304 



gleani:ngs in bee culture. 



Mat 



brother Jones, an 1 to the members of our associa- 

 tion. If ayraeablo, let the proper party procure the 

 report, and draw on me for the money. It be- 

 hooves yon, perhaps, best, as the Secretary of the 

 meeting, to print the pamphlets and mail one to 

 ov»ry menaber, of which there are 105, according to 

 my list. The treasurer is solvent. Oar contention 

 at Toronto was a pleasant affair to every partici- 

 pant, and its memory should not be stained by un- 

 pleasant recollections. If some of our members 

 have not adhered strictly to the rules of business, 

 they were only guilty of omissions which were un- 

 intentional. Every member present had the honest 

 intention ot contributing: his mite toward the suc- 

 cess of the meeting to the best of my observation 

 and judgment. 



Roping thut all will be arranged with a feeling of 

 brotherly love, and satisfactory to all, I am very 

 truly yours,— CnAS. F. Muth. 



Cincinnati. O., April 12. 1884. 



There, friend M.. that sounds jnst like 

 you, and, in fact, it sounds just lilie the 

 spirit of the convention. I did not hear an 

 unkind nor an unfriendly word spolven of 

 anybody while in Toronto, and it has seemed 

 to me a little sad that there should any un- 

 pleasantness occur after it was all over. I 

 know I was put in as secretary, but I told 

 them beforehand tliat I wouldn't make a 

 good one. I did not arrive until the meet- 

 ing was well under way ; and as the report- 

 ers had hold of the whole matter, I let it rest 

 in their hands, aside from the brief sketch I 

 gave of the proceedings. Like yourself, I 

 expected, too, the fullest report we had ever 

 liad of any convention. In regard to print- 

 ing the pamphlets, it seems to me it would 

 be far better to let Ijro. Jones have it done 

 in Toronto, especially as it would be quite 

 necpssary for himself, or some of his men 

 bavins the matter in charge, to review the 

 report and cross out unimportant matters, 

 it seems to me the reporter was to take 

 down every thing that was talked about- 

 good, bad, and indifferent. I agree with 

 you, friei'd M., that the better Avay would be 

 to hand over the 3100 and have the report 

 written out and printed in good shape. If 

 the funds of the convention are lacking, 

 several of us can " chip in'' and make it up. 

 I for one would like to help. Your conclud- 

 ing sentence is exactly what we want— all of 

 us, I think. 



REVERSIBLE FRAMES, 



A TJEPLY TO THE CRITICS AND THEIR OBJECnONS. 



f WAVING been greatly amused by reading the 

 }|! very energetic protests against reversible 

 ^ frames being allowed to enter into a bee- 

 keeper's stock of implements, as thousrh the very 

 thought of such a departure from the " beaten 

 track " is dreadful to contemplate, I have concluded 

 to say a few words on the subject. Friend Fraden- 

 burg, even, desires that *' all bee-keepers be earnest- 

 ly advised tint to adopt any of them at present, but 

 have a comraiitee appointed," to act as guardians of 

 the poor, simple, gullable bee-keepers' interests; 

 and "ye editor" indorses the sugjrestion. Easy I 

 easy, gentlemenl Nobody is going to compel you to 

 use reversible frames, if you do not wish to. When 

 I discovered what I considered a remedy for the sev- 

 eral disaivantages enumerated by Mr. Heddoa ia 



his article in April Gleanings, page 333, 1 innocent- 

 ly thought that making the discovery public was do- 

 ing a little toward paying the debt I owed to pre- 

 vious discoverers, and that others would be glad to 

 reap the benefits of the practice. From the flood of 

 inquiries received since my article in Gleanings for 

 March appeared, I feel sure I was not mistaken in 

 thinking such a device was c.illed for. That it will 

 do what I claimed for it in the article alluded to, let 

 the testimony of the critics themselves answer. 



J. A. Buchanan, on Dige33t, April number, says, 

 "The combs were all built up solid inside the frame, 

 and well fastened. * * * By this process " (re- 

 versing the frames) "it is an easy matter to get all 

 your combs attached to all parts of the frame." 

 Further along he says: " True, all the honey, or al- 

 most all, could be forced into the surplus boxes." 

 But he objects to having the honey so " forced," for 

 fear the bees will bo short of '• winter stores," and 

 will require feeding. "That," he says, " is too much 

 work, and will pay no man." 



James Reddon, in Gleanings for March, 1831, 

 page 116, says: "I delight in light hives in the fall. 

 When the cause of it is, that the bees put too much 

 above, then I will make up the deflcit with properly 

 prepared sugar syrup." Tbis state of things he ob- 

 tains by using eight instead ot ten frames. 



W. Z. Hutchinson, in his last article, Indorses this 

 practice, which he designates as the "squeezing 

 process." 



G. M. Doolittle, in Gleanings for May, 1881, page 

 235, says: " If we wish a good yield of box honey, 

 use so few frames in the hive that the queen keeps 

 them literally full of brood." 



I think this testimony would effectually answer 

 the above objection to the reversing process, did 

 such objection really exist; but the fact is, the re- 

 versing process, properly managed, will, to a great 

 extent, prevent the need of feeding for winter 

 stores, as the apiarist can allow the bees to fill the 

 extra combs at any time when bethinks advisable, 

 and still allow the queen sufficient room for egg-lay- 

 ing. Remember, we can and should use more combs 

 when we practice reversing to secure comb honey in 

 sections. This I consider an important point, which 

 should not be lost sight of, in estimating the advan- 

 tage or disadvantage of this method. 



Friend Fradenburg's principal objection appears 

 to be, that using reversible frames will somehow 

 " knock the bottom " out of the " universal frame," 

 or, as he puts it, " It will be like the confounding of 

 the linguages." What the using of a reversing 

 device has to do with the size or shape of frames, or 

 why it should prevent any one from using the size 

 that best suits him, any more than using Root's 

 mecal corners would, is something I can not under- 

 stand. My device gives the same metal bearings as 

 does his; can be used with metal rabbets, or with- 

 out; requires no change in the make of hives, but 

 will fit where any L. style of frame will; can be used 

 interchangeably with any other L.-shape frame; 

 need not be reversed if not desired ; needs no " nails 

 nor wires" as "spacers," which friend Reddon ob- 

 jects to. and has the same " lateral movement" as 

 the Langstroth, which he considers, and so do I, in- 

 dispensable. F.iond Reddon says, "The drawbacks 

 to the reversible-frame method are greater than all 

 the advantages;" but he fails to tell us what those 

 drawbacks are. Instead, he "supposes a case" of 

 the invention of an "extended top-bar," and says: 

 "Looked at in this light, vje cjisgover the inferiority 



