Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

that had any business to live any longer returned to the hive at night.

My object was to cure dysentery, which was caused, I think, by long confinement and suffocation. They voided freely, and I think the cure would have been permanent if I could have left them there all the time; but I was obliged to carry one back to make room for others; and as the

weather was very severe, the disease soon re-

Mt. Vernon, Iowa, Jan. 22, 1882.

I hardly need say, friends, that when we get where we can build up colonies at pleasure, regardless of the season of the year or we are through with the troubles in wintering. Late experiments, and facts furnished, seem to point strongly to imperfect ventilation as the main cause of all our troubles; and as the sub-earth plan enables us to bring in any amount of pure air, without having it cold either, we are pretty near success in that direction. Our friend George Grimm, on another page, seems to have a pretty clear head in regard to the need of pure air, no matter where bees are kept.

A $25.00 BEE-HIVE.


OT many days ago a gentleman of pleas

was proprie

tor of the bee-hive establishment. If he was not disappointed in the looks of the man, I rather think he was somewhat in his manners, when he found him very averse to even stopping to examine into the merits of a hive gotten up to embrace all good things known about hives, and some not already known. However, as our friend seemed to be a man of means, and energy as well, he soon had the combined brains of the establishment, including square and compass, paper, pencils, old bée-books, back volumes of bee journals, etc., all at his command. Mr. Gray drew squares and circles, and planned hexagons and other geometrical figures, while your humble servant ransacked his books and brain. Soon the "edifice" began to take shape, and in a week or two, under his daily supervision, Mr. St. John, of Willoughby, O., had the pleasure of beholding the hive you see on next column, as the creation of his own brain.

The hive is a two-story one, and has ten frames above and ten below. Both stories are just alike, and yet the lower frames will lift out through the upper story, so you see the old chaff-hive problem is solved after a fashion. The fashion is, in having frames of five different sizes, for the hive is hexagonal in shape, inside as well as outside. If you will turn back to p. 306 of the June No., and look at that cheese-box bee-hive, you will see just how the frames hang. By drawing out one of the two central frames first, and moving it toward the middle, the topbar passes through easily, and after this frame is out, it is very easy indeed to lift out the others, even if you do not take all out of the upper story.



You will notice he has a space under the
bottom-board, as well as at the sides and on
top, and he claims this space is needed to
give them plenty of pure air, and I am sure
I do not know but that he is right. The bees
go int othe hive by going first into this "cel-
lar kitchen," and then crawling up through
holes in the ceiling. I suppose the drones,
or any other dissatisfied members of the
hive, will always come down here to grum-
ble, instead of standing around in the way,
among the women folks and children up-
stairs. The cover is stoutly hinged, so it is
a much easier matter to get at the contents
than you might suppose. If you want to
know any more about it, or want such a
hive, write to friend St. John.

There are 12 doors to the hive, each with a lock and key. In the winter time, each lit

tle closet, as it were, contains a chaff cush-
ion; and one is also put under that impos-
ing cover, which is made of tin, after a sort
of oriental pattern. Well, in the summer
time each little closet contains 8 Simplicity
sections. Over the sections, to keep the
bees from building against the door, is a
light of glass. Thus you see our friend can
take visitors out on his lawn, toward the
close of the day, and, opening these twelve
doors one after another, display to their as-
tonished and admiring gaze bees working
told him that, if he had a good Italian queen,
the snowy comb in every one of them. I
one equal to the task of filling those ten
combs with brood, his hundred, or hundred
and twenty-five 1-lb. sections would not be
enough for all the bees to work in. At this
he gave me a scathing lecture on the cruelty
and inhumanity of taxing these little friends
of ours to such an extent as to drain their
very life blood out of them, in letting them
make 200 lbs. to the hive, or even 100 lbs. I
him it didn't hurt em" to make two or
had to give up the task of trying to convince
three hundred pounds in a season, so you
can try your hand with him if you choose.

[ocr errors]



D. GLEANINGS:-I read with interest what Mr. David E. Rose had to say in Nov. GLEANINGS in reference to H. A. Bur h & Co. I feel it a duty I owe to bee-keepers, to give my experience in dealing with the above firm. Last spring I ordered 10 five-frame nuclei of them, sending them $30.00. They acknowledged the receipt of order and money, saying they would ship the bees in a short time. I waited until into June, when I wrote them I was anxious to have no further delay, and unless they could fill the order at once, to return the money. They replied they were filling orders as fast as possible, and would reach my order in a few days. I waited a "good many days," and then wrote them again to send the bees at once or return the money. After some 10 or 12 days they replied they would ship in two or three days. But again they went back on their promise. I did not write them again until August, and then wrote them that, unless they shipped the bees at once, or returned the money, I should be under the necessity of taking steps to collect it. They replied, if I would receive the bees they would ship at once. I replied, "Send them along;" but again they went back on their word. About the first of October, I wrote them, if they would send me 6 good strong colonies I would settle the matter. They answered, if I would take 5 colonies they would "ship at once." I answered, "Send the bees along;" and, sure enough, in 3 or 4 days the bees arrived. But as soon as I lifted the bees I saw it was a regular swindle. I opened them, and the bees looked very well. But there could not have been more than from one to two pounds of bees to a hive. They were in 8-frame Langstroth hives; but about one-half the combs were old and entirely empty. I shall have to double them up and feed them, or they will starve.

In July, 1880, I ordered a one-frame nucleus of A. I. Root. I put them into an old-fashioned square Langstroth hive, and gave them 3 or 4 old combs, and in the fall the hive was "chuck" full of bees and honey; so you can see, in all probability, what I have lost in not getting the 10 nuclei colonies as promised. Mr. Rose tells us, when he visited South Haven he counted 243 colonies in Mr. Burch's yard. He does not give the date, but says, "Mr. Burch was shipping off bees, extracting honey, hiving swarms, etc." Can Mr. Rose tell why Burch & Co. could not find time to ship me my bees, or send me my money? I now have 4 full strong colonies from the oneframe nucleus bought of Mr. Root in 1830, and would not give any two of them for the five colonies sent by Burch & Co. I have waited for others to reply to D. E. Rose; but as none see fit to respond, I have. I consider it an outrage for Mr. Rose to attack the publishers of GLEANINGS and A. B. J. in the way he does-men who for years have been noted for their honesty, uprightness, promptness, and fair dealing.


Kankakee, Ill., Dec. 12, 1881.

I thank you, friend M., for so warmly taking the part of the publishers; but may I not ask of you a little charity for friend Burch? You finally agreed to take five colonies, and he sent them. Now, even if they are not so strong in bees, nor so full of stores as they might have been, shall we not call it settled? Lest some may complain that I have published your letters, and rejected

theirs, I would explain that I want to publish all cases in which Mr. Burch has done something toward a settlement, and thus narrow up the differences between himself and his customers. Is there not another?


THINK it is long enough since I talked clover to the readers of GLEANINGS, so that I can' venture to make another report without serious danger of boring them. This season, my third season in the clover experiment, has been remarkably successful (bearing in mind, of course, what slow work developing plants must necessarily be). I will speak concerning my ten samples, in regular order.

No. 1 is one of the most unprogressive of the whole lot; and I have decided to drop it, make a new No. 1 by dividing No. 2 into two samples. The old No. 1 was very much like No. 2, except that it was longer tubed, and less inclined to yield to treatment. The new No. 1 varies from the sample it sprung from by having a more abundant supply of honey in its tubes and by having tubes of greater diameter.

No. 2 is one of the shortest tubed in my collection, and, being also one of the most variable ones, I value it highly. Concerning this sample, as well as most of the others, I should say that their tubes were not this season measured in August and September, when the best figures may be expected; press of work, and sickness, prevented. The best recorded tube length of this sample was in July, 1880-26-hundredths of an inch. My impression is, that this year's seedlings, none of them, went quite so low as that. That is, in fact, within 2-hundredths of being short enough. The most interesting sport or variant occurring among this year's seedlings I have chosen as the founder of a new sample as mentioned above. No. 3 is dropped, and a promising seedling of No. 4 is constituted a new No. 3. The fact is, I got beat on No. 3. It was a white-flowered one, and I failed to get a white-flowered seedling from it. Every young plant gave red flowers.

No. 4 is also white flowered, and is my favorite sample of all. I didn't get beat on that, although I narrowly escaped failure. About 500 seedlings were raised and brought to bloom, and all were red but one. From that lucky one I had 36 seeds as my stock in trade to begin this season's operations. Although I expected the third generation to be less obstinate than the second, I felt a little dubious. In due time 14 plants came to bloom as the result of this sowing, and four of them were white - 28 per cent, in place of one-fifth of one per cent the generation previous. I was happy. If any of you have had a sweet lady say yes to you, after having said no a great many times, you know how it is yourselves. This is not all. Sample No. 4 had never previously been short tubed. It was rather longer than the average. It was its beauty and vigor that made me feel in my bones that I must conquer it. I supposed that I should have to wait till the preliminary difficulty of color was settled before I could shorten the tubes much. Well, it turns out that one of my four white seedlings has produced some of the shortest flowertubes that I have obtained at all, only 24-hundredths long. Bully! Delightful! Why, I'm just "in clover"! Imagine me tossing my hat, and hopping up and down. But, will there not be some little thorn

among the roses? Many seedlings of this sample have ordinary colored seed instead of white ones. Will my chosen plant be correct on this point? Seeds ripened, and they were white - good enough for one year. I have a fine pot of plants of the fourth generation; but, as may be imagined, could not get them large enough to bloom this year. I wished also to propagate from another one of the four white seedlings, a very rank one with large heads and large flower-tubes. It looked, in fact, as if sometime in past ages there had been an intermarriage with Trifolium repens, and this plant was just faintly remembering it.

No. 5 had another surprise in store for me. The original plant was chosen for its elongated head, slightly resembling the Italian clover; and the tubes at the top of the head would be only half grown when those at the base were in full bloom. It occurred to me at the time, that a slight tendency to change to a raceme probably caused this unusual inflorescence; but I did not think that so radical a change could be pushed to any great length in one man's lifetime. This season, No. 5 has convinced me that racemes of flowers, as unmistakable as those of the melilotus, can be developed on the common clover. What's the use? say you. Let me just tell you. A clover-head is a floral fortification, designed to protect the drops of honey from borers and nibblers. The massing of the tubes in a head is one element of defense; and the length of the tubes is another. The collar in which Sir Clover's neckless head sits, like a boy's head driven down into his shoulders, completes the defense. Changing to a raceme is abandoning the fortification plan. The plan once abandoned, all three of the defensive schemes are likely to subside together. That is, develop a clover with racemes instead of heads, and the tubes will shorten down without any special effort to make them do so. The flowers which surprised me this season were not only arranged in an elongated hoad as before, but there was a neck about an inch long between the collar and the head; and on this one inch were three or four solitary hairs, precisely as if an inch from a raceme had been put under the head. With the editor's permission I will give a diagram.

Fig 1.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

gave plenty of seed. I have constituted this sport a new sample as No. 11.


Fig 2.


In Fig. 2, a a represent the stems of the small pair of leaves which support the collar; b is the unusual neck, or extension of rachis; and c c c the solitary flowers, but none were produced. There were but two heads of this character; and the flowers which were not solitary, few of them had seed; and of the few seed, only one came up. Other heads on the same plant, which were normal except at the tip,

As to Nos. 6 and 7, I am delayed one year. Either I gathered no seed from them last season, or the seed was lost. I have some late-sown plants, of this year's seed, to go on with next year.

Of No. 8 and No. 10, several rows of nice seedlings were raised. They bloomed freely during the latter part of the summer, but - but I shall have to wait till they bloom again next summer ere I tell you what progress they made. It is a big job to compare carefully several hundred seedlings, and decide which are the best ones; and poor I didn't get the time. The regular routine work with a sample, you understand, is to raise a great lot of plants; and then when they bloom, to examine, condemn, and pull up all but one.

No. 9, if you chance to remember, is the one I have previously mentioned as likely to be the first to yield a satisfactory bee clover. This year it is jealous, or something - determined that No. 4, that "t'other dear charmer," shall not win me entirely away. In the first place, it has produced some very marked sports with yellow foliage, which I have adopted as No. 12. It has also done what it never did before,produced a seedling with flowers of the same beautiful tint as the original plant. Then it threw in a "tiger" by producing one nearly white, with just a slight tinge of the original color. Both these scedlings are very short tubed. I think I shall insist on the color in future: experience with No. 4 indicating that tube length can be shortened faster that way than by planting seed from plants with reverted colors. One of the wisest things I got off in my first clover article (GLEANINGS, Aug., 1879) was, "If a habit of sporting and variation can be set up, the variations we desire will be pretty sure to come, sooner or later." It is this consideration that makes me value my yellow-leaved sample No. 12. Not that yellow leaves themselves are any improvement; but seeds of such a sport are likely to be more variable than others; and the next curious sport that turns up may be something valuable. E. E. HASTY. Richards, Lucas Co., O., Jan., 1882.



UCH is being said of late in regard to pollen being detrimental for wintering bees; and out of this there seems to have grown the idea that pollen, although detrimental for wintering, is an absolute necessity for brood-rearing. Hence we find these words: "We are interested about pollen, because bees can not rear brood without either it or some substitute for it;" also, "They (the bees) had no pollen, and of course no broodrearing could go on without it," and many other similar expressions. I have been waiting for some time to see if these statements would not call out something in GLEANINGS from the other side of the question; but as nobody seems to disagree, I hope I shall be excused for bringing forth a little proof, going to show that a mistake has been made. First, I will give my own experiments, and then the statements of others to substantiate the same thing.

Quite late in the fall of 1872 I ascertained that a farmer, living a mile or more from me, had two (third) swarms of bees which he was going to brimstone the next day. I went to see him, and aɛcer

tained that he was willing any one should have the bees if he could have the honey. Accordingly the next day I went and drove out the bees and put both swarms together, as the two would not make more than one good swarm. I gave the bees six frames of new clean comb, without polen, and fed them $3.00 worth of coffee sugar made into a very thick syrup. As the weather was cool they soaled but little of it, and I had some misgivings about their wintering, as it was claimed by some that bees would get the dysentery if there were unsealed stores in the hive. In about two weeks they were placed in the cellar with the rest of the bees, having flown but once or twice after I brought them home; and as several severe frosts had occurred before this, no pollen was obtained, of course, as we never have pollen gathered here after the 20th of October. As this was an experimental colony, I began stimulating them in the fore part of March by occasionally rousing them up, causing them to fill themselves, and thus feed the queen. About the middle of March we had a fine day for bees to fly, and, being anxious to know how they were getting along, I set them out. They flew nicely, not even spotting the snow, as far as I could see; and after they had brcome somewhat quiet I opened the hive and found brood in two combs, each having a space as large as my hand filled with eggs, larvæ, and scaled brood. They were set back again in the cellar at night. About April 15th they were set out for good, and I shall always remember how pleased I was to see the white fuzzy fellows playing at the entrance, and circling away in the warm sunshine, for they gave promise of "gain" at no distant day. That season they gave me two nice swarms, and I sold $30.80 worth of honey from them. I told the neighbor of my fortune, and explained to him how I had worked with them; but as he had kept bees in box

hives for many years, and was getting old, I could

not persuade him to use the movable-frame hive.

From other experiments, I have reason to believe

bees can rear brood without pollen, but prefer to give some from other parties, as "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

[ocr errors]

As Mr. Robinson is perhaps the oldest bee-keeper in the United States, his words are entitled to some consideration more than would be given to those of little experience. Thus we have four persons testifying to the possibility of brood-rearing, to quite an extent at least, when the bees have no access to pollen.

Borodino, N. Y., Jan. 17, 1882.

Very likely we have carried the matter a little too far, friend D., and perhaps bees can get along after a fashion, for a spell at least, without pollen, just as you or I might live quite a while on pure sugar if we could not get any thing else. It is also possible, I suppose, or at least we will try to think so, that we are entirely wrong, and bees can raise brood just as well without pollen as with. You made your experiment almost ten years ago; and is it not possible there was a little pollen in those combs, which you did not notice? Our bees gather pollen, to a limited extent, after frosts, and some seasons even into November. The cases cited by Gallup and Robinson do not seem to me to be by any means as direct as the one cited by Prof. Hasbrouck; and even that does not compare with my experiments in the matter, with which friend D., if not the most of the rest of you, are perfectly familiar. I kept several colonies in a greenhouse for four or five months, and during this time produced brood, and then prevented its production, many different times, by flour feeding, and then withdrawing the flour feed. Brood would be raised a little time after the pollen was exhausted from the hives; but after it ceased, no amount of suagar feeding would start it up again until meal was also given. After this I tried in early spring to get brood reared in stocks that had exhausted their pollen, and failed. filled with pollen, whole sheets of brood After giving the same stock a comb well sprung into existence at once, while the pollen disappeared so quickly as to be astonishing. It should be borne in mind, that we have a locality where pollen is never obtained in such excess as to be a hindrance, as in some places in York State. The idea, that pollen might be the cause of dysentery, I suggested in GLEANINGS several years ago. It is much easier to write articles on the subject than to go to the expense of exHe then goes on to tell how plenty of brood has been perimenting in a greenhouse; but for all reared when the bees had nothing but sugar syrup. I that, I think accounts of recent experiments

In the Bee-Keepers' Journal for October, 1870, E. Gallup, whose opinions I value very highly, gives a c. se where a swarm of bees were wintered" without a particic of pollen." He then goes on to tell how he began to stimulate his little swarm with their three small pieces of comb the first of February, and says: "The queen commenced breeding, and by the time the bees first flew out in the spring, they had doubled their numbers." Thus here is proof "second" of many boes being reared "without particle of pollen." Next we find on page 265, of Bee-Keepers' Magazine for 1880, these words from Prof. Hasbrouck: "They are certainly wrong who say that pollen is indispensable to the raising of

young bees,
because I have had, as an ex-
periment, abundant brood raised by bees shut up on
new combs, and fed on refined-sugar syrup when
they could not possibly get a grain of pollen from
any source." As this comes from an apiarist of
close observation, it can be relied on, and I will jot
it down as proof "third." Next we find C. J. Robin-
son saying, on page 201 of A. B. J. for 1881, "Pollen,
if they have it, forms a useful condiment for both
mature bees and larvæ, but both can do without it."

From many observations made during past years, I am of the opinion that the state of the surroundings, such as warm and cool weather, plenty of honey being secreted in the flowers, or no honey at all; a desire to keep up a rapidly diminishing colony, or a perfectly healthy one, has more to do with brood-rearing than plenty of pollen. That the "scramble" for pollen in early spring excites broodrearing, no one will deny, while pollen may come in quite as freely the fore part of October, and no brood-rearing at all be the result. Much depends upon whether the bees desire brood or not. If they do, they will rear it without pollen, so our experience proves. If they don't desire brood, a hive full of pollen has no effect upon them. Any thing exciting to activity has a tendency toward brood-rearing; while that tending to quietude gives a reverse rcsult. G. M. DOOLITTLE.

in the matter will help us more than long so much to lighten each other's burdens, that emuarticles on the subject. lation to contribute my mite prevails. Try the tools, and you will like them.

Being neither in Blasted Hopes nor the Smilery, I I am yours dubiously,

H. A. MOODY, M. D. Longtown, Panola Co., Miss., Nov. 4, 1881.

Thanks, friend M.; but may I suggest, that both tools be combined in one, say by having the latter on the opposite end of the el? I have sometimes experienced the diffiformer tool containing the right-angled chisculty you mention, of getting out the first frame from an upper story; but by holding the lower frame down with a thin strip of wood (say a comb-guide for instance), I have always got one out readily, and after that it was easy to get out the others. If the upper story is to be taken off, loosen all the upper combs that are attached to the lower ones, and then it will come off quietly. In putting it back, be sure to drive the bees from the tops of the lower combs before replacing, to avoid killing any.

[ocr errors]


EPORTS from this neighborhood are not very


jubilant. Many bee-keepers have lost stocks in midsummer, with only the unsatisfactory reason - moths--to give as explanation. I sold down to eight last year, and have had six swarms, one of which took to the woods while I was visiting the sick. However, a volunteer colony came to my apiary from the woods a few days afterward, so I am even. Have taken only about 400 lbs. surplus * section honey, part of it goldenrod, that smells so unpleasantly I can hardly tolerate it on the table. I am now Italianizing, and it is amusing to see Mrs. M., who has always been afraid of bees, forgetting her fear in the ardor of queen-hunting, and plunging her fingers among the workers to secure a specimen of black royalty. She is always first to see the queen.



I began this letter especially to describe to you

two new tools (new to me) for the apiary. You WITH SOME OTHER MATTERS FROM FRIEND TOWALEY..
know how troublesome it is to avoid doing mischief
when the bottom-bar of a frame becomes fastened to
the top-bar of the one beneath it. To separate them
I use a prying chisel like this:


It is made of a piece of iron of an inch thick, % wide, and 13 in. long, with the edge at a quite sharp, and the distance from a to b only % of an inch. Let the inner angle be quite square. Slip the bit a gently down between the combs near one end-bar, with the sharp edge next to the "stuck" frame. Insert the sharp edge between the bottom-bar and the topbar, to which it is stuck; swing the lever over toward the center of the frame, and, presto! that end of the frame is bound to rise without disturbing the frame below it. Repeat the performance at the oth

er end of the frame, and it is ready to be lifted out. The other implement is even more handy than this. Do all your frames hang plumb? Mine miss it sometimes, and the bottom-bars get stuck fast to each other. Then, too, my bees will propolize section boxes to the separators. Take a piece of 1⁄4-inch iron rod 14 inches long. On one end put a handle, and on the other weld a lozenge of steel, beveled to

a sharp edge on one face, making a tool like this:





Insert the flat blade between the adhering surfaces, give the handle a twist, and "there you are.' Then the blade is such a nice comb-plow to clear the tops of frames for mats or upper stories. Just put the point, bevel side down, on one end of space between frames; slide it along to the other end, and pick up your shaving of wax. I have used these tools all summer, and have often thought of sending you a description, but disliked to add to your overgrown correspondence. The fraternity have done

RIEND ROOT:-In referring to the past in relation to becs, we are apt to forget that, until within the last eighteen or twenty years, we knew but very little about what was taking place in the "bee world" outside of our own immediate vicinity. We are apt to forget that we had no such valuable works on bee-keeping as those of the honored "Fathers in Israel," Mr. Langstroth, and the much-lamented Mr. Quinby. We are apt to forget that, previous to 1886,* we had no bee periodicals making us their weekly and monthly visits, filled with the rich, ripe experience of thorough, practical apiarists from nearly all parts of the civilized world. We are apt to forget that, previous to the publication of these works and periodicals, a large percentlost from some cause, or causes, without our knowlage of the bees in the United States might have been edge. In GLEANINGS, Vol. IX., No. 2, page 68, you are asked, by friend Doolittle, why bees did not spring dwindle prior to 1870. Now, I think a more pertinent question would be, "Did not bees spring dwindle prior to 1870?" As evidence that they did not, he refers to a few bees kept in his locality previous to 1870, without loss from this cause; and yet

there might have been thousands of colonies lost by it in other parts of the United States without his knowledge. Why, we have now, in 1882, bee-keepers who have never had, and perhaps have never known, a case of what you, friend Root, understand as spring dwindling; viz., a gradual loss (it may be slow or fast) of both the old and young bees in a hive during the spring months, except as they have learned it through the bee jour-periodicals.

My first case of spring dwindling was in the spring of 1843. The winter had been very severe, commencing about the 17th of November, and continuing cold, no weather warm enough for bees to fly until the first week in April. My second loss from this cause was about 1860. I then lost 8 out of 14 colonies.

*The American Bea Journal was first published in 1861. It was soon discontinued; but its publication was again resumed by Samuel Wagner in 1866,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »