214 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Mar. 15. 



In any event I think I have plenty of proof 

 to show to the contrary. I have some old let- 

 ters from which I will quote a few lines. They 

 were written by Mr. A. E. Trabue, a practical 

 bee-keeper residing near Hannibal, Mo.; but 

 whether Mr. T is still alive or not I do not 

 know. April 29, 1868, Mr. T. wrote me thus : 



" You speak of honey-emptying machines, 

 Langstroth speaks of further improvements in 

 his last circular, ' not patented nor patentable,'' 

 and for two frames only, I think. Do you 

 make that machine, and at his price ? If so, 

 send me one by express. I have one of my 

 own make that I used last year, but it is too 

 large." 



Again, May 4, 1868, Mr. Trabue writes me 

 thus : 



" Enclosed is check on Horner, New York, 

 for $15. Send me one honey-emptier with 

 latest improvement and knife." 



Soon thereafter I sent the desired machine 

 to Mr. Trabue as per his instruction. That 

 honey-extractor was one that I bought of fa- 

 ther Langstroth in the spring of 1868, and 

 possibly it was the first machine that was made 

 for sale in the United States. It was sent to 

 me from New York, but from what point I do 

 not just now recall. The machine was made 

 at s )me factory there, and for father Lang- 

 stroth. The machines were made only as or- 

 dered — at least father L. so states in his print- 

 ed circular dated February 20, 1868, and which 

 is also in my possession. 



The revolving box in the Langstroth ex- 

 tractor was made for two combs, and the outer 

 case was simply a well-made barrel. It had 

 no gearing, but simply a horizontal crank on 

 top of the upright wooden shaft, and was op- 

 erated somewhat similarly to the Peabody ma- 

 chine as shown on page 57. 



I did not like the way the revolving box was 

 operated, and thought I could improve the 

 machine by substituting a gearing for the 

 crank. I also thought it would be better for 

 me to make the outer case nearly square and 

 of whitewood lumber. I began at once to 

 make a number of extractors as outlined 

 above. One of these machines I sold in 1868 

 to Jas. M. Marvin, of this city, who, at that 

 date, was one of the oldest and most exten- 

 sive bee-keepers in Illinois. Mr. M. died a 

 few years ago. He used this extractor from 

 1868 up to the year of his death, and extracted 

 an immense amount of honey with it. Mr. 

 M. often stated that he had never seen a bet- 

 ter and more substantial honey-extractor, and 

 that he would not exchange it for any other 

 on the market. And this same machine is 

 still in good repair, and is now owned in this 

 city by a nephew of Jas. M. Marvin, deceased. 



In 1868 I advertised by circular and other- 

 wise my own make of honey-extractors for 

 sale, and nearly all I sold that year were gear- 

 ed machines. 



Reliable history is what the bee-keepers 

 want, if any, and this is my only apology for 

 the foregoing. 



St. Charles, 111., Feb. 22, 1900. 



[When I spoke of the Peabody as being the 

 first put on the market I meant the first one 



that was advertised and sold to any extent. 

 The Peabody and other extractors that I 

 named were advertised and sold very exten- 

 sively in the early 60's. I do not find either 

 yours or Langstroth 's extractor advertised in 

 the old back volumes of the American Bee 

 Journal from '58 up to '62. I do find where 

 Langstroth described his early machine in '58, 

 and that he thought there was a great future 

 for the "honey-emptying machine." How- 

 ever, all the data that you have furnished are 

 interesting, as you are one of the very few 

 surviving pioneers of the early days of bee- 

 keeping as a business in this country. — Ed.] 



WmTERLNG IN A CAVE. 



A Low Consumption of Stores; Some Interesting 

 Data. 



BY JOHN R. MII^LARD. 



I thought perhaps you would like to get re- 

 ports on the amount of honey that bees con- 

 sume where they are wintered in a cave, so I 

 send you in this letter my report with them 

 for the winter of 1889. I used one of your 



No. 1., 

 2.. 

 3.. 

 4., 

 5., 

 6., 

 7., 



WEIGHT OF HIVES CONTAINING BEES. 



Average weight Nov. 4, 1889, 57§J lbs. 

 Average weight April 4, 1890, 47^g lbs. 

 Average loss in weight to each hive, 10^ lbs. 



new double-beam scales, and weighed them 

 Nov. 4, 1889, then again Apr. 4, 1890. I had 

 35 colonies that fall, and never lost any in win- 

 tering. I think they went through the spring 

 all right. I am sorry now that I destroyed 

 the record of when I put them in the cave and 

 when I set them out ; but I think I put them 

 in as soon as I would weigh them. Yes, I 

 know now, as I would weigh a hive, carry it 



