AiCfsT, 1919 



G li K A N T N S IN n E E V L T U R E 



513 



rows ot' ci'lls in ;i shei't of hrooil romiilati^in, 

 .•111(1 ill tin' row of i-olis luiiiiiiig iiori/.oiitally 

 fouiid 40 I'olis ill S% iiu'iies. In one of tlio 

 • liagonal rows there were 42 cells in S% 

 inches, and in the other there were 42 cells 

 ill S 9/16 inches. So there were 124 cells 

 in the 25 l.'Vl(> inches measured, making the 

 average diameter of the cell .20818 of an 

 inch. Dividing 1.1547 by the square of that 

 diameter gives 26.645 as the number of cells 

 in a square inch. That's about 2 cells less 

 than in comb built without foundation. Will 

 all foundation give the same results.' Very 

 unlikely. I suppose that all foundation mills 

 are alike, having perfect hexagons, liut the 

 sheets of wax will stretch in the milling, and 

 different conditions will make the stretching 

 \ary. We need more data to have some- 

 thing reliable. 



Later. — Now comes one H. H. Root, and 

 deposes that the mills do not have perfect 

 hexagons, but are made so as to allow for 

 stretching. He gives further information 

 that is very interesting, but rather discon- 

 certing. He thinks 39 cells in 8 inches 

 comes pretty close to the average. That 

 would give 27.441 cells to the square inch. 

 He measured a piece of surplus foundation, 

 and says: "In 4 inches, horizontal measure- 

 ment, I counted 19% cells. In one of the 

 diagonal measurements there were 19%, and 

 in the other 19%. These are not exact, 

 merely as nearly as I could estimate with 

 my eye." That would give 27.8.37 cells to 

 the square inch. (I should have expected 

 more stretching in the surplus foundation, 

 hence fewer cells, but it seems the other 

 way.) 



We now have three numbers of cells to the 

 square inch, there being a difference of a 

 little more than one cell between the larg- 

 est and smallest, and the average of the 

 three is 27.;>07 cells to the square inch. What 

 would be a fair thing to take for the aver- 

 age? Some of you figure-heads at Medina — 

 I mean you fellows with heads for figures — 

 help us out. 



Arthur C. Miller says in The Beekeeper 's 

 Item: "I recently examined several hun- 

 dred combs built on slack wires from stan- 

 dard weight foundation and not painted, 

 and tho done by and built out under the 

 care of an expert beekeeper, there was not 

 a perfect comb in the lot. Approximately 

 the upper inch of every comb was of stretch- 

 ed cells and useless for brood, or a reduction 

 of brood capacity for the hive of about 10 

 per cent. Then by having the outer combs 

 crowded against the sides of the hive the 

 outer surfaces were useless for brood; so 

 this beekeeper like thousands of others had 

 but the equivalent of eight combs on a ten- 

 frame investment." Mr. Miller's remedy 

 is the Vogeler process of painting hot wax 

 over the surface of the foundation. This 

 matter of having cells in the upper part of 

 the comb that the queen will not use is a 

 serious one, all the more serious because 

 many are not aware of their loss by it. The 



iHili,.ii that licc's will not use the upjier inch 

 of comb tor brood is, 1 am sure, eiioiu'ous 

 unless there be something wrong with that 

 upjier inch. By using foundation splints I 

 have had the row of cells next the top-bar 

 nicely tilled with brood. [The stretching of 

 the inch or two of comb next the top-bar is 

 a condition that is all too common. Since 

 the editor has been in California he beiieves 

 he has a solution that will increase the 

 breeding capacity of the brood-chamber from 

 10 to 20 jier cent. He will have something 

 to say on that question in a subsequent ar- 

 ticle later on. The stretching of the top 

 row of cells has so reduced the queen 's ca-' 

 pacity that swarming has resulted where in 

 many cases it could have been avoided. And 

 the actual crop of honey has been reduced 

 because the working force has been curtailed 

 in proportion as the breeding capacity has 

 been limited by the stretching of the before- 

 mentioned cells. — Jiditor.] 



* * * 



M. S. P. writes: "I am sure that if one 

 were even to hammer the ground near a 

 hive that the vibration along the ground, 

 as well as thru the atmosphere, would excite 

 the bees to a high nervous pitch. I have 

 noticed this often, and am sure that while 

 they may hear, vibration is the cause of 

 what we suppose is hearing. ' ' I think it 

 is generally understood that jarring a hive, 

 which the bees feel, but do not hear, is the 

 cause of trouble. But that proves notliing 

 one way or the other, about hearing. I can 

 feel a jar without hearing it, and I can 

 hear a noise without feeling it. Why may it 

 not be the same with bees? 



* « * 



Eugene Secor was a good man in many 

 ways, but among beekeepers will probably 

 be best remembered as the beekeepers' poet. 

 Nearly all the beekeepers' songs were writ- 

 ten by him. I don't know how much of a 

 musician he was; but he had his own notions 

 about the music to be set to his songs, and 

 when sending to me the words to which he 

 wanted music written he nearly always had 

 some suggestion as to movement, chorus, or 

 something of the kind. 



* * * 



In Texas, as in other States, there is di- 

 versity as to taxation of bees, they being 

 taxed in some counties and not in others. 

 The Beekeepers' Item reports that at a late 

 meeting of Texas inspectors this resolution 

 was passed: "Be it resolved that the Coun- 

 ty Apiary Inspectors go on record as favor- 

 ing the rendition of bees for taxes in every 

 county in the State." Which goes to show 

 that those Texas inspectors have sense. 

 ^ * * 



"It is regrettable that there is no law to 

 prevent those who have no regard at all for 

 the golden rule from poaching on the terri- 

 tory of others," page 418. Thanks, Mr. 

 Editor, many thanks. Whenever enough get 

 to talking that way, there is no reason why 

 there may not be such a law. 



