930 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Oct. 1 



t^S^J- 



^ 



'-% 



Our Symposium on Hoffman Frames. 



Is this Frame Adapted to the Needs of Every= 



day Bee=keepers ? Conflicting Opin= 



ions from Experts. 



[We have received quite a number of communications 

 on this subject from various subscribers; and, desiring 

 to put all of them together, we have held them till now. 

 The reader is, therefore, in position to get a birdseye 

 view of the whole discussion. As Mr. J. A. Green's ar- 

 ticle came first, we place it at the beginning.— Ed.] 



DEFECTS OF THE HOFFMAN AS NOW MADE. 



Can They Be Overcome? The Hoffman-frame 

 Division-board or Follower Not Satisfactory. 



BY J. A. GREEN. 



Your editorial on page 641 gives a rather 

 vi^rong impression in regard to my position 

 on the Hoffman-frame question in saying 

 that I believe the frame has inherent defects 

 that might be remedied. In my article in 

 the June Revieiv I said, "Its faults are not 

 inherent or unavoidable. ' ' That is, the prin- 

 ciple of the Hoffman frame is all right, and 

 it is not such a bad frame if it is properly 

 used. In the hands of a careful man who 

 understands the principle on which it works, 

 and will always handle them strictly in ac- 

 cordance with that principle, the Hoffman 

 frame, even as it is made now, will give very 

 satisfactory results in most localities. 



The trouble is that most bee-keepers are 

 not careful, and will not handle the frame 

 as it must be handled to give good results. 

 Because of this the Hoffman frame is not 

 as well adapted to general use as a frame 

 that will not suft'er as much from neglect. 

 That, in a few woi'ds, is my position in re- 

 gard to the Hoffman frame. 



I have opened during the present season, 

 as bee-inspector, over two thousand hives 

 having Hoffman frames. It is not too much 

 to say that not ten per cent of them had 

 been kept in proper condition for easy han- 

 dling. Do you wonder that I should like to 

 see the Hoffman frame supplanted by some- 

 thing that is better suited to the methods of 

 the average bee-keeper? Of the hives with 

 plain hanging frames, there was scarcely 

 one that was not in far better shape for 

 easy handling than the average Hoffman. 



The chief difficulty with the Hoffman 

 frame is that difficulty of getting out the 

 first frame. The principle of the frame re- 

 quires that, at the end of each manipulation, 

 the frames be all crowded close together at 

 one side of the hive. A following-board is 

 crowded up against them, leaving a bee- 

 space between it and the side of the hive. 



To remove the frames, pry back the follow- 

 er and remove it, which gives room to get 

 out the first frame. The theory is excellent, 

 and in practice it works very well when 

 things are new, if proper care is taken each 

 time to keep the frames crowded together. 

 But the average bee-keeper will not do this. 

 He forgets to crowd up the fram.es. Or per- 

 haps the follower is a little askew, so that, 

 in the very limited space given it, one cor- 

 ner of it touches the side of the hive, or 

 comes near enough to it so that the bees 

 fasten it. Or, as often happens (I might 

 say usually, in the case of old hives), the 

 follower is attached to the first comb by 

 brace-combs or because of a hive out of level. 

 The next time he tries to get it out it can be 

 pulled to pieces before it can be removed. 

 The follower no longer serves its purpose, 

 but has become a nuisance, which is gener- 

 ally torn out and dispensed with or left as 

 it is without any attempt to make use of it. 

 I have inspected large apiaries in every hive 

 of which the follower had been purposely 

 left out. For a little while this works bet' 

 ter; but as propolis and brace-combs accumu- 

 late, the difficulties of handling increase, 

 until getting out the first frame is often an 

 exasperating problem. 



You complain that I do not indicate what 

 construction of follower would be better. 

 There are three ways in which the follower 

 could be made more substantial. The first 

 is by using longer nails; and the second is by 

 using more nails in making it up. The third 

 (and best) way is by making it of thicker 

 material. It would not so easily get out of 

 shape; it would not be so easily broken, and 

 it would hold nails better and permit of long- 

 er nails. It may seem strange to some that 

 I should lay the fault of insufficient nailing 

 to the manufacturer; but I believe the man- 

 ufacturers generally send out nails for mak- 

 ing them up, and so are at fault if the nails 

 they send are not large enough or numerous 

 enough to nail them up properly. Indeed, I 

 am not sure but the followers are already 

 made up. If this is not the case, it may be 

 that the bee-keeper does not use the right 

 nails, or use all that are sent. However 

 that may be, I do not believe I have ever 

 seen a follower sent out with a Dovetailed 

 hive that was what I call properly nailed, 

 the nails being too few and altogether too 

 small for the service required of them. I 

 might remark parenthetically that the same 

 thing might be said of the frames, or at 

 least of most of them. Many a time I have 

 pulled the top-bar off nearly every frame in 

 the hive before I could get one out, and the 

 bottoms come off if they are in the least 

 stuck to the floor. It is possible that there 

 might be an advantage in twisting a stout 

 piece of annealed wire, about like "stove- 

 pipe "wire, around the ends of the follower. 

 This would certainly make it less liable to 

 pull to pieces. 



You say it is not possible at this late date 

 to make "the hives wider, so as to allow for 

 a thicker follower or for more space back of 

 it. It seems to me that it is never too 



