GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



misiht cause many beg-inners to attempt 

 something' that tliey cannot succeed in do- 

 ing-, I write this article in defense of tlie 

 use of fences or separators. In fact, I wish 

 to give the readers of Gleanings both sides 

 of the story. I beg permission to quote 

 often from the article by Mr. Latham. 



" Which system can be made to yield the 

 better a^■erag'e results?" Beyond all doubt, 

 the average beekeeper and all beginners 

 will succeed best by using separators. In 

 fact, 99 per cent of the honey-producers 

 would not have sections, even enough to 

 put on the market, unless they used fences. 

 (I am using the words fence and separator 

 to mean practically the same.) 



One of the objections to the non-use of 

 separators is the trouble in crating on 

 account of bulging combs. I discarded the 

 idea of getting along without separators on 

 account of the trouble with bulging combs 

 and varying weights of sections from the 

 same super. I was using full sheets of 

 foundation at the time, but they would bulge 

 anyhow. I have had finished sections weigh 

 anywhere from 8 to 27 oz. each (extremes, 

 of course), while with separators I have 

 had 80 per cent of my crop gi'ade "Fancy" 

 to "Extra Fancy," and weigh within one 

 ounce of the same all the way through. I 

 never could come anjrwhere near that with- 

 out separators. 



Mr. Latham blames bulging to the use of 

 weak colonies for comb-honey production. 

 Not it, friend Latham. The strongest colo- 

 nies are often terrors at the bulging trade, 

 even going to the extent of tearing out the 

 foundation (full sheet) of the next section, 

 and bulging right on through it. In regard 

 to brace-combs, that is something that is a 

 rare bird with me — perhaps one section in 

 a hundred. Often that is traceable to the 

 foundation coming loose and lopping over 

 against the fence. 



I fully endorse Mr. Latham's views on 

 the carton question, excepting that I do not 

 care to have the honey more than even with 



tlic wood. Fancy comb will not stand lialf 

 the pressure Mr. Latham would lead the 

 reader to believe. I carton practically all 

 my honey for the retail trade and think it 

 money well spent. 



Mr. Latham writes: "Arguments for tlie 

 production of non-separatored honey are 

 more than two: 



" (a) It is less labor to prepare supers. 



"(b) It is less labor to care for the 

 product. 



" (c) Bees more readily enter the supers. 



" (d) Swarming is greatly lessened. 



"(e) Honey is of better quality. 



" (f) More sections can be put in a 

 super. 



" (g) A bigger crop can be produced. 



" (//) Better for business." 



I concede a and / without debate. As to 

 h I acknowledge there are no separators to 

 bother with; but think of the odd weights 

 and various contortionate shapes some of 

 the sections present. I should prefer sep- 

 arators for the ease of caring for the prod- 

 uct. 



In regard to c it is true, but not to any 

 great extent. Perhaps they enter sightly 

 better, but there isn't a great amount of 

 difference. In regard to d my experience is 

 the opposite. On account of the combs be- 

 ing built so close in the super, thus shutting 

 off ventilation, the bees swarm more readily 

 when the supers are without separators. 

 Note that the Danzenbaker fences are sim- 

 ilar to the dummies used in the Aspinwall 

 non-swarming hive. 



Passing to e, I find that honey produced 

 with fences is of the better quality. It 

 ripens more readily, contains less wax, is 

 whiter, more fragile, tastes better, and sells 

 more readily on the market. If T were to 

 go back to producinu' honey without fences 

 or separators T should lose half my custom- 

 ers on account of excessive thickness of 

 eappings and waxiness of comb. 



Passing on to g, the crop may be a few 

 pounds heavier (I cannot see how), but is 



