182 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Fkb. 15 



they are aiming. The greatest stumbling- 

 block is their lack of knowledge of the prin- 

 ciples of queen-breeding. 



This need not be the case, because we can 

 all learn; but the trouble with many lies in 

 their unwiUingness to learn. I know people 

 who take the bee-journals but never read 

 them. I also know others who keep bees 

 and will not take a bee journal. They ei- 

 ther ridicule the idea of any special study 

 being required, or they are too tired men- 

 tally to become sufficiently interested. His- 

 tory repeats itself again, and another man 

 goes out of the bee business. 



The fact of the matter is, the bee busi- 

 ness is a full-fledged one, worthy of the tal- 

 ent and time of our best men and women, 

 both of whom must have a certain degree of 

 intelligence and business judgment, and, 

 unfortunately, there are many people who 

 get into the bee business who do not fit this 

 description; and, in short, the bee-keeping 

 fraternity asked what made them go out. 

 If every one who goes into the bee business 

 were successful it would be utterly impossi- 

 ble for the business to have reached its pres- 

 ent magnitude. Make up your mind what 

 your circumstances will permit you to do, 

 and live up to your determination at any 

 cost. Your will power depends upon it. 



Thousands of little bee-plants and a few 

 big ones sprang up with the green of last 

 spring; and thousands of little bee-plants 

 and a few big ones will go down with that 

 same green, under the frost and snow and 

 ice this winter. Whether your little enter- 

 prise will hardly survive the gray cold win- 

 ter, and be ready and eager to flourish 

 again in the spring, or be steeped in desti- 

 tution, and be set down as a failure, remains 

 entirely with you. Why not obey con- 

 science and tell the truth? The old adage, 

 "There is no royal road to success," ap- 

 plies to the bee business just as well as to 

 other vocations in life. 



Matanzas, Cuba. 



HOFFMAN-FRAME DISCUSSION REVIEWED 

 AGAIN. 



Early vs. the New Form of Construction. 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



I think the reading of Gleanings, for 

 Oct. 1, 1904, has made me more charitable 

 in my views. That symposium on Hoffman 

 frames shows that men whom I have reason 

 to esteem as good square men may hold as 

 their honest convictions opinions diametri- 

 cally opposed. The difference in belief may 

 come from difference in conditions, and it 

 may come from difference in management. 

 As to conditions, the presence or absence of 

 propolis has an important bearing, and so, 

 possibly, may other conditions. As to man- 

 agement, J. A. Green emphasizes the point 

 that squeezing the frames together is a mat- 

 ter of first importance; and the man who 

 fails in doing this every time after having 

 taken out frames fails in the proper man- 



agement of Hoffman frames, unless propolis 

 is entirely out of the case. 



It may be a fair question to ask whether 

 all taking part in the discussion are talking 

 about the same thing, for there are Hoffman 

 frames and Hoffm in frames. As first made 

 —and I plume myself just a little on the 

 times I didn't say unpleasant words when 

 handling them— the to[i-bar for three inches 

 of its length at each end was If inches wide. 

 Figuring up the surface of contact of each 

 top-bar at the four places where it joined 

 its neighbor made several square inches, and 

 at each end was the If inches where the end 

 of the top-bar was glued to the end-wall of 

 the hive. The wide ends of the top-bar were 

 then cut down to the same width as the cen- 

 tral part of the bar, and that was a big im- 

 provement. Then the ends were cut off so 

 there was a bee-space between the end of 

 the top-bar and the hive- wall. That leaves 

 the Hoffman frame of to-day, if I am not 

 mistaken, with no impinging surface except 

 the 5-inch thickness of each end bar for 2| 

 inches of its length at its upper part, a to- 

 tal surface of only 2f squai'e inches to give 

 a chance for mashing bees or admitting pro- 

 polis. I don't know just how much of sur- 

 face there was in the original Hoffman, but 

 I think it was three or four times as much. 

 Every particle that was cut away of the origi- 

 nal impinging surface was an improvement, 

 and it may not be out of order to inquire 

 whether the improvement can not be carried 

 still further. Instead of having those 

 shoulders 2f inches long on the end-bars 

 touching their whole length, suppose the 

 middle part be cut away, leaving | inch at 

 the upper end and J inch at the lower part. 

 That would space the frames just the same, 

 and give the bees a chance for only half the 

 gluing. 



Views conflict as to the V edge. For 

 those who take Mr. Green's advice (squeez- 

 ing the frames close together) the V edge 

 ought to be a good thing. For those who 

 leave the frames loose, it is bad; for the 

 bees will put more glue into the angle made 

 by the V edge than they will on two square 

 surfaces meeting. 



The objection that, with the V edge, the 

 end-bars will slide by each other is hardly a 

 valid one. To allow such a thing there must 

 be at least |-inch play endwise unless two V 

 edges come together— a thing that can never 

 happen if the frames are rightly put together, 

 although it may easily happen if they are 

 made wrong. Ought not instructions for 

 putting together appear in the catalogs? ' 

 Mr. Green says, page 931, "The HoffmanJ 

 frame should be nailed up so that one V edge! 

 is on each side of the frame." Right, sol 

 far as it goes; yet that may allow two V'sl 

 to come together, for it will allow two dif- 

 ferent kinds of frames. Perhaps this in- 

 struction might answer: Make your frames 

 with a V edge on each side of the frame, in 

 such a way that, when the frame is held up 

 before you by both hands, the V edge shall 

 be toward you at the left and from you at 

 the right. 



