BEE-spoke-data/bees-v0 huggingface dataset:
Suppose we go through a certain colony and find no queen-cell with as much as an egg in it. The next time around it may be in the same condition, and so it may continue throughout the season. In that case there is nothing to be done with that colony beyond the examination every ten days but to let it alone and be thankful.
Such cases are not as plenty as I should like, but I think they are on the increase.
## destroying eggs.
Suppose, however, that upon one of our visits we find one or more cells containing eggs. We destroy the incipient cells by mashing them, and in the record-book write after the date, "keg" a contraction for the expressive, if not very elegant entry. "killed eggs." It is possible that upon the next visit we may find no more quencells started, and that may be the last of them for the season. So long as we find only eggs, we do nothing more than to destroy them.
Generally, however, when eggs are found in cells, the next visit will find cells with grubs well advanced. When grubs are found in cells, then the colony must be treated.
As already mentioned, an easier plan than the "put-up" plan was struck upon, and for a time that had a run.
It may be called the excluder plan, and I will now give it as we first practiced it.
We find and cage the queen, destroy all queen-cells, remove the hive from its stand, and put in its place a livie containing three or four frames of foundation. The foundation is on one side of the hive with a dummy next to it. The rest of the hive is left vacant. Upon this hive is put a queen-excluder, and over the excluder the old hive with its brood and bees, and over this the supers as before (Fig. 66). Then the queen is run in at the entrance of the lower hive, and the colony is left for a week or ten days.
At the end of the week, or as soon after that time as we can conveniently reach it we take away the lower story with its excluder, and put back the queen in the old hive, which is left on the stand. When we remove the lower story with its three or four frames that a week before contained foundation, there will be less advance made in those frames than you would be likely to suppose. The vacant part will still be vacant, the amount of honey will be very small, generally only one or two frames will have been occupied by the queen, and possibly nothing beyond eggs will be found. If larvae are found, they will be still small, and not in large quantity. It appears from this that there is some walking for a tinic on the part of the queen, or else that the bees are rather slow to prepare the foundation for her. It is possible that this interim without any laying may be an important part of the treatment. I don't know.
## some failures.
At any rate, in the first two seasons of using the plan, there was no case of any colony making any further preparation for swarming after being this treated. The third season (1902) everything did not work so smoothly, but possibly the treatment was not fairly administered in all cases. Some of the colonies did not take kindly to the foundation, and in a few cases it looked as if they might have swarmed out rather than to use the foundation. In one case they built comb and started a brood-nest in the vacant part, leaving the foundation untouched. But there was some excuse for this as the foundation was weather-beaten and hard.
_Fig. 63--Super-Filler._
## working toward non-swarming.
Of course it is no little work to go through the colonies every ten days up to the time of treatment, and I think it likely that it would work all right to treat every colony on the excluder plan, or some other plan, early in the honey-flow, whether they had grubs in quecentells or not. But there are some colonies that will go through the whole season with never a grub in a quecentell--possibly never an egg--and exactly those colonies are the ones most likely to give record-yields. To interfere with their work, even for a week in a slight degree, is not desirable. There is also another important reason for allowing every colony willing to do so to go through the whole season without any preparation for swarming and without any interference. I am trying all the time to work at least a little toward a non-swarming strain of bees, and if all colonies were treated in advance how would I know which were the non-swarmers from which to choose my breeding stock? Their careful record must be kept.
## 111 Empty frames used.
Some time later a little change was made so as to make the queen better satisfied with her new quarters. Instead of putting foundation under the excluder, a brood-frame is put there, at one side. It is preferably one with very little brood in it, the object being merely to hold the queen in the hive, but not to encourage her to do much in the way of laying. As a farther discouragement to laying and comb-building no other comb is put in the hive, nor even the least starter of foundation. Two or three other frames _entirly empty_ are placed beside the brood-comb. No dummy is needed. You might expect that the bees very promptly fill with comb one or more of these empty frames. They don't. At the end of a week or ten days you may find one frame half filled, with a very little comb in the second ; perhaps only a little comb in the one frame.
As to the rest, of course the proceeding is just the same as when foundation was used.
## 111 destroying queen-cells to prevent swarming.
Among the first things a beginner thinks he has learned is that destroying queen-cells will prevent swarming, and then he is sorely disappointed to find that he is mistaken about it. But I must confess that I have a good deal more faith in it than I formerly had. Not that I would for a minute trust to it as a sole means to prevent swarming. But I do know that in a good many cases it is efficient. Perhaps one cause of my change of view is the change in my bees. Breeding constantly for improvement in storing, and at the same time giving preference to those least inclined to swarm, it is possible that destroying cells has more effect than it formerly had.
It may be well to give some examples, taking just as they come in order some colonies that needed no other treatment to prevent swarming. I take them from the year 1908, one of the best honey years. The first one I come to had a 2-year-old queen, and June 33 I destroyed a grub in just one queen-cell. No other queen-cell was started. If that had not been destroyed, I suppose the colony would have swarned, and that would have lessened the number of sections produced, which was 181, beside finishing up some "go-backs." The next had a three-year-old queen, and gave 244 sections. June 23 one egg in a cell was destroyed, and that was all for the season. The queen was superseded after August 8. The next had a 2-year-old queen, and gave 236 sections. I destroyed, June 15, one egg in a queen-cell, and June 34 one grub. The next had a queen of the previous year and gave 100 sections. It never had even an egg in a queen-cell the whole season. The next had a yearling queen, and gave 145 sections, besides having taken from it, in May, 3 brood with adhering bees. Not an egg in a queen-cell. The next had a yearling queen, and gave 211 sections. It had one egg in a queen-cell June 6, also July 27 and August 6. That may be enough to show that at least in some cases destroying cells was worth while. Perhaps one colony in three will behave thus well.
## 4.2.2.
Latterly no one plan of treatment is followed exclusively. It may be the "put-up" or the excluder plan,or it may be dequeening for about 10 days. This dequeening treatment is the one most generally used. The queen is removed, the queen-cells are killed, and in 10 days the queen-cells are again destroyed and their own queen returned, or another queen given. Sometimes a queenlessness of a week seems to do as well. At any rate, a queen in a provisioned cage may be given in a week, for it will be a little time before she is out ready to lay. Possibly, instead of waiting 10 days and giving a laying queen, a ripe queen-cell or a newly born virgin is given at the time of removing the old queen. This has the advantage that if there is anything like European foul brood in the case, it may be considered somewhat in the light of a cure. It has the disadvantage that my assistant is quite strongly opposed to the idea of having a virgin in a honey-live, lest she should take it into her head to get the colony to swarm out, a thing that may happen once in a great while in reality, and in the imagination of my assistant quite frequently.
## replacing with better queen
On the whole perhaps the most common thing is to replace the removed queen with a young laying queen taken from a nucleus. This will generally result in replacing the old queen with one of better stock, for the young queen will be reared from best stock. If, however, the old queen be an extra good one, she will be put into a nucleus when removed, and then returned at the proper time. Whether the old queen be returned or a new one given, she is likely to be given with a frame of trood and adhering bees from the nucleus, so there is no interruption in laying. If for any reason she is given in an introducing cage, the cage is thrust into the entrance of the hive, in such way that the bees will be sure to take care of it, and where it can be looked at any time without opening the hive. I am not sure but what a queen at the entrance is a little better received than elsewhere. Of course there might be a little danger of chilling in a very cold time.
If the old queen is returned there is a possibility of further attempts at swarming. But if a young queen be given, _after ten days of quenclassness_, that colony is considered settled for the season, and no further watch is kept against swarming.
Somewhat curiously, it is the common thing, upon opening a hive a week after giving the queen to find one or more queen-cells started. I don't know why. Perhaps the bees have been frightened because of their spell of queenlessness, and want to provide against its happening again. At any rate, when these cells are killed they are not replaced. Possibly the bees would destroy them themselves after finding that the queen was settled to work.
Some think it best, when a queen arrives at a certain age, to replace her with a young queen. It is held by some that a queen does her best work in her first year, and that no queen should be allowed to do a second year's work, because there will always be a gain by replacing her with a younger queen. Some of the men that hold such views, and practise accordingly, are such successful beekeepers that I dare not say they are wrong. Whether it be a difference in bees, in locality, management, or what not, I do not believe that such practise would be best for me.
I am pretty sure that many of my queens do as good work in the second as in the first year, possibly better. But it is not altogether a question as to whether a queen does as well or better in her second year, comparing it with the first. The question is rather as to what she will do in her second or third year as compared with what would be done by the average young queen that would replace her. However it may be elsewhere, the rule with my bees is that a queen which distinguishes herself by a good crop of honey in her first year, will keep above the average as long as she lives. And I can count on the bees superseding her at the close of harvest whenever she reaches an ace when it would seem profitable for me to replace her with a younger queen.
Another thing may be worth considering. It is claimed, and with some show of reason, that longevity in bees is an important factor. One colony will be stronger in bees and brood than another beside it, while the latter will store more honey. The explanation given is that the bees in the second colony are longer lived. It may not be unreasonable to suppose that if one has a strain of bees with queens which live to unusual age, that the workers will also live to unusual age. So it may be the part of wisdom to encourage those queens which show a disposition to live beyond the usual span.
On these accounts it is my practise to leave the matter of superseding entirely to the bees in all cases, except where for some reason other than age it will seem an improvement to replace with a younger queen. That reason may be that the workers of a queen are unusually vicious, that they do not seal their honey white enough, or there may be some other fault, but generally it will be because they did not store honey enough the previous year. When, then, the colony of such a queen shows persistence in the matter of preparation for swarming, she will be replaced by another as part of the treatment of that colony. But old age alone will not endanger her life.
An item of some interest is the fact that when I look through the colonies in the spring to clip any queen that may have whole wings. I find very little use for the scissors if the previous season was very poor, whereas after a big honey-yield I generally find a good deal of clipping to do. In other words, there seems to be more superseding at the close of a good than of a poor year. Has it only happened to come so, or does a good harvest wear out the queen faster?
## the "jumbo" inve.
At one time I had strong hopes that by the use of a large hive with a large frame I might greatly diminish, if not entirely suppress, swarming. (Others reported success with what was called the Jumbo hive. At Fig. 67 will be seen one of these hives. The frame is 21% inches deeper than the regular Langstroth frame, and if you will look at the front of the hive in the picture, you will see that it is 21% inches higher than the 8-frame dovetailed hive by its side. The Jumbo has ten frames, and the extra depth makes its equivalent to a 12-frame Langstroth.
T'put bees in two of these hives in the home apiary, and waited to see what would result the next summer with much interest. The very first colony to send o:'t a swarm was in one of these Jumbo hives! I was sorry, but it didn't make me sick ahead. I had be come hardened to failures and disappointments in following after the will-o'-the-wisp--non-swarming.
The problem of prevention of swarming would be very much easier if I were running for extracted honey instead of comb. I am very much of the opinion that I could pile up stories as in Fig. 68, and not have one colony in a hundred swarm, the fact that no such pile ever swarmed for me confirming that opinion; and I have had a few such piles every year for a number of years.
It is not, I think, so much the abundance of room, as the abundance of ventilation thats prevents swarming, although the room is important. Notice the opportunity for ventilation in that pile in Fig. 68. The entrance, which you cannot see, is 12 inches wide and 2 inches deep. The second story is shoved forward on the first story so as to make a ventilating space of half an inch at the back, between the two stories. The third story is shoved back to make a space in front; and the ventilating space between the third and fourth stories is at the back. Lastly the cover is shoved forward to make a space of half an inch or more. Thus you see there is a fine chance for a free circulation of air right through the whole pile. Alas that such a thing can not be used for comb honey.
If I were running for extracted honey, I could get along with little or no swarming by following the plan of G. W. Denaree. When the time comes that there is danger of swarming, put into a second story all the frames from below except one containing the least brood, fill up the vacancies with empty combs or framesof foundation, put a queen excluder between the two stories, and leave the queen in the lower story. Then as the brood hatches out in the second story the combs will be filled with honey and become extracting-combs.
## shaken swarm without increase.
Another plan that I would enjoy trying if I were running for extracted honey is one variation of forced or shaken swarms. It is the simple plan of making a shaken swarm, say from A, and then piling all the brood from A on another strong colony, B. European bee-keepers tell us that with this accession of brood B will not swarm. S. Simmins, of England, and some others, give A half the bees from B. A would be all right for comb honey, but B would not--at least not right away--but it would be all right for extracted honey.
## accidental swarms.
The best I can do there will sometimes be what might be called accidental swarms. Perhaps a strong colony has in some way lost its queen in the busy season, and when the first reared young queen emerges--if one is allowed to emerge--there will surely be a swarm issue. Generally such a thing will be headed off before the young queen has a chance to emerge, but once in a great while she gets ahead of me.
Although there is to me nothing entrancing in the sight of such a swarm whirling through the air, there is one thing I do very much enjoy in it--it is the sight of the seething mass hurrying into the hive when dumped in front of it, as in Fig. 69. You will see that a deep bottom-board has been placed in front of No. 32, on which the swarm was dumped (it had previously settled on a low plum tree), and the bees have flowed all over the sides of the bottom-board, and also over the front of the hive. But I don't want the distress of seeing them pour ing out of the hive in a swarm for the sake of the pleasure of seeing then hustle back into the same hive when dumped down in front of it.
## taking off sections.
As fast as supers are filled they are taken off. I do not think I could be bothered to take off each section as fast as finished, putting in an empty one to take its place. It would take too much time. Neither do I like to wait till every section in a super is entirely finished. Unless the bees are crowded very much, there will be some uncapped cells in the outside sections which the bees will be very long in sealing. If these are waited for, the central sections may lose a little of their snowy whiteness --the thing which, perhaps, helps most to sell them.
\(\lambda\) super is, then, taken off when all but the outside sections are finished. This can be pretty well told by glancing over the top of the super, although sometimes the sections may be all sealed at the upper part and hardly filled below. A look at the under part of the upraised super will decide it. The sharp, circular end of the hive-tool is thrust under the supers to pry apart the attachment of bee-glue.
Unless care is taken, bees will be killed when a super, which has just been taken off, is put back again. Sometimes there may be so few bees in the way that the super can be put on quickly without danger. Oftener too many bees are in the way for this, so I put one end on its place, and with a series of rapid up-and-down motions, gradually lower the other end to its place. This gives the bees time to get out of the way, and there are seldom any crushed by it.
## close of clover harvest.
Formerly I took off all supers at the close of the white-clover harvest. Of late there has been a tendency to leave them on for the later flow. I am not sure whether this is wise, except in the few years in which from some unknown source some exceptionally white sections were secured at the Hastings apiary. In other years at the Hastings apiary, and in all years at the other apiaries, the honey stored during the cucumber flow is rather dark in color, and is likely to have an unpleasant appearance on the surface, as if lightly varnished with ice-glue.
But of late years the late honey has been improving, both in color and flavor. I don't know why. Possibly a greater proportion of sweet clover may have improved the flavor. Possibly, also, the increase of heartsease may have something to do with it. Although I think my bees get no inconsiderable quantity of honey from cucumbers, I confess I don't know what pure cucumber honey tastes like, but I am afraid it does not rank very high in flavor.
As I said, I am not sure that it is ever wise, except in the Hastings apiary, to allow supers to stay on after the white-clover harvest is over. True, a considerable amount of honey may be got in sections from the late flow, but it is not all of it of the best, and if it were stored in brood-combs and saved as extra combs to be crowded into the brood-chamber the next year before the beginning of the harvest, there might be nearly or quite as many more sections of white-clover honey stored, to offset what was lost in sections in the fall.
## getting bees out of sections.
For the purpose of getting bees out of sections I have tried pretty thoroughly the Porter escape and other escapes which work on the principle of allowing the bees to go down out of the supers without the chance of returning, but they do not work fast enough to suit me. When I go to an out-apiary, I always want to bring home with me all the honey taken off that day. Even at home I want it taken in the same day it is taken off. I may want to go elsewhere the next morning, and I don't want to be hindered from an early start by having to get it in before starting. Besides, I am just a little afraid that if I should make a practice of leaving honey out over escapes till the next day, some one none too scrupulous might learn the trick and by a night visit save me the trouble of taking off some of the honey. So whatever honey is taken off any day is got into the house before we get to bed that night; for sometimes it happens that when we have a big day's work at an out-apiary we do not get home till 8 o'clock or later.
## smoking bees down.
When a super is to be taken off, smoke is blown down into it until a sufficient number of bees have gone down out of it. What that sufficient number is dependsupon circumstances. If it is early in the day, and we do not care to take the honey home till late, there is no need to drive out so many bees. Other circumstances may also make a difference, and we "cut our coat according to the cloth."
## 8.3.1.
Suppose the honey-flow is in full blast, and we commence to take off supers early in the day, or at least in the forenoon. At such a time there is little need to be very careful about robbers, and it may be that honey may stand exposed for hours without being troubled by them. So when the super has been smoked it is taken off and set on the ground leaning against the hive, the hive-cover is put on the remaining supers, and then our removed super is set on its end on top, so as to project a little over the side of the hive. After a time, perhaps half an hour, the bees are likely to start a trail from the super over the side of the hive to join the bees of the colony below.
A number of supers may be thus standing at a time on their respective hives. Sometimes two supers are taken from the same hive, and, in rare cases, especially late in the season, three.
## watching for robber-bees.
These supers, left standing on the hives, however, are never left entirely out of mind, and a glance is given toward them every few minutes. If at any time bees are seen flying with their heads towards a super, immediate attention is given to the matter, and the supers hustled off the hives. When the bees are nearly all out, or at any time when it is not desirable to leave supers standing on the hives, they are put in piles, preferably not more than ten high.
## when robber-bees trouble.
If fear of robbers does not allow the supers to stand exposed, the super is still put on top of the hive, and a good many of the bees are at once driven out by smoke. The smoker is held on the side toward the wind, so that the wind will help drive the smoke between the sections, and from time to time the bees are brushed off. The bee-brush generally used is the Coggshall, but if it were not for the trouble of preparing one fresh every day. I think I would prefer a good-sized bunch of asparagus, sweet clover, goldenrol, or something of the kind tied together.
## miller tent-escape.