THE BROOD-REARING CYCLE OF THE HONEYBEE 23 



Colony No. 14 (fig. 14 and Table 14) had neither sufficient bees 

 nor sufficient room to allow the queen to lay eggs at her maximum 

 rate during the initial expansion. This colony had a 1920 queen and 

 an abundance of stores. The large quantity of stores, both in the 

 upper and the lower hive bodies, reduced the area available for 

 brood rearing to less than the requirement of the colony. This 

 condition was rendered more acute by the fact that until the time 

 of unpacking, May 5, there were only seven frames in the lower hive 

 body. The effect of lack of room is visible in the brood curve at 

 the end of March. At this time, to give more room, a frame in the 

 second hive body was replaced by an empty brood frame, with the 

 result that there was a slight increase in brood rearing. This extra 

 space was not sufficient, however, for the incoming pollen and nectar 

 and for the brood. A decline in April resulted from this factor and 

 from any influence of the weather. A super was added in the last 

 week in April, shortly before the colony was unpacked. This relieved 

 the congestion, and in May the brood rearing rose well above the 

 height attained during the initial expansion. That the maximum 

 was not attained until June is evidence of the fact that there were 

 not sufficient bees in the hive from the latter part of April, when an 

 abundance of room became available. After June came the normal 

 seasonal decrease in brood rearing, lasting until pollen in August 

 produced a rather long-continued response. Following this another 

 decrease occurred until goldenrod nectar made itself felt. Owing to 

 a large number of field bees the brood nest became much hemmed in. 

 The brood-rearing record of this colony was entirely unsatisfactory 

 from the standpoint of the honey producer, because the height of 

 brood rearing came after all chance of storing surplus was past, and 

 was so pronounced that to maintain the colony's new population 

 meant serious inroads on what nectar had been gathered. 



Colony No. 15 (fig. 15 and Table 15) was unpacked on May 5, had 

 a 1920 queen, light stores, and not sufficient bees to allow brood- 

 rearing activity to keep pace with the egg-laying activity of the queen. 

 This was the only one of the four packed colonies (Nos. 11, 12, 15 

 and 16) provided with light stores which showed any diminution in 

 brood rearing directly traceable to lack of honey stores. When 

 observations on this colony were first made in March, 1921, the 

 honey stores were found to be low. Not being so strong in bees as 

 the other colonies just mentioned, it was not able to gather so much 

 nectar during March, and therefore had to use proportionately more 

 reserve stores in that month. ' The records of sealed brood reveal a 

 check to the brood-rearing rate in late March, followed by an increase. 

 The fact that this increase took place within two weeks after giving 

 the colony a full comb of honey in the lower hive body is an evident 

 indication that, at the time the extra comb of honey was given, there 

 was neither sufficient honey in the hive nor sufficient nectar coming 

 in to support any great increase in brood-rearing activity. The 

 increase was only short lived, because at tho timo of the cold spell in 

 April the brood area had become as large as could be covered by the 

 bees in the bive during such weather. The queen was necessarily 

 restricted to this area for the time being, and as a largo part of 

 the brood in it, remained sealed for several days she did not have 

 sufficient cells available for further egg laying. The emergence of 

 young bees, however, gave her a chance to refill the cells in this 



