746 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Sept. 15 



Well, let's see. Suppose we put them on 

 with a lock corner or dovetail. That would 

 certainly help matters ; but still, there is that 

 thinness of lumber ; and unless the grain is 

 straight there are little corners breaking out, 

 splitting half way along the lower edge. Any 

 way you can fix it, there is an everlasting 

 bother in the use of a hive made with >^-inch 

 sides. 



Did you ever turn a wee-waw super up side- 

 wise and sit down on it ? I saw a fellow do it 

 the other day. The super collapsed, and the 

 fellow went to the ground with his heels in 

 the air. A good Ji inch hive can be used for 

 a seat or to stand on or to dance on. It is the 

 only hive fit to use. 



[Rambler's flapjacks are all right, and so 

 are the other things he shows, except — except 

 — well, the half-inch hives. I saw him at 

 Rambler's, and if they wouldn't make a fellow 

 " explode," I don't know what would. 



Some of these old " back numbers " are all 

 right, even if they do let a "cog slip" once 

 in a while. The fact that some of their ma- 

 chinery has gotten out of gear a few times 

 helps us young fellows in that we are careful 

 not to use the same kind of gear. The mis- 

 takes of the veterans are often more helpful 

 than their successes. — Ed.] 



THICK TOP-BARS, AGAm. 



A Thorough Examination of the Subject by Two of 

 Our Best Authorities. 



BY S. T. PETTIT. 



Dr. Miller and the editor seem much excited 

 over my article on top-bars, p. 227 ; also p. 380. 

 In the footnote the editor says, " We first tried 

 top bars that were wide and only 14- in. thick. 

 We had trouble from such bars sagging, and 

 the building of burr and brace combs." I 

 want to say, had those % inch-thick and \yi- 

 wide top-bars by some means been kept 

 straight, they would have remained as clean 

 as the cleanest the editor ever looked upon — 

 yes. they would. I can not for the life of me 

 understand how it can possibly be that the 

 editor's experience shows him that brace- 

 ' combs are more plentiful by the use of 5s -thick 

 than ^ -thick top-bars. Is it possible that the 

 length of the L. top-bar allows it to sag when 

 only ^ thick? But after all, respectfully, I 

 wish to say I firmly believe the editor is all 

 mistaken in that. My experience with fs- 

 thick top-bars covering about 15 or 16 years is 

 altogether different from his statement. 



Dr. Miller (p. 380) says, " His strong point 

 is that, by having % inch more depth, the 

 space of 1600 to 2000 cells is lost." Yes, that 

 is my strong point ; but there are other strong 

 points. I will notice them further on. 



No, I did not make the mistake of " count- 

 ing that the same number of bees were occu- 

 pied brooding those sticks as would be occu- 

 pied in brooding ^-inch depth of comb." I 

 neither thought it nor said it. This is what I 

 did say : "The saving of that space in each 



hive is a matter worthv our best considera- 

 tion." Most certainly 1600 to 2000 cells in 

 an average hive are of far more value than 

 useless lumber, adding weight and unneces- 

 sary expense. I trust, with due considera- 

 tion, the doctor will agree with me ; but I 

 must not forget that prejudice is an exacting, 

 unrelenting tyrant. Then he proceeds to use 

 up about half a column, and proves nothing, 

 only that he " dotiH knozv''' what he is talk- 

 ing about. His ferocious clip at an imaginary 

 object hit nothing — it's all wasted energy. 



Further on he says : " So if the prevention 

 of burr-combs by deep top-bars be all a delu- 

 sion — which I do not believe." Well, I pre- 

 sume I can show the reason why he does not 

 believe it. He did not make thorough exper- 

 iments to know for himself ; but he came to 

 his belief by — well, I guess I can not do bet- 

 ter than to give the words of E. R. Root as 

 follows : " Dr. Miller was greatly struck with 

 the idea ; and after some extended correspoc d- 

 ence with the doctor we decided that we would 

 launch forth for the ensuing year the new 

 top bars." Then later they imagined that 

 they evolved the new top-bar by revolving 

 around each other by the coat-tail — a c'ear 

 case of conviction not founded upon personal 

 practical experience. 



Below I quote from a letter sent me from 

 the United States dated April 4, 1901: "I 

 have read with much interest jour article in 

 G1.EANINGS for March 15, and want to say 

 that I indorse all you say in regard to wide 

 and thin top-bars, and bottom-bars }^ inch 

 wide. For a number of years I have been 

 using a top-bar % inch thick and \y?, wide, 

 and not a burr-comb on a single frame in 8 

 years' use. A few days ago Mr. Cruikshank, 

 near this town, called upon me, and, in allud- 

 ing to this discussion, said he uses fg-inch 

 thick top-bars, and has no bother with burr 

 or brace combs." But the doctor says: "I 

 still want the % top-bars for the sake of hav- 

 ing the sections so far from the brood -combs 

 that the bees will not find it convenient to 

 carry up a lot of black wax to spoil the snow- 

 white sections." This statement reveals the 

 fact that he has not yet learned all the valua- 

 ble uses to which the queen-bar, or perforated 

 metal queen-excluder, may be put. My prac- 

 tice is to get the sections just as close to the 

 brood as I can, preserving all the necessary 

 bee-spaces. To this end I want thin top-bars. 

 Then to prevent the bees moving up dark wax, 

 and to bar the drones with their filthy habits 

 from the sections, to keep the queen in the 

 brood-chamber, and to restrain pollen, I use a 

 queen-bar, or an all-metal perforated zinc 

 queen-excluder, which has a ^ -inch-thick rim 

 and two cross-pieces to keep it rigid. 



This arrangement gives the same space be- 

 tween the top-bars and sections as the deep 

 top-bars with all the extra advantages enu- 

 merated ; but I would bring the sections closer 

 to the brood if I could, and not dispense with 

 the queen-bar. 



On page 380 the editor says : " It seems to 

 me that our friend Pettit assumes, or indirect- 

 ly assumes, that those 1600 to 2000 cells are 

 lost because of the brood that might have 



