534 



•THl© MMEKICMK MBM JOTJRKSIr. 



miES % Emmeb, 



Future Inventions and Experi- 

 ments in Appiculture. 



Wrlttem for tlic American Bee Journal 



Query 650.— 1. Of what nature will be the 

 next economic invention? 2. What great 

 ecomomic invention iB most needed, and now 

 called for by honey-producers ? 3. Does any- 

 thing- remain to be invented by man, which 

 shall be as revolutionary in its efl'eots as the 

 application of movable-comb frames ? 4. 

 Have we arrived at the summit of excellence 

 in our apicu Rural implements and fixtures? 

 5. Is it worth an inventor's time to make im- 

 provements ? That is, could he receive re- 

 muneration, or a respectable hearing from 

 supply manufacturers? 6. What experiment 

 is required as to breeding bees ?— First, as to 

 grade, heredity, "blood," character and color; 

 Second, as to hardiness and honey-gathering. 

 — .I.W. Tefft. 



You have taken my breath away. 

 This is too much, all at once. — H. D. 



CtTTTING. 



1. I give it up. 2. Ask Messrs. 

 Heddon, Bingham and Shuck. I think 

 the great hope is in the direction of 

 breeding. Much may be done in that. 

 — ^A. J. Cook. 



1. I do not know — probably a bee 

 with a longer tongue. 2. JSTothing 

 more is needed. 3. No. 4. Yes. 5. 

 No, it is not worth his time till after it 

 is done — then, if he is succesful, it 

 pays. Everybody can have a respect- 

 able hearing. — Mahala B. Chaddock. 



When the bee-keepers of the country 

 feel the need of something radically 

 different from what we now have, some 

 one will arise to supply the want. — G. 



M. DOOLITTLE. 



If I could answer all these questions, 

 I would astonish the world by bringing 

 forward the discoveries, and talk about 

 them afterward. — Eugene Seoor. 



1. To prevent swarming. 2. A ma- 

 chine that will uncap and extract at 

 the same time. 3. No. 4. About 

 half way. 6. Breed always from the 

 best. — Mrs. L. Harbison. 



1. Who knows ? 2. Very likely the 

 next important invention will come 

 unasked, just as the extractor did. 3. 

 I cannot tell till after its invention. 

 4. Probably not. 5. A real improve- 

 ment would doubtless command atten- 

 tion — C. C. Miller. 



1. In all probabilitj', a telephone to 

 the moon. 2. A process by which they 

 can realize the most money from the 

 sale of their products. 3. Yes, sir, a 

 machine to keep Alliance men, Wheat 

 men, etc., in the ranks until trusts and 

 combines are " bursted." 4. No. 5. 

 Yes. 6. This ground has been thor- 

 oughly gone over. — J. P. H. Brown. 



1. I do not know. 2. A cheaper 

 and better extractor is yet to be invent- 

 ed ; and, I believe that a way will yet 

 be found by which most of our sugar 



will be made of honey. 3. I believe 

 so — many things. 4. No! not by many 

 miles ! 5. Yes. 6. In answer to this 

 question, the first great experiment 

 should be to find some cheap and prac- 

 tical way of breeding queens at con- 

 trol. If this were made possible, the 

 great and unexpected results would be 

 obtained. There is a great field here 

 for the explorer, and it is worthy of 

 his attention. — Will M. Barncm. 

 1. This is a stunner — I give it up. 



2. To produce plenty of bloom, and put 

 the honey in it. 3. Certainlj-, and 

 some man will bring it out. 4. Yes, if 

 really an improvement. Manufactur- 

 ers would readily take hold of anything 

 of real merit. — C. H. Dibbern. 



1. I do not know. 2. If I knew, I 

 would supply the need bj- the invention. 



3. I think not. 4. I presume not. 5. 

 That depends upon whether he can 

 invent anything of real value. 6. It 

 would require a series of articles to 

 answer this question. — M. Mahin. 



1. It will not be a hive composed of 

 enough lumber to build a small house. 



2. I do not know. 3. I think not. 



4. In many things we have. 5. Proba- 

 bly not. 6. It is not easy to fore-cast the 

 results of experiments ; thej' must be 

 made, and the requirements and re- 

 sults determined by subsequent observ- 

 ation. — G. L. Tinker. 



1. Who can tell ? 2. Who knows ? 



3. I think not. 4. Pretty nearly so, 

 as the field is narrow, and is pretty 

 well occupied. 5. I do not think that 

 any patent on bee-hives or appliances, 

 will be a paying thing. 6. It would 

 take a whole volume to answer this 

 question. A single experiment would 

 amount to nothing, as it will take years 

 to fix any essential trait, and then 

 prove nothing. — J. E. Pond. 



1. What ? 2. Several ; but what 

 are they ? 3. No doubt it will be 

 manj- years yet, but it will come. 4. 

 We have got pretty high, but not to 

 the summit yet. 5. It depends upon 

 the improvements. No doubt, if his 

 invention is useful, etc. 6. Practical 

 experience, intelligence, energy and 

 good judgment. — P. L. Viallon. 



1. I do not know, but I wish it might 

 be something that would do the house- 

 hold drudgerj', now done bj- our good 

 wives and mothers. 2. Something to 

 prevent the swarming impulse in bees, 

 when the mercury is trying to reach 

 100^ in the shade. 3. I guess not. 4. 

 I believe not. 5. Yes, but all inventions 

 are not improvements. 6. An answer 

 would require too much room for this 

 department. — A. B. Mason. 



]. A stunner. 2. Non-swarming, 

 non-drone-producing, queen-fertilizing 

 hive. 3. Yes — the above. 4. Who 

 can tell when we are at the top roimd 

 of the ladder ? 5. If the improvements 



are of sufficient magnitude, yes ; and 

 the inventor should receive a handsome 

 competence, and "paddle his own 

 canoe," by manufacturing then him- 

 self. 6. I will leave this to Doolittle 

 and others more competent. — J. M. 

 Hambaugh. 



1. I am not a prophet, Mr. Tefft. 

 2. An automatic machine to do all the 

 work in the apiary, while I stretch my 

 bones in the shady arbor, and look 

 complacently on, or doze dreamily 

 under the soothing hum of a thousand 

 winged workers. 3. The best thing 

 that we can get, so that it is not a 

 "patent bee-gum." 4. Yes, lots of 

 things yet uninvented could be used by 

 the inventor if no one else. 5. Never 

 mind the respectable part of the busi- 

 ness, a patent wooden " nutmeg" is as 

 liable to win "respect" as anything 

 else. 6. Oh, don't ! — G. W. Demaree. 



1. Of an unexpected nature. 3. An 

 automatic, triple-acting, self-binding 

 swarmer. 3. P 4. No. 5. No. Do 

 you not read current apicultural litei'a- 

 ture ? Intelligent bee-keepers make 

 their own fixtures, largely. Manufac- 

 turers of supplies make goods to sell, 

 and the great mass of those who use 

 the goods know nothing of improve- 

 ments in this line, except what the\- 

 road in manufacturers' circulars and 

 price-lists, and so, having no ability to 

 judge of defects or improvements, they 

 are well satisfied with what the}" got 

 before. Besides, manufacturers dis- 

 like change, have pet inventions of 

 their own, and are interested in keep- 

 ing up the vicious prejudice against 

 patents, so that it is all that one's life 

 is worth to introduce the most obvious 

 improvement is existing fixtures, if he 

 seek any pecuniary recompense, as the 

 history of these things during the last 

 few j'ears shows ; indeed it is hard to 

 introduce such an improvement as a 

 gift, if one insist on having the honor 

 of having made the invention. 6. ? ^ — 

 R. L. Taylor. 



1. I give it up. 2. It seems to me 

 that the most-needed invention is in 

 connection with honey-extractors. So 

 far as I know, we never had a half- 

 way-decent honey-extractor ; that is, 

 one at all worthv of the use of a bee- 

 keeper who produces tons of extracted 

 honey. The best of our present ma- 

 chines are just good enough for am;v- 

 teur bee-keepers, who have from three 

 to ten colonies of bees. 3. I presume 

 so, but I do not know what, or I should 

 get right to work on it. 4. Certainly 

 not. 5. Certainly it is, but he would 

 not be apt to get much reward unless 

 he got a good, strong jjatent. and then 

 enforced the law, which he would cer- 

 tainly do if lie had any energj- and in- 

 telligence. We have had ample evi- 

 dence, in more cases than the Lang- 

 stroth invention, that quite prominent 



