486 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 15 



I REFUSE to be convinced, Mr. Editor, that 

 when I say it does not pay me to paint my 

 hives I am thereby arguing that hives will 

 not last longer, and look nicer if painted, p. 

 412. As to the rest, you are quite right in 

 stating my position as far as you go, but not 

 right as to Mr. Doolittle. He believes un- 

 painted hives are better for the bees, and I 

 suspect he is right. You say I have changed 

 hives once already in forty years. Worse 

 than that. In forty-seven years I have 

 changed five times — from a sugar-barrel to 

 Quinby box hives; then to the Lester frame 

 hive; then to the Vandervort with frames 18 

 by U; then to the Langstroth; then from ten 

 frame to eight frame ; also changing from 

 several kinds of frames to the Miller frame. 



Can tod tell, Mr. Editor, when Nepon- 

 set-covered covers came into use ? You sent 

 me one of the first, I think, with instructions 

 to paint. I didn't paint, but the cover seems 

 just as good yet. [We introduced it some 

 five or six years ago, and at that time a cor- 

 respondent, in calling our attention to it, 

 stated that he had covers covered with the 

 paper that had been used for twelve years, 

 and it was then as good as ever. We have 

 covered a large number of our hives with 

 the material, and find it to be very durable, 

 either with or without paint. We feel satis- 

 fied that it will outlast the ordinary steel tin 

 plate. The only objection to it is that it will 

 not stand much rough handling, such as pil- 

 ing a heavy hive on top of it in such a way 

 as to gouge into the paper. —Ed.] 



The method of using two starters in sec- 

 tions, one at top and one at bottom, "still 

 leaves a chance for pop-holes and bee- spaces 

 in the comb at the sides," page 433. I don't 

 wonder at your thinking so, Mr. Editor; but 

 if you were to see a crop of my honey I think 

 you would decide the bees had not made 

 good use of their chance for pop-holes. Look 

 at "Forty Years Among the Bees," pp. 288, 

 385 Of course, the sections there pictured 

 were selected as the very best, and yet hun- 

 dreds of others were like them. But look at 

 pages 15, 269, 271, 279. Those sections were 

 taken with no thought of avoiding pop-holes, 

 many of them being unfinished, and not fill- 

 ed out as they would be later. [Your evidence, 

 doctor, seems to be quite conclusive. Appar- 

 ently you had already put into practice, in 

 part at least, our suggestion as given on page 

 433, April 1st issue. If so, it would appear 

 that comb honey without pop-holes can be 

 produced by a large top starter reaching al- 

 most to the bottom, and a narrow bottom 

 starter, providing both starters nearly touch 

 the wood on either side. This allows for the 

 sagging of the foundation and a slight side 

 stretch. Of course, you keep your sections 

 square; for foundation cut nearly to a fit (in 

 width) requires square sections and square 

 cutting — at least the top sheet.— Ed.] 



Allen Latham asks, "Had you ever 

 thought that it stands to reason that there 

 should be a poor joint between top starter 

 and bottom in sections?" I must confess 

 that it does, after his calling my attention to 



some points. Only rarely will top and bot- 

 tom starters exactly correspond so as to be 

 the same as a continuous sheet of founda- 

 tion, and the top starter will not always be 

 in exact alignment with the bottom. I con- 

 fess I had been so well satisfied with the fin- 

 ished product that I had never critically ex- 

 amined the work of the bees at that point; 

 but happening to have on hand five sections 

 emptied of honey by the bees, I have just 

 made such examination. In the first four 

 there was nothing to show that the founda- 

 tion was not continuous from top to bottom. 

 In the fifth case there were plainly three 

 ceils out of shape and unusually large. That 

 was all that showed on the surface; but look- 

 ing into the cells, and especially after cutting 

 in, it was easy to see that the top was about 

 \ inch out of alignment with the bottom, the 

 bees having built horizontally across from 

 one starter to the other. But in sealed sec- 

 tions there is no indication that the section 

 was not entirely filled with a single starter. 

 Just how the bees manage it, or why they 

 don't do the crooked work that reason ought 

 to expect, is beyond me. I only know that, 

 when the section is done, it's all right. 



You ARGUE, Mr. Editor, page 412, that by 

 taking away from a weak colony a comb just 

 as soon as the queen has filled it, and re- 

 placing it with a comb of just- hatching brood, 

 you can get the queen to lay in a smaller 

 room as many eggs as a queen having a 

 strong force of bees. Let us see. Suppose 

 A is a strong colony and B a weak one. 

 You take from B a frame of eggs and young 

 brood and exchange with A for a frame of 

 bees just emerging. There will be a big 

 gain in B because there isn't the waiting for 

 empty cells there would have been without 

 the change. But you forgot about A, didn't 

 you? Don't you see that A will have to do 

 exactly the same waiting that you have saved 

 B from, and that you have just hindered the 

 queen in A by so much in her laying? [If 

 you will turn to page 412 you will notice that 

 we specify that, in order to get an equaliza- 

 tion of queen-laying on the Hershiser plan, 

 there would have to be a " proper cooperation 

 on the part of the apiarist. ' ' In the case you 

 cite between colonies A and B, it is apparent 

 that, with no further manipulation, queen A 

 would not be able to lay to her full capacity. 

 But what is to interfere with the apiarist 

 giving A an empty comb at the time he gives 

 her a frame of young brood from B? If he 

 does this, both queens might lay at pretty 

 nearly an equal rate. This would be a case 

 of proper cooperation on the part of the 

 apiarist. It is true that it would take one 

 extra comb. But in that case, of course 

 storifying might be necessary. When we 

 use the term " storifying we are using the 

 excellent English word for "tiering up " one 

 story on top of another. But suppose colo- 

 ny A does not need young brood, or, for 

 that matter, the empty comb for the queen 

 to lay in? It is possible that, by letting a 

 queen lay to her full capacity, the strong col- 

 ony might, as E. D. Townsend says, p. 419, 

 be ahead of time for the harvest.— Ed.] 



