1898 



GI/EANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



13 



the better appearance of the section when fill- 

 ed, as also lessen the work of scraping propo- 

 lis from its edges ; and all agreed that, if a 

 perforated separator was a good thing for se- 

 curing well-filled sections, a perforated follow- 

 er on each side of the super, a la Pettit, was 

 even more of a necessity. But as your foot- 

 note to my article in the Dec. 1 issue states 

 that you intend to use perforated followers or 

 dividers instead of the one illustrated in 

 Gleanings, you will, therefore, be in accord 

 with our local convention, which contains 

 some of our best comb-honey producers such 

 as Hall, Emigh, Pettit, Newton, etc. There 

 is yet another reason why a perforated or slot- 

 ted separator is an advantage; and it is a fact 

 that they can be made much wider, and thus 

 prevent the top cells of the sections from be- 

 ing drawn out too far, as in the case when 

 using a T super and a narrower separator. 



To be sure, there were some objections, ow- 

 ing to the low price of honey, and some ob- 

 jected to making any radical change in their 

 super construction, to say nothing of the ex- 

 tra expense of procuring new ones, but no 

 valid reason against the use of the new com- 

 bination was offered ; and any one commenc- 

 ing in apiculture, or those intending to make 

 a change from extracted to comb honey, might 

 with advantage and profit adopt the new sec- 

 tion and fence separator, with perforated fol- 

 lowers on each side of the super. 



Comb honey produced by the above methods, 

 however, requires careful handling by the re- 

 tailer, so as not to stick his clumsy fingers in- 

 to the surface of the comb when removing sec- 

 tions from the shipping-crate, causing them 

 to bleed, etc. The idea, also, of having thin 

 veneer divide the rows of sections is, of course, 

 a necessity, and they should be as wide as the 

 sections themselves in order to facilitate the 

 easy return of a section to the crate in case it 

 should be necessary to do so. 



I will take 'to Hamilton to-morrow, the 7th, 

 the samples you have sent, and show them at 

 the Ontario Bee-keepers' Association, to be 

 held the 7th, 8tli, and Uth, in case you have 

 not made any provision for doing so. 



Stratford, Can., Dec. 6. 



[You must have misunderstood me. I did 

 not intend to convey the impression that we 

 intended to adopt " perforated "' followers — 

 that is, if you mean a double-cleated separator 

 with holes bored or punched through it. I 

 simply meant to say that we intended to put a 

 fence (like the rest) between each outside row 

 and the sides of the supers something (not 

 strictly) after the manner Pettit recommends ; 

 and this reminds me that Pettit, in his experi- 

 ments with slatted followers, found that the 

 bees made ridgy or washboard honey-comb 

 honey. I have since seen a description of 

 these same followers, and find that the space 

 between the slats was ,°*,. inch. This would, of 

 course, produce the ridgy honey. The spaces 

 should not be more than /-"j, or the width of 

 perforated zinc. If the slots in Pettit 's follow- 

 ers had been so spaced he would, I think, have 

 had no trouble. As such followers are cheap- 

 er, and easier made, why will they not secure 



as good results, exactly, as the " perforated " 

 followers Mr. Pettit recommends? To use 

 fences through the body of the super and per- 

 forated followers on each side would compli- 

 cate matters somewhat. — Ed.] 



THE LONG-IDEA HIVE. 



History of it, and some Corrections. 



BY O. O. POPPLETON. 



On page 634 of Gleanings, Sept. 1, Mr. 

 Doolittle gives a version of the history of 

 ' ' Long-idea ' ' hives, and some remarks on 

 their use. While the history of the origin of 

 any of our implements or ideas may be inter- 

 esting, they are, of course, not of practical 

 value ; but I feel very much like trying to 

 correct the historical part of Mr. Doolittle's 

 remarks. 



About 1870, Gen. D. S. Adair, of Kentucky, 

 devised and ( I think ) patented what he nam- 

 ed the "New-idea" hive. This hive was a 

 long single-story one with the entrance in one 

 end, at the side of the frames, instead of at 

 the ends, as commonly practiced. The " new 

 idea" of the general was, as I understood it, 

 having the combs containing brood all in the 

 back end of the hive, with surplus-honey 

 arrangements all between entrance and brood, 

 compelling the bees to pass through the 

 surplus-honey part of the hive to reach the 

 brood, instead of through the brood-nest to 

 the surplus honey, as in tiered-up hives. I 

 do not know who first changed from Gen. 

 Adair's end entrance to having an entrance in 

 the side of hives, and brood-nest in the center 

 instead of in the back end ; but I think the 

 change was made and experimented with by 

 a good many of us at the same time. It was 

 not Gen. Adair who gave the name " Long 

 Idea ' ' to the hive. I have always thought 

 the name was first given to it in derision ; but 

 as no other yet used describes the hive so 

 well, it has become the recognized name. 



The discussion over these hives occurred 

 when I was first starting my apiary in Iowa ; 

 and after trying both styles for a year or two 

 I adopted the long single-story hive, and still 

 use it, not having a single double-decked hive 

 in my apiaries. I used about 500 double- 

 story hives for two years in Cuba, and was 

 very glad to return to my own style. I would 

 no more think of using a two-story hive for 

 extracted honey than Mr. Doolittle would 

 think of using the single-story. 



The truth is, Mr. D. probably has no knowl- 

 edge of a properly made single-story hive. 

 Neither the Langstroth nor Gallup frames can 

 be successfully used in such a manner. To 

 use the right amount of combs in either of 

 those frames will spread them out too much — 

 doesn't leave them in as compact a form as 

 thev should be for successful use. I have 

 told a great many bee-keepers who asked my 

 advice, not to attempt to use shallow or small 

 frames in such a way. Some of the foreign 

 bee-journals, according to a review of them by 

 Mr. Thompson, have lately been discussing 

 this matter quite fully, and the conclusions 



