BEE-spoke-data/bees-v0 huggingface dataset:
I have a common kerosene hand-lamp with a sheet-iron chimney having a little mica window on one side--such as is used for heating water on lamps. This serves as a dark-lantern, making little light except in one direction. Holding the lamp in my left hand, I look in to see whether any live bees are in sight. Often I see the cluster near the front of the hive, oftener at the center or back part of the hive, the bees looking as if dead, so still are they ; but in a few seconds some one will be seen to stir. Sometimes the cluster will come clear down so as to touch the bottom-board, and sometimes not a bee will be seen below or between the bottom-bars. When the cluster comes clear down, there may or there may not be bees on the bottom-board. In any case, all the dead bees are cleaned out that can be got without disturbing the living. There is, as has been said, a difference as to the number of dead bees in different colonies, and there seems also a difference in different winters. In some cases perhaps the dead bees all reach the cellar bottom, in others staying in the hive.
sweping up dead bees.
It is very unpleasant to have the dead bees under foot on the cellar bottom. Some fasten them in the hive. Some sprinkle sawdust on the floor. In either case they are left in the cellar to fool the air. It seems much better to sweep out the cellar. During the first part of the winter very few bees will be on the floor, and sweeping once a month will be enough, or more than enough. Toward spring the deaths will be very much more frequent, and the sweeping must be more frequent. As giving a more definite idea with regard to this, I find by referring to the record that in the winter of 1901-2 the cellar was not swept till Jan. 29--seventy-five days after the bees were taken in. Then it was swept again after respective intervals of twenty-one, nineteen, and five days, the quantity swept out each time being about the same. That gives some idea of the greater mortality as spring approaches. One winter, when the bees were confined 134 days, the dead bees for each colony amounted to four-fifths of a quart or three-fifths of a quant, which made about 3,130 bees for each colony. I think the mortality is usually greater than that.
## furnace in cellar.
In the year 1902 the coal famine following the great anthracite strike caught me with four hard-coal stovesand no coal to put in them--indeed, no prospect of getting any, and winter close at hand.
About that time my friend, E. R. Root, happened to be here, and strongly advised as the best way out of the dilemma to have a furnace put in--one big enough to heat the whole house, and of such character as to burn wood, green or dry, coal, hard or soft, and indeed anything having any inclination toward combustibility.
I followed his advice, or rather I outran it, for I got a larger furnace than he thought advisable, the fire-pot being 25 inches in diameter. I am not sorry the furnace is so large so far as heating the house is concerned, for it makes a delightful summer temperature in any part of the house, no matter how cold the weather, without any of that unpleasant and unwholesome burnt-air effect. But it made a matter of impossibility for me to think of keeping the temperature of the bee-room down to 45 degrees and since that time, instead of having to make an effort to keep the cellar warm enough. the problem has been to keep it cool enough.
## unfavorable conditions.
Conditions for successful wintering were by no means the best.
The workmen that set up the furnace were late in finishing up the last part of the work in the cellar, so that the bees were not put in till the 8th of December. On that day the temperature was 8 degrees below zero. It would have been much better to have left them out for another flight if I had been sure of a day warm enough without waiting too long. But I was not sure of that, and I thought it better for them to be taken in in rather bad condition than to run the risk of leaving them out longer. The sequel showed I was wise in so doing, for no day warm enough for a flight came until February 26.
A thin partition of lath and plaster is all that separates the bee-room from the room in which the furnace is located, and the thermometer in the bee-room generally showed a temperature of 50 degrees. Some of the hot-air pipes pass through the bee-room overhead; and a thermometer laid on one of the two hives directly under one of these pipes nearest the furnace showed a temperature of 70 degrees. The pipe is covered with asbestos paper, but there was only a space of about three inches between the pipe and the top of the hives. There was plenty of room to set these colonies in a cooler place, but they were allowed to stay right where they were to see what the result would be. They wintered beautifully--until they died. They starved to death, and that not so very late in winter, although I think they were well supplied with stores. No doubt the heat kept them so active that they used up their stores with unusual rapidity.
## bad wintering.
Under the circumstances I figured on considerable loss. The loss went beyond my figuring. Not that the deaths all occurred in the cellar. They were largely after the bees were taken out in the spring; none the less, however, they were chargeable to bad wintering. By the 13th of May there were left only 124 colonies out of 199 put in cellar, and many of them were mere nuclei. A loss of 37 per cent was not gratifying, but bee-keeper-like, I looked forward hopefully to the next winter.
Alas for my hopes! Instead of 37 per cent, the loss for the winter of 1903-04 was 47 per cent, leaving 150 colonies alive out of 284. And the loss was mainly due to lack of sufficient stores. Some of them died in the cellar, and more would have died there if they had not been taken out a little earlier than was well, so they could be fed. But feeding very early in spring is not so well as having an abundance of stores in the live in the fall, and the mortality continued well along in spring. The fact that after so many years of experience, and after advising others always to have abundant stores for winter. I should have lost colonies by the score through starvation, was humiliating indeed.
But conditions were new and I needed to learn that in a cellar with the thermometer generally ranging from 50 to 60, and sometimes going higher, bees consume stores much more rapidly than at a lower temperature, and to the increasing number of those who are putting furnaces in cellars, I would say. "Look out for starvation."
But along with the disadvantage mentioned, there are not lacking advantages. Perhaps I ought to say advantage rather than advantages, for the one great advantage is that of an abundant supply of pure, fresh air. Except in the very severest weather, the outside cellar door is more or less open, and the air in the cellar is sweeter than in many--perhaps most--living rooms. That's good for the people living over the cellar, and it must be good for the bees. Inside the lives the combs are just as dry and nice as in summer. No dampness, no mold, no musty smell.
It seems nice to look into a live and find so few dead bees lying on the bottom-board, often none. When a bee wants to die, it is warm enough so it can come outside, just as in summer.
It would be better if it was so arranged that fresh air could enter without the light. During the first part of the winter, the bees do not seem to mind the light at all, and not very much till toward spring, when the door must be closed in daytime. But there is no need to be unduly frightened by a few bees coming out : for bees will get old and die off, no matter how dark the cellar be kept ; and there may be some question whether a little light is as bad as the foufer air when the cellar is closed.
## 6.2. Good wintering.
Having had such a severe lesson, you may be sure that in succeeding years I took pains to see that before the bees went into the cellar they had enough stores to stand a winter temperature of 50 or 60 degrees. The result has been very gratifying. I no longer have anxiety about wintering, and do not expect any colonies to die unless it be from queenlessness.
Some one may say, "But why don't you make sure that no queenless colony goes into the cellar?" Possibly that might be better ; but I doubt. The queenless colony is not worth very much at that time of year, and anything that would be done with it would hardly pay for the trouble of hunting through a number of colonies, causing them no little disturbance.
On the whole I am quite in favor of a furnace in cellar. To be sure, it does away with one argument in favor of cellaring, for there may be as heavy consumption of stores as on the summer stands, but that is greatly overbalanced by having the bees practically outdoors all winter in a very mild climate. For with the abundance of fresh air allowed, are they not practically outdoors? Beside that, I think the bees are strongerI mean each individual bee is stronger--when well wintered outdoors than when wintered in the usual close cellar, and I think there will be that same strength when wintered in a cellar with a furnace and a full supply of outdoor air.
## european foul brood
In the year 1907 a number of cells of dead brood were found in colony No. 13. I can not now be certain of it, but I think a few such dead brood had been seen a year or two previously. A large cherry orchard in easy range of my bees had been sprayed before the blossoms had fallen, and it was easy to believe that the poison sprayed on these blossoms was accountable for the dead brood. Nothing was done about it, and No. 13 turned out to be one of the best in the apiary. In 1908 I think some cells of dead brood were found in two colonies. The season was good, and no attention was paid to it, the idea still being that the poisonous spray was the cause of the trouble.
Beginning with the year 1909 I decided to give up the last out-apiary (the Wilson) and keep all colonies in the home apiary. When I found out later wh-t was before me, I was thankful that all were in a single apiary. Diseased brood was found to such an extent and in so many colonies that I sent a sample to Dr. E. F. Phillips at Washington. Back came the report that European foul brood was the thing I had to do with. I do not know how many colonies were diseased at the opening of the season, but I do know that we had been doing orr level best to spread the disease throughout the whole apiary by indiscriminate exchanging of combs of brood.
It was fairly along in the season when I got the word from Washington, and here is what I had to face: A season of dearth, there being a dead failure of the early honey-flow: bees in about 150 lives, counting nuclei and all, and only 33 of them that showed no sign of disease throughout the whole season; with a disease that at that time was said to be ten times worse than American foul brood. I felt like giving up. But only for a little while. If others had fought the disease, why couldn't I? Besides, I could now have some live experience with a thing I had only previously read about.
I started in to use the McEvoy treatment, brushing the diseased colonies upon foundation, after doing some breaking up and doubling. In all, however, only 56 colonies were actually brushed upon foundation. When I came to look how they were building up, I found, out of those first treated, that 9 had left, bag and baggage, leaving empty hives. That was probably from starvation, so after that I gave to each shaken colony one or more sections of honey taken from diseased colonies. So far as I know, this did not in any case convey the disease. Later, to make more sure against desertion, one of the diseased combs was left in the hive, and beside it two empty frames--not even a starter in the two frames, and the rest of the hive empty. When the bees made a start at building in the empty frames, the old comb was taken away, and the hive was filled up with full sheets of foundation. Sometimes the comb the bees had built in the empty frames was taken away after a good start was made on the foundation, and sometimes not. The outcome seemed to be all right either way.
Partly to please Editor E. R. Root, toward the latter part of the summer I tried the Alexander treatment. The gist of that treatment is to remove the queen and in 20 days give the colony a ripe queen-cell of best Italian stock, or else a very young virgin. Previous to the treatment, however, an important requisite is to make the colony _strong_.
I varied from the regular treatment by giving hybrid virgins instead of Italian, as my bees were mostly hybrids. It may be a question whether hybrids are not as good as Italians in carrying out the treatment, provided the hybrids are of equal vigor.
[ made the inexcusable blunder of understanding that Mr. Alexander had given a _laying_ queen at the end of 30 days of queenlessness, instead of giving a virgin. So I gave a young virgin after 10 days of queenlessness, so that there would be a laying queen present in about 20 days from the removal of the queen. I now think that the blunder was a fortunate one, since there is a gain of 8 or 10 days in the time of the treatment, airways provided that continued trial of the plan by myself and others should prove it to be reliable.
There were some cases of failure, but in each of these cases the colonies had not been made very strong. Mr. Alexander had emphasized the point that in order to have the treatment effective the colony must be strong, either by uniting or giving frames of sealed brood. My experience leads me to think that not only must the colony be strong but it must be strong in _young_ bees.
With the opening of the season of 1910 you may well suppose I was on the alert to see whether any colonies were diseased. In fact I was really hoping there would be some cases, for I had formed a theory and wanted to try some experiments. I was not disappointed. In 23: hives could be found the distinctive mark of the disease, in some only a cell or two, while in others as much as one cell in every ten was affected.
Some one may think it a difficult thing to detect the disease if only one or two bad cells are to be found in a hive. It is not difficult. The healthy brood is nearly white, while the diseased larva being distinctly yellow is quickly spotted, just as you would easily detect a yellow hen in a flock of white ones. It was impossible to say how many of the 23 cases were old offenders and how many of them were fresh cases brought in from outside. For there were diseased colonies all about me, and there was no law in Illinois to clean them up.
About that theory, the theory as to how the disease is continued in the live and conveyed from one cell to another. It is well known that if a larva be broken open the bees will suck up its juices, and in a case of starvation the juices of the larvae are consumed and the white skins thrown out of the live. When a larva first becomes diseased, and has not yet become offensive, it is easy to believe that the nurse-bees will suck up its juices, and then when they feed healthy larvae the healthy larvae will become diseased. But in a little while a diseased larva will become decayed and offensive, so that it will no longer be eaten by the nurse-bees. If this supposition be correct, it will come to pass that if egg-laying should stop for 5 or 6 days (the time a larva remains unsealed in its cell) there will no longer be in the hive at the same time diseased larvae fit for the nurses to eat and healthy larvae to which the diseased food may be given, and thus the disease should come to an end.
It was not hard to make the test. I caged the queen of a diseased colony after strengthening it, and freed her after six days of imprisonment. No more diseased brood appeared in the hive. Of course, one swallow does not make a summer, and this might not work in all cases. Neither would I in any case recommend the continuance of the old queen after treatment. A queen that has been for some time in a foul brood colony seems sluggish, and is better replaced by a vigorous young queen.
As between the McEvoy and the Alexander--or the Alexander-Miller treatment as it has been called--there is so much to be gained in the saving of combs, that even if the first plan always succeeds and the other sometimes fails, it may be cheaper to use the latter and treat over again the failures. But I may remark in passing that among the 2% cases of 1910 some of them were of those that had been brushed upon foundation the previous year.
With my present knowledge of the disease, here is the treatment that I believe well worth trying for European foul brood: Make the colony _strong_, preferably by giving sealed brood so as to have abundance of young bees ; remove the queen and at the same time give a ripe queen-cell or a very young virgin, which cell or virgin shall be of the most vigorous stock, and trust the bees to do the rest.
Now please remember that I do not give this as a treatment well tried and thoroughly reliable. My theory is only a theory, and the plan of treatment needs confirmation, as the newspapers say. I only say that I think the treatment worth trying because it has worked with some success so far ; and if it proves successful with others it will be no small gain.
Remember, too, that it is European foul brood I am talking about. For American foul brood the plan would be worthless.
## dripping-pan wax-extractor
Before the introduction of the solar wax-extractor, the rendering of wax was generally reserved as winter's work, and indeed after the introduction of the solar it was often convenient to work up in winter some of the material saved up. A very simple arrangement on a small scale did excellent work on much the same principle as the solar extractor, only the heat of the stove was used in place of solar heat.
An old dripping-pan (of course a new one would do) had one corner split open, and that made the extractor. The dripping-pan is put into the oven of a cook-stove with the split corner projecting out (Fig. 107). The opposite corner, the one farthest in the oven, is slightly raised by having a pebble or something of the kind under it, so that the melted was will run outward. A dish set under catches the dripping wax, making the outfit complete. Of course the material to be melted is put in the pan the same as in the solar extractor.
## solar wax-extractor
I do not know that the solar extractor has any advantage over the dripping-pan arrangement, except that the sun furnishes free heat. In either case, when old combs are melted, a good deal of wax remains in the refuse or slumgum, because the cocoons act much like sponges. Especially is this the case if more than a single thickness of comb is placed for melting.
## 6. steam wax-press.
So when the German steam wax-press came, leaving the slumgum mostly free from wax, the solar extractor had to take a back-seat, leaving wax-rendering again a proper thing for winter work.
The wax-press is placed upon the cook-stove (Fig. 108) and the work is done according to the instructions sent out with the machine. I find that time is an important element in the work, and that there is nothing to be gained by trying to hurry up matters by screwing down very hard. If the screw be turned down as tight as can be done without sliding the can around on the stove, that is all that is necessary. Then when the wax ceases to run it can be turned down again. Continuing in this way till no more wax runs, when the slum gum is turned out (Fig. 109) it is so free from wax that it is not worth working over again. The wax saved by using the steam wax-press will pay immense interest on the money invested in its purchase.
## 7. other winter work.
The work of getting sections ready for the hoped-for harvest of the coming summer has already been mentioned, and the winter affords opportunity for making up lives, supers, or any fixtures that may be needed. As these things are bought mostly in the flat, the chief part of the work is nailing, and it is a great convenience to have the different kinds of nails in their proper places ready for immediate use. A set of nail-boxes, part of which are seen in Fig. 110, serves the purpose excellently. The boxes are patterned somewhat after a tin mail-box I saw at a tin-shop. When a box is taken from its nail on the wall, laid flat and slightly shaken, the nails are easily picked up from the shallow part of the box.
Truth compels me to say that so many different persons find it convenient to use these boxes and inconvenient to return them, that of late the boxes are not always found in their proper places, and when the picture was taken they were assembled for that special occasion.
_Fig. 11.--"Busy at the Tyheaviter."_
Most of the winter-time, however, is occupied with reading and writing. There are some thirty or forty bee-journals to be read, and a large part of them are printed in the German and French languages. I am a poor scholar in either German or French, so it is not strange if I sometimes get behind in my reading, to bring up in winter. I wish I could find the time to read over again at my leisure in winter all the bee-journals that I read more or less hurriedly in summer. But I never find the time. I used to think that if I ever lived to be fifty yearsold I would take things very leisurely. But I am now past fifty, and I never was more crowded in my life before.
Writing for the bee-journals.
Besides the reading, there is the writing. Some extra writing usually to be done each winter, besides the regular work in that line. I have written "Stray Straws" for Gleanings in Bee-Culture ever since December, 1890, and four years later I began writing answers to questions in the American Bee-Journal. The thought of keeping up that work year in and year out, with never a vacation, summer or winter, would be somewhat wearsome if it were not that I delight in the work. If any one of my readers should hesitate about sending to me any question connected with bee-keeping because of the thought that it will be unpleasant to me. let him disabuse his mind of any such thought. The receipt of such questions is a real pleasure.
One thing, however, that gives pain instead of pleasure, is to find a stamp enclosed upon opening a letter, for then I know that the writer expects an answer by mail, and, in justice to others, answering bee-questions by mail is a thing I cannot do. If I should answer one by mail I must answer others, and the only fair way is to treat all alike. The request for me to answer a question in print will always be cheerfully complied with without any stamp accompanying the request.
## if beginning again.
I am sometimes asked whether, if beginning afresh. I would take the same course I have already been over. I hat is not a very easy question to answer. There are some things that can only be settled by experiment. and about such things one can not reply offhand. Likely, if I were beginning all over again not many things would be different from what they are. But it may be worth while to answer as well as I can about a few things.
If I were to start in afresh, I would take some pains to select a location as favorable for bee-keeping as possible. I didn't choose a location. I just began bee-keeping where I was, with no thought of doing anything in a commercial way, and grew into the business. I certainly would not start in afresh in a location with only one principal honey-plant, and that sometimes a failure. That was the condition here, clover the only dependence for a crop, and that with too many off years. Of late years, however, the fall crop is worth considering.
## hive-stands.
I surely would not start in with such hive-stands as I now have. The bottom-board resting upon so large a flat surface makes a good place for moisture to lodge, and favors rotting both bottom-board and stand. It also makes a fine place for the large black ants to lodge and honeycomb the boards. Something would be better that allows a smaller area of contact. Tile or cement might fill the bill.
## italian hees.