Part 3

The following season none of my large colonies swarmed, but all superseded their queens. Their queen-cells were extra large, and contained extra-large queens, with the largest amount of royal jelly left in the cells that I had ever before observed. Now, you had better believe Gallup “hollowed” and swung his old hat! He had got a non-swarmer, a great honey-yielder, etc. You could hear him from Maine to California--through the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. In fact, they heard him in Germany.

But the third season the colonies in large hives were the first to cast swarms nearly 3 weeks earlier than those in my standard hives, and here was another dilemma. The swarms were so large that I had to pile up three standard hives on top of each other, in order to get the bees all in.

The fourth season they cast swarms again, but here was another drawback: the fall was an extra open one, and they piled in so much pollen that they nearly ruined one-half the combs, and then having so much pollen they got the diarrhea before spring, and dwindled badly. But I demonstrated one fact, which I believe to be a fact, that one can rear long-lived queens large and prolific; also that their workers are longer lived than ordinary, else how could all those extra-large colonies that I have mentioned, both blacks and Italians, keep up their extra-large number of workers the entire year?

I forgot to mention that I had two ¾inch holes in the ends of those hives--one near each side at the top, and when the bees were gathering so rapidly, one could see the stream in early morning passing out of those holes, thus demonstrating that evaporation of nectar was going on very rapidly inside the hive. Water would also be dripping from the lower entrances. We understand that a portion of that probably was from the breath of the bees.

Now we have demonstrated, at least to our own satisfaction, that bees can _certainly_ be improved under judicious and intelligent management instead of retrograding; and the great wonder to me is, that they have held their own under the bad management of as large a proportion of queen-breeders as we formerly had.

Now, Mr. White, your argument that the blacks are superior to Italians because one can rear black bees from Italians under unnatural and unfavorable conditions, is about like the argument of the large queen-breeder that I before mentioned, who claimed that when he tried to rear queens from the eggs or larvæ just hatched, many of the larvæ sealed up were not larger than kernels of wheat. You see that he was rearing them under the greatest possible unfavorable and unnatural conditions, hence his argument was drawn from false premises.

You can readily see how the old man Gallup hollowed and swung his hat about his non-swarmer, etc., before he was “out of the woods.” No wonder that bees are afraid to sting him! I have always held that bees seldom sting a fool, for that was the most satisfactory answer that I could give to a majority of people that asked why they did not sting me. Of course I _have_ another reason, but that is the quickest and easiest manner of disposing of the question, and proves satisfactory to a majority of questioners.

By the way, I am asked why, in my method of queen-rearing, I kept the colony five days before giving the brood. Because the bees were all young, or nursing-bees, and it takes about that time before a sufficient number become outside gatherers, and we want all the favorable conditions possible.

Santa Ana, Calif.

Foul Brood and Its Propagation.

_Written for the American Bee Journal_

BY RANDOLPH GRADEN.

It was gratifying to me to see such persons as Messrs. Hutchinson, Muth, and others differing from Mr. McEvoy’s treatment of foul brood. Still, I do not intend to be understood as meaning that Mr. McEvoy cannot cure foul brood by his method, as the word “foul” is a German word, and its meaning is “rotten,” and any decayed, dead brood may be called “foul brood;” but I do know from experience that Mr. McEvoy’s method will not cure the disease that I had to contend with here in Michigan, for hives and frames used without first being disinfected, would soon become diseased. I have never destroyed any hives or frames, but have always kept them in use after being disinfected.

Mr. McEvoy says that frames are so cheap that they might as well be burned; still, I can disinfect the frames as fast as they can be nailed together, say nothing about the cost of the frames, and time and trouble in getting them from the factory.

What seems to me very queer is, that soon after my article appeared in the BEE JOURNAL about a year ago, I received a letter from the President of the Ontario Bee-Keepers’ Association, asking for my method of curing the disease, as he wished to bring it before a meeting to be discussed. Now, why should they want my method when they have the discoverers of the cause and cure of foul brood in their midst?

Since I discovered my method of curing the disease, I would not pay the price of a 2-cent postage to know how others treat the disease; but, then, they might want to know how to treat the foul brood that some bee-keepers have in their apiaries in the United States, as it appears from descriptions that the disease that myself, Messrs. Muth, Hutchinson, and others have had to contend with, is different from that experienced by some in Canada, that Mr. McEvoy has treated; more so than the difference in the United States basswood and Canadian linden honey. The honey might all be acceptable, but the disease that I have had to battle with would not yield to any treatment that I have seen made public, not excepting Mr. McEvoy’s.

Still, I saw in the BEE JOURNAL of Sept. 7, 1893, page 308, a challenge to me, by which article Mr. McEvoy does me an injustice, in saying that I warned bee-keepers not to be misled by him. Now, if Mr. McEvoy had not been so hasty in his conclusions, and in misrepresenting my words and meaning to the public, and had looked a little more carefully at my article, that he referred to, he would easily have seen that I only warned such as had my method (and not the bee-keepers at large) to follow my treatment, and not be misled by Mr. McEvoy’s article or method, as I am just as much interested in the success of my method of treatment as he is in his, no matter if I am but a wee bit of a fellow compared with him, in the eyes of the public.

Now as to the challenge: Does Mr. McEvoy think that I have a foul brood apiary, or kind of foul brood hospital here, so as to have a foul-broody colony whenever I wish? If so, I must answer, No, sir! Nor have I seen any foul brood in the last two seasons, for if I had, I should have cleaned it out before this time. Nor am I able to cause it (that is, such as I am writing about) with dead brood, as I am not writing about the chilled or drowned foul brood of which it seems Mr. McEvoy speaks, but such as I have had in my apiary, and such as it appears that Messrs. Muth, Root, Hutchinson, and Mrs. Atchley and others have described; but if I had a foul-broody colony, or if Mr. McEvoy will wait until I can get one, and allow me to amend the challenge as follows: The $100 each to be deposited in a savings bank of Detroit or Wyandotte, Mich., subject to withdrawal upon the decision of three judges (one to be selected by me, one by Mr. McEvoy, and the third by the first two appointed), thereupon Mr. McEvoy to come here, and in my presence treat a colony by his method as given in the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL, without disinfecting or scraping or cleansing the hive in any manner but to put the bees back into the same hive that they occupied when diseased--then, if after the lapse of 60 days they are found to be in a healthy condition, he to take the $200; if not, then it is to be given to me; and if he is willing to accept it in that way, I will let him know when I get or find a foul-broody colony, as I could not accept his challenge in the way he makes it, for several reasons.

I said in my former article, that in my next I would give the reason why I do not give my method to the bee-papers to be made public, because when my article on that subject appeared in the BEE JOURNAL about one year ago, I got quite a shower of letters of inquiries, the first of which I answered at once, giving my method as best I could in a hurry; but as each mail brought more letters, I saw it was impossible for me to answer all, as some did not inclose as much as a stamp for reply. So I thought I would reply to all in the BEE JOURNAL, but as I got my method nearly ready to send to the BEE JOURNAL, I received three very sharp letters, one of which was very insulting, and the address not properly given. Now, to give my method to such as they--no, sir! I thought I would rather lose a few dollars, than to let such as they have my method, which cost me so much in bees, time and trouble.

Still, many that asked in good faith must be answered, as I have been at bee-conventions and met many bee-keepers, and always found them the cream of society, and as every bee-keeper in the land ought to have my method, no matter whether his bees have foul brood or not, for what Mr. McEvoy and some others caution bee-keepers against, I just recommend, and _vice versa_. Still, the Doubting Thomases should not get my method to laugh at and poke fun at, but to such I would say that I am ready to put up $100 or $150 against the same amount, that if they will send me a foul-broody colony that has enough bees left to form an ordinary colony in May or June, and if after the lapse of 60 days I cannot return them in a strong and healthy condition in the same hive and frames (hive to be a single-walled, movable-frame), then I will forfeit the $200 or $300; but if the bees are strong and healthy, then I am to get the money.

So I had printed a very limited number of leaflets containing my method, which are placed within the reach of all asking in good faith, but as soon as they are gone, or enough to pay the printing and expenses, no more will be sent out by me, as I will give it away to be given as premiums.

I can agree quite well with Messrs. Muth, Hutchinson, Mrs. Atchley and others, in regard to the disease of foul brood, except in regard to its propagation or spreading. I think they mostly claim that honey is the medium through which the disease is spread. Now I have evidence which proves beyond a doubt that bees in robbing a foul-broody colony do not carry the disease to their hives in honey, but I don’t wish to be understood as saying that the disease cannot be carried in honey, for honey that is extracted from foul-broody combs, where the foul matter is thrown out of the comb into the honey, for such I have never tried, for I always boil and skim it properly before feeding it to the bees.

In regard to the spreading of the disease, my observations have been such that at times when a foul-broody colony was in my apiary, all hives or colonies that stood near by became affected, and at other times a strip or line in a certain direction from the first affected colony for some distance every colony would become affected, and at other times it would be some other direction, etc., while at another time a diseased colony may stand and become quite rotten, and no bad result to other colonies near by, which goes to show that it depends entirely upon what kind of weather we have when the disease is in the apiary, as the odor, which is nothing more than small particles of the substance from which it arises, which is driven out of the hive by the bees fanning at the entrance. Should the air be heavy, or such that when smoke comes from a chimney it shoots upwards quickly, the disease does not spread as fast as when the air is light so that the smoke from a chimney comes to the ground and moves along the ground slowly, the air carrying the deadly odor from hive to hive. Now, dear reader, did it ever occur to you that this is one way in which the disease spreads? For when the air is lighter, or the same as the particles of disease or odor, it simply moves or floats around, and woe be to the hive or colony that chances to be in its way!

Now here, in regard to that disease, I will give some food for thought. Why do not such colonies of bees, that rob foul-broody colonies, always become affected with the disease? I imagine I hear a long list of persons who answers “They do;” while I say, emphatically, they do not!

Now, how many have had foul brood among their bees, that had some colonies in the swarming season that were badly affected with the disease, yet strong enough to cast a swarm, that swarmed and were hived? If so, did you watch for the hatching of the first brood? and was it diseased, or did the first brood hatch and appear healthy? If so, why was it not diseased, for the bees came from a foul-broody hive with their honey-sacs filled with the deadly honey?

Now those having my method of curing foul brood, if they will look over the foregoing article, and at my method of treatment, they will easily see how my method originated with me, and why I recommended some things that others strictly forbid; also why I say that comb foundation made from foul-broody combs, as made by the leading manufacturers, is perfectly safe to use, unless it is exposed to the foul or diseased matter, after it leaves the dipping-tank at the factory.

Taylor Centre, Mich.

The Illinois State Convention.

_Reported for the “American Bee Journal”_

BY JAS. A. STONE.

The Illinois State Bee-Keepers’ Association met at Springfield on Dec. 12 and 13, 1893. The meeting was called to order by Pres. J. M. Hambaugh at 11 a.m., and opened with prayer by Rev. A. H. Bates. Welcome address was made by Col. Chas. F. Mills, and responded to by Mr. S. N. Black.

The President announced at this point that a recess would be taken and membership fees received. The convention then adjourned until 1:30 p.m., at which time the meeting was again called to order by Pres. Hambaugh.

The President’s address was first in order, which was attentively listened to because of its merits. The Secretary’s and Treasurer’s reports were read and approved.

The committee on Legislative Bills reported, which report was adopted, and the committee discharged.

The discussion on the Code of Rules for Fairs was taken up, and, on motion, action on the same was again postponed until it should come out in print in our forthcoming Report.

An essay was read by Geo. F. Robbins on the “Rights and Duties of the Illinois State Bee-Keepers’ Association.”

Mr. Becker spoke to quite a length, and thought that by some mode of procedure we should adopt some way of finding out the condition of our neighbors’ bees as compared with our own, at intervals during the working season.

BEES AND GRAPES.

Mr. Becker asked why bees did not work on grapes last year.

Mr. Dadant answered, because the dry weather did not cause the grapes to crack, and added that he had starved bees to death on grapes, and had, on one occasion, pricked a pin-hole in a grape, and it was the only one on the whole bunch that was touched, and that only as far in as they could reach.

Mr. Riehl, of Alton, said that bees could not injure sound grapes or fruit, except over-ripe raspberries.

Mr. Vandenburg said that bees cannot puncture grapes--he was sure of that.

A committee on resolutions was appointed, composed of Messrs. Black, Smith and Stone.

A committee was also appointed composed of Messrs. Hambaugh, Poindexter and Draper, to formulate plans by which a member’s honey can be put before the public as pure.

A motion prevailed, that a committee on census be appointed, to decide the best plan of finding out the monthly condition of the bees of the members of the association. Messrs. Becker, Smith and Dadant were made such committee.

A committee on Congressional Legislation was appointed, composed of Messrs. Dadant, Draper and Poindexter.

The convention then adjourned until 8:00 a.m. the next day, and that the members attend the meeting of the Horticultural Society in the evening.

SECOND DAY.

At 8:00 o’clock a.m. on Dec. 13th, the meeting was called to order with Pres. Hambaugh in the chair. The Congressional Committee reported a resolution which was unanimously adopted, petitioning Congress to make and enforce laws compelling those who adulterate honey, to name it with its true name.

GETTING APIARIAN INFORMATION.

The committee on the same reported as follows, which was adopted as amended:

_Resolved_, That on or before the 15th day of May, July, September and October, the Secretary be instructed to send out a return postal card to each of the members of the association, requiring reports as follows:

1st. The number of colonies.

2nd. The prospect of a honey crop.

3rd. The amount of honey gathered to date.

4th. Honey gathered No. 1 or not.

It shall be the duty of the Secretary to send the above report each month to the bee-papers for publication.

C. BECKER, } J. Q. SMITH, } _Com._ A. N. DRAPER, }

The committee for the same reported (and the report was adopted) favoring an experimental station to be conducted by a person to be named by the State Bee-Keepers’ Association.

I will say here that the meetings in session in the State House failed to get the required number--250--to secure their return one-third rate. It was promised by the passenger agency, and when they found we were all going to meet at the same time, they raised the required number from 100 to 250. On account of their acts, the various societies “resoluted.”

Resolutions of greeting were drawn by a committee for the purpose, and adopted, sending greetings to the State Grange and to the State Horticultural Society. The committee was composed of Messrs. Black, Beall and Smith.

The election of officers for 1894 resulted as follows:

President--Hon. J. M. Hambaugh, of Spring.

Vice-Presidents--1st, C. P. Dadant, of Hamilton; 2nd, J. Q. Smith, of Lincoln; 3rd, S. N. Black, of Clayton; 4th, Mrs. L. Harrison, of Peoria; and 5th, Chas. Hertel, of Freeburg.

Secretary--Jas. A. Stone, of Bradfordton.

Treasurer--A. N. Draper, of Upper Alton.

Mr. Robbins offered a resolution of thanks (which was adopted) to the Legislative Committee for their conscientious performance of the duties intrusted to them. On motion, it was voted that each member of the association be requested to send a copy of the resolution of this society, relative to adulteration, to their various members of Congress, with the solicitation of their assistance in having it enacted into law.

Resolutions of greeting were sent to and received from the State Horticultural Society, and the State Grange, all in session in the State House at the same time.

Mr. C. P. Dadant read an essay at the evening meeting of the Horticultural Society, on “The Importance of Bees in Horticulture,” which was received with the best of feeling among the horticulturists, many of whom are also bee-keepers.

A resolution was reported as follows, and adopted:

_Resolved_, That the Illinois State Bee-Keepers’ Association desire to return their sincere thanks to the Hon. E. L. Merritt, Chairman McKinley, and others in the House, and Senator Dunlap and others in the Senate, for their valuable services in obtaining the appropriation for the honey display at the World’s Fair.

The resolution of greeting from the State Horticultural Society was as follows:

To our fellow co-laborers, the members of the Illinois Bee-Keepers’ Association:

BRETHREN:--Feeling that our interests are identical, although we each aim to accomplish the same end by different means, you by extracting the sweets from our blossoms; we (while you are deriving benefits from the mixing of the pollen to fertilize and make our trees and plants fruitful) expecting to derive our reward from the sale of the beautiful fruit; we desire to extend to you the right hand of fellowship, and wish you success in your effort to extend the production of honey; and notwithstanding the fact that your bees may get their heads together and plot for the eating of our grapes and other fruits, yet we still have faith in the utility of the little bee as a helper to the fruit-grower, and admire her industrious and business habits.

HENRY AUGUSTINE, _Pres._

H. M. DUNLAP, _Sec._

REPORTS OF BEE-KEEPERS.

C. P. Dadant, of Hamilton--Number of colonies, 350; increase, 30; honey produced, 400 pounds of honey-dew and 500 pounds of Spanish-needle honey. Bees in good condition for winter, packed out-of-doors.

Geo. Poindexter, of Kenney--Number of colonies, 90; increase, 3. Amount of honey obtained, 2,000 pounds of clover, and 800 pounds of extracted fall honey. Bees wintered in the cellar, and are in good condition now. He clips the queen’s wings to prevent swarming, and believes in ventilation to induce the bees to work in the supers.

A. N. Draper, of Upper Alton, had about 300 colonies in the spring, and sold 60 colonies, with no increase during the season. He had about enough honey to winter the bees out-of-doors, packed in forest leaves. His bees are kept in four apiaries. He says that white clover was a failure this year. He prevents swarming by having large hives, and plenty of ventilation. He harvested the most honey from asparagus, of which there are a hundred acres in the neighborhood. This honey is of poor quality.

Chas. Becker, of Pleasant Plains, had 53 colonies in the spring, and increased to 62. He took about 700 pounds of honey. The bees are in good condition for winter. He grows small fruit in connection with bee-keeping. For extracting he uses three sets of full frames--supers full of comb to each hive. Induces the bees to go into the supers by placing partly-filled sections in the middle of the supers. He raises the hives from the bottom-board during the swarming season, and thinks it prevents swarming, and induces the bees to work in the supers.

J. Q. Smith, of Lincoln, had 53 colonies in the Spring. Increase 23. He had no honey until August, except honey-dew, which he fed to the young swarms. In the latter part of August he got 1,800 pounds of fair fall honey, principally heart’s-ease and sweet clover, with Spanish-needle at the last. He wintered his bees on the summer stands, packing the top with leaves, and no protection on the sides.

Geo. F. Robbins, of Mechanicsburg, had 60 colonies, spring count, and increased to 80. He produced 1,100 pounds of honey, half comb and half extracted. There was some honey-dew, and the balance heart’s-ease and Spanish-needle. Bees are in good condition for wintering out-of-doors. He covers the brood-frames for winter with honey-boards made of cheap lumber and burlap, with chaff or leaves above. He covers some of the smaller hives with larger ones, and fills the space with leaves.

Mr. Black asked Mr. Dadant if spring stimulating paid. Answer--If properly done, it may pay. He used to practice it when they did their own work, but quit it when they began to hire. Mr. Dadant thought that bees wintered, and also went through the spring, better in the sun than in the shade. He thinks the chaff hive a failure.

C. M. Beall, of Clayton, had 10 colonies in the spring, and no increase. He had no honey except 150 pounds of honey-dew. The bees were in good condition for wintering in the cellar. He has no winter loss in the cellar.

J. M. Hambaugh, of Spring, had 115 colonies in the spring, and increased to 120. He produced 1,000 pounds of extracted--half honey-dew and clover mixed, the balance Spanish-needle of superior quality. His bees were in good condition for wintering, partly in the cellar and partly on the summer stands. He removes the honey-board for cellar wintering and replaces it with a ventilator, giving air at the top.