956 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Dec. 15. 



the way during tlie siimmor, and, with a little 

 extra trouble, they can be made to serve a good 

 purpose. Let the posts stand .5J.j or 6 feet out 

 of the ground, all sawed off to the same height. 

 From a post on one side to the post on the op- 

 posite side puta piece of 3x4 scantling edgewise, 

 fastening it there. On this the boards can be 

 lightly tacked, making a good shade for the 

 central groups of hives. If this is not contem- 

 plated it will not be necessary to put the posts 

 so close together. 



What are the objections to this plan, and 

 what improvements arc suggested '? 



Marengo. 111., Dec. 4. C. C. Millek. 



[The only objection to your plan, friend M.. 

 is, that it is a great deal of work to move the 

 hives back and forth, put up a temporary board 

 fence, and put on and remove the straw. 

 Wouldn't your straw become wet when exposed 

 to the weather ? You might thatch it as they 

 do straw roofs, but that which comes from the 

 stable would be rathei' too brolien, would it 

 not ?J 



Recent Developments. 



BKOOD -FRAMES FOR 1892. 



By Erneftt R. Root. 



For the past two or three months we have 

 been studying on general improvements on 

 apiarian supplies — improvements that are real, 

 and that have been suggested by experience, 

 rather than those that have been evolved from 

 theory or fancy. Among the first is something 

 in the line of top-bars, with the loose and Hoff- 

 man frame. The thick top-bars have given 

 very general satisfaction, and have sustained 

 all the claims of its advocates, when used in 

 connection with the proper bee-spaces — i. e.. a 

 scant V4 inch. In experimenting this summer, 

 and comparing reports carefully, we found it 

 was not necessary to have the top-bar any 

 thicker tlian would be required to pi'event any 

 possible sagging that would change the bee- 

 space — the essential features for the preven- 

 tion of burr-combs being rather in the width of 

 the bar, depth of bee-space, and exact spacing. 

 With these conditions pi'operly met. we can 

 reduce, a small trifle, the thickness of the top- 

 bar. The following cut shows our last thick- 

 top brood -frame. 



IMPROVED THICK-TOP FRAME. WITH MOLDED 

 COMB-OUIDE. 



Fig. 1 in the cut shows the new top-bar, and 

 how the comb-guide is left in relief, as it weie, 

 by a set of molding-knives. The cut hardly 

 does justice to it. however. The bead of the 

 comb-guide projects down 3^ inch, so as to leave 

 room for fastening foundation, and for guiding 

 the bees. Such a comb-guide is always perma- 

 nent, and never gets " left out"' in tilling orders; 

 and while the side of the top-bar is only ?< deep, 

 the molded guide gives it the stillness of a bar 

 X deep. In a word, the new top-bar is 1^ scant 



in width, J4 deep to the comb-guide, and H 

 deep at the sides. 



It seems almost a wonder that somebody did 

 not think of this before; and, even if he did, 

 why he did not put it into practical operation. 

 We stumbled on to it accidentally. A party 

 ordered some sections with this style of top-bar; 

 and while we were contemplating this feature, 

 the thought struck us. " Why not adapt it to 

 brood-frames?" 



Another featui'e of the new frame is the 

 bottom-bar. It is % thick, and only ^^ inch 

 wide, the end-bar being mortised to receive it. 

 Wliy so narrow a bottom-bar? For the simple 

 reason that bees build combs down to them 

 better. We have always noticed that the Har- 

 bison sections, having a very narrow bottom- 

 bar, the comb was almost invariably built clear 

 down and on it; while in ordinary sections 

 there is pretty apt to be a bee-space under the 

 comb. This fact did not lead us to adopt or 

 recommend that style of section — oh. nol using 

 a nari-ow starter, (i la Dr. Miller, at the top 

 and bottom of an ordinary section accomplishes 

 the same result more cheaply; but it dicZ in- 

 fluence us to adopt a similar bottom-bar for 

 brood-frames. D. A. Jones and other promi- 

 nent bee-keepers have long advocated and used 

 a narrow bar, for this very reason. 



THE NEW HOFFMAN FRAME. 



The cut above shows that we have adapted 

 the same top-bar to the Hoffman frames. This, 

 in view of the fact of what we have said against 

 the straight top-bar for this frame, may appear 

 like a retrograde step, even if it does not show 

 that we have changed our views. Now, if you 

 will listen just a minute we will try to make 

 the whole thing plain. We would not change 

 the Hoffman top-bar as he uses it in /lis hive, 

 one iota; but when the same is adapted to a 

 Langstroth frame in a Langstroth hive, a cer- 

 tain insurmountable difficulty comes in the 

 way. It is this: The projection on the Hoff- 

 man frame — that is, that part which rests on 

 the rabbet is ^^ inch long. This would leave, 

 after the bee-space is taken out back of the 

 frames, only 34 inch to rest on the hive-rabbet; 

 and this space is so very narrow that there is 

 very little danger of killing any bees; but the 

 standard Langstroth top-bar leaves ^4 inch 

 between the end-bar and the end of the top-bar 

 — that is, ?4 inch projection. After taking out 

 a 34-inch bee-space this leaves a bearing sur- 

 face of 3i inch on the wood rabbet. With pro- 

 jecting fop-bar 1^8 wide and ^^ inch deep, the 

 chance of killing bees is quite considerable, as 

 experience told us last year. Now. then, this 

 problem confronted us: The Hoffman frame is 

 a good thing, and bee-keepers want it. But to 

 make it entirely satisfactory the standard L. 

 top- bar must ,be shortened ^i inch or else we 

 must use a straight top- bar on a tin rabbet. 



