20 BULLETIN 1349, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



in the colony at the beginning of the initial expansion to have sup- 

 ported a greater rate of brood rearing than was attained. Sufficient 

 cells were also available, but the queen was evidently too old to have 

 made any better showing than she actually did. Her maximum was 

 reached during the initial expansion. A rate nearly equal to the 

 maximum was maintained for about a month, and then a decline set 

 in which reduced brood-rearing activity to practically zero by the 

 end of August. At that time the old queen was superseded. The 

 brood-rearing activity of the new queen, even in September, equaled 

 that of the old queen during the initial expansion. The fact that 

 this colony at the beginning of the active season did not have a queen 

 prolific enough to allow it to carry on brood rearing at a rate con- 

 sistent with its strength in bees, available brood cells, and honey 

 stores, accounts for the fact that it does not exhibit all of the responses 

 to seasonal phenomena found in the other colonies. 



Colony No. 8 (fig. 8 and Table 8) also had a 1919 queen, had been 

 without packing all winter, and had plenty of stores. This colony 

 had the poorest queen of any of the 16 colonies used. During the 

 initial expansion she attained almost her maximum rate for the 

 season. The cold weather in April caused a slight decrease, but her 

 maximum was reached in early May. Incoming nectar in that 

 month restricted her activity and a decline followed. On August 18 

 the colony was queenless. A virgin queen emerged during the next 

 week but never mated. Finally on September 8 a young queen was 

 introduced which began to lay on September 15, but was lost two 

 weeks later, after having made a good start. Another queen was 

 introduced successfully in October, but too late to produce much 

 brood. 



Colony No. 9 was unpacked on March 8, nad sufficient stores and 

 a 1920 queen. The curve of sealed brood for this colony (fig. 9 and 

 Table 9) is typical of a queen which lays at her maximum rate during 

 the season, the rate being fairly uniform during most of the major 

 period. As this was a packed colony, only seven frames were in the 

 lower hive body. The three frames completing the normal number 

 were not added until the last week in March, and the colony became 

 somewhat crowded for room, thus restricting the queen during the 

 period of initial expansion. The added combs helped to relieve the 

 brood area proper from further restriction by pollen, with possibly a 

 little nectar. The fact that the queen was utilizing only the second 

 hive body at the time of the inclement weather in April, coupled with 

 the fact that there were more than sufficient bees on hand to allow an 

 expansion of the brood area even at this time, resulted in an increase 

 of brood rearing during April until the maximum of | the season was 

 reached at the end of the month. From that time until late August, 

 when this queen was naturally superseded, brood was reared at a 

 fairly uniform but generally decreasing rate. Although an excess of 

 room was provided, so that this queen was restricted in no respect, 

 there were but slight reactions to the nectar of May and the pollen 

 and honeydew of June. Supersedure interfered with the response to 

 the pollen yield of August, although there are indications that the re- 

 sponse had already begun before the new queen emerged. She was 

 laying by the beginning of September. The increase in brood rearing 

 during that month was due probably not only to the incoming nectar 

 but to the presence of a young queen as well. Criticism of the 



