1896 



(CLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



8<)9 



deal to do with it. For this reason, if for no 

 other, the producer, in many cases, prefers the 

 thin combs. 



As to the tall sections (taller than broad), it 

 does not seem to me that we can hardly con- 

 clude that it is in line with bottles with sunken 

 sides. Those that Mr. Danzenbaker has been 

 selling, while 1}4 inches thick, hold very nearly 

 a pound; and he contemplated making a sec- 

 tion just enough thicker to make it hold an 

 even pound. In any case, it would be .just as 

 legitimate to sell the IX lb. tall section as it 

 was the old square section 1%, because they 

 both weigh the same. It is not, then, because 

 the tall stctions appear to contain more honey, 

 although that may have something to do with 

 it, but because any thing taller than broad 

 meets better with our ideas of taste. As I have 

 said before, window-panes taller than broad 

 look far better than square. For the same rea- 

 son we have long panels in doors; and the doors 

 themselves are taller than broad. Business- 

 blocks of the same proportions look better than 

 when both diraeusions are the same. Even the 

 oblong printed page that we are now reading 

 is more in accordance with the accepted taste 

 than one square. Capt. J. E. Hetherington, 

 that shrewd bee-keeper— one whose colonies are 

 numbered by the thousand, and the most ex- 

 tensive bee-keeper in the world, probably — finds 

 there is a better market for the tall section in 

 the East; but this might not be true of all lo- 

 calities. 



Now. I am not arguing that we should change 

 from a square to an oblong section; but I sim- 

 ply desire to give the latter due credit. The 

 supply-dealers can make one section as cheap 

 as another; but the rub is going to be that bee- 

 keepers who are using regular standard L. 

 hives will not And it so convenient for tall as 

 for square sections. This is. in fact, the most 

 serious objection of all. It may be so serious, 

 indeed, as to bar out its use to any very great 

 extent. 



HONEY CARAMELS, ETC. 



Charles McCulloch & Co., of Albany, N. 

 Y., one of the squarest and cleanest commis- 

 sion firms who handle honey, have sent us two 

 recipes iu which honey is used, which they 

 think will prove useful to our readers. Here 

 they are: 



HONEY CARAMELS. 



These are made by cooking' to "soft crack '"two 

 pounds of coffee A sugar, two pounds of clear ex- 

 tracted honey, and two pounds of g-lucose. 



HONEY GINGERC.\KE. 



Rub tliroe-quai'ters of a pound of butter into a 

 pound of sifted Hour; add a toacupful of brown 

 sugar, two tablespoonfuls each of ground ginger and 

 caraway .seed. IJeat live eggs, and stir in tlie mix- 

 ture, aliern itelj', with a pint of e.\trai-ted honey. 

 Beat all together until very light. Turn into a 

 slialiow square pan, and set in a moderate oven to 

 bake for one hour. When done, let cool and cue in- 

 to squares. 



Bee-keepers hate the very suggestion of 



glucose, so I think they will be inclined to put 

 in more honey and leave out glucose entirely in 

 the first-mentioned recipe. If glucose is an in- 

 gredient essential to the good quality of the 

 caramels, it will be the first instance that I 

 have ever known where that article was of any 

 use. 



When Dr. Miller prepares his list of honey- 

 recipes, I hope he will take these into consider- 

 ation. In the mean time I know he will ap- 

 preciate it greatly if our lady readers will re- 

 port on the various recipes that have been 

 given in our columns of late. We intend to 

 put into the honey-leaflet only those that have 

 been tested, and which are known to be first 

 class. 



artificial honey- comb; the product made 

 by otto schulz, of buckow, germany. 



On pages 458, .533, and 788 I spoke of the great 

 advantage that would accrue from the use of 

 drawn comb in sections, and it will be remem- 

 bered that I spoke of the experiments of B. 

 Taylor and others. Later on, Samuel Simmins 

 (see p. 779) and M. M. Baldridge showed that 

 they had been using drawn comb in sections 

 for years, and were satisfied that there was a 

 great gain in the use of it. Seeing the interest 

 taken by myself and others iu this subject, 

 Edward Bertrand, editor of the Revue Inter- 

 nationale, of Nyon, Switzerland, sent us a sam- 

 ple of the full-depth artificial comb manufac- 

 tured by Mr. Schulz, as above. I had previous- 

 ly seen this comb; but it was so heavy and 

 clumsy I doubted whether it would ever be a 

 commercial success; but since that time I un- 

 derstand it is being sold in Germany; but just 

 how much of it I do not know. 



Well, let us take the piece in hand and ex- 

 amine it carefully. The sample is 2x2}^ inches, 

 and one inch thick, and weighs J^ ounce, or 

 just one foot to the pound. The cell-walls are 

 T53ff inch thick— that is. a trifle over s^. The 

 base is considerably thicker. 



Let us now compare this with natural comb. 

 The thickness of cell-wall varies from xiars to 

 Ti^ff of an inch. The base is a trifle more. 

 These measurements make natural comb about 

 6 feet to the pound. The ordinary heavy brood 

 is, on an average, about 5 feet; light brood, 7 to 

 8 feet, and thin foundation 10 to 11. It will be 

 seen, then, by a comparison of these figures, 

 that the Otto Schulz- foundation, besides being 

 clumsy, would be very expensive. It has six 

 times as much wax in it as the natural comb, 

 and anywhere from 3 to 4 times as much as 

 comb built from foundation; and as these 

 measurements were made with a very delicate 

 micrometer I do not think there can be any 

 mistake. If, then, I am correct as to the pro- 

 portions, no bee-keeper of this country could 

 afford to use such comb providing he expected 

 to compete with other bee-keepers who use 

 natural comb or that built from foundation. 



