918 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Dec. 15. 



matical difference by counting and averaging. 

 Grocers and consumers judge only by appear- 

 ance. The table is concerned with a compar- 

 atively unimportant matter. In glancing at a 

 comb, filling at the edges counts for much 

 more than pop holes, within ordinary limits. 

 The plain sections showed no superiority to 

 the eye except in one super (the third), and 

 then but faintly apparent, in the matter of 

 filling at the edges of the comb, over the scal- 

 loped sections in the sai)ie supers. (The fill- 

 ing by supers varied from poor to good. ) 

 This point surely constitutes about 90 per cent 

 of what we term "good filling," when, as in 

 this case, all the pop-holes were medium or 

 small in size in both kinds ; and not one of 

 those who have of late be< n booming the new 

 sections in Gleanings, so far as I have notic- 

 ed, touches on this all important point at all. 

 Instead, they give us glittering generalities — 

 "plain sections a success," etc. (meaning 

 combs produced with the aid of fences). 

 Why, what else did those wonderful photo- 

 graphs chiefly lead us to exjaect than combs 

 well filled at the edges f The "success" of 

 the fences should be spelled this way, see — 

 f, a, i, 1, u, r, e. 



I found that the plain sections between 

 fences were easily scraped, though not any 

 easier than inset sections which had no sepa- 

 rators at all; took less room in the case, didn't 

 gouge each other, had straight combs, needed 

 no separators in the case, looked neat, etc. 

 But these are minor points. Because the 

 combs were not built crosswise, I suppose, 

 therefore they are a "success." I think 

 " success " means that they should be a great 

 deal better than the old style ; and for large 

 producers, who ship, that means first, last, 

 and all the time, combs well filled at the edges 

 under all conditions, in strong or weak colo- 

 nies, poor or good averages, long or short 

 flows ; and, especially, well filled when old- 

 style sections in the same super would be 

 poorly filled. Now, who has tried both kinds 

 in the same super? I haven't heard of any 

 one yet. What kind of experimenting do you 

 call that ? It is really amusing to see all those 

 so-called testimonials smirking at one another 

 across the page. It reminds one of those 

 well-bred social gatherings in which a vast 

 amount of smiling is going on, without any 

 visible cause of mirth — the kind that makes 

 one's face tired. Do let's have a sufficient 

 reason for all the blandness. 



It was said that plain sections would save 

 money in cases. Because one can get more of 

 them in the same sized case ? What's the 

 matter with having a larger case, if one wants 

 to save money that way? The small addi- 

 tional expense of larger cases is offset by the 

 cost of fences. But that argument is weak, 

 anyhow, because one's market may be accus- 

 tomed to a certain number of sections in the 

 case; and we certainly want the same number 

 as now if we sell by ihe case, as will have to 

 be done if light-weight sections are to be 

 more profitable. 



The new sections, not being better filled out 

 without attention in other ways which can be 

 as well given to old-style sections, will scarce- 



ly bring a higher price. (They wouldn't any- 

 how in this market. ) My second-crop inset 

 sections between plain separators this year 

 were as well filled out as the first-crop sections 

 (which means very well indeed), though last 

 year they were much inferior in that respect, 

 and though the flow was light this year. In 

 fact, last year my first-crop sections were an 

 exact copy of the lower row in the photo- 

 graph on page 128, and w-ere quite heavy; and 

 the second-crop sections were an exact copy 

 of the upper row. This year, in the majority 

 of colonies, both crops copied the lower row 

 in the photograph, even though they were 

 old-style sections with plain separators. It 

 wasn't race of bees that made the difference. 

 The same bees (Italians) gathered both crops. 

 1 suppose it was because I doubled up the 

 brood this year in June, while ordinarily, in 

 this locality, the colonies dwindle down to lit- 

 tle better than nuclei during the second crop. 

 If that supposition is correct, I infer that 

 strong colonies have many times the influence 

 of fences in securing well-filled sections. Let's 

 get up a boom for strong colonies. 



Again, I have never tried taking pains to 

 get the foundation close to the wood all 

 around ; but Mr. Getaz has ; and he says in 

 the Revieiv he can reproduce at will by that 

 means such combs as appear in plain sections 

 in the photograph. And Mr. Danzenb iker, as 

 reported by Mr. Weed, laj-s his success in se- 

 curing well-filled sections to the same plan. 

 Doesn't that give the fence away? If it se- 

 cured good filling, what would be the use of 

 being so particular about the foundation ? 

 If the foundation does it, what is the u.'e of 

 the fence? Is not by far the greatest service 

 which the fence renders, that which consists 

 in bringing the comb surface up close to a 

 straight-edge laid across the section ? From 

 one point of view we might call that "good 

 filling ;" but, if so, then we need a specific 

 term for that filling at the edges which makes 

 square slabs instead of rounded chunks. With 

 that kind of filling, which chiefly affects the 

 appearance of the combs, the fence, in my 

 experience, has next to nothing to do ; but 

 that virtue is just what was claimed for it by 

 the photographs. The photographs didn't lie; 

 but they didn't show ordinary sections from 

 the same super. 



I did not try any spaced l>-2-inch plain sec- 

 tions without separators, but did try a few 1^^ 

 sections that way, made by planing down or- 

 dinary ones. These also were tried in the 

 same super with plain sections and fences. In 

 this super both kinds were exceedingly well 

 filled at the edges and corners, and no differ- 

 ence was observable between them in that re- 

 spect, or in the size of pop-holes. The plain 

 sections averaged Z^.^ holes, the others Zy^. 

 But, as usual, both presented an equally good 

 appearance to the eye, aside from the bulging. 



I also tried three other supers of these re- 

 duced sections, spaced apart % inch, wiih the 

 result of many brace-combs between the edges 

 of the wood of opposite sections. The spacing 

 should have been no more than just enough 

 to let a bee throvigh, and the sections should 

 have been supplied with full sheets. As it 



