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 At that time the old queen was superseded.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 ceils, 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 Xo. 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 Xo. 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 waa 
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 
