500 



AMERICAN BEE JOUENAL 



Aug. 8, 1901. 



I Contributed Articles, l 



Width of Top-Bars of Extract! ng-Frames, Etc. 



BY C. P. DADANT. 



MR. DADANT:— I would be very much obUgeA to hear from you as 

 to what width of top-bars you would advise to use when only '* 

 frames are used on a ten-frame hiveV Then another question: 

 Which do you consider the best way to have combs in extracting^ 

 hives cleaned by the bees when they are not to be used ag'ain the 

 same season? We have sometimes put such extracting hives back on 

 the colonies, but frequently a good many bees remained in them, and 

 again at other times they gathered the honey all right but did not take it 

 down in the brood-chamber.— Jacob Wagner. 



In replying to these questions, I will refer the reader to 

 an article previously written by me on page 452, on the 

 spacing of extracting-frames, and the number of them to 

 be used in a super. 



The thickness and width of top-bars has influence, in 

 only one particular, as far as I know, that is, it helps con- 

 trol the amount of burr or brace combs built by the bees. 

 With a light top-bar, of narrow width, the bees will often 

 build a great number of brace-combs, joining one comb 

 with the other and filling every available space with honey. 

 This makes the handling of the combs more or less incon- 

 venient. When the fratnes are made with a wide top-bar, 

 leaving only a narrow bee-space between the combs, and 

 especially when the top-bar is also thick perpendicularly, 

 there is much less brace-comb built. 



But, in extracting, the wide top-bars have the great 

 inconvenience of being in the way of the uncapping-knife, 

 until the combs are built out far enough to remedy this. 

 Many of our friends prefer the ordinary narrow triangular 

 top-bar for this very reason. In our own practice, we have 

 used both the I's top-bar and the "s, and we find very little 

 difference in practical results. If the frames are kept as 

 far apart as is necessary to secure thick combs, the bees 

 will build brace-combs anyhow, even if we use wide and 

 thick top-bars. But we do not find much inconvenience 

 resulting from it, because we keep our bees sufficiently 

 supplied with space to prevent them from building brace- 

 combs. The latter are usually built when space is getting 

 short in the super and seem to be the finishing touch which 

 the bees give to their supers. If we forestall their aim, by 

 adding more combs or by extracting, no brace-combs will 

 be built. So, in our estimation, the width and thickness of 

 the top-bar of extracing-combs is not of any particular 

 importance. 



CLEANING SXTRACTING-COMBS. 



Concerning the giving back of the extracted combs to 

 the bees to be cleaned at the end of the season, I am 

 decidedly in favor of the aflirraative. The question was 

 discussed at length last spring in the International Review 

 of Bee-Culture, of Switzerland. My readers well know 

 that, over there, they produce extracted honey almost 

 exclusively, and many different methods are followed. 

 There seems to be about an equal division on the matter of 

 returning the combs to the hives. But the advantages of 

 the method, in my mind, very greatly overbalance the dis- 

 advantages. 



It is held by those who are in favor of not returning 

 the combs to the hives, that they are just as easily kept 

 when sticky with honey ; that it saves a great deal of time, 

 and quite a great deal of trouble, and that when the supers 

 are given to the bees in the spring, they work in them tnuch 

 more readily if these combs are rendered attractive by the 

 honey sticking to them. 



On the other hand, the combs which are left smeared 

 with honey when put away for winter attract mice much 

 more readily than if they have been thoroughly cleansed by 

 the bees. Mice will make very little effort to enter a sur- 

 plus case, if there is no smell but that of the wax ; but if 

 they can perceive the odor of honey they will take special 

 pains to work their way in, for they are very fond of it. 

 Whenever I have had combs damaged by the mice, I have 

 almost invariably found them to be combs that contained 

 honey, especially honey that was strong in flavor and odor. 



Another objection is, that when you put the supers on 

 the hives, in spring, you run the risk of exciting the bees 

 to rob, for it is very often before the opening of the erop 

 that the supers are put on the hives. It is true, the same 



precaution might be taken in the spring to put the supers 

 on the hives as is taken to return them to the bees in the 

 fall, by doing it at the end of the day's work, just before 

 night, so that any excitement caused by the running honey 

 will soon be quenched by the shadows of night. But it is 

 much easier to do this after a day's extracting when you 

 have a force of four or five people on the spot, than to do it 

 in the spring, when the apiarist is usually alone to do the 

 work. 



There is also another objection to leaving all the combs 

 daubed with honey for four or five months — it is the danger 

 of causing a fermentation in this honey. We all know 

 that honey has a strong tendency to the absorption of mois- 

 ture — it then becomes watery, and ferments easily. When 

 it is spread over a considerable area, as is the case after 

 extracting, there is a very great danger of this fermenta- 

 tion, and though the quantity is very insignificant, it pro- 

 duces numerous germs on the combs which are to contain 

 the next crop, and it seems to me that there is but little 

 doubt of the danger arising from this for the following 

 harvest, especially if the honey was watery when gath- 

 ered. 



It is true that it takes a little more labor to put the 

 supers back on the hive, when we know that they must be 

 again taken off before winter, but it is thus with every pur- 

 suit — we can have nothing without labor, and those who 

 take the most pains are usually those who succeed best. 



Hamilton Co., 111. 



Long-Tongued Bees— A General Rejoinder. 



BY G. M. DOOI.ITTLE. 



MY article on long-tongued bees, on page 293, seems to 

 have stirred them up quite generally, if what has 

 appeared in print on this subject since then gives a 

 true indication in the matter. And I have waited a little, 

 till " the storm had passed away," so that I might send in 

 a general reply to all, for I see that I did not make myself 

 fully understood in my former article. Some seem to get 

 the impression that I was accusing advertisers of making 

 "false statements " regarding long-tongued bees, for the 

 sake of gain. I did not intend so to do. What I did intend 

 was this : 



Gleanings in Bee-Culture, through "Stenog," said, 

 "The movement for longer tongues is simply to get the 

 red clover crop of the North, which now is practically all 

 wasted. The bees, no one claims, would be any better except 

 on that account ;" while in the same number of Gleanings 

 were advertisements stating that long-tongued bees were 

 better for all parts of the country, red clover or no red 

 clover, or at least with no qualifications regarding the red 

 clover matter. And as these statements were directly 

 opposite, I wished to show that one or the other was, and 

 must of necessity be, " actually false." If this showing or 

 conclusion was wrong, or if I wrote in a manner tending to 

 convey any other impression, I am sorry, and ask pardon. 

 I certainly had no desire to do injustice to any. 



Next, to offer prizes, and so put things by editorials or 

 otherwise, as to draw out only one side, without putting the 

 other side on an equal footing, is what I call misleading, 

 and especially so where this is done in the reading columns 

 of a paper in a way tending to point toward some financial 

 interest of the promoter. If so calling was wrong, or if I 

 wrote in a manner giving a different impression, I regret it 

 more than any one else. Not till the " fad " for long 

 tongues had nearly "spent itself," was there any call made 

 for tongues to measure from colonies which had proved 

 themselves inferior for honey-gathering. To have been 

 fair this should have been done at the outset. 



Then, when a person writes from an opposing side, and 

 a foot-note is used so as to turn what the opponent says 

 that it may point toward the fad — this is what I call twist- 

 ing, and something our bee-papers of to-day should not 

 stoop to doing it. If I am " off the track " here, I am sorry. 

 I do not wish to look at things through a distorted vision. 



Again, in closing my article I said, "There are times 

 when it is necessary that a ' halt should be called ' by some 

 one, and as no one had seen fit to do this, I felt it my duty 

 to do so." Replying to this part, both Dr. Miller and E. 

 R. Root point me to a certain editorial on pages 295-296 of 

 April 1st Gleanings, to show that a halt was there called, 

 which I had made no mention of, and if I would be fair I 

 would have noticed it. Well, if I had considered that edi- 

 torial a calling of a halt I should have noticed it. Allow 

 me to quote from it, similarly to the way Dr. Miller and Mr. 

 Root did : 



