182 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



Mar. 10, 1904. 



all. You may have three or four sections per case in the 

 second grade that are almost too good for the second, 

 though not quite good enough for the first, so that you raise 

 the average, and probably the price, on the second grade, 

 too, and thus raise the price on them both. Another point 

 in grading is always to use the same standard throughout 

 the season. The honey is white when you first take it off, 

 but the last taken off is not so good, and you are apt to 

 think the last as good when it is not, and thus have a dif- 

 ferent standard in your mind at the end of the season. 

 Thus, what you put in the first grade at the end of the sea- 

 son may not be so good as that graded second at the begin- 

 ning of the season. By selecting certain sections as pat- 

 terns to go by, and keeping them on hand throughout the 

 season, you may always preserve the same standard. 

 (The End). 



( 



Contributed Articles 





The Standard Section-What Will It Be? 



BY ALLEN LATHAM. 



TO a large extent the standard section will be the one 

 which by chance or otherwise gets to be used by the 

 majority of honey-producers, and may not of necessity 

 be the most desirable. For years the standard section has 

 been the A%-sA^i of indefinite width, but now the bee-supply 

 people are striving (whatever their purpose may be) to make 

 a taller and a narrower section become popular. 



There has come into use also the plain section. This 

 seems to be an excellent thing, and will probably grow in 

 favor. Only time will determine whether it will entirely 

 supersede the bee-way section. For the purpose of argu- 

 ment I will assume that the plain section is in a few years 

 to be our only section. If so, it is of prime necessity that 

 the section of the most desirable dimensions come to the 

 front. 



Let me speak first of the shape. Shall the section be 

 square or oblong ? 



Is it any argument in favor of a tall section to say that 

 our doors and windows are usually taller than broad? I 

 fail to see any good reason there. Probably not one person 

 in one hundred would think about such a matter, and surely 

 not one in a thousand would let his purchase be affected. 



It is argued that more surface is presented by the oblong. 

 This is true in the case of the 4x5. The difference is too 

 trifling. 



It is further argued that more sections can be set on a 

 given surface. True, but the desirability of such increase 

 is not proved. The increase in depth of super may retard 

 the bees in their taking possession of the same. Many a 

 person would say : " Give me a shallower section still for 

 rapid super-work." 



It is also argued that bees build comb downward faster 

 than sidewise. Is this of any value where full foundation 

 are used 7 And by the way, where do most sections show 

 lack of finish, at the sides or at the bottom ? A toss up. 



" A tall section will bear shipping better," may be true, 

 but if so it is not so much owing to the height as to light- 

 ness of honey and increased amount of wax proportionally. 

 Remember that most of our tall sections are thin. 



In the reasons offered above there is much truth but 

 little weight, by far too small amount of weight to call into 

 popular use a section which has so many disadvantages. 



First of all, the tall section is harder to handle. It 

 breaks easily. It tips over easily. The increased comb- 

 surface renders it especially liable to injury and consequent 

 leakage. These reasons alone would prevent my adopting 

 the tall section. 



The argument that more can be put into a super almost 

 captured me. But analysis of the statement dissolved that 

 impression. The increased number means increased space, 

 and increased space means delay in taking possession of 

 supers. With tall sections the second super will not go on 

 till after the second super of shallow sections has work well 

 progressed, so that in the end there is loss. 



Of course we can not gainsay that tall sections bring 

 more in certain localities. Round sections would probably 

 out-sell either, and sections of all sorts and shapes, espec- 



ially alphabet sections, would have a great run. If we only 

 knew how much of this sale was to be laid to the account of 

 fad we should know more about it. 



Every one is free to choose, and some will probably vote 

 for the tall section. I believe that most of us after giving 

 each a good trial, will raise both hands for the square. I, 

 for one, am too clumsy to use a section which has such un- 

 stable equilibrium, and should ruin enough choice sections 

 to cut a big hole in any better price they might command. 



The second part of my subject is more important by far. 

 What shall be the thickness (usually termed width) of our 

 standard section ? Assuming that the 4 '4x4 '4 is standard, 

 shall it have for its other dimension I'j, or more ? 



I am told on the best authority that this section, when 

 only 1 '2 inches wide, will hold only IS ounces of honey even 

 when the bees are crowded for room, and that it usually 

 runs down to 13 or 14 ounces. Do we wish this ? These 

 sections are called, and will be called, one-pound boxes of 

 honey. Do we, as beekeepers, who pride ourselves upon 

 our honesty and square dealing, wish to do this ? 



What if honey-dea/ers do say that they prefer light 

 weights, as some say they do ? Shall we be dishonest be- 

 cause they prefer that ? Perhaps we are not dishonest, but 

 we surely make it easier for some one else to be. I should 

 like to say right here that a few years ago I had much deal- 

 ing with a certain honey-firm, and this honey-firm was 

 strongly in favor of full weights. 



I wish to protest strongly against a section which is 

 under weight. I wish that every other bee-keeper whose 

 honesty responds to these words would send in his protest. 



It will never be possible to produce section honey with 

 just 16 ounces to a section, but it is possible to use such a 

 section that there will be as many 17-ounce sections as 

 there are 15-ounce ones. I believe that any loss in number 

 of sections produced will be more than offset by our stead- 

 ier sales of honest-weight product. 



If, then, bee-keepers are honest, it is obvious that a sec- 

 tion more than I'j inches wide must be used. Yesterday 

 I cut through a large number of sections, measuring the 

 thickness of the combs. I found that the average full- 

 weight section must be a plump 1 '2 inches in thickness of 

 comb. Whether this means a section 1 916 or one l;s I am 

 at a loss to say. I shall use the Ijs section next season. If it 

 proves too large I shall cut it down to what will bring the 

 desired result. 



I believe that our standard section is to be 4^4^x4% by 

 such other dimension as is found by actual use to give 

 average 16-ounce boxes of honey. 



New London Co., Conn. 



Bill of Rights to Protect Bee-Keepers in 

 Priority of Location. 



BY DR. C. C. MILLBR. 



A GOOD many years ago I got into trouble by saying 

 that I believed there should be legislation that would 

 protect a beekeeper in his territory. At that time 

 there was little sympathy — indeed, if there was any sympa- 

 thy whatever with the thought it was left unexpressed ; and 

 the general sentiment seemed to be that there was no need 

 to say anything about the matter of encroaching upon terri- 

 tory, because it would regulate itself. 



But there seems to be a growing feeling that something 

 should be said, and even that something should be done 

 about it. That feeling was distinctly voiced at the Los 

 Angeles convention, to which Mr. Hasty refers, page 105. 

 The only reply was, in substance, the one Mr. Hasty has 

 worded, " You can't do anything about it." That, how- 

 ever, was an advance over the sentiment of years ago, which 

 seemed to be, "You can't do anything about it, and you 

 ought not if you could." 



I have no desire to use space to argue the right of a man 

 to a certain territory as a bee-keeper ; the time has gone by 

 for that ; but I want to say with what emphasis I may, that 

 whenever bee-keepers are agreed that they want such a law, 

 a law can be framed that will protect a man in his rights as 

 a bee-keeper just as much as the law protects a man in other 

 agricultural pursuits. 



Mr. Hasty thinks we should cultivate the doctrine of do- 

 ing right in regard to every other brother's bee-territory, 

 require it of every man that he respect such rights, and 

 suggests that " A carefully worded and forcible declaration 

 of these rights, etc., might be one effective way to do some- 

 thing, in place of doing nothing from year to year." And 



