388 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 1 



I now take a large teacup of sulphur and place 

 it in the can, and we then are ready to sulphur 

 the honey. 



THE METHOD OF BLEACHING. 



I take my supers from the hive, place them 

 on a wheelbarrow, and wheel them to the sul- 

 phur-box. Place them on the box until I 

 have 30 supers, then I light the sulphur and 

 let it stand for about three hours. I next 

 wheel them to the bleaching-house, and place 

 on the work-tables, which I have on both 

 sides of my house, and reaching full length of 

 the house. I now remove the honey from the 

 supers and place it on shelves which run 

 around the house, and are indicated by dotted 

 lines. I leave them there about 24 hours, and 

 then reverse the section and leave about 24 

 hours longer. I find that where the honey is 

 badly stained it will now be very white. 



It is necessary to have a good quality of sul- 

 phur, as it does not injure the honey, and the 

 honey will bleach much nicer. It is the light 

 which bleaches, so the cloth must be thin. 

 The sulphur-box should be outside of the 

 house, for it would be impossible to work in 

 the house while sulphuring if the box were in- 

 side. This bleaching-house is very conven- 

 ient if one does not sulphur his honey, for the 

 reason one can store on shelves of a house 12 

 Xl4 ft., about 100 cases of comb honey, giving 

 plenty of time to clean and pack the honey. 



Bonsall, Cal. 



[There are some who are inclined to believe 

 that there is not much in this bleaching busi- 

 ness. Very recently we received a letter from 

 one of the extensive and prominent bee-keep- 

 ers in the East, stating that he was making 

 bleaching a success. Comb-honey producers 

 had better wake up to the fact that a great 

 deal of their off-colored comb honey can be 

 made A No. 1 by the proper use of sulphur 

 and sunlight. It appears that bleaching in 

 California has been extensively practiced for a 

 number of years. — Ed.] 



MOVABLE COMBS V. MOVABLE FRAMES. 



The Invention of Movable Combs in Germany ; the 



Position that Dzierzon and Langstroih Occupy 



in Apicultural History. 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



I have read with care your footnote on page 

 219, Mr. Editor, relating to the claims of 

 Langstroth and Dzierzon ; and, aside from in- 

 ferences that may be drawn, there is nothing 

 in either the Straw or the footnote that needs 

 correction except one thing, and that is the 

 statement that Dzierzon gave the movable 

 frame to a large part of the bee-keeping world, 

 instead of saying he gave the movable comb. 

 So incorrect a statement as that can hardly be 

 excused in one who parades himself before the 

 world as knowing something of bee-keeping 

 and its history. It may, of course, be said in 

 extenuation that " movable-comb" and " mov- 

 able-frame " are very commonly used as mean- 

 ing the same thing, but that can not be accept- 



ed as any excuse whatever. They are the 

 same when you are talking about a Langstroth 

 hive, because the movable frame, of necessity, 

 makes the comb movable ; but when speaking 

 of Dzierzon's invention, now can there be a 

 movable frame when there is no frame at all ? 

 It is a case of carelessness so glaring and cul- 

 pable that there is no refuge except in the 

 claim of stupidity. I don't know whether I'd 

 rather be called careless or stupid, so on the 

 whole it may be the best thing for me to say 

 nothing, merely hoping to live down the dis- 

 grace, trusting that a forgiving public may 

 forget all about it before I get to be an old 

 man. 



Having disposed of that one point, there 

 still remains a certain amount of ignorance 

 and misunderstanding that makes it desirable 

 that the whole truth, so far as possible, should 

 be brought out. Suppose you allow me to try 

 to give what I understand to be the truth ; 

 and if I make as bad a break as I did before, 

 you straighten me out. 



If you ask a bee-keeper in this country who 

 invented the movable comb he will promptly 

 tell you it was Langstroth ; and the chances 

 are one out of five, if not one out of three, 

 that he will have no idea of any thing that 

 stands to Dzierzon's credit, if, indeed, he 

 knows that such a man lives. Unfortunately 

 there are some, perhaps more than you would 

 suppose, who would reply something after 

 this fashion: " Oh ! there's a lot of them. Mr. 

 Langstroth invented one movable frame ; Mr. 

 King invented another, and I don't just know 

 who else, but a whole lot of them," ignorant 

 of the fact that in reality all movable frames 

 are Langstroth's invention, and may properly 

 be called Langstroth frames, no matter what 

 their proportions. 



Ask a bee-keeper in Germany who invented 

 the movable comb, and he will very likely re- 

 ply, " Dzierzon ; " and when you say, " What 

 about Langstroth ? " he will stare at you. The 

 fact is, there is too much ignorance and nar- 

 rowness on both sides of the water ; and be- 

 fore blaming too much the Germans for not 

 crediting to Langstroth what fairly belongs to 

 him, I should like to see my own countrymen 

 do full justice to Dzierzon. 



Allow me to disabuse your mind entirely, 

 Mr. Editor, of any thought that I would pluck 

 one leaf from the laurel that crowns the brow 

 of our own Langstroth. Probably more than 

 you and I appreciate the debt we owe him for 

 movable frames, for you did not begitt bee- 

 keeping zvifh box hives. Neither do you esti- 

 mate as highly as I do the superiority of Lang- 

 stroth's invention over that of Dzierzon. You 

 say, " Dzierzon improved on this by using 

 bars in a top-opening hive." Instead of being 

 top-opening, his hives were side-opening, each 

 comb being put in a little after the fashion of 

 a drawer in a bureau. His frame (if you will 

 allow me so to express myself) had neither 

 bottom-bar nor end-bar, only a top-bar ; and 

 when a comb was to be taken out it had to be 

 cut loose from the sides of the hive, and no 

 comb could be taken out till all that preceded 

 it were removed. When the tenth comb was to 

 be taken out, instead of lifting out that comb 



