1901 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



747 



been reared in them." Exactly so ; and that 

 is what hurts. Continuing he says : " But it 

 is very seldom that brood is reared any closer 

 than within an inch of the top-bar, with ordi- 

 nary L. frames." Well, if that be so, then 

 verily the management is faulty — yes, very 

 bad indeed. Let me explain by giving my 

 practice. I want practically all the brood- 

 chamber for the queen. All stocks, weak and 

 strong, are kept warm by keeping a warm 

 cushion upon each ; then, when the early flow 

 sets in, to all strong stocks a super filled with 

 comb is given, with that warm cushion on 

 top, and a queen-bar to keep the queen down. 

 Then the surplus honey will go into the super, 

 and the brood and pollen will generally fill 

 every last cell to the top-bars. Of course, 

 there will be honey in the corners ; and the 

 thinner the top-bar the less the burr- combs 

 and the more the brood. While the weather 

 is cool a few cells along the top bar, especially 

 when the bees are not up to best condition, 

 will contain unsealed honey and pollen ; but 

 as the heat increases, brood will come to the 

 top-bars. 



Twenty-five or twenty-six years ago I com- 

 menced to use a cushion on my hives ; and 

 when the comb or extracting-super goes on it 

 goes up It stays right on, or its equivalent, 

 summer and winter. Mr. E. R Root is just 

 now finding out the benefits of a warm cush- 

 ion, and so it will be with the thin top bars ; 

 but I hope it won't take him a quarter of a 

 century. 



Aylmer W., Out. 



[In order to enable the reader to make a bet- 

 ter comparison of the points at issue, we 

 deemed it best to have Dr. Miller's answer fol- 

 low here instead of waiting till a later issue. 

 —Ed ] 



In the matter of thick oi thin top-bars, there 

 are several different points to be considered, 

 and it is of some consequence that we keep 

 them separate. One question is : Does thick- 

 ness of the top-bar per se have a direct bear- 

 ing upon the matter of burr-combs between 

 top-bars and sections ? Quite another ques- 

 tion is this : If thickness of top bar has of 

 itself no bearing upon the matter of burr- 

 combs, is it practicable to use thin top-bars 

 without getting into trouble otherwise? Still 

 separate from these is the question : Is there 

 any sufficient reason for thick top bars aside 

 from the matter of burr combs? And again : 

 If the same end can be reached by other 

 means than thick top-bars, which plan on the 

 whole is best? 



As to the first question, I have said I don't 

 believe that the prevention of burr combs by 

 deep top-bars is all a delusion. I have not 

 said it is certain that deep top-bars are abso- 

 lutely necessary to prevent burr-combs. I 

 don't know. And knowing and believing are 

 two quite different things. I'm afraid we 

 don't know any thing on ihis subject as posi- 

 tively as we might. An experience of 16 

 years with top-bars y^ thick makes friend Pet- 

 tit think a greater thickness would be no bet- 

 ter. Mr. Cruikshank says he has no trouble 

 with burr or brace combs while using top-bars 



ji thick. Editor Root says that actual trial 

 gave more trouble with Sg than % of thick- 

 ness. Mr. Pettit gives the remarkable testi- 

 mony of a man who had " not a burr-comb 

 on a single frame in eight years' use," and his 

 top-bars were only % inch thick ! Amid this 

 conflict of testimony, what is one to believe? 

 One says a thickness of % is necessary, and 

 Mr. Pettit brings testimony that makes no 

 greater thickness than % inch necessary, 

 while he finds reasons in his own experience 

 to make ^ necessary. Possibly a difference 

 in hives, localities, or conditions may have 

 something to do in the case. 



Without pretending to have settled the first 

 question, what about the second ? Sufficient 

 rigidity, in Mr. Pettit's case, required a f^ in. 

 top-bar, while % gave sufficient rigidity in an- 

 other case. The question arises in passing : 

 If X gives sufficient rigidity, why should Mr. 

 Pettit need two and one half times that thick- 

 ness ? It is probable that there would be gen- 

 eral agreement that no more than % is need- 

 ed to prevent sagging. 



To the third question it has been answered 

 that the thickness of top-bars tends toward 

 whiteness of sections by increasing their dis- 

 tance from the black brood-combs ; and to the 

 closely connected fourth question it is ans- 

 wered that a queen-excluder will answer the 

 same purpose. This, however, does not ans- 

 wer the question fully, for it still leaves un- 

 settled whether the excluder or the thick top- 

 bar is better. Right here is a good place to 

 allow the manufacturer a word, and I may be 

 allowed to quote from one, who says : "This 

 is an exceedingly important matter ; for if 

 top-bars of brood-frames under proper condi- 

 tions are just as good yi thick as % we could 

 make twice as many out of the same material 

 which we now use in making such a large 

 quantity each year. It would save a good 

 deal of freight charges to customers, and the 

 first cost and selling price could become lower. 

 I presume it is a question on which there will 

 always be a difference of opinion, but there 

 ought to be strong grounds for continuing the 

 yi top-bar if it is to be continued." 



Most surely this should have due considera- 

 tion. It is not, however, a question, in Mr. 

 Pettit's mind, between % and Ji, but between 

 % and %, with our present knowledge of top- 

 bars. If the use of an excluder makes no 

 greater thickness than yi necessary, is it right 

 to oblige one to have a greater thickness if he 

 would in any event use an excluder? The ar- 

 gument for whiteness of sections loses all its 

 force with those who produce extracted honey. 

 It also loses its force with such as Mr. Pettit, 

 who would probably use an excluder anyhow. 

 But there is a large number of comb-honey 

 producers who feel no need of an excluder 

 for other purposes, and the question is wheth- 

 er it will be cheaper for them to secure white- 

 ness of sfcclions by means of excluders or 

 thicker top-bars. Mr. Pettit seems to think 

 that, if I understood the full value of exclud- 

 ers, I would want to use them under sections. 

 I value excluders, and have -something more 

 than a hundred on hand ; but I would rather 

 have them lie idle, as many of them do, than 



