THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



283 



Previous ones enable me to state the exact 

 total gain of each colony for each of the 

 three periods, the gain of each colony in the 

 an[iount of comb honey together with the 

 gain in the weight of the hive for the entire 

 time. From these I deduce the gain per 

 pound of bees of each colony for each of the 

 three periods as well as for the entire time, 

 and also the gain in the weight of the hive 

 and the gain in the amount of comb honey 

 for the whole time. 



It will be noticed by reference to the ta- 

 bles that almost nothing has been made of 

 3A and 2C. The explanation of this is that 

 the latter persisted in its desire to swarm 

 until it eventually lost a considerable part of 

 its bees by their uniting with another swarm 

 and the former, within a day or two after 

 swarming, in some way lost its queen and 

 dispersed more or less in consequence. The 

 only question with regard to the propriety 

 of this course arises when we consider table 

 C wherein the comparative advantages of 

 large and small swarms are weighed. Per- 

 haps 2C should have been permitted to cut 

 some figure in that for it clearly illustrates 

 one of the disadvantages of very large 

 swarms. 



Table B is a summary of table A and puts 

 the tables of each group of colonies em- 

 ployed in the experiment side by side so that 

 the general results are seen at a glance. 



Table C is derived from table A and puts 

 in contrast the work of the stronger colonies 

 of each group with that of the weaker ones 

 of the same group, and table D is an epitome 

 of table C. 



Now what do the tables teach with regard 

 to the comparati > e profit of the use of start- 

 ers, foundation, and comb in the brood 

 chamber as well as with regard to the advan- 

 tage of larger and smaller swarms ? It 

 would be too much to expect that upon either 

 of these points the results shown by the sev- 

 eral hives taken separately would invariably 

 point in the same direction. There are so 

 many inscrutable influences at work that we 

 may well look for unexplainable vagaries in 

 the revelations of individual hives. It is 

 largely for this reason that I think the wri- 

 ter who in one of the apicultural journals 

 recently very flatteringly intimated that the 

 results obtained in the experiments at this 

 branch of the Michigan experiment station 

 would be conclusive, was hasty. If several 

 varieties of wheat, for instance, were sown 

 side by side upon precisely the same kind of 



soil so far as human skill could determine, 

 and each variety should receive exactly the 

 same treatment in all respects and at the 

 same time, and one certain variety was 

 found to yield twenty per cent, more 

 than any other, yet the farmer who should 

 from the one experiment jump to the con- 

 clusion that the result would always be the 

 same would be accounted lacking in judge- 

 ment. The results must be verified repeat- 

 edly before they can be accepted as the rule. 

 Just so it is with the matter in hand. Yet 

 the mutiple character of our experiment with 

 results so nearly uniform give strong assur- 

 ance that what seems to be disclosed is in 

 the direction of the truth. 



From the figures given in the last column 

 of table B, we find that the colonies hived on 

 comb gained in all more than eleven per 

 cent, over those hived on starters and that 

 those hived on foundation gained more than 

 thirteen per cent, over the same. But if we 

 examine with reference to comb honey only 

 we find that colonies "A" (those on comb) 

 gain less than five per cent, more than col- 

 onies "C" (those on starters) while colonies 

 "B" (those on foundation) gain more than 

 seventeen per cent, over "C." But it may 

 be said that "C" has an undue proportion of 

 the weaker colonies, which is true, still, if 

 we turn to table "C" and consider only the 

 strong swarms in each group we find that 

 "A" gains nine and one-half per cent, more 

 than "C" in comb honey and "B" gains 

 forty-two per cent, more than "C !" But 

 strange to say, taking the light swarms in 

 the same table and column the positions are 

 exactly reversed, "A" gains nearly one-half 

 of one per cent, over "B" while "C" gains 

 nearly thirty-two per cent, over "B." If 

 space permitted it would be interesting to 

 inquire why the difference in the weight of 

 the colonies should cause this reversal in 

 their positions in regard to ths amount of 

 comb honey produced. 



Referring again to table "B" from the 

 figures given in the third column where the 

 gain for the first period is given we deduce 

 that "B" gains during that period more than 

 fifty-three per cent, over "C," while "A" 

 gains more than sixty-eight per cent, over 

 "C," but during the second period the fig- 

 ures show that for that period the positions 

 are exactly reversed, while for the third pe- 

 riod the positions as to relative gain are again 

 changed, "A" making a spurt and leaving 

 *'B" in the rear. Referring again to table 



