1898 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



343 



depth; others sa}\ the deeper the better. As 

 dollars and cents are involved, I'd like to 

 know where the truth lies. I confess that I 

 don't know whether I know for certain. I 

 believe there is a financial gain in having cells 

 drawn out, whether done by the bees or 

 machinery, and that the deeper the better so 

 long as they are perfect!}' clean and not deeper 

 than we want the finished product. And yet 

 it is possible that there may be something I 

 haven't watched close enough — something I 

 don't understand clearly enough; and if I'm 

 wrong I want to be righted; for I don't believe 

 that I'm so stubborn in opinion as not to 

 change if holding on to an opinion is going to 

 lose money for me. If I'm right, then those 

 who disagree are losing money, and should be 

 glad to change. So let me say how the mat- 

 ter looks to me ; and if there's any thing 

 wrong in my views, please show it to me. 



I start on the assumption that extracted 

 honey may be as good in quality as that con- 

 tained in the cells of the best section honey ; 

 and yet there's a possibility I'm wrongf in 

 that. For years I have used many sections 

 that had been drawn out previously, and have 

 always supposed I got nice finished sections 

 from them. But others say they have done 

 the same thing, and the product was bad. In 

 \he Ai>terican Bee Journal for Nov. IS, 1S97. 

 the question was asked as to the quality of 

 the honey in such sections, and opinions 

 varied. A number had had no experience 

 "along that line;" a number had tried them 

 and had found no objection. R. L. Tajlor 

 thought they were not capped so well nor so 

 quickly; not so fine in appearance as to color, 

 and perhaps inclined to granulate and ferment. 

 E. T. Abbott always secured a poorer quality 

 of honey. J. A. Green found a liaVjility to 

 granulation and fermentation, along with 

 other objections. W. McEvoy found leveled- 

 down combs always filled and fin'shed sooner; 

 but he doesn't bke the flavor quite so well. 



The question comes. Have these four men 

 been more observing than the larger number 

 who had found no objection ? or was there a 

 difference in circumstances to account for a 

 difference in results? Mr. Taylor mentions 

 an objection that has also been given by 

 others : The bees are slower to fill and cap 

 unfinished sections. However this may be 

 with Mr. Taylor, one of the things I know, 

 and know to a dead certainty, is that such is 

 not universally the case. I have had a some- 

 what extensive experience in years of failure, 

 and have had hundreds of cases in which the 

 one unfinished section in the super was filled 

 and sealed, and the remaining sections with 

 foundation were left untouched. Again, in 

 years of plenty I have always found the bait 

 section filled and sealed first. 



I don't know, but I suspect that this differ- 

 ence of experience comes from different con- 

 ditions. Take an unfinished section this fall 

 from a hive, extract it, and don't let the bees 

 touch it till next spring, or leave it without 

 extracting till spring, and I think such a sec- 

 tion will have granules left in it that will 

 make the bees a little slow about using it, and 

 will affect the quality of the honey stored in 



it. Let that same section be given to the bees 

 to clean up before there's any possible chance 

 for granulation, letting it be where the bees 

 think they are robbing it, so that they will 

 clean out the least and last remains of the 

 honey, and I think you will find, as I have 

 done, that it will be filled and finished sooner 

 than a section w'ith foundation. 



But among those who favor using drawn 

 comb, or drawn foundation either, there is a 

 marked difference of opinion as to the proper 

 depth to which the cells should be drawn out. 

 B. Taylor has been quoted as using his excel- 

 lent " Handy " leveler for the sake of reduc- 

 ing the depth of the cells. I don't believe he 

 ever used it for that purpose on a perfectly 

 clean section, and have asked for proof. No 

 one has ever brought forward the proof. On 

 the page already quoted in Ainerican Bee 

 Journal, the question is also asked how thick 

 the comb should " be after being leveled down 

 a la the late B. Taylor." The answers vary 

 from )A, inch to full thickness. 



\xv AinericaJi Bee Jour7ial ior }a.n.. il , 1898, 

 several of the repliers go into details some- 

 what, giving a reason for their belief. It may 

 be interesting to refer to these, keeping in 

 mind that the thickness of a sealed comb in a 

 \'/^ section with separators will be about \y%. 

 And I may say right here that this matter is 

 of sufficient importance to give it a good deal 

 of attention; for if we who are using deep 

 cells are losing by it we ought to find it out; 

 and if others are wasting by cutting down un- 

 necessarily, then they ought to stop the waste. 

 Besides, if drawn foundation is to be u.sed it 

 is important to know what is the best depth, 

 providing it makes no difference to the ma- 

 chinery. 



One reason given for having cells not more 

 than % inch deep is that, when deeper, the 

 comb is tough. If there is an}- difference, 

 ought not the part of the comb last made be 

 the most tender? Then why cut away that, 

 leaving the toughest part ? Another is that, 

 with cells more than }i inch deep, the honey 

 is not as thick and of as nice quality. If that 

 be true, it is reasonable to gauge the thickness 

 and quality of the huney by the depth of the 

 cell. A cell ^ inch deep will not give as nice 

 honey as one Y% deep; a cell y^ deep will be 

 excelled by one yi deep; this in its turn is not 

 so good as one )/% deep. I don't say it isn't 

 possible there may be something in the mat- 

 ter of depth; but if it is true that a cell Y% or 

 % deep is better than a deeper one just 

 because of its depth, I don't for the life of me 

 see how it is possible to get away from the 

 logical conclusion that, the greater the depth, 

 the poorer the honey; and, the less the depth 

 the better the honey, the best honey of all 

 being that produced on the Michigan no-wall 

 foundation. 



The same reason also applies to another 

 objection, that honey sours in cells more than 

 %. deep. If it sours at y% deep, there certainly 

 must be a little tendency that way if cells are 

 only %. 



Another item is, that combs are rough and 

 unsightly, so the cells must be cut down to % 

 in depth. Now, suppose a cell is y% deep. I 



