Part 2

To shorten the matter, we sent Mr. Grimm fifty dollars on Monday morning, and received twenty-five nice queens (or a part of them at least) on Saturday afternoon. Is not that pretty prompt?

Now, Mr. Editor, we are going to take this queen raising business up next spring just where we left off; and if we can’t do better, and at least raise enough for our own apiary, we shall call ourself something worse than

NOVICE.

_October 10, 1870._

[For the American Bee Journal.]

Natural, prolific, and hardy Queens.

PART 3.

Answer to Charles Dadant and Willard J. Davis, in September number of the American Bee Journal, pages 60 and 61.

To commence with Mr. Dadant. He says, first, that “we are all disposed to regard our own ideas as indisputable.”

_Answer._ Prove all things; then hold fast to the true. Do not condemn before trial. I have been several years experimenting and am satisfied with my method, as a means of procuring natural, prolific, hardy and long-lived queens--far, far ahead of any yet given to the public. It having relieved me from the disappointment and losses heretofore experienced in artificial swarming, with forced or artificial queens, I have freely given my mode to the public, for adoption or rejection, as they see fit. Those who are _set_ in their way, are under no obligation to either adopt or even try my mode; but there are those who are not satisfied with their present light, and who will be benefited by the knowledge of an improved process, and to them my communications are addressed.

He says, second, that I “condemn all artificially raised queens.”

_Answer._ I do: as against nature, reason, and common sense. I see a difference in a provision of nature, by means of which a swarm, accidentally deprived of its queen, can temporarily replace her, till one can be raised in a more natural way, and the way men in their _wisdom_ are running the race out. You yourself prove my position by almost every line of your article, if you would only place your trials, troubles, vexations, and losses to their right account--_forced or artificially raised queens_. New brood may seemingly save you for a time; but when all breeders have the _cholorosis_ stamped on the product of their apiaries, like will beget like.

He says, in the third place--“why does friend Price imagine that artificial queens are not as good as natural ones?”

_Answer._ Because convinced by years of experiment and careful comparison (not hard to see, I assure you) of natural with forced queens raised by the means you have mentioned in your article, and by others not mentioned. Even now I am trying the experiment of raising forced queens from the brood of a pure Italian queen received last spring from a celebrated breeder. But so far I have only succeeded in raising cripples, drone layers, and non-egg-hatching queens. Most of them _play out_ before commencing to lay; yet I have raised them from the egg--not one of them hatching before the sixteenth day.

He says, fourth, after giving away or getting queens from the egg, “I guess this method is as good as, and more simple than, that of friend Price.”

_Answer._ You would go through every motion that I do, and get two or three queens, worthless in comparison with natural ones; while I would secure from ten to sixty natural ones. If you followed your own method, you would have to divide almost every hive in your apiary, if you got through swarming in any season; while by my method[1] one hive would furnish all the natural queen cells that would be wanted in the largest apiary in the time of natural swarming.

He says, fifth, “a queen hatched from grubs three or four days old is just as good as any.”

_Answer._ To sell!

Sixth, he says, “many bee-keepers find the half-blood Italian bees are better than pure ones”--his reason being that in and in breeding is broken up.

_Answer._ Those that receive them, let them swarm naturally; thus the forcing is at an end, and nature again asserts her superiority.

He says, seventh, “In good seasons the queens raised in small nuclei are as good as those raised in full stocks.”

_Answer._ He admits that they cannot at all times raise good ones. He had better have attributed it to the lack of a natural instinct to raise good ones. A swarm on the eve of swarming, broken up into nuclei, would probably raise pretty fair queens--say half as good as natural ones. As well might you hire a rough wood chopper or ditcher to make a watch, as to set a nucleus of bees not having the swarming instinct, to raise a first rate chronometer balanced queen.

Mr. W. J. Davis says that he does not know what effect my Revolvable, Reversible, Double-cased, Sectional Bee-hive may have had on the tender life of a young queen, _forced or artificial_.

As I have only used my old Langstroth hives for nuclei; _my_ hive has of course not had any influence on them, for good or evil. But my twenty young natural queens, raised by my method, are without exception hardy, prolific, and have every promise of being long-lived. Had they been forced queens two-thirds of them would have been played out before this time. They are as prolific as any of my old “natural” queens which I bought of those who practice natural swarming only. My R. R. D. C. S. B. Hive has a good effect on the life of natural queens; and as Mr. Dadant says his bees in my hive have done better than in any other, and he has of several patents, and as he says he has only raised forced queens, my R. R. D. C. S. Bee-hive most probably saved him.

_Secondly_, after reading all his conditions of age, weather, season, stock, nuclei, time, and egg, that have to be consulted to insure a good queen by the forcing process, I have an idea that his queens are natural ones. Do you not bring your bees up to swarming and then secure their cells Gallup fashion? Gallup calls such natural queens. I should. Otherwise why not have good queens from March to October?

_Thirdly_, Mr. Davis says that “if Mr. Price _or any other_ man will, upon examination, decide correctly, by size or fertility (amount of brood), which are of the former and which are of the latter class, he may pick out ten as large and yellow queens as he _ever saw_, and I will make him a present of the same.”

_Answer._ I have only one artificial queen laying, my pure _prolific_ Italian. I will guarantee any of my black, “young or old,” or other natural queens, to fill five frames with brood quicker than she can fill one; and if you, or “any other man,” cannot see any difference between my forced queens[2] and my natural ones, you must be deficient in the organs of size and weight, and would not be able to tell a Shetland pony from an elephant.

JOHN M. PRICE.

_Buffalo Grove, Iowa._

[For the American Bee Journal.]

Introducing Queens.

Dr. H. C. Barnard in the June number of the A. B. Journal, gave directions for introducing queens by fumigating with tobacco smoke. I had introduced them by means of the queen cage, and sprinkling them with sweetened water scented with the essence of peppermint. But as this seemed to be a better plan, I thought I would try it. I caged the queen to be introduced, and followed his directions to the letter, but what do you think I had? A laying queen in twelve hours? Nay, verily, but a dead queen, and half the bees dead and driven from the hive. Now, Mr. Editor, I think a great deal of my bees, and when, in opening a hive, I carelessly kill one, I am always sorry; but then to see them slaughtered by wholesale, was very cruel to say the least. All the next day, whenever I passed that way, the well bees were driving off those that were crippled or had lost the use of their legs or wings. Besides this, while they were in no condition to repel an attack, the robber bees came in for a share, and I came very near losing them. They were not so drunk but that most of them could crawl round, and only a few of them fell to the bottom of the hive.--Dr. Barnard said, “if they all fell to the bottom it would do no harm.” Now what was the cause of this failure? I could not have smoked them too much, according to his instructions, for nearly all of them could crawl round, when I first opened the hive to let the smoke out; yet it destroyed fully half of them. I do not write this by way of fault-finding, but so that nobody as green as I was, should undertake the same process, and have a like failure.

G. M. DOOLITTLE.

_Borodino, N. Y._, Sept., 1870.

[For the American Bee Journal.]

The Looking-Glass Once More.

MR. EDITOR:--I cannot think, as Mr. Nesbit does on pages 80, 81 of the last number of the Journal, that either one of his suppositions in regard to the old woman’s bees, would do to rely upon. It is not at all likely that a queen so defective as to be unable to fly a distance of two hundred and fifty yards, would ever have been found where this one was.--And as to there being two or more young queens with the swarm, that may be true; but that they went with that swarm in sufficient numbers to divide them on the apple tree, is positively an erroneous idea. The swarm was followed from the apple tree on which a portion of them was first discovered, to the one on which they clustered last, and they did not seek a place so hidden from view as to make it difficult even for me to see that they selected a bare limb on which to settle. They were hived without difficulty, but proved to be bent on pitching their tent in some other section, by leaving the old box hive unobserved the next day.

As to the “knot” theory, I have nothing more to say--than that, if tried right, it will prove equally true with the _inverted glass theory_. But as to the looking-glass having nothing to do with stopping a decamping swarm of bees, it is a grand mistake. In conclusion, I append a portion of two letters which are before me, showing that I am not the only man that places some confidence in a good thing.

“BELLEFONTAINE, _Ohio, June 25_.

“At the time of swarming, I never allow noise of any kind, and have never had a swarm that did not settle. If the apiarian sees his bees rise high and act as though they were going to leave, the reflection of a mirror thrown in among them, is the most efficient means that I know of to make them alight.”

“WINCHESTER, _Ohio, June 21_.

“If the apiarian finds that they will not settle, all that is necessary is for him to take a looking-glass and place it in such a position that it will reflect the rays of the sun among the bees, and they will generally settle immediately.”

I write for the American Bee Journal for a purpose different from the object of a teacher, and when I appear as such, will be willing to wear a garb that will not fit _Ignoramus_. But, at the same time, if anything from me serves the purpose of teaching, it will be all right with your brother in bee-culture best known as

IGNORAMUS.

_Sawyersville, N. C._, Oct. 1, 1870.

[For the American Bee Journal.]

More About the Looking-Glass.

I see on pages 34 and 35, Vol. VI of the A. B. Journal, that Mr. H. Nesbit seems to doubt the efficacy of the looking-glass for stopping a swarm of bees. I would like to tell him an instance, and see if he doubts longer. A near neighbor of mine was at work for me one day, when his wife called him, for the bees were swarming. We went to his house and the bees were just clustering on a tree near by. He got a hive and was going to hive them, when they started to go off. He took a large looking-glass and ran to get up with them, for by this time they had got fifteen or twenty rods from where they had clustered. He reflected the rays of the sun upon them, and they soon began to think of lighting. As there were no trees near by, they began to cluster on his hat; and he, being somewhat afraid of bees, made good time for the house, I assure you. They then settled on a post in the fence near by, and were hived. In about an hour they concluded to try for the woods again; but the looking-glass brought them down once more, and they were hived a second time. In two hours after they started the third time. It being cloudy at the time, they made their escape, as the looking-glass would not work without the sun. Now, was the queen tired or defective, or was it the looking-glass that proved efficient? There were several persons, nearly a mile distant, who saw the reflected rays of the sun, their attention being called from their work by the brightness of the reflection. I am inclined to think it was the looking-glass, instead of the queen being tired or defective. I have since tried it, and never failed to stop a swarm when the sun shone.

G. M. DOOLITTLE.

_Borodino, N. Y._, Sept. 13, 1870.

* * * * *

Pösel says that if a colony has suffered from hunger for twenty-four hours, the fertility of the queen will be greatly impaired, and never be recovered.

* * * * *

All futures are possible to Young Samson. The lion in his path he throttles, turning his carcass into a bee-hive.

[For the American Bee Journal.]

The Hive Question.

This question has again been revived for discussion in the Journal, and several of our patentees and vendors have made pretty free use of its columns for “blowing” their particular inventions and wares. Prominent among them is Mr. J. H. Thomas; and as I have had some experience with his hive, I wish to have my say about it in particular, and other hives in general. Mr. T. has gotten up a neat and substantial hive, and has admirably adapted the use of frames to the old form of the common box-hive--tall in proportion to its length and breadth. The frames are fixed in their relation to each other, but are as easily moved laterally, when desired, as the frames of any other hive. As there are only eight frames, they can be taken out and examined, when looking for queens, &c., quicker than can be done with hives containing a greater number of frames, and this seems to be considered by some as of great importance. But I do not consider facilities for looking up queens, the most important requisite of a good hive; and I find in the fact of its having so few frames a very serious objection. In order to have the proper number of square inches of comb in a few frames, they have to be made comparatively large, which is the case with these. The frames are so large that, in very hot weather, when the hive is exposed to the sun, and the combs are full of honey, they break down and fall out of the frames, making a very undesirable muss in the hive. I have had this to happen repeatedly, even in his “double wall self protecting hive,” so called, with all the ventilation that could be given it. By the way, he has lately made a change in the ventilation, by enlarging the entrance (an improvement) and by closing the inch and hole covered with wire cloth, in the bottom board, and making another in the back and about an inch above the bottom board. I do not know which is according to “scientific principles,” and whether an improvement or not. It is true this breaking down of combs might be prevented by shading the hive; but the “best hive in America” ought not to require this, as we do not always want our hives shaded. There are several other minor objections to Mr. T.’s hives, but a still more important one will be mentioned presently.

Five years ago Mr. T.’s hive might have been considered a very good one, but “the world moves,” and no single department has made greater strides of progress in the last ten years than apiculture. His, and all similar hives, lack one important feature to make it adapted to the present wants of all progressive bee-keepers. No hive should now claim perfection without being easily provided with extra frames for surplus honey to be used in the honey extractor, and these frames should be of the same size as those in the body of the hive. It should be well adapted to the use of the division board, with room at side or ends for surplus frames, or be easily and conveniently converted into a two-story hive, with frames in the upper story the same size as below.--Tall hives with large frames are not well adapted to this purpose. The two-story Langstroth works well. Mr. Gallup’s and Mr. Truesdell’s style of hives can be easily arranged with additional frames at each end, or on top, or both. Now, I do not say that any and every hive thus arranged is perfect, but that no hive should lay claim to being the most perfect hive made, without being adapted to such an arrangement; for it is important to give for the breeding capacity of the queen, and to furnish a sufficient amount of empty combs for the accumulated workers, and thereby obtain the greatest yield of honey with the extractor, or without it.

Besides “puffs” of particular hives, we have numerous articles on general principles to be observed in their construction--some approving and some condemning the shallow form of the Langstroth hive. In the August number, Mr. J. W. Seay pitches into the shallow hives on general principles and preconceived theories. Now, theories do well enough for fine talk, and are good when substantiated by facts. But facts are the things for the practical man, and one fact is worth a dozen theories. Mr. S.’s theory and deductions therefrom, in regard to the production of early brood, I do not find confirmed in my experience and observation; and the facts of the case warrant a very different conclusion. A tall hive is thought best for wintering out doors, for we know the bees will place their stores above them when there is room. We know, also, that they do not cluster on the honey, but below it, and the heat from them ascends and makes their stores more accessible in cold weather. But how is it with the breeding early in the season? Mr. S. says, “the bees in order to hatch brood as the weather becomes warm in the spring, will cluster at the larvæ end of said combs, &c. Now what he means by the “larvæ” end of the comb, I do not exactly know. If he intends to say that they cluster at the bottom of the brood comb, so that the heat will ascend and warm up the upper part of the brood comb for the extension of brood, facts do not warrant the assertion; for it is well known that bees do not commence breeding at the lower end of the comb, except in a very rare case, when they have had the hive full of honey and have consumed none or only very little during the winter. As a general thing, they commence breeding near the centre, and frequently in the upper part of the hive. I have known them, in the Thomas’ hive, to commence breeding within two inches of the top bar, with plenty of honey at the sides. Now, when breeding is commenced near the top, the extension of brood in a tall hive must be chiefly downward--away from the heat generated in the cluster, instead of towards it. And for this reason, as the warmth of the cluster will be diffused laterally more readily than it will extend downwards, more rapid breeding will be induced in the shallow hive than in the deep one. This accords exactly with the facts of the case. If Mr. S. only means that the bees cluster on the larvæ and around it, he is correct; but this does not alter the conclusion. In stating that the bees will cluster and commence breeding in one end of the low hives, leaving the other end empty and cold, Mr. S. does not fairly state the case. They generally cluster near the centre of the hive, and the heat will radiate towards both ends.

But, we have had enough of theory. How stand the facts? I have had Mr. Thomas’ hive--one of the best of the tall ones, and the Langstroth hive, side by side, for several years. Last winter I prepared eight of each kind for wintering on their summer stands, somewhat similar to the plan recommended by Mr. Langstroth. In the latter part of the winter one colony in a Langstroth hive was lost, not from any fault of the hive, but from my carelessness. At the opening of the spring, a thorough examination was made of each hive, with the following comparison: _First_--loss of honey was about alike in each kind; some of each had nearly exhausted their stores, while others of each kind had more than enough, so that when equalized all had plenty. _Second_--loss of bees: In the Langstroth hives this was light. In four of them a spoonful of dead bees could not be found. The other three had a few dead bees. In one of the Thomas’ hives no dead bees were found. In two others not a great many, but more than in the worst of the Langstroth hives. The other five had a great many dead bees. The colonies were much reduced--one to a mere handful, with frames and hive badly soiled with their discharges, had to unite it with another hive. The T. hive that had no dead bees, was in a fence corner, nearly buried in snow all winter. _Third_--mould on combs. In all the Thomas’ hives there was more or less mould, except one. No mould in any of the Langstroth hives. _Fourth_--quantity of brood. _Decidedly the most in the Langstroth hives, at the time of the examination, and it increased faster, and they swarmed earlier than the tall hives._ My first swarms came from the flat hives every season. It may be said that the colonies in the flat hives, having lost only few bees in the winter, were stronger and would generate heat and naturally increase faster, and swarm earlier from this cause. I grant it; but one of the tall hives lost no bees, and was very strong, and yet did not breed as rapidly as the other.--I make this statement without favor or partiality. I expected a different result. I have no hives--patented or unpatented, no territory, or interest in any patent, to sell.

I have made a hive on the plan of Mr. Gallup and Mr. Truesdell; which I believe possesses many advantages, and is capable of being used more ways, with the same size frame for all the different styles, than any hive I have seen described. The brood apartment is the plain box of Mr. Gallup--eleven inches wide, fourteen inches deep, eighteen inches long, or as much longer as may be desired. The frames are hung across the narrow way. I have given greater depth and less width than my model, because I wanted to winter out-doors, and because I wanted to use the same frames-in a non-swarmer, with two tiers of boxes at sides. We can use this hive--1st. as a simple frame hive, with large room on top for surplus boxes.--2d. By extending the length to any desired number of frames, frames for surplus honey may be put in each end, for emptying with the extractor.--3d. It can be easily made a two-story hive, with frames in the upper story the same size as in the lower one.--4th. By having movable side-boards, it may be made a non-swarmer on Mr. Quinby’s and Mr. Alley’s principle, and piles of honey boxes may be put on the sides and top. I have one made this way with thirteen frames, sixteen five pound boxes form the sides, and three twelve pound boxes on top, all enclosed in a suitable case. This is made somewhat like Mr. Alley’s hive; but I think is better than his. To avoid one extreme--the flat form, he has gone to the other, and has his hive too tall and too narrow. From all that I have read from our best German and American writers on the subject, I think I have hit the “golden mean” of width and depth. The great beauty of it is that the same frame can be used in all the different styles; and that we may have a variety of hives with but one size of frame.

I call this hive, with its non-swarming and box arrangement, the “QUINQUEPLEXAL-DUPLEX-COMBINATION-NON-PATENTED-SUPERFLUOUS-HONEY-PRODUCING-HIVE.” It is said “there is nothing in a name,” but if I could only get friend Price’s “_Reversible-Revolvable_” attachment, with the privilege of adding the name, there would be considerable improvement in adopting this compellation for the modified arrangement.

THADDEUS SMITH.

_Pelee Island, Ontario_, Sept. 10, 1870.

[For the American Bee Journal.]

The Thomas Hive.