July 7, 1904. 



THfc AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



469 



and if foundation were used, or ii swarm hived on starters, it would 

 make a nice mess. Hives witti gable roofs would do better, but it 

 seems handier to have frames run from front to rear. 



EroENE Secor (Iowa)— Too short to make good breeding combs. 

 Too short for out-door winterinj;. Too many frames to handle. Supers 

 would have to be made on a different plan without any improvement 

 on the ones now in use. 



Jas. a. Stone (111.)— It would not do at all, as the hive needs to 

 have the entrance lowest to let the moisture run out, and that would 

 cause cross frames to hang against the hive at the bottom and away 

 from it at the higher end. 



Dr. C. C. Miller (111.)— It's not the fashion in this country, and 

 I like to be fashionable. It gives the bees less chance to ventilate the 

 hive. It would necessitate leveling the hive from front to rear, which 

 would not be so convenient. 



E. E. Hasty (Ohio)— Mainly that it malies the frame too small. 

 Also^ because the hive doesn't want to be level from front to rear. 

 Don't seem to be any objections but what could be got out of the way 

 if large advantages were in sight. 



C. Daveni'ORT (Minn,)— a good many. I want the back of the 

 hive 2 inches or so higher, so that rain will not beat or run in at the 

 entrance. With frames crosswise, the hive would. have to be level 

 lengthwise, and unless the hive was square it would take more frames 

 crosswise. 



C. P. Dadant (111.) — None whatever. The Europeans have dis- 

 cussed at great length this method, which they call the " warm 

 frame" principle, as against the "cold frame," hung at right angles 

 with the entrance. I never could see any difference in results. I have 

 tried them both. 



W.M. RoHKiG (Ariz.) — If the number and size of the frames were 

 the same in either case, I can see no objection, only that the hive 

 must be level from front to back ; and unless the hive is square it 

 would take up more room in the row, which, with us, would be a 

 decided objection. 



E. S. LovEST (Utah) — While I prefer to have the frames run 

 from back to front, I have seen a great many colonies of bees do well 

 with the frames running crosswise of the hive. I have noticed that, 

 as a rule, the wax-moth is worse in hives where the frames run cross- 

 wise, than they are in hives where the frames run from back to front. 



Adrian Getaz (Tenn.) — They do not admit of leaning the hive 

 slightly forward. However, that is a very unimportant objection. 

 They are warmer than the frames hung lengthwise when wintering 

 out-of-doors. Frames hung crosswise stop the cold wind entering by 

 the entrance, while those hung lengthwise let it run in freely between 

 the frames clear to the rear wall of the hive. 



P. H. ElWood (N. Y.) — I can not think of any serious objections, 

 but would expect it to work not quite so well unless, as in our case, 

 the entrance is at the center of the bottom. Any arrangement of 

 frames and entrances that brings the honey uneven in the clamp. The 

 same may be said as to the brood-department, unless the frames are 

 long and shallow, when winter stores would be better at one end. 



K. C. AiKiN (Colo.) — Practically none. I have used extensively 

 such in the past; they are better for nearly every purpose than the 

 long Langstroth frame. They cost a little more, but that is a very 

 small item. First cost is a trifle if it gets better results later. With- 

 out a detailed argument, let me say that I kmiw short frames are all 

 right for results in breeding, and the super arrangements can easily 

 be adapted. 



.]. A. Green (Colo.) — The hive would need to be leveled front 

 to rear, which, unless a portico or slanting bottom-board were used, 

 would permit rain to drive in, which would not readily run out again. 

 Hives can be leveled more easily in one direction than in two, wtiU-h 

 would be a practical necessity with the hives now in use, except by 

 making the entrance at the side of the hive, which would often be in- 

 convenient, especially in the arrangement of a large apiary. 



E. Whitcomb (Nebr.) — None whatever. The same results would 

 be attained, but it would give you rather an ill-shaped frame, espe- 

 cially if you were working for extracted honey. Of course, there 

 would l)e more frames to fill the space, more wiring, more handlini,', 

 and less ground to be gone over in a given time. In this day and atre 

 the fellow who is going to make two blades of grass grow where there 

 has only been one, must be about it, or some fellow will have the 

 grass plowed up and corn planted thereon. 



G. W. Demaree (Ky.) — There are two ol)jections to the plan of 

 hanging frames crosswise in the hive: 1. I want my hives adjusted 

 on the summer stands so as to be a little lower in front than at the 

 back, so as to drain the hive of any water that may drift into the 

 entrance of the hive, and this would hinder the frames from hangint; 

 true with the hive. 2. Such a plan would add to the number of 

 frames, and this would add to the labor of handling the frames. As 

 I look at things, the proper position of the frames is with their ends 

 toward the entrance to the hive. 



c 



L. Stacheliiausen (Tex.)— This question has two meini 

 First, shall the frames hang crosswise to the hive-entrance or par 

 toilf In this sense, there is not much differencein ourclimate; fui 

 north a crosswise position to the entrance, as it is generally use 

 preferable. Why? — the sages there may answer. Second, if we 

 a Ill-frame hive is it better to hang 10 frames in it the long way, ' 

 shorter frames crosswise? The long frames are more favorat 

 brood development, and are better for wintering, because they c»;'i 

 more honey ; 10 larger frames cost less than I'J smaller ones, ami 

 less manipulation. I do not know any advantage of the cross 

 frames. 



iilk-l 



Contributed Articles 





Our National Association and Advertising 

 Honey. 



BY C. P. D.\DANT. 



IHA.VE noticed that editorial concerning advertising- 

 honey, on page 339, and also that of Editor Hutchinson 

 in his May Review. I think both suggestions are timely 

 and well taken. America is the most practical country in 

 the world, and knows better how to advertise than any 

 other country This is certainly why our goods scatter over 

 the entire world. The Europeans do not know how to ad- 

 vertise, and their magazines do not get the support that 

 ours do, because the only thing on which they can count 

 with any show of profit is the subscription list. When they 

 do advertise they do not seem to do it with so much force as 

 we do here. " He pays the freight " has no actual parallel 

 across the Ocean, although some houses manage to do a 

 great deal of wall advertising, which calls the attention to 

 them. I remember seeing an example of that, in Paris 

 where the house that was '• Not at the corner of the quay " 

 made itself known to everybody. 



These things being so, how is it that we neglect our in- 

 terests in some very important advertising ? Those who 

 have read my trip to the Paris Exposition will remember 

 that I was very much disappointed at not seeing a single 

 exhibit of United States honey anywhere, while our manu- 

 facturers of bee-supplies (our own firm included) had very 

 fine exhibits of their wares. Most to be regretted was the 

 comparison that could establish itself in the minds of the 

 European bee-keepers when they saw the Canadian exhibit 

 of honey, made under the auspices of their association, 

 which was splendid, and attracted a great deal of attention, 

 while our own country was nowhere to be seen as a honey- 

 producer. This failure ought not to occur again in any 

 World's Fair, no matter where it is. We need to call the 

 world's attention to our products, for we are the most exten- 

 sive producers in all lines. 



The same remarks apply to our own home exhibits. 

 Not only ought each State to make an exhibit, but it seems 

 to me of great importance for our National Associa- 

 tion to make a colossal show, something to be remembered 

 by all who see it. We have as efficient a General Manager 

 as can be found. Mr. France has already shown that he is 

 entirely devoted to our interests. All that needs to be done 

 is to furnish him sufficient funds to push the advertising of 

 honey, and I have no doubt that our large producers will 

 see that he is furnished a large quantity of the very best atid 

 finest honey for the exhibit. Of course, it will be nothing 

 but right to have each producer's name on the honey he 

 sends. For this, money is needed, and I propose that we 

 start a .subscription list to defray the expenses of a National 

 exhibit, and will myself subscribe $25.00 for this purpose, if 

 this move is adopted by our producers. 



Not only must we show our honey in a manner to im- 

 press the public, but I believe, as our friends. Editors York 

 and Hutchinson, suggest, that we should advertise our pro- 

 duct at large. I would suggest, also, that if our General 

 Manager is supplied with sufticient funds, he could adver- 

 tise our Association as willing to examine and test any 

 samples of honey sent, and report to the persons interested. 

 There is not a single one of our producers of honey on a 

 large scale but knows how unpleasant it is to have a 

 stranger doubt the purity of our goods, whether comb or ex- 

 tracted honey. If each of our members was authorized to 

 say to a doubting purchaser that he may send a sample of 

 the product to the General Manager of the National Associa- 

 tion, and that an opinion will be given free of charge, in 

 return, concerning the purity of the honey sent, there 

 would be a big point gained. I do not believe that this 

 would add very much to the labors of the General Manager, 

 because I think that very few persons would avail them- 

 selves of this opportunity, but it would give great strength 

 to our producers, and would undoubtedly enable them to 

 sell honey where they might otherwise have failed. I have 

 no hesitancy in asserting that, were it not for the fear of 

 adulteration, twice the quantity of honey would be con- 

 sumed in America that is used today. 



