1895 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



3o3 



In former years, wax-bleaching was carried 

 on as an independent business; and its exten- 

 sion may be inferred from the fact that, at the 

 end of the seventeenth century, there were four- 

 teen wax-bleaching establit-hments in Ham- 

 burg. In fact, except oil and tallow, and the 

 inevitable pine shavings, no illuminating male- 

 rial was known but wax ; and this, only the 

 rich could use. At that time, even princes who 

 indulged in this luxury (according to the con- 

 ception of th()>e times) were held to be spend- 

 thrifts. Besides for candles, wax had a further 

 use in the manfacture of artificial flowers and 

 fruits, which were used as room ornaments, for 

 at that time the use of sealing-wax and other 

 kinds, for that purpose, was not known. 



Besides beeswax we are now familiar with a 

 list of vegetable fats which more or less resem- 

 ble it, known by the common name of vegeta- 

 ble or plant wax; in addition to which has been 

 recently added mineral wax — ozokerite — which, 

 when refined, is known as ceresin, which is used 

 to a great extent in the adulteration of beeswax. 



Wax is still used nowadays for illuminating- 

 purposes in divine worship, not only by Chris- 

 tians but by Jews. But the Orthodox Greek 

 Church makes the most conspicuous use of it. 

 It serves, also, for a number of technical, medi- 

 cal, and artificial purposes; and in spite of the 

 diminished production of wax candles, beeswax 

 alone will not supply the need of wax, as the 

 different kinds mentioned allow of a wide use 

 of that substance. 



Clint iinial. 



T SUPER VS. SECTION-HOLDER SURPLUS 

 ARRANGEMENT. 



WHY THE A. I. KOOT CO. KECOMMEND THE 

 LATTER. 



By Dr. C. C. Miller. 



A question is asked me on p. 315 that I shall 

 be glad to answer as well as I can. It is about 

 T tins; but in introducing the question a state- 

 ment is made, or at least implied, over which I 

 have pondered—" So few, comparatively, use T 

 tins now." Now see, Mr. Editor, whether I 

 give an entirely fair puraphiase of what you 

 meant to express. *■ There was a time when T 

 tins were much used, but not now. Section- 

 holders are better than T supers, and are now 

 taking the place of the latter." I should really 

 like to know just how much truth there is in 

 that. Are T supers less used than formerly? 

 Can you give us the names of practical honey- 

 producers who have thrown aside T supers for 

 section-holders? 



You may say that you know section-holders 

 are taking or have taken the place of T supers, 

 because you now sell many section-holders and 

 scarcely any T supers. If you should tell me 

 that about diflferent kinds of sections, I should 

 at once see the weight of the argument, for it 

 would tell me about the preferences of bee- 



keepers in general; for bee-keepers who use 

 sections are continually buying new ones. But 

 those who use T supers do not need to buy new 

 ones, and so their lack of buying doesn't prove 

 they think any less of T supers than they did.^ 

 I don't expect to buy another T super as long as 

 I live; but my not buying them doesn't prove 

 any thing about my preference. Now, if you 

 say to me, " We sell a great many section-hold- 

 ers to those who have used T supers and have 

 cast them aside," I shall, in all fairness, have 

 to admit that, for such persons, with their pres- 

 ent knowledge, section-holders are preferable. 



But who are the purchasers? As surplus- 

 honey arrangements last a long time, a large 

 portion of the purchasers will be beginners. 

 The beginner looks to you for guidance; and 

 you say, in very plain print, " We consider the 

 section-holder arrangement for holding sections 

 on the hive superior to any other." That set- 

 tles it for him, and you lake his purchase as a 

 proof that section-holders are best. It doesn't 

 prove any thing of the kind: it only proves that 

 you think so, and that the beginner has confi- 

 dence in your judgment. Other purchasers are 

 those who are still increasing their require- 

 ments and need more supers than they now 

 have. Such a one will say, "I want the best 

 that's to be had. Mr. Root says it's the sec- 

 tion-holder. He's so thoroughly reliable that 

 I'll trust to him and get section-holders." Very 

 likely he'll make an improvement, for he may 

 be using something not nearly so good as sec- 

 tion-holders; but if he has been using the T 

 super, and finds on trial that he doesn't like the 

 section-holder so well, it is not at all certain he 

 will piomptly make it known; and in any case, 

 the fact still remains that he has increased the 

 sale of section-holders without preferring them. 



There are those — I have your own word for 

 it— "there are those who have used the T super 

 so long, and to the exclusion of all others, that 

 they are not easily persuaded to use any thing 

 else." Now, why? I suppose you include me 

 in the number, and I suppose that I adopted 

 the T super for the same reason others did — at 

 least some others — because it was better than 

 what I had been using. Would not the same 

 reason make me change from T supers to sec- 

 tion-holders that made me change fi'om wide 

 frames to T supers? I think I made a pretty 

 fair trial of the two side by side, and, like the 

 others who are stubbornly holding on to the T 

 super, I did so because I believed it best. 



Please remember this: The friends of the T 

 super are not likely to say any thing about your 

 preference. Take my own case. Personally, 

 what difi'erence does it make to me what you 

 think about it? I have all the T supers I need; 

 and if others buy section-holders, it's nothing to 

 me. If you should try to rule out the kind of 

 sections we prefer, then a howl would be raised 

 because we should be stopped from getting 

 what we wanted. But booming section-holders 



