Volume 33 — Contributions

Mailing Queen-Bees Long Distances.

Written for the American Bee Journal BY W. A. PRYAL.

Although a number of queen-breeders of this country have been fairly successful in shipping queens to foreign lands through the mails, still, a few of these breeders, as well as many others who have not been favored with a foreign order, have been pretty unlucky in sending queens across the continent of America at certain times of the year. One would think that if a man who has been successful in shipping bees, say to Australia, would also send them every time to any part of the Pacific Coast without losing a single bee. Yet, such is not the fact. I have known of breeders who have sent their queens almost everywhere, but who cannot send them to California without frequently losing some.

There are many causes for this, some of which I shall try to tell about in this article. What I shall write about will be based altogether on observations and experiments last summer. In carrying on these experiments, I did it not only for my own benefit, but also for the benefit of the queen-breeders of the country. It had become annoying to me to receive a queen dead, that I was hoping would come to me alive. Sometimes I would have a colony to which I wanted to introduce an Italian queen, and expected one from the East in a few days. I would, consequently, let this colony remain queenless, as I hoped to give them the queen which I expected in a day or two. But how provoking it would be when the queen, which was expected with so much anticipation, came to hand as dead as dead could be. This state of affairs not only happened once, but a number of times. It was for the purpose of learning a way to get queens to this State alive every time, that I gave a good deal of attention to the subject. That I learned something of value, I am satisfied; that my experiments will be of value to those breeders who ship to these distant parts, I also hope.

When I would get one of these queens dead, I would first look to see if the food in the cage had given out. In no case have I ever found that the food was anywhere near exhausted by the bees. More often the food would be hardly consumed; sometimes it was so hard that I would not be surprised but it would have required a good sized sledge hammer to break the so-called candy sent as food for the poor bees to exist on while in transit.

Then I would look to the ventilation. This I have considered an important thing in shipping queens; too often the shipper trusts to the ventilation provided by the manufacturer of the cages he uses. For short distances, these ventilation holes made by the manufacturer are quite sufficient, but for long distances and through a very hot country, they are far from being just right. It is well that the maker does not undertake to make them as open as a saw-mill, for they would, in the language of Bill Nye, allow too much atmosphere to enter them. This would not do during the early or late months of the year, should the breeder have occasion to ship at those seasons.

I find that one of the reasons that much of the candy used in the cages becomes hard, is because the wood of which the cage is made soaks up the moisture of the candy; in other words, the honey, of which the candy is partly composed, is absorbed by the wood. This state of affairs is easily remedied by coating the hole, where the candy is to be stored, with beeswax or paraffine. This should also be done, as it prevents the candy from becoming poisoned by the wood, as is sometimes the case.

Another thing that I learned was unnecessary during the heated term of the year was, that it is dangerous to send too many bees along with the queen. I have found that some breeders will send as many as 16 in a two-ounce cage during July, when nine or ten were plenty enough. One breeder had the former number in an ounce cage; it stood to reason that so many bees raised the temperature in the cage to a very high degree when the bees were crossing the deserts where it is naturally hot. No bees in the world could live through such a trying time as they must necessarily be subjected to in a small compartment where each individual bee helps to raise the temperature in a climate, which, as I have said, is already too hot.

There is nothing so successful for feeding bees for a journey across the United States as soft candy. The softer it is the better; the only trouble is that we cannot use it as soft as we would like to. This is owing to the fact that when too soft it is apt to run in the cage, and not only daub the bees, but also the mails, should any of it get outside the cage, as it will likely do if the bees do not eat it as fast as it shifts about. Then, when it is soft, there may be trouble by the bees that may happen to die during the trip, getting stuck in the soft candy, so-called. Should several such dead bees get stuck at the entrance to the food compartment, there may be a likelihood that the remaining live bees may not be able to get to the food, and consequently starve to death.

So, from all these things, I think that while the Benton queen shipping-case is a very good one for shipping queens several hundred miles, it will have to be modified somewhat for sending such insects long distances, without making it as large as the export cage, which I find to be a very good cage to send bees in to even this State. Though this last-named cage is about the best cage I have seen for getting queens alive to this part of the world, it is too large for shipping dollar queens in, as the breeder cannot well afford to pay the extra postage and cost of such cages just for shipping a queen for which he only receives 100 cents. And yet, considering the fact that if the queen is shipped in one of the smaller cages, and she should die before she reaches the purchaser, the shipper would have to replace her, it would be cheaper in the long run for the breeder to have used a larger cage in the first instance. But as my experiments have been directed toward using as small a cage as possible, and yet secure the same results as if a large cage were used, I shall confine my observations to such lines, as, in truth, I think I have been doing.

North Temescal, Calif.

(Concluded next week.)

The Ladies’ Home Journal, of Philadelphia, Pa., and the Bee Journal—both together for one year for only $1.65. The first-named journal is the grandest monthly for the home that is published in the world to-day. New or old subscribers to either journal can take advantage of the low rate of $1.65 for the two papers. This offer expires on Feb. 1, 1894. Send all orders to the office of the Bee Journal.

Wintering Bees in the Cellar.

Written for the American Bee Journal BY M. M. BALDRIDGE.

On Dec. 4th the thermometers in this city said it was from 12° to 18° below zero. In my bee-cellar, where I have 28 colonies, my thermometer said it was 44° above zero at that time, and that is the lowest I have seen it to this date (Dec. 11th). The highest temperature since Nov. 15th (the date my bees were put into the cellar), that I have noticed, is 50°, but I presume it has been as high as 55°, and perhaps 60°. The range of temperature anywhere between 40° and 60° is satisfactory to me. This will make the seventh winter, I think, that I have used this cellar for bees, and I do not recollect that I have ever lost a colony of bees in it. I have sometimes found in the spring, after the bees have been out-doors awhile, one or two queenless colonies, but that I do not of course attribute to any fault with their winter repository.

In placing my bees in the cellar, I prefer to give each hive some slight ventilation at the top, by raising the cover the thickness of a 6-penny wire-nail, one at each corner. I leave each entrance open the entire width of the hive. No cloths, summer or winter, are used on or about my hives, as I have no use for them. As before stated, I prefer to lift up the hive-cover slightly while in winter quarters; still, I have some winters left some of them waxed down, and I did not notice in the spring but that such colonies were in just as good condition, and with combs as bright and free from mold, as the others. Either plan seems to be all right, according to my experience, when the temperature ranges from 40° to 60°; but perhaps I had better add that the air in my cellar is about as dry and free from impurities as the living rooms of a house should be.

There are three windows to my cellar, and these are left open the entire summer, and closed only just prior to the date the bees are carried in. During the winter I, or some other member of my family, go into the cellar almost every day. The part where the bees are, is divided off by a board partition, but the door that opens into the bee-room is seldom shut, and then only during an extremely cold spell. I keep the entire cellar dark, and never hesitate to visit the bee-room whenever I so desire, as I do not believe even frequent visits therein do a particle of harm. But one thing I seldom neglect, which is, to keep the dead bees swept up from week to week, and removed from the cellar. This prevents tramping on them, and thereby avoids bad smells, or a tainted atmosphere.

My hives while in the cellar occupy but little room, as they are arranged in tiers, five colonies in each tier, and the tiers not more than six inches apart. The bottom hive in each tier is kept about a foot above the bottom of the cellar.

My hives are the “shallow things,” only seven inches deep inside the frames, but I do not see but the bees winter as well in them as in deeper ones, side by side, and, in general, I think a little better. But were it otherwise, I should prefer to use such hives to deeper ones, and for reasons too numerous to mention here. I have now used the 7-inch frames since 1876, the year I was keeping bees in the city of Shreveport, La., and 17 years’ experience with them has taught me that, whether North or South, East or West, I would not use a deeper frame. No, sir; not if made a present of as many hives as I might desire to use!

St. Charles, Ills.

Bees Improving Themselves, Etc,

Written for the American Bee Journal BY DR. E. GALLUP.

The second season after moving to Iowa, I had occasion to go to Postville on the stage. At Decorah we stopped for dinner, and to change horses. I saw a man in a back yard all bundled and tied up from head to foot. As I approached to see what was up, he ordered me away, saying that I would get stung to death, etc. But seeing that he was at work with bees, I still advanced, but he said very excitedly, “You foolish man! I tell you to keep away from here, or you will certainly get stung to death!” I remarked that bees very seldom stung a fool, etc.

On inquiry, I found that he was to receive $5.00 for destroying a very powerful colony that had been in a large hive for a number of years, had never swarmed, and had become so vicious and strong in numbers that it was dangerous to live in the neighborhood.

Here was the largest honey-bees that I ever saw, without an exception. They looked as though they were a cross between a common honey-bee and a bumble-bee—large, light-grey, hairy bees, with quite a flat and stubbed abdomen. Their wings were more like a drone than a worker, etc. The operator said that they were vicious Italians. One thing was certain, he went about the operation of destroying them in the most awkward manner possible.

Now, in this case, and all the cases that I mentioned last week, were where bees had improved themselves, especially in size of colonies, working qualities, etc. Thinking the matter over, and dreaming of large bees, large hives, large colonies, etc., for a long time, led me to get up the large twin hive that Mr. Doolittle mentions in one of his articles. My standard hive contained 12 Gallup frames. My first large hive contained 4 times 12, or 48 frames—24 in front, and 24 in the rear. The balance of large hives that I made contained 36 frames—18 in each end. By closing the passages between the two apartments, I could work two colonies in each hive, if my plan did not work to suit. But I never worked two in a hive.

My first and earliest natural swarm I hived in the largest hive, confined them to one end, and used a division-board. As soon as they commenced building drone-comb, I filled out with ready made worker-comb, and just before basswood bloom, opened the passage-ways, filled up with comb, and spread the brood one-half in one end and one-half in the other. The queen was from my Grimm-Hamlin stock, and extra prolific, and she spread herself grandly in the laying business. We had the best and longest basswood bloom that I ever saw, and I took from that hive, by extracting from one end one day and the other end the next day, 600 pounds of honey in 30 days—not by actual weight, but by measure. It was so thick and matured that it all candied in short order, that I took out that season. I took in all about 750 pounds for the season, besides what was left in the hive, and it was left completely full. This was all the product of the bees of one queen.

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.