638 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Aug. l.'j. 



He wanted to go the night before and stop over 

 at that point; but I wouldn't hear to that, for 

 he must stay over with us. Our early trains 

 not reaching there in time to catch his train, I 

 drove down there with him; and such a delight- 

 ful chat as we had in the early morningi We 

 discussed bee-keepers, bee-papers, and bees in 

 general; and you may be surprised when I tell 

 you that we touched only Incidentally upon 

 the subject of amalgamation. Both of us were 

 content to let the best judgment of the mem- 

 bers of both societies settle the quL'Stion. 



the discussion about the best size of 

 hives; shall it be continued in 

 gleanings'? 

 Although I have asked our readers once or 

 twice whether the subject as above might not 

 become wearisome, only one correspondent, so 

 far as I know, has written a protest. All the 

 rest have said, " Go on, Bro. Root; we are get- 

 ting new light and new points." Bro. Hutch- 

 son, in the Review, is frank enough to say that 

 he is " really becoming tired of this discussion," 

 because *' so many of the correspondents are 

 arguing at cross-purposes:" and that " it seems 

 as though thev were both right and wrong." 

 Over against thi*, in the same issue, Mr. Hutch- 

 inson's right-hand man, the Inimitable Hasty, 

 says this: 



The continued discussion of large and small hives 

 in Gleanings seems likely to prove an eye-opener 

 to us. We thought we had all the ways in which a 

 journal could proceed, and we had not. The go-as- 

 you-please way of every writer choosing his own 

 subject, the question with symposium answers, 

 snappy and right to the point, and the special num- 

 ber devoted to a special topic, all have been familiar 

 to us this long time. In use, however, the second 

 and third of these methods had got pretty well worn 

 out, and yet very few questions in apiculture could 

 be regarded as settled. It was left for Gleanings to 

 take up atopic and stick to it, and squeeze it, and 

 wring it, until the last drop of available juice had 

 been wl^lng out. Why not, in the course of time, 

 have each of the greater topics similarly treated ? 

 A joint agreement of the leading papers for this 

 purpose wouldn't be amiss. 



It seems to me Mr. Hasty pretty nearly hits 

 the nail on the head. It was formerly supposed 

 that a symposium in one number or two would 

 just about settle a question; but as experience 

 goes on, we have been shown many a time that 

 our old conclusions were wrongly drawn; and 

 it is only by continued, discussion and digging 

 up of the facts, or, as Mr. Hasty says, sticking 

 to it and squeezing it, and wringing it until the 

 last drop of available juice has been wrung out 

 that we finally get at the truth. While I do not 

 believe the question in (iLEANiNGS has been 

 continued too long, perhaps some others feel like 

 Bro. Hutchinson; and on the principle that a 

 preacher who preaches too long a sermon spoils 

 its good effect, it may be wise to draw the dis- 

 cussion to a close. 



In the mean time, let us not forget that we 

 have had a few "eye-openers." Let us rehearse 

 just a few of them. (1) More bee-keepers are 

 using cubical hives than we supposed. ('2) A 

 larger number find the ten-frame hive prefer- 

 able to the eight-frame than we had any idea 

 of ; and (3) it is evident that some bee-keepers 

 are, or have been, getting along with too small 

 a brood-nest; and especially is this true in the 

 youth and West. (4) Some like divisible brood- 

 chambers that can be contracted or expanded 

 at will, and think this is the best solution of the 

 problem. (5) Others who have tried them do 

 not find them to be an entire success, and have 

 finally concluded there is nothing better than 

 full-sized brood-frames — that is, a brood -nest 

 with a single set of combs. 



But perhaps the biggest eye-opener of all is 

 the fact that (6) the eight-frame hive is not as 

 generally accepted as about the right size for 

 all bee-keepers as we have thought. 



Incidentally, I might say right here that the 

 real thing in my judgment that brought the 

 eight-frame hive into prominence a few years 

 ago was the idea of contraction. It was then 

 thought advisable to reduce the brood-nest 

 anywhere from the full size of hive (ten) down 

 to four, five, or six frames. Later on, eight 

 frames seemed to be as small as It was advisable 

 to go. When bee-keepers began to use a two- 

 frame dummy or division-board in the ten- 

 frame hive generally, they reasoned this way: 

 " What is the use of ray having two frames ex- 

 tra space and a dummy if I do not need them, 

 when I buy more hiVes? All the brethren use 

 the eight-frame, and I might as well fall into 

 line;" but nowadays there is very little con- 

 traction, and many are beginning to feel that 

 any contraction is a mistake, because it encour- 

 ages swarming, and incessant swarming means 

 little or no honey. 



Another eye-opener, and closely related to 

 that preceding, is (7) that bee-keepers at large 

 have been running too much toward small sizes 

 in hives, and now the tide is turning slightly the 

 other way. Just where it will land, nobody 

 knows. Now, the question arises in view of 

 this, "Is it wise to stop right here'?" I con- 

 fess I do not know, and ask for greater wisdom 

 of our many readers. 



The interest in any discussion, it may be 

 well to remark, depends largely on whether one 

 is interested in the thing discussed, or in this 

 case whether he is thinking of changing his 

 hive ; whether his hives are all worn out, 

 etc. If one already has a lot of good sound 

 hives, no matter what they are, he will usually 

 say. " 1 will stick to what I have," and we will 

 say he is right; but at the same time he has a 

 sort of feeling that, when the general discussion 

 shows some?7if/i(y (?7;|fcre7it as being better than 

 what he is already using, it may become tire- 

 some. But this does not apply to friend Hutch- 

 inson, I am sure. 



