1898 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



387 



Filling up with sections is probably about the 

 same in one case as another ; and when it 

 comes to emptying, the advantage ought to be 

 on the side of the Ideal. 



Compared with the T super, the Ideal has 

 the advantage that the sections fit close to- 

 gether, instead of having a space between 

 them made by the upright of the T tin. 

 Whatever the space made at the bottom of the 

 sections by this upright, there will be the 

 same space at the top, a space so large that, to 

 have the sections square, and keep out pro- 

 polis, it is necessary to use small sticks )4 

 inch wide and less than yi thick. That makes 

 three extra pieces that can be dispensed with 

 by using the Ideal. True, thej' are small and 

 inexpensive, but it takes time to handle them. 



The T super can probably be filled more 

 rapidly, for with the proper arrangement it is 

 probably the best of all surplus-arrangements 

 for filling. In emptying the super, the Ideal 

 ought to have the advantage. 



As to cleaning, the T tins must be pitted 

 against the bottom-bars, and they have a pretty 

 big advantage. You can dump a lot of T tins 

 in hot lye, and clean them in a twinkling by 

 wholesale, but you must make slow work of 

 cleaning the wooden bars. 



If fences are to be used, and if it is desirable 

 to have the separators come to the tops of the 

 sections, and if it is important to have free 

 communication between the upper corner of 

 one section and the upper corner of the next, 

 for the purpose of preventing pop-holes, then 

 the Ideal has undisputed possession of the 

 field, in all probability, for that rules out the 

 use of the little sticks in the T super — a blow 

 too heavy for the T super to sustain. 



Of course, actual trial on the hives might 

 make some change of view ; but as the matter 

 looks now, if plain sections and fences are to 

 be used, then the Ideal is probably the best 

 super for one to get who hasn't all the supers 

 he needs. 



There is one thing that puzzles me greatly 

 in the discussion with regard to plain sections 

 and fences. It can hardly have faded from 

 the memory that much time was spent in try- 

 ing to settle upon a proper system of grading. 

 Views were by no means always alike ; but in 

 all cases there was agreement that having the 

 comb firmly attached to the wood was a desir- 

 able thing. To get a section without pop- 

 holes, with all the cells next the wood sealed, 

 was admitted on all hands to be a difficult 

 thing to be obtained, such filling out and seal- 

 ing entitling to a higher grade. No one hint- 

 ed a thing against its desirability. Now when 

 fences and plain sections come forward with 

 the claim that they can solve the problem and 

 produce what has been so much desired, up 

 rise those who say that it is better to have 

 something not filled out so well. In the name 

 of all that's reasonable, why didn't they tell 

 us that before, and not allow so much effort 

 to be wasted in seeking a thing not worth the 

 seeking ? Why was the Washington grading, 

 making the firm fastening of the comb to the 

 wood one of the distinctions (if not the chief 

 distinction ) of the highest grade, allowed to 

 stand year after year at the head of the honey 



quotations, with no voice raised in protest? 

 Why, oh ! why ? 

 Marengo, 111. 



[I really do not know why I should have 

 been made to entertain opinions regarding the 

 tall sections that I never held. For instance, 

 I have been criticised for saying that the tall 

 section would be better filled out than the 

 square one. Mr. Francis Danzenbaker may 

 have given expression to something similar ; 

 but I feel sure that I have never said just that 

 thing, nor any thing like it, for I never be- 

 lieved, and do not now think, that, other 

 things being equal, the shape of the box, with- 

 in reasonable limits, has any thing to do with 

 filling on the part of the bees. I have quoted 

 the opinions of others ; for instance, at the 

 beginning of the year I said, referring to the 

 tall sections : " It is argued that they look 

 more symmetrical." .... "It is argued 

 also that a tall box of honey standing right 

 opposite a square one, of the same superficial 

 surface and weight, appears to be larger. 

 Whether these advantages are apparent or 

 real, it is certainly true in some markets, at 

 least (not all), notably in the East, that the 

 tall sections sell more readily." It will be 

 noticed I said, " It is argued." Now, my own 

 opinion is not here given. I simply set forth 

 the opinions of others, and let them stand for 

 what they are worth. And, again, on page 

 519, Gleanings for 1897, Mr. B. F. Onder- 

 donk, referring to the fact that Capt. Hether- 

 ington had ordered 50,000 cartons for tall 

 sections, says : " When I see the Danzenbaker 

 section filled solid to the wood all round — 

 sides, top, and bottom, while my 4)4- sections 

 have passageways through each lower corner, 

 and even the whole bottom open, I feel a 

 Christian regret for the experts, and rather 

 hope to die an amateur." 



Now, this is what I said in reply : 



Whether this difference was owing to the fact that 

 the 4x0 looked larger hy con tfasf than the square ones, 

 and therefore brought more money, or whether the 

 oblong shape is really more desirable, even when 

 alone, is hard to say. If the 4x5 sells at a higher price 

 because of the more pleasing contrast, then when the 

 .square sections are crowded out of the market I am of 

 the opinion that the 4.xo would seek the same level in 

 price as the 4'^. 



To quote the opinion of others regarding 

 the value of a certain thing is legitimate and 

 proper. To set one's own opinion up to a 

 high notch respecting something with which 

 the writer has never had any practical experi- 

 ence, is silly. 



Perhaps it may seem as if I were taking a 

 good deal of space to set myself right ; but I 

 have been so frequently and persistently mis- 

 quoted on some of these things that I deem it 

 only fair to explain mj-self ; and yet let me 

 say that I cherish no ill will toward those who 

 have gotten a wrong impression from what I 

 have written. 



Regarding the Ideal super, all I have to say 

 is this : Essentially the same thing is used by 

 Miles Morton, of Groton, N. Y. When he 

 tests a thing, and says it is good, I feel almost 

 like drawing the conclusion that it is good. 

 However, the Ideal super is something that 

 has not been tried yet by bee-keepers gener- 



