11 524 I!!' If ■Ml! .1! ! ' 11 ■lit ■ Ml CORNELL UNIVERSITY L,B«;;. 3 1924 062 872 290 232-613-lOm. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS BULLETIN NO. 158 JUNE, 1913 Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping EXPERIMENTS IN ARTIFICIAL DIVISION AND SWARM-CONTROL By Wilmon Newel l, State Entomologist and Entomologist to the Experiment Stations THE LIFE HISTORY AND CONTROL OF -THE BEE-MOTH OR WAX- WORM By F. B. Paddock, Assistant Entomologist A STATISTICAL STUDY OF TEXAS BEEKEEPING By],William Harper Dean, Formerly Assistant Entomologist •7Yir^<^ POSTOFFICE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS VON BOECKMANN-^ONES CO., PRINTERS Austin, Texas TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. GOVERNING BOARD. Board of Directors, A. and' M. College. E. B. Gushing, President Houston ".John I. Guion, Vice President • Ballmger L. J. Hart San Antonio J. Allen Kyle Houston Walton Peteet Fort Worth R. L. Bennett Paris Ed R. Kone ....._ Austin President of the College. R. T. MiLNEK .-. '• College Station Station Staff. B. YouNGBLOOD, M. S Director M. Francis, D. V. S Veterinarian 6. S. FRAPS, Ph. D -. Chemist H. Ness, M. S Horticulturist J. C. Burns, B. S Animal Husbandman WiLMON Newell, M. S Entomologist A. B. Conner, B. S Agronomist F. H. Blodgett, Ph. D Plant Pathologist and Physiologist Rbx E. Willard, M. S , Farm Management Expert W. L. BoYETT State Feed Inspector J. B. Rather, M. S '. Assistant Chemist F. B. Paddock, B. S. E Assistant Entomologist H. H. JoBSON, B. S Assistant Agronomist William Levin, A. B Assistant Chemist H. B. Spaulding, B. S Assistant Chemist H. Schmidt, D. V. M Assistant Veterinarian Chas. a. Felker Chief Clerk A. S. Ware Secretary J. M. SCHAEDEL ,' Stenographer C. A. Case Stenographer R. L. Spiller Mailing Clerk STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Governing Board. His Excellency, Governor 0. B. Colquitt Austin Lieutenant Governor Will H. Mayes Brownwood CoiiiiissioNER OF Agriculture Ed R. Kone Austin Director of Experiment Stations. B. YouNGBLOop, M. S r. . ; College Station Superintendents of Sub-Stations. E. E. BiNFORD, Beeville Sub-Station Beeville, Bee County W. S Hotckiss, Troup Sub-Station Troup, Smith County E. M JOHNSON, Co-operative Rice Station Beaumont, Jefferson County R. W. EDWARDS, Supt. Co-operative Forage Crops Station I. s.- ¥ork; spur sub:station: [v.:/.::-.::.:] ;v.v':'''"p\i?S^ SS T W BuTl T^e-Ple-Belton Sub-station •.•.V.Xmpt Bdl Sun ^ V T rouf T Ku" r« f«w °" Denton, Denton County H C STEWART pT. ^?;^^f i°" Lubbock, Lubbock Couutv H. C . STEWART, Pecos Sub-Station Pegog Reeve-? Cmmtv G T- McNE^r'/"^^^ 1 ^tl'lfT ■ Angleton Bra^o^: cZg ?C S ScHr;/^°°^i ''' Sub-Station Nacodoches, Naiogdoches Count^ C. S. SCHARFF, Feeding and Breeding Station .. College Station, Brazos County NOTE.-The mam station is located on the grounds' of the Agricultural and Medianical College, m Brazos county. The postoffice 'address is College Station, Texas Reports and bulletins are sent upon application to the Di?ector. A postal card will bring these publioation.s. 'Acting. CONTENTS. Experiments in Artificial Division and Swarm-C&ntrol: Introduction r ...... '. 5 Nature of the Experiments 5 The Season 6 Swarm-Control Experiments 7 Artificial Division 7 Increasing Size of Brood-Chamber 11 Increasing Super-Room 13 Shaking onto Foundation 13 Comparative Honey Production of Italians and Carniolans 14 The Life History and Control of the Bee-Moth or Wax- Worm: Introduction 15 Economic Importance 15 Loss Caused by, in Texas .' 16 Origin and Distribution, 16 The Life Cycle 16 The Adult Moth 17 Habits ITt Mating. and Oviposition 18 The Egg 19 The Larva 20 The Pupa .' 21 Life History 22 Natural Enemies 25 Artificial Control 26 Fumigation 26 Sulfur Dioxide 27 Carbon Bisulfide. v 27 Directions for Fumigating 30 A Statistical Study of Texas Beekeeping: Introduction 31 Number and Value of Colonies, by Counties 31 Honey Production by Colonies, Season of 1911 34 Average Prices Received for Honey, Different Localities 36 Production of Wax by Counties, 1911 38 Professional Beekeeping vs. Beekeeping as a Side Issue 40 Queens Produced, 1911 42 Summary 42 I Cornell University J Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924062872290 ERRATA. Explanation of Plate ITI, below should read "larva" instead of "larvaa.' Page 21, line 23-, should read "Plate V, 'below" instead of "Plate V, 6.' Page 31, line 25, 'should read "Plate VI, HgM" instead of "Plate VI, a.' Pa^e 21, line 36, should read "Plate III, below" instead of "Plate III, c:' Page 21, line 36, should read "Plate VI, left" instead of "Plate VI." a < INVESTIGATION PERTAINING TO TEXAS BEEKEEPING. EXPERIMENTS IN ARTIFICIAL DIVISION AND SWARM- CONTROL. By Wilmon Newell. So far as his other duties permit, the State Entomologist conducts experiments with honey-bees with a view to perfecting or improving prac- tical methods of handling them nnier Texas conditions. The experiments described herein were made during the season of 1912 in the writer's apiary of sixty colonies, located on the Brazos river in Brazos county, tjnfortunately, the number of colonies included in each experiment was smaller than" desirable, but owing to the fact that the writer has to conduct other research work for the Experiment Station, has charge of the foul brood eradication for the State of Texas and in addition is obliged to handle a large correspondence throughout the entire year, it has been impossible for him to maintain and care for a larger apiary. For the same reason, the experiments here mentioned are relatively simple ones. The fact that very little in the way of experi- ■ mental work with bees has ever been done in Texas is our only justifi- cation and excuse for publishing these results. The reader may rest assured, however, that the experiments, as far as they go, have been made with painstaking care, the records are precise and accurate, and the yields of honey given are exact to the pound. NATURE OF THE EXPERIMENTS. The apiary contained for the most part three-banded Italians, several Carniolan colonies and a few hybrid colonies. The first line of experimentation was to test different manipulations in their effect in discouraging or retarding swarming. In connection with this the honey production of the colonies treated by the different methods was also determined and compared. The second line of observation was that of determining the comparative production of honey by both Italian and Carniolan colonies, kept in the same yard and under the same conditions. All the colonies were domiciled in the standard ten-frame dovetailed hives, with Hoffman style brood-frames, the combs being in nearly all eases built from full sheets of foundation. The supers used were all of the shallow extracting type, frequently referred to as the "Ideal" by many Texas beekeepers. The production of colonies, as given below, has reference in every case to extracted honey, and particular pains were taken to determine the yield of each colony with accuracy. When the full supers were taken from the hives, the hive number was marked on the super with chalk. When carried into the extracting room the super was weighed and its number and gross weight set down in the record. The honey was then 6 Texas Ageicultueal Bxpeeiment Stations. extracted and each empty comb returned _to the super from which it was taken. The super with its empty combs was then weighed, the weight recorded, and the difference between its weight when full and when empty set down as the net weight of extracted honey taken from it. THE SEASON". A general knowledge of the season, the time and duration of honey- flows, the available honey-plants, etc., is quite necessary to a proper understanding of the experiments and their results. Upon the whole, the season was what the beekeeper would consider "fair." The experimental apiary is located upon a sandy ridge less than one-half mile from the Brazos river. On this ridge horsemint* grows in abundance, as well as in waste places,in the river bottom across- the river from the apiai'y. A considerable area of cotton, in the Brazos bottoms proper and in a wide creek bottom near at hand, is wifhin easy reach of the bees. However, the principal source of honey was the horsemint, fully 80 per cent of the surplus being secured from this plant. The amount of honey produced by the cotton was relatively small and would not, of itself, have constituted a surplus of any importance. The follow- ing data, taken from the writer's notes, will convey to the experienced beekeeper a fair idea of the season and of the bees' activities at different times : "February 28. — Weather still cold, temperature 32° ; nothing in bloom. March 3. — Warmer; plum and peach beginning to bloom. March 15. — Cold spell ; freezing. March 16. — First adult drones hatching in the hives. March 30. — Dewberries in bloom ; first oak blooms. March 30. — Bluebonnet, wild vetch, wild pea and post oaks now in bloom. Supply of nectar about equal to amount being consumed by the bees. March 31. — Swarming fever coming on. Wild grape beginning to bloom. April 3. — Some honey being deposited in supers. Placed supers on strongest colonies. April 5-9. — Eain. April 9.^Youpon beginning to bloom! Swarming impulse strong. April 11, — Youpon blooming well. More rain. April 23. — Youpon flow over with ; red haw and black haw in full bloom. Swarming fever still strong. The colonies have put in an average of about 15 pounds surplus up to this time. May 1. — Haw done blooming; no honey-flow. Bees inclined to rob. May 1-13. — ISTo honey-flow. Bobbing bad. May 16. — Prickly pear coming into bloom. First horsemint bloom of the season discovered. May 23. — Considerable horsemint in bloom, but weather dry. Honey- flow very light. May 28. — Heavy rain. May 31. — Horsemint in full bloom. Honey-flow increasing rapidly. *Monarda punctata. Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 7 June 3. — More rain. Plow very heavy. June 15.— Ilorsemint still in full bloora but honey-flow slackening on account of no rain. June 17. — Good rain, with cool norther. June 19. — Honey-flow improved slightly. June 30. — Eirst honey extracted from supers. June 24. — Horsemint flow fniling. July 4. — Horsemint flow entirely over ; seeds ripe. July 12. — All horsemint dead. Cotton honey beginning to come in slowly. July 20. — Very hot and dry. ISTo honey-flow at all. August 8.— Still no rain. Amount of' honey from cotton hardly suf- ficient to be perceptible in supers. September 16.— Pirst light shower since June 17th. September J 7.— Bees getting a little dark honey, source unknown. September ] 9. — Weather has been very hot to the present time. First fall in temperature today — 60° night temperature. October 15. — A little honey has been coming in from broomweed and cotton since September 17th, but of little importance. Weather cooler. Eeduced entrances of weakest colonies. October 16-17. — First autumn rain of importance. October.18. — First norther, temperature 58°. October 20-Kovember 35.— Light flow from cotton and broomweed con- tinued. A small amount of honey placed in the supers, but averaging less than 10 pounds per colonv. November 37.— Pirst frost"" SWARM-OONTEOL EXPERIMENTS. The term "swarm-control" should not, in this instance, be construed too literally, for the experiments under this head had as their object the prevention, anticipation or delay of swarming in order that natural swarms would not be lost in the out-apiary where the colonies were •located. The methods used for this purpose may be grouped as. follows : 1. Artificial division of colonies. 2. Increasing size of brood chamber : (a) Before queen-cell's were started. (b) After queen-cells were started. 3. Increasing super-space, but without increasing size of brood- chamber. 4. Shaking colonies onto foundation. ]. Artificial Division. The question is often asked : ''Which is the most profitable,- to prevent a colony from swarming and thus conserve its strength, or to divide it info two colonies early in the season and have both of them gather honey?" The question is an interesting one as well as an, important one and, from conversations ^yhich the writer has had with various bee- keepers, the consensus of opinion seems to be that the one colony, if increase is prevented, will give the most profitable returns. It must be conceded that various factors have a bearing on this question, and this 8 Texas Agricultukal Expekiment Stations. is particularly true of the time and duration of the honey-flow as well as upon how much time elapses between the time of division and the beginning of the main honey-tiow. In the attempt to answer this question for the conditions prevailing in Brazos county, the writer undertook the experiments described below. Five strong colonies were divided early in the season, making ten colonies in all. The production of these ten colonies was determined and com- pared with the average production of other strong colonies in the same yard which did not swarm and which were not divided. All of the colo- nies involved in this experiment wei-e typical three-banded Italians. Colony No. 106. — On March 31st this colony was very strong and building queen-cells. On April 8nd it was divided, the queen and five fram'es of brood and bees being placed on a new stand and thereafter known as "Colony No. 206." On the old stand, No. 106, were left the other five frames of bees and brood and a ripe queen-cell. Both colonies were given a sufficient number of frames with full sheets of foundation to fill out the ten-frarne hives. The total surplus production of No. 106 for the season was 32 pounds and of No. 206 was 49 pounds. Colony No. 107. — This colony was divided in the same manner as No. 106, the division being made on March 31st, when the colony was very strong and had plenty of sealed queen-cells. In this case the queen and five frames of bees and brood were removed to a new stand known as "No. 20'};." The surplus produced by No. 107 during the entire season amounted to 36 pounds extracted honey, while No. 207 produced 81 pounds. Colony No. 317. — This colony was also very strong and had sealed queen-cells on March 31st, so was divided on that date in the same manner as Nos. 106 and 107. The queen and five frames of brood and bees, removed to the new stand, were subsequently designated as "Colony No. 417." ^ 6 - J The surplus production of No. 317 for the season was 33 pounds, and of No. 417 was 115 pounds. Colony No. 319. — On April 2nd this colony was very strong and had about a half dozen sealed queen-cells. On this date it was divided in the manner above described, the queen and five frames of brood and bees being moved to a new stand and designated as "No. 419." No. 319 produced 75 pounds surplus honey, and No. 419 produced 54 pounds by the end of the season. Colony No. 517.— On March 31st this colony was very strong and had plenty of queen-cells. Division was made as in the ease of the preceding colonies, and the new colony, composed of the queen and five frames of bees and brood, was called "No. 613." The season's surplus production by No. 517 was 32 pounds and bv No. 613 was 63 pounds. ■' In all of these divisions it should be noted that the portion of the colony deprived of the laying queen was left upon the original stand so that it had the advantage of all "field bees" belonging to the original colony In other words, the part moved to a new stand had the advan- tage of a laying queen and the part remaining on the old stand, having only a ripe queen-cell, had advantage of all fielders, as the latter all re turned to the location of the old colony. Investigations Peetaining to Texas Beekeeping. 9 The results of these five divisions are more readily compared by con- sulting the following table : Divided Into Colonies. Original Colony No. With Ripe Queen-cell and Field Bees. With Laying Queen. Total Production of the Two Colonies Made by Division, Pounds Colony No. Surplus Produced, Pounds. Colony No. Surplus Produced, Pounds. 106 107 317 319 517 106 107 317 319 517 32 36 33 75 32 206 207 417 419 613 49 81 115 54 63 81 117 148 129 95 Totals. . . . 208 42 362 72 570 Averages . . 114 1 ThOj most apparent fact shown by the above table is that the colonies which had a laying queen from the start produced an average of 30 pounds more per colony than the others, even though they were handi- capped at the beginning by being deprived of all fielders. It seems a safe conclusion that, had the ones which were provided with a ripe queen-cell at the time of division (Nos. 106, 107, 317, 319 and 517) been provided with a laying queen instead, their production would have been at least as great as the others, especially as they had the advantage of retaining all fielders at the time the division was made. The conclusion is justifi^ed that the purchase of queens for these colonies, even at a price of $1 each, would have been profitable, inasmuch as this would have increased the average production of these colonies by 30 pounds of ex- tracted honey, worth, at a net price of 7 cents, $3.10.* The average profit from purchasing queens for these five colonies would have been $1.10 per colony. The outcome of this experimeJit should also be viewed in another way ; whether the production of the two divided colonies would have equaled the production of the original five had they not been divided and had their swarming been prevented. In the apiary there were sixteen colonies which did not swarm during the season, or which were prevented from swarming by the manipulations which they received. These sixteen colonies produced on average surplus of 127 pounds per colony. "From the above table it is seen that the average production of each two colonies made by division was 114 pounds, or 13 pounds less than that of the colonies" which did not swarm. Stated in another way, it may be safely assumed that the five original eol^nies,.had they not been divided, would have produced an average of 127 pounds of honey each, as against the average of 114 pounds actually made by the two colonies which resulted from each division. This would appear at first sight to indicate a slightly larger production (13 pounds per colony) in the case of colonies not *For the purpose of estimating the value of these productions we have arbi- trarily assumed a wholesale price of 8 cents per pound for extracted honey, to the beekeeper, and have deducted therefrom 1 cent per pound for cost of cans, leaving the net value of the honey 7 cents per pound. The profit or loss from the experiment, at any price for honey, may be readily computed from the data given. 10 Texas Ageicdltural Experiment Stations. ■divided, as compared to those which were divided. However, the fact -that the division resulted in a net increase of one colony of bees must •also be taken into consideration in determining the profit or loss from -the experiment. In the case of the colonies which were not divided,_ we had one colony at the end of the experiment, the same as at the beginning, and an average honey production of 137 pounds, worth, at 7 cents per pound, $8.89. In the case of the colonies which were divided, on the other hand, we obtained not only the surplus honey, but also one addi- tional colony of bees. The honey produced by the two colonies, made by division of one, averaged 114 pounds, worth, at 7 cents, $7.98. The additional colony, without the frames or hives to contain it, may safely be estimated as worth, with its queen, $3 more, making the season's net income from dividing one colony amount to the total of $7.98 and $3, or $10.58 in all. This comparison may be more readily made in the following manner : Average income from one colony divided into two at beginning of the season: 114 pounds surplus honey, at 7 cents $ 7 98 1 additional colony of bees, net 3 00 Total income $10 98 Average income from one colony not divided : 127 poimds surplus honey, at 7 cents 8 89 Difference in favor of division, per colony $ 2 09 In considering this difPerence in favor of dividing the colonies, as compared to keeping them intact and preventing increase, one should not lose sight of the fact that these colonies were divided between March 31st and April 4th, fully six weeks before the main honey-flow from horse- mint, which commenced between May 15th and 20th. Had the divisions been made later, there would have been less time for the divided colonies to build up in strength and their production would have been correspond- ingly smaller. Had the divided colonies 106, 107, 317, 319 and 517, which received ripe queen-cells at the time of division, been furnished with laying queens instead, their production would, as already shown, doubtless have been as great as that of .the colonies (206, 207, 417, 419 and 613) which did have a laying queen, nr 30 pounds more per colony than was actually obtained. In this case the outcome would have been substantially as follows : Average income from one colony divided into two at the beginning of the season; each divided portion being furnished with laying queen : 144 pounds surplus, at 7 cents net $10 08 1 additional colony of bees 3 00 $13 08 Less cost of one queen 100 Net income, average *12 08 Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 11 Average income from colony not divided: 137 pounds surplus, at t cents $ 8 89 Difference in favor of division $ 3 19 3. Increasing Size of BroodrChamher. While swai-ming is but the natural response to an instinct calling for an increase in communities, Just as brood-rearing is the response to the instinct for increasing the number of individuals within the colonjr, it has, nevertheless, long been recognized by beekeepers that a crowded condition of the hive is one of the conditions which induces the swarming fever and precipitates swarming. Many of the methods in vogue for delaying swarming, or pi'eventing it entirely, are based upon giving the colony an abundance of room in which to store honey and to rear brood. Some of our experiments were conducted to determine the effect, in discouraging swarming, of giving additional room within the hive, either by increasing the size of the brood chamber or of the super-room. In some instances this additional room was given before the lirst queen-cells were started; in other cases, afterwards. In the case of Colonies 103, 103, 104, 320 and 331, the space in which the queen could lay was increased, prior to the appearance of the first queen-cells, by adding a super of empty combs above the brood-nest, with no queen-excluding honey-board between. As is readily seen, this in- creased the size of the brood-chamber by about 50 per cent. The details of these experiments follow : Colony No. 103. — On March 31st, with the colony strong, the super of empty combs was added. By April 11th eggs had been laid in the super-combs and some honey stored in them, but no cells had been built. On April 31st the colony cast a swarm. Colony No. 103. — On March 31st the colony was strong and- the super of empty combs was given. By April 11th the super was well filled with brood and honey and on April 33nd another super was given. The colony did not build any queen-cells during the season, and its total production of honey was 154 pounds'. Colony No. 104. — On March 31st, the colony being very strong, a super of empty combs was given. A second super was given on April 11th. after the first one had been well filled with brood and honey. The colony did not build queen-cells or swarm during the season. The honey yield, however; was but 69 poxmds. Colony No. 320. — Received the super of empty combs on March 31st. On April 33nd the colony was building queen-cells and these were de- stroyed; another empty super being given at the same time. The building of queen-cells was abandoned by the bees until about May 13th, when they built cells again, and swarmed about May 16th or 17th. Colony No. 321. — This colony received its super of empty combs on March 31st and a second super on April 33nd. No queen-cells were built until early in May, and the colony cast a swarm about May 5th or 6th. Thus, of the five colonies, the queens of which were furnished with SO per cent more room for eggrlaying prior to the appearance of the swarming fever, two did not swarm and three cast swarms. 13 ^ Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations. A similar treatment was given colonies 322, 324, 325, 515 and^ 516; that is, the brood-chamber was increased 50 per cent in size, prior to the advent of the swarming fever, but in addition a sup'er was also added above the enlarged brood-chamber. Colony No. 322.— On April 2nd the colony was strong and no queen- cells had been started. Two shallow extracting supers, both containing drawn-out empty combs, were placed above the brood-chamber. A wood and wire queen-excluding honey-board was placed between the two supers. The lower super served to increase the size of the brood-chamber by one- half, as the queen could lay in it at pleasure. The upper super was intended for storage of honey. At this time the light honey-flow was about equal to the daily consumption for brood-rearing. On April 12th it was found that the queen had not laid in the lower super and, instead, the bees had nearly filled it with honey, leaving the upper super still empty. The supers were accordingly reversed, bringing the empty super nexl: to the brood-nest and the partially filled one above it, with the honey- board still betv/een the two supers. On April 23rd it was found that the super next to the brood-nest contained honey, but no brood, while the upper super was again empty. The supers were accordingly reversed again. TJp to this time no queen-cells had been built. The colony cast a swarm during the first week in May. Colony No. 324. — Very strong on April 3rd; no queen-cells. Two supers were given as in the case of Nos. 322 and 324. By April 12th many queen-cells had been built and the colony was ready to swarm. It was then used for another experiment. Colony No. 515. — Treated, on April 3rd, in the same manner as de- scribed for N"os. 322, 324 and 335. No queen-cells were built prior to April 23rd, but cells were built and the colony swarmed about April 28th. Colony No. 516. — Very strong on April 3rd; no queen-cells. Treated in the same manner as JSTos. 322, 324, 325 and 515. On April 12th the lower super contained honey, while the upper one was empty. The supers were reversed, sn as to bring the empty one next to the brood-chamber. On April 22nd the colony had plenty of queen-cells and was. ready to swarm. Thus, out of the five colonies that received 50 per cent additional room in the brood-chamber and an equivalent amount in super-room, four developed the swarming fever and one did not. A similar addition of two supers of empty combs was made to Colonies 323, 508, 51.3, 514 and 518, but in the case of these the supers were added after queen-cells had been started and the latter were torn down at the time. In the case of all five colonies queen-cells were built again imme- diately and the treatment had no apparent effect on the swarming impulse. in the case of the ten colonies (102, 103, 104, 320, 321, 322, 324, 325, 515 and 516) which received the increase of 50 per cent in the capacity of the brood-chamber prior to the development of the swarming impulse, three did not swarm at all and in the case of the other seven swarniino' was apparently delayed for from two to three weeks. Strong colonies not treated in this manner swarmed, in most cases, during the first week in April, whereas- most of ihe treated ones did not swarni until between April 20th and May 5th. For the seven colonies the treatment did no Investigations Pehtaining to Texas Beekeeping. 13 more than delay the time of swarminj;. This was a decided disadvantage ■under the conditions existing, for in the case of the colonies which swarmed early, both new swarm and old colony had ample time to build np in strength before the main honey-flow commenced between the 15th and 20th of May. The late swarms were, of course, weak at the beginning of the honey-flow and, without exception, their surplus production was very low, as they did not store any honey to speak of until the honey-flow was more than half over. This loss was not compensated for by the rather heavy production of the three that did not swann. As stated in a preceding paragraph, these experiments should be con- strued in the light of a clear understanding of the conditions existing in this locality. Where the swarming season comes on from six to ^even weeks in advance of the main honey-flow, as in this instance, the delay of swarming, by giving additional room or by destroying queen-cells, seems inadvisable. ' An artificial division of the colonies, or their treat- ment by the "shaking" method, appears to bring much better returns. 3. Increasing Super-Room. Many experiments were tried in which a large amount of super-room was furnished the colonies, both prior to the development of the swarming fever and aftei'wards. It is unnecessary to take space for describing these experiments, as in no ease did the addition of abundant super-room have any perceptible effect upon the swarming tendency. 4. Shalcyng Onto Foundation. A common method of swarm control in vogue among Texas beekeepers is that known as "shaking." When the colony shows symptoms of swarm- ing and is building queen-cells, another hive is prepared, containing frames filled with foundation, preferably full sheets. The colony is placed to one side and the hive, containing the foundation, placed on the old stand. The combs are then taken from the old hive and the bees and queen shaken from them onto the ground in front of the new hive. In this way the colony is transferred, with rather rough handling and much excitement, to a brood-chamber containing nothing but foundation. The super, if one has been on the old hive, is transferred to the new one. The hive containing the brood and one or more queen-cells, with sufficient workers to care for the unsealed brood, is placed on a new stand and the entrance contracted somewhat to prevent robbing, and left there. In course of time a Voung queen issues, mates, commences laying, and, with the hatching workers, constitutes a new colony.* In the case of several of our colonies this shalcing treatment was given as a preventive of swarming. Five colonies, all of which were very strong at thetime, and were building queen-cells, were shaken onto foundation on April 31st and 23nd. The swarming -impulse was checked entirely and these five colonies pro- duced, respectively, 175, 117, 103, 174 and 118 pounds of surplus during the season, an average of 137 pounds each. Twelve colonies in the yard, *Rough shaking of combs bearing sealed queen-oells will, in nearly all eases, kill the queens within. For this reason the bees should be gently brushed from the comb which contains the queen-cell that is to be preserved for hatching. 14 Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations. which did not swarm and which were not manipulated in any way to prevent swarming, prodnced an average of 120 pounds per colony, hence it does not appear that the shaking treatment materially reduced the honey production of these colonies. One might be inclined, from a con- sideration of these figures, to suppose that the shaking treatment had actually increased the production, but such a conclusion would not be correct. The fact that the five "shaken" colonies made a higher average yield than the twelve which did not swarm is doubtless accounted for by the fact that these five colonies were exceptionally strong. Had it been possible to prevent them from swarming and still retain all their brood, their production would have been even higher than it was following the shaking treatment. HONEY production OP CARNIOLAN AND ITALIANS COMPARED. We had in this yard four Carniolan colonies which were up to full strength at the beginning of the honey-flow. They produced, respectively, 79, 98, 115 and 131 pounds of surplus during the season, or an average of 103 pounds per colony. Twenty Italian colonies, also in good con- dition and strong at the opening of the lioney season, made an average of 121 pounds per colony. It also happened that the average production of the Carniolan colonies, 103 pounds per colony, was exactly the average production of all colonies, Cai-niolans, Italians and hybrids, in the apiary. In fairness to the Camiolans. it should be said, however, that four colonies is too small a number to give an accurate index of producing capacity. It is never possible to get even two colonies at exactly the same strength or in the same condition, hence reliable conclusions from experiments in which honey production is involved can be arrived at only by a large number of experiments and by taking the average production of a large number of colonies. We offer the above figures for what they are worth and they show that the Carniolans at least equaled the average of the yard. It is expected that more complete data on relative production by the Carniolans and Italians will be available at the end of the coming season, as the result of experiments wliich are how under way and which include a larger number of colonies. R ^ o THE LIFE HISTORY AND CONTROL OP THE BEE-MOTH OR WAX-WORM. By F. B. Paddock. A serious hindrance to the beekeeping industry in the State of Texas, as well as in many other States, is the bee-moth {Oalleria mellonSla). Under the name of "web-worm" this pest is known to every beekeeper, but it is not as generally known that these web-worms develop, after maturity, into moths or "millers." The larvffi feed upon stored comb and honey, as well as on combs in the hive, and this makes it a diflBcult pest t^o fight successfully. When and how this pest was introduced into Texas is not known, nor has the location of the first infestation been determined. It is evident that the dissemination has been complete, for there are few counties in the State where bees are kept that are free from the pest today. The climate of the State, with its long, hot summers and short, mild winters,- greatly favors the increase of the insect and it is much harder to fight here than in many other States. In Colorado the high altitude is apparently it check on its development and in the Northeastern States the long, cold winters act as a natural check to a considerable extent. With some beekeepers this insect is no longer considered a serious pest, for; they realize that if the colony is provided with a vigorous queen and is kept strong the bee-moth, cannot enter the hive to deposit the eggs which hatch into the worms. The insect has become very largely an enemy of bees in box hives and a destroyer of stored comb and honey,, found often around the honey house and in piles of unused supers of comb. In large apiaries' the wax and comb that is often carelessly left lying around aifords sufficient food in which the insect. breeds, ready to- infest any weak colony in the vicinity. With many beekeepers the bee- moth is a source of continuous trouble, for if the bees are not closely- watched and become queenless, the colony is sure to become infested im a very short time. If the bee-moth becomes established in a locality it is very hard -to exterminate. At present the beekeepers are not able to more than check the pest, but it is hoped that a more thorough knowledge of the habits and life history will result in better control of this enemy and. a reduction of, the loss now suffered from its ravages. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE. What this pest is costing the beekeepers of the State is hard to deter- mine. The price of bees, honey and wax varies in the different sections of the State. Often the loss of colonies is attributed to other causes and frequently the presence of the bee-moth is not detected. In the reports which have been received from beekeepers, no mention has been made of the loss of stored comb, but this must certainly be considerable. The loss in some cases is very heavy. In reporting for the year 1911, 136 beekeepers reported losses varying from 5 per cent of their colonies to as high as 95 per cent. Many more beekeepers reported the presence 1.6 Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations. of the bee-moth as "general," indicating that they suffered no small loss. In one very well-kept apiary that has come under the observation of the writer there is an annual loss of 3 per cent due to the bee-moth. It is safe to say that in many of the larger apiaries throughout the State this loss is not uncommon, while in the smaller apiaries and in box-hive apiaries the loss is much greater, as was indicated by the reports referred to above. The census of 1910 shows 238,107 colonies of bees in the State, and it is generally conceded that these figures are much below the actual number. Assuming that 3 per cent is the average annual loss of colonies due to the wax-worm, including the large losses in the poorly kept apiaries, it is seen that the annual loss amounts to at least 7000 colonies. At an average valuation of $3 per colony, this amounts to $31,000 a year, a very considerable tax on the beekeeping industry of the State. ORIGIN AND DISTRIBUTION. There is some dispute and no little uncertainty about the origin of the hee-moth. Dr. A. J. Cook has this to say in regard to its origin : "These moths were known to writers of antiquity, as even Aristotle tells of their injury. They are wholly of Oriental origin, and are often referred to by European writers as a terrible pest."* The bee-moth was introduced into America about 1805, though bees had been introduced eome time prior to this. The time of the intro- duction of the bee-moth into Texas is not known. The insect is now found in Italy, Germany, France, England, Ireland, India, Australia and in most of the beekeeping sections of the United States. This insect is distributed practically all over Texas. Following is a list of counties from which the bee-moth has been reported to us by beekeepers : Anderson, Atascosa, Bandera, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Bosque, Bowie, Brazoria, Brazos, Brooks, Brown, Burleson .Burnet, Cald- well, Callahan, Cass, Cherokee, Coleman, Collin, Colorado, Comanche, €oncho, Cooke, Coryell, Crockett, Dallas, Delta, Ellis, Erath, Palls, Fan- nin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Gonzales, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hamilton, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Houston, Hunt, Jasper, Jefferson, Karnes, Kaufman, Kendall,, Kerr, Kimble, Lamar, Lampasas, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Liberty, Limestone, Llano, Madison, McCuUoch, McLennan, Mason, McMuUen, Medina, Milam, Mills, Morris, Navarro ISTolan, Nueces, Panola, Parker, Polk, Bains, Bed Biver, Eobertson^ Eockwell, Bunnels, Busk, Sabine, San Jacinto, Schleicher, Shackelford, Smith, Stephens, Taylor, Travis, Trinitv, Tyler, Uvalde, Val Verde Waller, Ward, Washington, Wood, Wilson and Williamson'. ' The above list includes nearly all of the important beekeeping counties of the State. That the bee-moth is present in many more counties than are shown by our records is beyond doubt. The larva ("web- worm"), upon reaching maturity, constructs a cocoon by means of silken threads which it is able to spin.' After the cocoon is completed the larva changes to the pupal stage.. This is the stage in which the forni of the larva is reconstructed to make the moth which will em erge later from the cocoon. The moths mate and the females *"Manual of the Apiary," A. J. Cook, p. 485. Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 17 deposit the eggs which hatch into the larva. This is called the "life the adult moth. cycle." The adult bee-moth (Plate II, a) is about five-eighths _^of an inch (15 millimeters) in length, with a wing expanse of about one and one-quarter inches (30 to 32 mm.). The moth with its wings folded appears ashy- gray in color, but the back third of each front wing is bronze colored, and this wing is thieldy covered with fine scales which rub off easily when the moth is touched. On the outer and rear margins of the fore wing is a scanty row of short hairs. The hind wings are uniform in color, usually gray, with traces of a few black lines extending from the outer margin inward toward the base ; on the outer and rear margins is a thick fringe of hairs on which is a dark line running parallel with the border of the wing. The body is brown, the shade varying, with a cover- ing of scales. These scales rub oif easily and are not always present on the older moths. The male is slightly smaller than the female. A difiEer- ence between the sexes is noticed in the fore wing, which, in the case of the male, is defeply scalloped on its outer margin. This scallop carries a heavy fringe of hairs, almost black in color. Another difference is in the mouth parts, the palpi of the male being rudimentary. Habits. The moths emerge entirely at night, and in the cages observed no moths emerged after 9 p. m. They at once seek some protected place in which to expand their wings and dry, and by the next morning they arc able to fly. During the day the moths' seek a sheltered place away from light and enemies, where they apparently settle down and draw thejr wings around them, remaining very still and quiet. Usually they are well protected by their color, which resembles weather-beaten wood. If dis- turbed during the day, the moths will make a dart or short flight, acting as though blinded by the light. When an object is met, the moth quickly settles down and seems very anxious to avoid flight. That they are hard to disturb in the daytime is shown by the fact that in several of the cages used in the experiments small ants attacked the moths and killed them without any aj)parent struggle on the part of the moths. Only by close examination could it be detected that the moths were dead and not rest- ing in the usual manner. It is only during the latter part of the ovipo- sition period that the females are active during the daytime. The male moths emerge a few days earlier than the females and are much longer lived. In several cages, closely observed, the males lived an average of twenty-six days, which was fourteen days longer than the average life of the females. The male moths are very active throughout their existence. Just how long the males are functional has not yet been •determined. In some matings under artificial conditions one male fer- tilized two females ait an interval of ten days. During the first part of the emergence period the males are in excess of the females, since the males emerge first as a general thing. Later on, the number of males and females reaching maturity at the same time is about equal. During the latter part of the emergence period the females predominate. How- ever, for the brood as a whole, taking sometimes as long as a month for 18 Texas Ageicui.tueal Experiment Stations. aJl of the individuals to reach maturity, the males and females are about equal in number. The first and the last emerging individuals of the brood are smaller in size than the average, regardles-s of the sex. The quality of the food has a great deal to do with the size of the adults. The last larvae of the brood are always imder-sized, but are most always able to pupate _ and reach maturity" Several matings have been made with odd-sized indi- viduals, such as large males and small females, and vice versa. The results of these matings indicate that those larvs which were forced into pupation prematurely may transform to functional adults. Mating and Oviposition. During the mating period the males are more active than the females and at this time can be noticed "drumming" with their wings, the vibra- tions of which are, at times, sufReient to produce a low hum. The moths probably mate very soon after emergence, though no direct obsej-vations have been made upon this point. However, females only one and one-half hours old were killed and their ovaries examined. It was found that, at this time, fully two-thirds of the eggs were of full size and well down in the oviducts, though not packed closely, as was found to be the case in the older moths. The eggs had the appearance of being ready for deposition. Mating takes place at night, as would naturally be expected from the nocturnal habits of the species. In one cage a pair of moths was observed in coitu early in the morning, but this was no doubt an abnormal con- dition, as the female died in a short time. Another case was observed where the moths were in coitu from 7 p. m. till 10 :30 p. m. The next morning no eggs had been deposited, but the following night the female began ovipositing. This was an exceptional ease, as the female had been confined for a week after emergence before having the opportunity to mate. It would seem that the female commences to oviposit in a compara- tively short time after einergenee. However, in the cages, an average of six days elapsed betv/een the time of emergence and the first egg laying. This period varies with the different broods of the year. Oviposition usually takes place at night and the moths generally start laying the eggs soon after dark. In the cages they have been observed busily engaged in ovipositing as early as ? p. m. AVhile depositing eggs the female seems mindful only of the task she is performing and is not easily disturbed, though she is active, seemingly nervous, darting in and around the comb. While thus engaged the antenna; vibrate continuously and perhaps are used to locate suitable crevices in which to place the eggs. The ovi- positor is long, equal in length to the last two abdominal segments, and is very slender. It is constantly moving over the comb to detect a rough- ened spot wherein to deposit the egg. It thus has the appearance of beiacr dragged after the female in her travels over the comb. ° Having found a suitable place for the egg, the ovipositor is spread at the tip, the female braces herself as though pushing backward to force the ovipositor mto the comb, and then, after a quick jerk of the abdomen an egg IS forced down the ovipositor to its destination. In many instances females have been observed depositing their eggs at the rate of one every Plate III. — Above, cages used in studying the development of the bee-moth; at center -work ol wax-worm, or larvse, on comb foundation; below, mass of cocoons, one of which shows larva; repairmg damaged cocoon. (Original) . Investigations Pertaining to Tesas Beekeeping. 19 minute for a period of thirty minutes, and then, after a short rest, have continued again at the same rate. The eggs are always securely fastened to whatever object they are laid upon. The eggs are always laid in cavities. In the cage experiments this was on the side of the comb, often where the walls of a cell had been turned in. An example of this is shown at Plate II, &. Only one egg is deposited at a time, although in working over the eonib a female often places the eggs close together. On the smaller pieces of comb, furnished to moths confined in cages, ae many as seven eggs were found in a single cavity. The number of eggs actually deposited by one female has not been determined, but female? which had not deposited eggs were killed and the eggs in their ovaries wei-e counted. The largest number of eggs found in ovaries of a single female was 1138 and the average number was 1014. In the cages, under artificial conditions, if comb was not supplied for the female, she would deposit her eggs in any rough place 'detected by her ovipositor. In many instances the females would refuse to oviposit on cappings which were furnished in some of the cages, but would go around the base of the lamp globe in which they were confined and fill every crevice with eggs. Sometimes these eggs would be fastend on the outside of the glass, and in such eases the globe would be fastened to its resting-place. The average time consumed in depositing the full quota of eggs varies with the brood. In the first brood it is nine days, but in the second only seven days. During the last part of the egg-laying period the female appears to be in a great hurry, and during the last two days she oviposits during the day as well a^ during the night, at times stopping to rest. If disturbed during the resting periods, she vigorously resumes her egg- lajdng. The females usually die while ovipositing and the last three or four eggs are barely extruded from the ovipositor. If a female is being killed or injured, she will attempt to oviposit even after she is unable to walk. . The females will deposit their eggs even when they have not had the opporiiinity to mate. In all cases where the sexes were not properly paired, the females would finally oviposit, the period of oyiposition being, however, much shorter than the natural one. Although many females which did not mate were confined in cages and although they deposited eggs, none Of these unfertilized eggs ever hatched. It seems a fairly safe conclusion that parthenogensis does not occur with this species. THE DGG. The egg (Plate II, h) is elliptical, measuring about one'fiftieth of an inch (.48 mm.) in length and .43 mm. in width. The shell is pearly white in color and slightly roughened by wavy lines running across it diagonally at regular intervals. If the egg is not deposited on dark comb it is very" difiieult to see and even then experience is necessary to detect all of the eggs present. The embryonic development of the egg has not been studied, but a few observations" have been made upon the incubation period. Throughout this period the egg gradually changes from a white to a yellow color. About four days before hatching, the developing larva- becomes visible as 30 Texas .Ageicultdeal Expeeimbnt Stations. a dark ring inside of the shell. The perfectly formed larva can be dis- tinctly seen for at least twelve honrs before the shell bursts. During this time the larva is engaged in cutting an opening in the shell and its final emergence from the egg is made through a ragged hole in the top. After the larva is out of the shell it appears white and clear. The egg stage of the first brood averages twelve days and of the second only ten days. THE LAEVA. The larvffi ("worms") when first hatched are white in color and very small, only one-eighth of an inch (3 mm.) in length. After emerging from the shell they are quiet for a short time while they are apparently drying and stretching in preparation for their work of destruction. Soon they become very active, but only upon close examination can they be seen hurrying over the comb in their attempt to gain an entrance before being detected by the bees. During this short period of one or two hours they are at the mercy of their enemies. Within a short time after hatch- ing the first meal is taken and this consists of scales of wax which they loosen from the comb in their attempts to gain an entrance. The en- trance is made at the top of the cell-wall between the cells. The entrance is extended by the larvm into tunnels directed toward the bottom of the cells. Their presence is now noticeable, for in their work the bits of chewed wax not used for food are pushed back of them and out of the tunnel, making the surface of the comb appear rough and poorly kept. This tunnel affords protection and food for the larvae and also leads to their desired feeding place, the center of the comb. Usually four days aie consumed in reaching this point. When the center of the comb is reached, the larvas leave their tunnels and wander over the bottom of the cells or, in the case of comb containing honey, tunnel along the midrib from cell to cell. If disturbed, they seek their tunnels for protection. At first only small holes are eaten through the bottoms of the cells, thus affording a passageway from cell to cell through the center of the comb, so that, if disturbed, they can pass into another cell or through several cells in their attempt to escape. In two or three days these openings are enlarged and outlined by threads of silk spun by the larvaa in their travels from, cell to cell. These threads soon become numerous enough to form a silken gallery, which gives almost complete protection from the bees oi- other enemies. Prom this central gallery the feeding is extended out along the bottoms of the cells or the middle of the comb. The silk is spun wherever the larvEe go, so that very soon the bottoms of the cells are replaced by a layer of silk thread covered with excrement of the larvae and particles of chewed wax. This condition is shown in Plate IV. After the midrib has been eaten, the larvs start on the walls of the cells, the ones farthest away from the light being the first that are de- stroyed. As this -feeding continues out along the cell-walls, the threads of s]lk are extended to cover the new feeding ground, and not only serve to protect the larva;, but also act as a scaffold to support the damaged cells. Soon the center of the comb appears as a mass of tangled refuse and discarded wax. This condition is also sho^^Ti at Plate IV The feed- mg continues until the walls are entirely eaten, but the top of the cells i= 9m »i--^-"^^'^'^-"T»ftiMrhinMfYmii- w II ">■ ^iMrtWliriitfMi(iwttii'fMni*TS'w\>iin , 2 28 13 13 12 36 32 5 48 2.00 28.00 13.00 13.00 12.00 36.00 32.00 5.00 48.00 10,627.00 San Saba 1,753.00 423.00 Shackelford 228.00 Shelby 47.00 Smith 331.00 Stephens 617.00 400.00 Taylor 1,863.00 380.00 Titus 20.00 9 24 8 40 4 5 18 80 9.00 24.00 8.00 40.00 4.00 5.00 18.00 80.00 '454.00 Travis 2,949.00 Trinity 433.00 Tyler 270.00 4.00 Uvalde..... 10,160 379 50,800.00 1,895.00 50,805.00 Val Verde 1,913.00 Van Zandt 80.00 Victoria. . . . 187 69 45 247 123 312 1,762 4,306 15 89 2 4 3,750 935.00 345.00 225.00 1,235.00 615.00 1,560.00 8,810.00 21,530.00 75.00 445.00 10.00 20.00 18,750.00 935.00 .Walker ■ i9 2 10 57 9 118 40 15 12 19.00 2.00 10.00 57.00 9.00 118.00 40.00 15.00 12.00 364.00 ■Waller 227.00 Ward 1,245.00 672.00 "Wharton 1,569.00 9,828.00 Wilson 21,570,00 Wise 90.00 Wood ■. 457.00 10.00 5 5.00 25.00 18,750.00 Totals 5,275 $5,275.00 85,495 $428,849.00 90,770 $434,124.00 34 Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations. TABLE II. — HONEY PRODUCTION BY COUNTIES, SEASON OF 1911. In the following tabulation of the production of section, extracted and "chunk" (bulk comb) honey, it must still be borne in mind that these figures represent only such productions as were reported to this Depart- ment. They, do not represent the total amounts of honeys actually har- vested in the counties listed. County. Pounds Section Honey. Pounds Extracted Honey. Pounds Bulk Comb Honey. Total Production. 475 225 400 100 24,167 22,620 1,070 535 127,340 600 93,666 28,221 92,568 1,205 4,643 620 680 17,055 2,000 877 500 30,040 1,840 11,408 1,200 3,351 22 770 250 2,940 1,537 280 19,840 1,974 2,585 720 4,100 100 260 1,520 1,645 24,927 Atascosa -. . . ... 150,360 K" 600 Bee 96 406 1,695 25 258 6 34,998 24,574 54,357 1,200 7,923 30 14,650 14,445 128,760 Bell 53,201 Bexar 148,620 2,430 Bosque Bowie . 12,824 656 Brazoria 15,330 Brazos 80 31,580 2,000 Brown Brooks Hi 908 3,890 1,000 1,950 9,475 1,998 23,320 1,929 4,390 31 ,040 50 410 525 1,390 3,840 Caldwell 21 ,293 Callahan 3,723 28,061 22 400 775 1,945 Coke 250 60 315 1,897 690 1,525 8,577 240 785 4 897 2,542 1,805 Comal . 24 180 1,335 28 441 Comanche 2,394 4 705 720 Coryell ... 685 4 785 500 772 245 600 100 17.116 576 1,088 1,700 150 3,710 4,376 10,995 * 1 132 18,881 576 DeWitt 182 7,975 150 920 20,828 70,040 470 7,520 2,279 1,690 200 300 310 2,280 62,434 ■ 20 230 74,702 8,396 1,115 250 3,702 25,303 550 25 260 8,880 1,475 45,050 7,090 580 2,000 6,431 1 270 9 675 300 4 630 72 i 5,822 50 3,060 1,761 510 25 935 El Paso 86 ' 857 Erath 520 Falls 5,930 1,464 5,366 16 510 5 504 7 566 60 500 300 4,450 20,870 200 500 4,860 3,410 860 610 6 730 Freestone Frio 500 83 804 220 730 80,062 12,178 1 115 Goliad 500 372 Grayson Grecfl . '250 9,012 25,803 2,373 400 260 16,245 1,625 62,430 30,132 830 2,550 13.641 350 4,960 500 1,360 463 375 Hays 40 7,325 150 17,200 19,470 Hidalgo 180 3,572 250 550 809 Hill Hunt 6,400 Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 35 County. Pounds Section Honey. Pounds Extracted Honey. TPounds Bulk Comb Honey. Total Production. Jackson 30 60 705 4,560 680 11,351 5,099 1,710 30 Jasper . 60 Jef^rson 248 24 1,090 43 1,576 20 150 50 355 200 9,386 1,253 Jim Wells 13,970 1,770 Karnes 9,585 210 943 20,979 6,885 Kendall 2,673 Kent 150 Kerr 310 . 2,400 7,740 14,494 3,000 908 4,712 2,616 1,500 1,200 6,295 14,620 9,250 700 250 300 1,600 4,450 4,200 2,475 2,495 180 1,115 396 6,680 2,644 3,361 43,015 4,585 1,960 7,205 Kinney 11,940 3,260 280 20,229 Lampasas ... 5,775 La Salle 1,088 175 160 3,694 3,376 280 6,002 Lee 3,172 11,874 7,230 9,936 Live Oak 57,635 Llano .... . . 1,424 1,600 15,259 Lubbock . ... 2,300 Madison 575 2,200 2,622 11,090 2,630 56,495 15,475 7,374 1,665 700 225 825 Mason . ' 2,500 2,622 McLennan . 413 15,057 1,692 22,705 3,550 11,675 950 600 85 26,560 4,322 989 500 80,189 19,525 19,049 400 3,015 1,300 310 50 50 * 60 12,290 455 18,422 318 375 385 615 115 2,272 375 2,155 120 600 1,765 274 570 960 580 300 3,155 61,127 4,810 1,860 190 150 1,015 685 1,425 1,309 900 1,025 497 255 710 20 153,007 980 500 900 150 220 1,300 1.625 4,425 29,570 60 1,560 1,750 2,488 7,410 25 50 65 200 15.600 2,943 25,832 485 828 Palo Pinto . 425 500 600 Parker 1,315 115 Polk 3,375 1,012 200 200 6,659 575 2,355 120 360 800 662 20 1,200 960 2,565 50 30 951 986 Rusk 3,111 38 240 9,549 785 1,500 338 3,395 70 , 676 3,360 Shelby 150 iio 70 8 763 Tarrant Taylor ^ . 670 6,315 620 21,888 1,550 160 1,645 366 320 200 22,751 Tyler Uvalde 65,738 6,500 218.745 i75 1,000 810 1,710 50 Waller 2,000 3,230 2,112 450 72,194 4,070 598 265 781 5,140 Williamson 102,545 Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations. County. Pounds, Section Honey. Pounds, Extracted Honey. Pounds, Bulk Comb Honey. Total Production. Wilson 100 21,709 92,248 80 88,310 114,057 Young fi' Zavala 24 28,395 116,705 Totals 75,790 823,311 1,510,244 2,399,345 TABLE III. — AVERAGE PRICE RECEIVED FOR SECTION, EXTRACTED AND BULK COMB HONEY. SEASON OF 1911. The following figures are averages taken froin all reported sales of honey in the various counties of the State during the season of 1911. It is a noteworthy fact that these figures vary greatly. Of course the sale of a car of extracted or bulk comb honey, for instance, would furnish figijres lower than those from the sale of a few pounds of either honey. Yet, when in one case we find that the average price received for bulk comb honey in Bexar county was 9^ cents, and this figure obtained from averaging sales of small lots as well as large lots, then, on the other hand, we find that the average price received for the same class of honey in Taylor county, for example, was 14^ cents, the matter is entitled to consideration. This same variation occurs in the reported sales of wax, which is generally conceded a standard commodity and its price little affected bv local conditions. County. Anderson . Atascosa. , Austin . . . . Bandera. . Bastrop. . . Bee Bell Bexar. . . . Blanco . . . . Bosque. . . Brazoria. . Brazos. . . . Brewster. . Brooks. . . Brown. . . . Burleson. . Burnet. . . Caldwell . . Callahan. . Cameron. . Cherokee . Coleman . . Collin . . . . Colorado . . Comal . . . . Comanche Concho. . . Cooke . . . . Coryell . . . Crockett . . Dallas Delta Denton . . . DeWitt . . . Dimmit. . . Eastland . . Edwards. . Ellis Average Price of Section Honey By Sales. (Cents per lb.) 13 12 14! '9' 10 14 12i 14' 13 108 15 14 15 10 18 15 14 1-5 i2i 20 14J 15 201 Average Price of Extracted Honey By Sales. (Cents per lb.) Average Price of Bulk Comb Honey By Sales (Cents per lb.) 10 8 1-5 7 1-5 8 8i 10 2-5 8J 10 9 1-10 7 1-5 8J lOJ 8 9 8§ 10 lOi \l' 'I' 8! 13 10 'n if 12 II li^ 12 lOi 8S HJ 10 1-5 lOi 10 7-10 lOi 9i 12i 14 10 1-7 13 8i 10 1-5 101 10 5-7 8 6-7 12 1-5 lU 10 13 1-5 14i 9i 10 5-7 13i 12i 13 lOi 16' 13 2-7 ii' lU 15 10 13 Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 37 County. El Paso Erath Falls Fannin Fayette Fort Bend Franklin Freestone Frio Gillespie Goliad Gonzales Grayson Gregg Grimes Guadalupe Hamilton Harris Harrison Hays Henderson Hidalgo Hill Houston Hunt Jasper Jefferson Jim Wells Johnson Karnes Kaufman Kendall Kerr Kimble Kinney Lamar Lampasas La Salle Lavaca Lee Leon Liberty Limestone Live Oak Llano Lubbock Madison Mason McCuUoch McLennan McMullen .... Medina Menard Milam Mills Mitchell Montgomery. . 'Morris Nolan Nueces Orange ' Palo Pinto .... Panola Parker Pecos Polk Rains Red River .... Robertson Rockwall Runnels Rusk Sabine San Augustine. San Jacmto . . . San Patricio . . . San Saba Schleicher Shackelford . . . Shelby Average Price of Section Honey By Sales. (Cents per lb.) lOi 15 12i 16 3-5 11 15 13 12i 13 12 15 15 19 10 Average Price of Extracted Honey By Sales. (Cents per lb.) Average Price of Bulk Cumb Honey ■ By Sales. (Cents per lb.) 15J 15' 25' iii hi 8 8 15S 15 iii 13 11 14i 10 13 io' iii 'si 12 i2! 13 ii' 20 13 13 15 i3j io' is' 13 13i 7i 12 8 10 10 91 9 '8 '5-6 8 4-7 9J Si 13 9 3-5 'sj 10? 13 IC is' 9 'si 10 9 3-5 10} 9 1-10 8f 10 9 Si 7i 23 10} 8 8 10 10 9 ii'2-9 S Si 10 4-5 io' 10 91 i6 6-7 10 1-5 10 lOJ 9i 13 13 10 io' '9 1-9 11 13 11 't' 10 14 lOf lol 10 10 8-11 9 1-5 13 Hi Si 9 3-5 13 11 11 1-5 lOi 12 3-5 11 14i 13 20 lOi 14 lOi 12} 9 5-7 11 1-5 9i 9} 135 10 6-7 13 94 9i 10 8-9 13i 11} 10 1-7 9i id' 10 Hi 12 1-91 10 lOl lOi 11 1-5. 14 9i 12 4-5 11 2-» is' 12 14i 15 10 5-6. 10 12 10* 15 12 11 10 10 9i 10 3-5 9} 10 X3 10 38 Texas Ageicdltueal Experiment Stations. County. Average Price of Section Honey By Sales. (Cents per lb.) Average Price of Extracrted Honey By Sales. (Cents per lb.) Average Price of Bulk Comb Honey By Sales. (Cents per lb.) Smith 15' is' iej 15 13 iii 13' 12 13' • If 10 4-7 Si 13 12i 14 1-5 14 1-5 io' lOf. 10 13 &i 8J ig' 's' 10 10, Si 10 1-7 'si 9J Stephens 14i Tarrant .... 13 Taylor 141 12 11 Travis 11 Trinity 13J Tyler 111 Uvalde 10 1-5 Val Verde 10 2-5 Van Zandt 10 Victoria 12 Walker 12 Waller •9 Ward lOJ 10 12 Williamson. . . . Wi 10 1-5 Wood 10 20 lOi TABLE IV. — PHODUCTION OF WAX BY COUNTIES, AVERAGE SELLING PRICE PER POUND AND TOTAL VALUE, BY SALES REPORTED, OF WAX OUTPUT FOR SEASON OF 1911. In discussing some of iiie points brought out by the data contained in Table III, attention was called to the fact that there appeared a great variation in the prices per pound received by beekeepers for their various grades of honey. Even a casual examination of the data in the following table will reveal the same variations for wax, and, as in the. case of sales of honey, seem to warrant an inquiry into the causes making such wide differences possible with so staple a product as wax. County. Anderson . Atascosa. . Austin . . . . Bandera. . Bastrop . . . Bee. Bell Bexar Blanco Bosque. . . . Bowie Brazoria . . . Brazos Brooks. . . . Brown Burleson. . . Burnet. . . . Caldwell. . , 'Callahan. . . Cameron . . . Cherokee. . Coleman. . . Collin Comal Comanche . Coryell . . . . Dallas . . , . . Denton . . . . Pounds of Wax Average Selling Price per Pound. (Cents.) Total Value Produced. By Sales. 46 . 26j $ 12.27 1,817 17 308.89 387 24i 94.82 35 20 7.00 207 22 i 46.54 2,129 234 74.52 650 23 149.50 1,583 27 427.41 18 23 J 42.30 243 23 55.89 35 25 8.75 290 20i 59.45 383 27 i 105.33 77 381 29.65 63 31 19.53 280 19i 53.90 63 17 10.71 269 5 591 4 73 22 59.18 29i 173.36 24i 19.09 53 25 13.25 306 25i 78.03 24 24i 5.88 553 21 116.13 201 30 60,30 18 28 5.04 Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 39 County. DeWitt Dimmit Edwards Ellis Eiath Falls :::: Fannin Favette ' Fort Bend Freestone Frio Gillespie Goliad ,,', Gonzales Grayson , , Grimes . .' Guadalupe Hamilton Harrison Hays Henderson Hidalgo Hill Houston Hunt Jefferson Jim Wells Johnson Karnes Kaufman Kendall Kerr Kimble Lamar Lampasas La Salle Fayette Lee Leon Liberty Limestone Live Oak Llano Lubbock Madison Mason McCuIIoch McLennan McMullen ■ Medina Menard Milam „ Mills Mitchell Montgomery Nacogdoches . . . ; Navarro Nolan Nueces Orange Panola Parker Polk Rains Red River Refugio ', Robertson Rockwall Runnels Rusk Sabine San Jacinto San Patricio Schleicher. , Shackelford Smith Stephens Tarrant Taylor Tom Green Travis I Pounds of Wax Produced. 43 192 225 749 10 230 25 203 50 261 1,276 8 815 174 15 146 236 50 10 186 65 520 241 56 114 10 213 10 523 73. 96 58 89 698 137 21 129 66 411 195 207 689 290 12 50 166 32 332 125 1,161 850 285 61 20 18 5 225 30 544 20 29 20 52 50 42 40 141 20 40 71 56 141 919 160 10 22 10 10 262 7 258 Average Selling Price per Pouna (Cents.) 20 27i 25 28 18 25 24i 25 22i 25i 21 26 24i 28 29i 24i 26i 21} 28 24J 26i 30 24' 27 j 24 20 19 2ii 25 28 25 22i 24 25 § 25i 25 24i 22' 21 i 20 26 29} 26 27} 24 22 35 24}, 241 22 22 30 23 28 17 25' 28 21} 26 20 20 19 25 26} 24 , 25 22} 23 28 22} 25} 4.0 Texas Ageioultueal Expepjment Stations. County. Pounds of Wax Produced. Average Selling Price per Pound. (Cents.) Total Value By Sales. Trinity 61 40 5,128 27 30 30 18 32 320 110 116 1,051 974 40 1,630 28 19 27J 20' 30 18 25 27 i 23i 261 22 24 i 20 29 17 09 Tyler 7 60 Uvalde 1 410 20 Val Verde VanZandt 6.00 Victoria 9 00 Walker 2.24 Waller 8 .00 Ward 87 47 Washington 25 67 Wharton ' ' 30 74 Williamson 231 .22 Wilson 238 63 Wood 8 00 Zavala 492.70 36,105 $8,449.62 TABLE V.- -OPINIOSrS OF BEEKEEPEES AS TO THE MOST PROFITABLE SCALE ON WHICH APICULTURE MAY BE PURSUED. "The folio-wing votes by beekeepers were cast in answer to two questions in the report blanks sent out by this department : "Is beekeeping in your section of the State profitable (a) as a side- line; (b) as a profession, to the exclusion of other occupations?" (a) As a Sideline. (b) As a Profession. County. Voting Yes. Voting No. Voting Yes. Voting No. 7 58 14 3 , 14 2 45 36 64 10 43 3 9 20 2 7 12 6 11 24 15 15 4 3 1 20 14 6 20 9 12 4 19 2 12 20 2 4 5 4 1 2 3 2 i 4 7 .. i i 2 1 1 2 1 2 ^ 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 3 2 4 '2 1 1 i 2 1 40 4 '4 37 12 37 3 12 I 4 ■4 1 3 4 8 i 1 3 3 '6 '4 1 7 ■3 6 '3 '2 5 Atascosa. . 10 4 1 Bastrop 9 2 Bee. 4 Bell 19 18 6 Bosque 19 (Bowie. 2 4 IBrazos 9 2 5 IBrown 10 3 6 Caldwell g 13 'Cameron 13 Cass 3 7 -Coke (Coleman . . . 16 9 7 10 8 3 vCoryell 14 2 Dallas 13 IDelta 11 3 DeWitt . 3 3 5 Edwards Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 41 (a) As a Sideline. Voting Yes. Voting No. (b) As a Profession. Voting Yes. Voting No. Ellis El Paso Erath Falls Fannin Fayette Fisher Fort Bend . Franklin Freestenc Frio Galveston .... Gillespie Goliad Gonzales Gray . . . : Grayson Gregg Grimes Guadalupe Hamilton Harris Harrison Hays Henderson . . . . Hidalgo Hill Houston Hunt Hutchinson . . . Jasper JeBprson Jim Wells Johnson Jones Karnes Kaufman Kendall Kent Kerr Kimble Kinney Lamar Lampasas. . . . La Salle Lavaca Lee Leon Liberty Limestone . . . . Live Oak Llano Lubbock. ... Madison. . . . Mason Matagorda. . McCulloch . . . McLennan. . . McMuUen. . . Medina Menard Milam Mills Mitchell Montgomery. Morris Nacogdoches . Navarro Nolan Nueces Orange Palo Pinto . . . Panola Parker Pecos' Polk Rains Red River . . . Reeves Refugio 32 2 3 28 18 17 1 3 4 20 32 1, 3 14 30 ■4 2 9 13 9 1 2 12 12 8 31 7 19 1 1 3 9 5 1 17 18 14 1 4 7 11 21 12 4 18 6 18 6 18 18 37 1 2 7 ■5 14 4 31 9 23 7 2 3 1 3 27 12 17 3 4 5 5 1 17 3 10 2 3 1 2 1 'i 1 'i 4 2 5 12 1 2 10 3 2 i 1 3 30 10 8 4 10 12 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 7 3 4 12 8 ■'i 4 4 22 10 1 2 17 16 17 2 1 4 13 6 'i 5 18 1 11 2 5 5 7 2 3 7 9 3 22 4 14 'i 3 2 4 '2 16 11 1 3 6 7 13 7 1 11 2 8 3 11 1 31 1 1 3 i 9 1 15 8 8 1 5 3 3 '2 'i 10 12 2 11 10 3 10 1 2 4 5 ■4 16 2 2 8 1 2 1 42 Texas Agkicu].,tukal Experiment Stations. Robertson Rockwall Runnels Rusk Sabine San Jacinto . . . . San Patricio . . . San Saba Schleicher Shackelford . . . . Shelby Smith Stephens Tarrant Taylor Throckmorton . Travis Trinity Tyler Upshur Uvalde Val Verde Van Zandt Victoria Walker Waller Ward Washington ... Wharton Williamson . . . , Wilson Wise Wood Young Zavala County. Totals 1,750 (a) As a Sideline. Voting Yes. 13 2 3 11 5 4 29 10 3 3 2 7 9 1 17 2 5 5 4 si 8 1 3 4 1 5 12 7 34 52 1 4 1 28 Voting No. 225 (b) As a Profession. Voting Yes. 3 2 2 3 3 2 13 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 52 1 1 1 10 34 18 705 Voting No. 12 '2 10 4 2 14 7 I 2 6 9 3 ■15 3 3 7 1 29 6 2 1 2 7 8 27 12 1 2 2 7 947 QUEEN BREEDING IN TEXAS. This Department has secured a list of upwards of fifty active queen breeders in the State whose output of queens for the season of 1911 was approximately 9000. A nominal value placed on these at $7000 is nomi- nal in the strictest sense of the word, For, in cases when no value was reported to us by the breeder, we have placed this at 75 cents apiece. To any beekeeper, such a valuation immediately suggests the common run of queens; such a figure would not .iustly represent the value of queens of the higher grades. It appears that the rank and file of Texas queen breeders produce the Italian. Yet there are breeders of the Carniolan, Banat and Cyprian. The three-banded Italian seems to have the preference, then the Golden. GENERAL SUMMARY. From our reports, as well as from actual observations in the field, we know that the past three or four years in Texas have been unfavorable to highly successful honey production in a number of localities. The proportion of box hives, or "gums," to movable frame hives in Texas is gratifyingly small. The average production of honey, all grades, per colony in Texas for the season ■ i911 as secured from reports of S733 beekeepers was 36 pounds. Were the productions from box hives eliminated from this Investigations Pertaining to Texas Beekeeping. 43 estimate, the average would be much higher, in spite of adverse seasonal influences. Bulk comb honey ("chunk honey") is the chief production of the Texas apiary. Follows extracted honey and sections, the latter form being com- paratively scarce. ' In the data expressing the views of Texas beekeepers as to whether apiculture is profitable as a side line rather than as a profession, it is interesting to note that the most extensive beekeepers- maintain that the industry is unprofitable unless conducted on a large scale,' and that those who claim the industry is profitable only as a side line are almost invari- ably beekeepers who follow the calling on the corresponding scale. In nearly every case it appears that the small beekeeper finds a good market locally for his honey. The large beekeeper does not and is forced to ship. Of course, such conditions are directly governed by the law of supply and demand, the small town .near a small apiary or apiaries con- suming their output, while an excessive honey crop would find no market there. Those who ship their honev find Port Worth, Dallas, Ploresville and San Antonio to be excellent Texas markets, and it appears that most of the shipments within the State reach these. Those shipping out of the State find a good and ready market in Oklahoma. But it is again worth stopping to note that the greater bulk of Texas honeys never get out of the State. Unquestionably Texas could consume yet a larger quantity than is annually produced by her own apiaries.