1898 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



917 



the cut. The consequence of all this is we 

 shall get more honey and more money by 

 reason of the free communication offered 

 throughout the super. 



In using this style of separator, all we have 

 to buy is the separators, since sections would 

 have to be bought anyway; or, if one prefers, 

 he can first use the old ones and gradually 

 introduce the open-all-arounds. 



Such an arrangement is, in our estimation 

 and that of others, greatly superior to the 

 fence separator, because it is not only cheaper 

 but offers freer communication than the fence, 

 namely, from section to section in each row, 

 and diagonally opposite. 



I almost neglected to state, however, that 

 the separator should be so made that it will 

 come % inch below the tops of sections in 

 order to give a bee-space over the edge of the 

 separator. 



Now for No. 9. It is made exactly like No. 

 8, but adapted to the plain section. The super 

 and separator shown are for the Ideal size of 

 super. This is done by gluing on the sep- 

 arators little pieces as shown in the cut on 

 the right. The little pieces on the top edge 

 of the separator are /^ thick, ph;s thickness of 

 separator stuff, or {~.i on each side of the sep- 

 arator. They are one inch long, and are saw- 

 kerfed back 3^' inch, slipping over the edge of 

 the separator. This leaves a J^-inch bee- 

 space over the edge of the separator; in other 

 words, the whole of the separator except the 

 cleats is % inch lower than the top of the sec- 

 tions. The bottom pieces are \% inches long, 

 and saw-kerfed and slipped on i{ inch. The 

 reason they are -'^ inch longer than the top 

 ones is that the pattern slats are y% inch thick, 

 which will still leave us ^ inch space under 

 the edge of the separator. The end cleats are 

 the same as used in the fence separator (of 

 course, this can be applied to the 4 '4^ sections 

 as well). With this arrangement you will 

 get the benefit of the plain section and the 

 Hyde-Sclioll separator. 



As to your objections: First, as to frailty, I 

 grant they will not be quite as strong as the 

 fence; but by making them of a little heavier 

 material than common separator stuff, espe- 

 cially in the case of No. 9, where the two end 

 cleats and little pieces are glued on, this ob- 

 jection is reduced to a minimum. Second, as 

 to their splitting in pulling apart by reason of 

 propolis, I will say they will not be as bad as 

 the fence separators, because only the corners 

 of the sections will come in contact with sep- 

 arators, and at the corners both separator 

 and section are strongest, hence they will not 

 be so bad to pull apart as the fence where the 

 section comes in contact with the separator ^s 

 of the way. Another reason for my preference 

 for this separator is that there will be fewer 

 corner holes than with either the fence or old 

 separators ; also, sections will be better filled 

 out to the edges; for where there is a cleat on 

 the fence, on the contrary, there is a passage- 

 way with the Hyde-SchoU separators. 



Hutto, Tex. H. H. Hyde. 



[The transverse slots in Fig. 8, as I have 

 stated above, cut the ver} life and strength 



out of the separator, even if it were made 

 thicker as Mr. H. suggests. Fig. 9 is not so 

 bad, because it is secured by cleats at the ends; 

 but I should be afraid that neither would 

 stand shipping, and that a large percentage 

 woi;ld break when taken out of the super, ow- 

 ing to bee-glue. If they were of metal they 

 would be strong enough ; and even making 

 them of thicker wood, as suggested in the 

 article, will not help matters much. 



As to cost, our own estimates show that the 

 jobbing price would be higher than the job- 

 bing price of the fence. The Hyde separator 

 will have to be made of good solid sound 

 stock, and of pieces not less than 4 '4 inches 

 wide. The fences, on the other hand, are 

 made of scrap material — such stuff as would 

 ordinarily go into the furnace. Practically, 

 the only cost of the fence is the labor of put- 

 ting it together. 



Aside from frailty and expense of the Hyde- 

 Scholl separator, I have no doubt it will give 

 results equal to any fence, and Fig. 9 might 

 produce fuller and better-looking boxes of 

 honey, for the principles are good. 



Perhaps I should remark that Fig. 9 em- 

 bodies the principle of a separator used by L. 

 A. Aspinwall, of Michigan, and described in 

 the Rei'iezv, page 318, for December, 1897. If 

 I am not mistaken, this principle has been 

 made the subject of a patent. 



I am sorry not to be able to speak more 

 favorably of the Hyde separator; but I was 

 asked by friend H. to criticise, and I have done 

 so, hoping that our friends will avoid expen- 

 sive experiment — not that they will get into 

 any trouble with Mr. Aspinwall, for I am sure 

 there will be no need of any litigation, but 

 because, mechanically, the separators are 

 weak, and from the cost point of view they 

 are more expensive than fences. 



What I have given thus far has been rather 

 in favor of the plain section and fence. The 

 following article, from F. L. Thompson, has 

 been received ; and as he takes up the other 

 side I present it here. — Ed.] 



The above table speaks for itself. Each 

 super had three or four rows of one kind of 

 sections ; and the remainder, four or three rows 

 of the other. Narrow starters, top and bot- 

 tom, were used. 



But, don't crow. The superiority of fences, 

 so far as that table is concerned, is about all 

 on paper. There was no apparent diflFerence 

 in the size of the pop-poles, and the difference 

 in number was not visible to the eye. I 

 thought from their appearance they were 

 alike in that respect, until I found a mathe- 



