seem to me that Bro. Hutch- 

 inson quite hits the nail on the head. It 

 is not a question of whether one queen or 

 a plurality of them raises a certain num- 

 ber of bees; but it is a question whether 

 the colony shall be a large or a small one. 

 As there can be only one qtieen in the 

 hive, then (if the colony is a large one) 

 one queen must be the mother of all the 

 bees. But Mr. Hutchinson seems to take 

 the ground that, as it is difficult to get a 

 queen that will breed up to such a point, 

 better have two queens in two colonies. 

 But I raise the question right here: Sup- 

 pose there are 5000 bees to the pound, 

 and that there are five pounds of bees, 

 or 25,cToo to the average eight-frame col- 

 ony. With two eight-framers we should 

 have 50,0(KJ bees. My theory and prac- 

 tice are that the 50,000 in 0)ic colony will 

 bring in more dollars to the bee-keeper 

 than the same nuinber equally divided i)i 

 hvo colonies. 



It is well known that one large factor)', 

 for example, can manufacture more 



cheaply and make more money than two 

 smaller factories of half the size. The 

 same executive force of the smaller con- 

 cern, the same foreman, can manage a 

 producing force of twice the size as eco- 

 nomically, or very nearly so. Perhaps the 

 illustration is not quite parallel, but it 

 serves to illustrate my idea. During the 

 working season it is conceded, I think, 

 that a large colony will have more work- 

 ing bees iti proportion to its size than a 

 small one.-'' But Mr. Hutchinson may 

 bring up this question: Granted that 

 there are more working bees in a large 

 hive in proportion to its size, would such 

 a colony make more money l* Mr. Da- 

 dant has handled more bees — that is, 

 operated more colonies — than any of the 

 parties in the discussion. Others may 

 have handled as many for a short time; 

 but the Dadants as well as the Frances 

 have each opperated some 400 or 500 col- 

 onies for a period of 15 or 20 years, and 

 have made money as well as hone)'. 



Bro. Root*s illustration about the same 

 book-keeper, foreman, and other execu- 

 tive force, managing a large factory \yith 

 no more expense for the managing than 

 would be the case with a small factory, 

 is not, as he .says, a parallel case; although 

 it illustrates his idea that a large colony 

 of bees can do business, so to speak, at 

 a less proportionate expense than a small 

 colony; but, according to my experience, 

 such is not the case. The only thing 

 about a colony of bees that can be rea- 

 sonably compared to a foreman, or boss, 

 or book-keeper, or anything of that sort, 

 is the queen. If a queen cost a lot of 

 money, as I have frequently explained, 

 then there would be some sense in tr}'- 

 ing to get all possible out of her ( even 

 this might not be advisable, that is, to 

 overwork her, if her life is thereby short- 

 ened), but a queen costs but little more 

 than an ordinary worker bee. Perhaps 



* After I had prepared the matter it occurred 

 to me at this point that there might be a ques- 

 tion raised here. This I referred to \. I. R., and 

 he replied something after this fashion: It takes • 

 fewer rods of fence per acre in a large field than ! 

 in one of less size. In the same way there are \ 

 fewer bees required to keep up the necessary j 

 animal heat per square foot of brood in a large ' 

 colony than in a small one; that is. to sa\', the 

 bees that might ordinarily be req\nred to act as 

 nurse-bees, and to help sustain animal heat IN .\ 

 SM.M.i- coi.DNV, in a large one can goto the field. 

 A. I. R. thinks it is almost an a.xiom that there 

 are more working bees in a large colony i.n i'ko- 

 I'ORTio.N TO ITS SIZE than ill a small oiie. 



