884 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Dec. 1. 



The improvement consists in having a space 

 between top-bars the entire length, thus having 

 less cii an ce to kill bees, and having the frames 

 rest on folded tin so as to slide easily. Theo- 

 retically that looks like an improvement, but in 

 practice it has not seemed so. Whatever the 

 reason may be, I find it as easy to slide the old- 

 fashioned Hoffman top-bars on the wood rab- 

 bets — at least, it seems so to me. The number 

 of bees killed by the ends of the top-bars, where 

 they touch, is not very great at most; and, 

 being thus closed, there will be no propolis de- 

 posited on the rabbet. Will not the little chan- 

 nel, back of the tin, be in time entirely filled up 

 with propolis? Unless I see some objection 

 other than I now see, I want the ends of the 

 top-bars to be close-fitting. 



The improved Hoffman has the upper ends 

 of the end-bars close-fitting, and one side 

 brousrht to a sharp edge, no doubt with the 

 view of killing fewer bees. Theoretically, one 

 would expect the angle thus formed to become 

 filled with propolis. I understand there is no 

 such trouble, practically, at Medina. There is 

 at Marengo; and if, with time enough, that 

 angle is not filled full at Medina, I shall b<- 

 greatly surprised; and. when thus filled, it will 

 be worse than having both edges of the top- bar 

 full width, because a surface of bee-glue is 

 worse than a surface of wood. 



With frames spaced ]•*„ from center to center, 

 I feel pretty safe in saying that the main part 

 of the top-bar should be 1>8 wide. The reasons, 

 I gave not long ago in Gleanings; namely, 

 that, with J4 inch between top-bars, there was 

 the greatest freedom from brace-combs. 



I think I want the top-bar % thick. It seems 

 to be quite generally conceded that a thick top- 

 bar helps to prevent brace-combs. Let me say 

 here, that I believe that the prevention of 

 brace-combs goes a long way toward prevent- 

 ing burr-combs over top-bars; for if brace- 

 combs are started between top-bars, it seems 

 easy to continue them upward as burr-combs. 



Even if a thick top-bar should make no dif- 

 ference as to braces and burrs. I still think 

 there is good reason for having %. An inch 

 might be better, but I suppose it would be a 

 good deal more expensive, and % will do very 

 well. One reason for a thick top-bar is. that a 

 thick one will not sag. And if your top-bar 

 sags, away goes exactness of space between top- 

 bar and whatever is placed over; and without 

 exactness of space, away goes eNemption from 

 burr-combs. Another reason for a thick top- 

 bar is. that I believe it is not well to have sec- 

 tions too near the brood-combs. When I used 

 wide frames to hold st^ctions, I practiced put- 

 ling a frame of brood in the upper siory between 

 two wide frames, the more readily to get the 

 bees to work there. If left there till the bees 

 commenced sealing tlie sections, they were 

 always sealed dark. So I believe it is well to 

 have the sections farther from the brood-combs 

 by means of a thick top-bar. 



So, with my present light it seems to me that 

 I want the old-fashioned Hoffman frame, with 

 a top-bar \% by %. I shall look with great in- 

 terest for foot-notes at the bottom of this: and 

 if I am wrong in any of my views, I am willing 

 —at least a little bit willing— to be converted 

 from the error of my ways by the editor or any 

 of the friends. C. C. Millek. 



Marengo, 111. 



[One of the bitterest pills that an editor has to 

 swallow is to have something in print out of 

 place. Well, it seems we dictated two foot- 

 notes to two consecutive articles from Dr. C. C. 

 Miller. By sonn- hocus-pocus they got togeth- 

 er and were stuck on the article that appeared 

 uu page 84.5 of last issue. The major part of 



the footnote belonged to the article above. As 

 both articles were on kindred subjects, and 

 having read both of them at the time of having 

 made the footnotes, we did not read the one 

 that" appeared in Gleanings in coiuiection 

 with the double footnote. The reader will, 

 therefore, find the answer to Dr. Miller's article 

 above on page 840 of our Uist issue. We would 

 have given a cooky to see Dr. M. scratching his 

 head, trying to make out what that footnote 

 had to do with his article. If he and our read- 

 ers will forgive us this time we will promise 

 not to do it again.] 



THE NORTH AMERICAN BEE-KEEPERS' CON- 

 VENTION AT CHICAGO. 



REPORT CONTINUED FROM PAGE 8.50, LAST ISSUE:. 



By E. R. Root. 



MORNING SESSION, SECOND DAY. 



First in order was a paper from R. F. Holter- 

 mann on 



THE PRODUCTION OF COMR HONEY. 



He regarded, as of prime importance, the 

 man and the locality. One in a poor locality 

 could not compet>' with a bee-keeper in a good 

 one. As to the hive there was a great diversity 

 of opinion and great diversity of conditions. 

 While he would not lay down any particular 

 hive, he considered any great deviation from 

 the Langstroth hive and frame a mistake. As 

 to the super, he would like an arrangement 

 that would protect all four sides and the up- 

 right edges of the sections; but as it was not 

 practicable to insert and remove sections from 

 such an arrangement, he preferred the section- 

 holder device — that is, a single- tier wide frame, 

 without a top-bar. From this the sections 

 could be removed easily; and as the sections 

 came out clean, he preferred it. A'< to the size 

 of section, that depended upon the convenience 

 of the market, and what the supply-dealer rec- 

 ommended. All of these pointed toward the 

 43^x4J4. So far this was easy to decide, but not 

 so the width. In Canada. 95 i)er cent used 

 sections IK inches wide; a few l^g, l^. ]% and 

 1%; but the demand was increasing for luirrow- 

 er sections. As to the bees themselves, he 

 would not go in so much for beauty as for busi- 

 ness. He considered it a mistake for queen- 

 breeders to run so much toward popular de- 

 mands. Regarding the management, the bees 

 should have plenty of good stores in the fall of 

 the year. Hives should be leveled up with a 

 spirit-level. The greatest cleanliness should 

 be observed. The bottom -bars and top- bars 

 should be scraped, and only such stocks as 

 have bright clean combs should be used. He 

 would use full sheets of foundation, and let the 

 bees swarm, and thought this latter especially 

 was an important factor in the production of 

 comb honey. In the brood-nest he would use 

 starters and hive on these. It was a mistake to 

 try to discourage swarming. No apiary, he be- 

 lieved, should be run entirely for comb honey 

 alone. At the close of the comb honey harvest 

 the extracting-supers should be put on, and thus 

 avoid unfinished sections. 



Some discussion an.se as to the advisability 

 of hiving on starters. R. L. Tayloi- thought we 

 did not want to use them for comb honey. Re- 

 feiTing to his experiments in the Review, he 

 said that they showed it wa'^n't profitable. Mr. 

 Holtermann urged that one experiment could 

 not be taken as absolute, and Mr. Kretchmer 

 thought that the honey-flow made quite a dif- 

 ference. N. D. West agreed, and added that 

 he used to favor starters, but preferred now to 

 hive on five combs. Some one in the conven- 

 tion, whose name we did not get, said that Mr. 



