846 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 15. 



not crowd too close against the comb, we must, 

 either by an end-bar on the dummy, or by 

 some other means, have a projection of Vg inch, 

 and, indeed, we want this >8 projection on both 

 sides of the dummy, for the little strips in each 

 corner of the hive will keep the dummy only 

 >8 inch away from the side of the hive, allowing 

 bees to be crushed. If the end-bars of the dum- 

 my project 38 on each side, that will make sure 

 always of a space at least >!" inch between the 

 dummy and the side of the hive, and also be- 

 tween the dummy and the first comb. That 

 makes the end-bar of the dummy take up ^ of 

 the %" space we had, leaving V inch play. 



Now push the dummy close up against the 

 frames, and this ?^-inch play, together with 

 the }^'-inch strip in the hive-corner and the 3^ 

 projection of the end-bar, will make a 3^-inch 

 space between the dummy and the side of the 

 hive. The question may arise, whether there 

 is any danger of bees building in that half-inch 

 space. I think hardly; but in actual pi'actice 

 there will probably be less than half an inch 

 space; for as soon as the bees have a little 

 chance at gluing, the 8 frames will not be got 

 into 11 inches, and my only fear is, that the 

 3^-inch play will hardly be enough. Possibly 

 it might be better to make the dummy of 3^ 

 stuflf, and thus get }i more play. 



Of course, planned as I have indicated there 

 is nothing to hinder any one from wedging up 

 the dummy if he wishes. A wedge could be put 

 in for hauling, or in any case where the hive 

 was to be rolled over and over, and left out for 

 ordinary usage. 



Now, what's wrong in such a hive? Should 

 the space between end-bar and hive be ^ or %'? 

 Should the dummy be ^{ or ^g" stuff? 



Marengo, 111. C. C. Miller. 



[Before we proceed to the several points sug- 

 gested by Dr. Miller, we want to go on record 

 as saying, with our -rood friend, that we are 

 willing to be converted from the error of our 

 ways — that is. we do not wish ever to get into a 

 rut where we can not get out — or, more specifi- 

 cally, into accepted lines of bee-appliances 

 whon there may be something better. 



We will admit, with the doctor, that there are 

 some decided advantages in the old-style Hoff- 

 man frames having top-bars widened at the 

 ends so as to fill up the space and cover up en- 

 tirely the rabbet; but we could not adopt that 

 style of top-bar without changing the length 

 of the standard Langstroth top-bar; and for a 

 supply-dealer this would be an insurmountable 

 obstacle. Mi-. Hoffman uses a rabbet only 

 about ^g wide and J4 deep, the tops of the 

 frames coming exactly flush with the top of the 

 hive. To make the rabbet only 3^ inch wide 

 would shorten the Langstroth top-bar to 18;?^ 

 inches, and this is out of the question, especial- 

 ly when we take into consideration another 

 fact — that, in order to get the full benefit of 

 this rabbet, the bee-spaces must be changed 

 from the top of the hive to the underside, so 

 the frames will, in every case, come Hush with 

 the top edges of the hive. Enamel cloth, ac- 

 cording to Mr. Hoffman, would then be laid 

 squarely on top of the frames. This would 

 cover up entirely the widened ends of the top- 

 bars, preventing accumulations of propolis 

 from the top side, all of which is very nice; but 

 bee-keepers nowadays do not want enameled 

 cloths; neither do they want bee-spaces dis- 

 carded from the top of the hive. This being 

 the case, we were under the necessity of mak- 

 ing a compi'omise, using the tin rabbet and 

 straight top-bars. 



But you say, doctor, " Why not have kept on 

 with the same original Hoffman frames we 

 started out with?" Because the rabbet in the 



hive had to be }{ inch wide — so wide, indeed, 

 that we found it killed a good many bees when 

 these widened ends came down into place. 

 Then we found, also, that the average bee- 

 keeper will not nail end-bars so they will 

 come exactly flush and even with the corres- 

 ponding widened part of the top-bar; there- 

 fore to preserve the bee-spaces as they were, 

 and preserve the length of the top- bar, and to 

 simplify its construction as well as reduce the 

 expense, we adopted what seemed to us then, 

 and what seems to us now. to be a better ar- 

 rangement. So far we have had a good many 

 letters, approving of the change in the Hoffman 

 frames where the two have been tried side by 

 side, and our experience points in the same way. 



Now in regard to that V edge. We are well 

 aware that, theoretically, this is objectionable, 

 and perhaps it is so from a practical point of 

 view in some localities ; but we are of the 

 opinion, doctor, that, if you were to try the 

 square edges and the V edges for a couple of 

 years, side by side, you would decide with Mr. 

 Hoffman, Mr. J. H. Nellis, and the other bee- 

 keepers who were pioneers in the use of this 

 frame; and, besides, you may remember that 

 we first started with the square edges, and were 

 very glad to change to the V edge. We should 

 be pleased to have more reports from those who 

 have tried the old style and new-style Hoffman 

 frames together. VVe should like to know 

 particularly whether the V edge proves ob- 

 jectionable. 



There is no need of wedging the dummy un- 

 less Hoffman end-bars having square edges are 

 used. This is one of the reasons why we prefer 

 the V edges. The dummy for 1894 will have a 

 slight bee-space on each side, and a top-bar 

 that will enable the manipulator to draw it out 

 easily. 



Your objections to loose hanging frames, and 

 points in favor of the self-spacing frames, are 

 all well taken. We have tried for two or three 

 years back to preach that sort of doctrine; and 

 the result is. that bee-keepers in the West are 

 beginning to agree with the bee-keepers in the 

 East, who have generally held to the self- 

 spacing frames for many years. But, taking it 

 all in all, we do not expect that the bee-keeping 

 fraternity will adopt them exclusively. If 

 propolis were ten times worse than it is in 

 Medina (and we have never been in a locality 

 where it seems to be any worse, so far as we 

 could discover from hive-appurtenances), we 

 would use loose hanging frames. At the same 

 time, we recognize that there are many other 

 competent bee-keepers who think differently, 

 and, very possibly, can produce their crops of 

 honey as cheaply per pound as do those of us 

 who hold to the other view. Of late we have 

 said little or nothing in favor of thick bars for 

 self-spacing frames, and had thought that we 

 would say nothing, but let them speak for 

 themselves. We should have said nothing at 

 this time except that Dr. Miller calls for this 

 footnote, and here it is.] 



THOSE BEE-ESCAPES. 



CIKCUMSTANOES ATIKN THEY ARE AND ARE 

 NOT INDISPENSABLE. 



I see by your footnote to the article of E. 

 France, page 777, that you ask for more opin- 

 ions on the escape, from those producing either 

 or both extracted and comb honey; and as I 

 have tried both, and the escape for both, I will 

 contribute some proof both ways, for' and 

 against the escape. 



Now, I must say that Mr. France is right 

 about not wanting the escape, and can get 



