1895 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



M5 



T SUPERS. 



WHY BETTER THAN SECTION-HOLDERS OR WIDE 



FRAMES ; THE PROPER WAY TO MAKE 



A T TIN. 



Bji A. n. An(hi))m. 



I have produced comb honey in several styles 

 of surplus-cases; and if I could have the T tins 

 made as I like them I should like the T super 

 best. Two-tier wide frames are away behind, 

 because the valuable feature of tiering up is 

 lost. Single-tier wide frames are good, but they 

 can be rigged for only one width of sections, and 

 then if made for separators they can not well be 

 used without. Pattern slats, or bottom-bars, 

 are a slight disadvantage because they place 

 the sections that much further away from the 

 brood-chamber. Could they be above the sec- 

 tions their clean tops would be valuable. As 

 for the bottoms, no one hardly ever sees them. 



T tins as I use them are fastened permanent- 

 ly to the crates. Simplicity should be the rule 

 with all fixtures a bee keeper has to deal with. 

 Section-frames make extra pieces: separators, 

 that many many more. Some think that shift- 

 ing section-frames will pay: I think not. I 

 used to do that too, but don't any more. A su- 

 per should be suitable for sections open on all 

 four sides. 



We, the majority of bee-keepers, I believe, 

 have always been wrong in the use of closed- 

 end sections and open-end brood-frames, where 

 we should have had open -end sections and clos- 

 ed-end frames. 



I think, also, that those of us who use separa- 



11 tors, and get ordinary prices for 



1 our honey, do so at a loss. One 



J great trouble is, that we use sec- 



( " v> tions that are too wide. The T 



tin that I think would be more 



suitable would be like the diagram above. The 



worst trouble with the old T tin is, that the 



rounding at the point 1 took up so much room 



as to separate the sections. The T form is a 



strong one. By using thin tin, and bending as 



I suggest, it would leave hardly a visible space 



between sections when compressed. Also, the 



points 3 3 would not form cutting edges for 



hands and fingers, and would never become 



bent out of shape as much as the old kind do. 



I hope, Mr. Root, I am right in the above, and 

 that you can see it so. Of course, a new ma- 

 chine would have to be gotten up to bend this 

 form. If some of your help could turn out one 

 to make these tins I should be pleased to have 

 it so; and if they should fail, and you really 

 felt that you wanted one, perhaps I could try 

 for you. 



Coleta, 111., Dec. 17. 



[So few, comparatively, use T tins now that 

 it is a question whether it would pay us to build 

 a new machine to make the tins as you recom- 

 mend, providing we admit that they are better 

 when so made. Of course, I see that it might 

 be an advantage to have the point 1 as thin as 



possible; but there is no reason why it can not 

 be just as thin when con><tructed the usual 

 way. On the other hand, are we sure we want 

 them thin or flat at the upright? If we could 

 reduce it to nothing, it would be desirable. As 

 we can't, is a thickness of -^^ any worse than g^j ? 

 and is it not true that separator stuff will close 

 up a space of the former on top of the sections 

 better than in the latter? How is this. Dr. 

 Miller?-ED.] 



TIERING UP FOR COMB HONEY. 



SHALL A SUl'EK OF EMPTY SECTIONS BE PUT 



UNDER OR OVER ONE WITH SECTIONS 



PARTLY FILLED? 



Bij JiiJin Handel. 



Editor Oleanincis:— At last Dr. Miller knows 

 (see Stray Straws, p. 8), where he says: " The 

 ft/juse of a good thing is no argument against 

 its proper use. Like John Handel, p. 944, I've 

 coaxed bees up into the eighth " (I said sixth) 

 "story, and had all unfinished sections; but, 

 all the same, when I'm pretty sure bees will 

 fill a second super. I put the second one under. 

 If doubtful about both being filled, I put the 

 empty one over." 



Now, why does Dr. M. "allee samee" waste 

 his strength lifting heavy supers off the hive 

 and on again? We will take "don't know" 

 for an answer, doctor, but give us a reason if 

 possible. I know the practice is backed up by 

 age, and numerous followers, but that is no 

 evidence of truth. We should prove all things 

 and hold fast that which is good. I have 

 proven (to my satisfaction at least) that bees 

 will commence work in the second super as 

 readily if put on top as under the first. I gave 

 the readers of Gleanings the benefit (if any) 

 of my experimental labors. Now let us see if 

 they are backed up by reason. 



It is evident that the heat escaping from the 

 brood-chamber will accumulate in the top of 

 the hive, and that the wax-workers require this 

 heat most; and, again, that most wax work is 

 wanted in the empty super. Therefore if Dr. 

 M. has as good reasons for creating that un- 

 natural vacuum between the surplus and brood, 

 let him trot them out. I use starters only in 

 the sections, and like to put a few drawn combs 

 (extending well down to the bottom) in the 

 center of the super. It seems to induce the 

 bees to go upstairs sooner; but such ladders 

 don't appear to be necessary for any but the 

 first story, or after they have acquired the habit 

 of going up. 



I am experimenting for my own benefit; 

 therefore when I get something good, and offer 

 it to the public, they should make allowance 

 for the difference in the management, location, 

 etc., and not expect to reap large benefits with- 

 out testing the plan for themselves. For ex- 

 ample, in this case of tiering up, most if not all 

 producers of comb honey have a horizontal 

 bee-space between every super. I have gradu- 

 ally discarded until that between surplus and 



