438 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



June 23, 1904. 



ecutive ability, and, notwithstaading lier delicate healtli, accomplishes 

 much. She has written her name among the noble and useful ladies 

 of our land, who are a blessing to the community in which they live, 

 and an honor to their sex. 



It was our good fortune to have at least a slight acquaintance 

 •with Mrs. Harrison. We had met her at conventions, and several 

 years ago visited at her home in Peoria, 111. She was an earnest, prac- 

 tical worker, and made a success of her bee-keeping, in which she was 

 so deeply interested. She had been an occasional contributor to the 

 columns of the American Bee Journal for nearly a third of a century. 

 At one time she was perhaps the most widely known woman bee- 

 keeper in the world. 



In the death of Mrs. Harrison we feel that we have lost a personal 

 friend. Surely bee-keeping has one less faithful and devoted follower. 



Mr. Harrison may be assured that among bee-beepers the world 

 over he will have sincerest sympathy in his bereavement. 





Contributed Articles 



) 



Queen-Excluders— Difference in Opinion. 



• BY ADRIAN GKTAZ. 



ON page 807 (1903) is an article by Mr. Dadant saying sub- 

 stantially that queen-excluders are at least useless. On 

 page 231(1904) is an article by Mr. Davenport holding 

 exactly the opposite view. If the reader willlook over those 

 articles he will at once see that the bottom facts are these : 



1. Mr. Dadant doesn't use excluders because his queens 

 don't go and lay in the upper story. 



2. Mr. Davenport uses excluders because his queens do 

 go and lay in the upper story. 



Now why such differences in the behavior of their 

 queens ? I think that the reason, or rather the two reasons, 

 for such a difference can be easily " located. " 



1. Difference in size of brood-nest. If the reader will 

 turn to page 152 of L,angstroth Revised, he will see that a 

 brood-nest large enough to accommodate a good queen 

 should contain about 1700 square inches of comb. This is 

 equivalent to 12 Langstroth frames. Now, the hives used 

 by Mr. Davenport contain only 10 or 8 frames. That is not 

 enough. So his queens go " up-stairs " to lay, because they 

 have not sufficient room "down-stairs." That is one rea- 

 son. 



2. Difference in the depth of the frames. Every reader 

 of this journal knows that the tendency of the bees is to 

 build their brood-nest in a globular form, as near as possi- 

 ble. Now a brood-nest of 12 Langstroth frames is big 

 enough, but it is too flat. I still have some hives of that 

 shape but I am gradually discarding them. One reason is 

 that very often the queen goes in the upper story to lay, and 

 neglects the outside frames. With only 9 or 10 frames, 2 or 

 3 inches deeper, such thing never happens, because then 

 the brood assumes a more nearly globular form without ex- 

 tending in the upper story. The reader doubtless knows 

 that Mr. Dadant uses the Quinby frame, which is two 

 inches deeper than the lyangstroth. 



I am working nearly altogether for comb honey. Another 

 objection I found against the 12-f rame hives is the too-large 

 size of the supers to accommodate them. They are too heavy, 

 for one thing. Furthermore, when the first super is given, 

 the weather is not warm yet, and a super of that size is too 

 large to give at once. There is more room than the colony 

 can keep sufficiently warm to allow easy comb-building. As 

 I stated in " Some Expert Opinion " column, I would rather 

 have only 9 frames and have them deep enough to make the 

 1700-square inches required. Knox Co., Tenn. 



Comb-Leveler— How to Mal^e and Use. 



BY G. C. GRBINKR. 



IF I should tell all I know about the comb-leveler it would 

 make a very short story, for I know but little about it, 

 and what little I do know is the result of my own experi- 

 ence and observation. Consequently the tool I use for this 

 purpose may or may not be the ideal of others, but if effec- 



tiveness is the standard of its practicability I do not ask for 

 anything better. 



If I am not mistaken, the comb-leveler as used by some 

 bee-keepers, works on the principle of heating or melting 

 down combs to the desired thickness. This leaves the edges 

 more or less seared over, and the bees are not so readily in- 

 clined to accept them. On this account I prefer my own 

 make, which leaves the edges somewhat rough or ragged, 

 but tender, and with little or no repairs by the bees, they 

 are in tip-top shape to " hitch to." 



During the earlier years of my bee-keeping, some 26 or 

 28 years ago, when the advantages of using bait-sections 

 first appeared to me, I found it was necessary, for best re- 

 sults, to have all unfinished sections that were intended for 

 next year's baits, cleaned out by the bees as soon as the 

 honey-harvest closed. I also found that sections with cap- 

 ped honey, when exposed to the free access of the bees, 

 would be nearly annihilated, unless they were previously 

 uncapped. On accouut of this capped honey many times 

 not being fully drawn out (being stored late in the season), 

 and therefore being quite a little below the edges of the sec- 

 tion, a common straight knife did not work to suit me. 

 After a little experimenting I found that a comb made of 

 fine wire-nails, just a little shorter than the inside of the 

 short way of the section, would fill the bill to perfection. 



At about the same time I learned from observation, that 

 fully drawn combs (in thickness) even if cleaned by the bees 

 of all the honey after the honey harvest, would not produce 

 nice, evenly capped sections the next year. The cause of 

 this was with most of these combs, a certain enlargement or 

 rim at the top edge of the cells. By removing this trouble, 

 reducing the thickness of such combs about % of an inch, 

 or a little more, from each side, so that the surface part of 

 the combs had to be newly built, I found that in this way 

 the appearance of such sections could be greatly improved. 

 This led me to make the tool, 

 which I have used ever since, 

 and of which an illustration is 

 here given. 



There is nothing essential 

 about the general make-up of 

 the tool ; in regard to material, 

 shape, size, etc., all is a matter 

 of individual preference. The 

 only point, which requires a 

 little care in making, is the 

 comb proper — Fig. 1, A. The 

 little stick, a, should be of 

 some tough, cross - grained, 

 soft - wood lumber — elm or 

 basswood will answer — '4x!4 

 inch in size, and just short 



GREINER'S COMB-LBVBLBR FOB UNFINISHED SECTIONS. 



enough to go inside of the section. This is driven full of 

 fine 1-inch wire nails at about '4 of an inch (or a little less) 

 distance, after the holes have been punched with a brad-awl 

 of just the right size. The nails should drive in as tight as 

 possible without splitting the sticks. When completed, the 

 comb is nailed on the handle, Fig. 1, B ; this latter is a little 

 wider than the outside of the section, leaving the notches, 

 etc., to project and rest on the edges of the section when 

 the tool is used. Any kind of thin lumber the same thick- 

 ness as the little comb-strip, and not too soft, will do. 



At Fig. 2 the comb-leveler is shown in position when in 



