1905 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



759 



der the direction of the State Entomologist. 

 The work on contagious bee diseases will in- 

 clude both scientific, laboratory, and other 

 investigations, to determine needed facts 

 and information regarding the same; as, 

 method of infection, resistance of germs 

 and spores, method of treatment in eradica- 

 tion, fumigation, etc. A well-equipped bac- 

 teriological laboratory is being provided for, 

 and it is hoped that many points about 

 which very little is now known may be 

 brought to light. 



EVAPORATING UNRIPE HONEY. 



Since learning of the trouble that some 

 bee-keepers have in getting thin honey rip- 

 ened that was gathered during a prolonged 

 wet season, the question of how it might be 

 overcome has arisen. I would suggest that 

 the honey be exti-acted before it ferments 

 in the combs. Put it in 60-lb. square cans, 

 and heat the honey to remove the surplus 

 water. Many of our Southern bee-keepers 

 have, in connection with their apiaries, a 

 brick oven over which granulated extracted 

 honey is reliquefied. This is done by setting 

 half a dozen or a dozen 60-lb. cans of the 

 honey in an iron-bottom vat partly filled 

 with water. The cans rest on sticks across 

 the metal bottom to prevent scorching. 

 The whole is brought to a boil, and the cans 

 removed as fast as the honey is melted. 

 Such a treatment could be given unripe 

 honey when it w.ust be ripened artificially. 

 If care is taken this can be easily done with- 

 out impairing the other qualities of the 

 honey. Of course, I would not advocate 

 such practice for unripe honey generally. I 

 am a strong believer in having honey thor- 

 oughly ripened in the hive before taking it 

 off, and protest against the practice of re- 

 moving unripe honey of any kind except 

 when it has to be done. 



THE BUILDING OF DRONE COMB. 



The following is translated from Feld und 

 Flur, of Dallas, Texas: 



Many wrong views exist among bee-keepers in regard 

 to the building of drone comb. Heretofore the view 

 has been held that the drones, during the time of their 

 development in the cell, require a far greater amount 

 of honey and pollen than later as the fully developed 

 insect, and that their breeding is, consequently, in a 

 great measure detrimental to the bee-keeper. Through 

 Planta's investigations it has been determined that the 

 drone food contains only 1.17 per cent of sugar content, 

 while that of the queen food contains 17.9 per cent, and 

 that of the worker food not much less. The drone food 

 is, therefore, in no way as great as is generally sup- 

 posed, and the removal of the drone comb is absolutely 

 without grounds. Under certain conditions the same is 

 even most necessary and essential, not only for the 

 breeding of the necessary drones for the mating of the 

 queens, but also because the whim of the bees is in- 

 creased, for the simple reason that, through instinct, 

 they desire drone comb. A total suppression of drone 

 comb is, therefore, very harmful, and a reasonable 

 amount should at least be allowed them, especially be- 

 fore swarming and at the end of the honey season. 



^• 



A NEW HOFFMAN-FRAME SUPPORT. 



Where propolis is bad there is consider- 

 able trouble about breaking and splitting off 

 the ends of the top-bars by which the frame 



is supported. In one of our yards a great 

 many of such broken frames have caused a 

 great deal of annoyance. The ends broken 

 off the frames drop down into the hive and 

 mash bees. Burr-combs are built in the 

 free space thus made above the frame, and 

 the bottom-bar is glued below so that it is- 

 impossible to remove the frame without 

 breaking the comb; consequently different 

 makes of frames were tried, and now I think 

 I have struck one that will solve the prob- 

 lem. It is a great improvement over the- 

 old nail support, which had a way of tearing^ 

 loose. This support has a reinforcement to» 

 it combined in the end spacer, which obvi- 

 ates this objection. The engraving will 

 show the support in detail. 



I have tried several of these frames, and 

 found them the most satisfactory that I 

 have ever handled. The frame ought to be 

 made cheaply, as the ends of the top-bar 

 and the upper end of the end-bar are cut off 

 square. Both wood and extra labor are 

 saved. The support is the strongest I have 

 seen on any frame. The nail is a heavy 

 eight penny, just the right size. The head 

 is exactly the right size too, and prevents 

 the frame from falling off the rabbet. Much 

 better than frames with the wood supports 

 does this frame stay on when the hive is 

 handled and the frames are shoved cross- 

 wise. In putting up the frame, two quite 

 large nails can be used in nailing on the end- 

 bars. That already makes a stronger frame, 

 and it is made possible because the nails can 

 be driven into the thick wood part of the 

 top-bar. In nailing on the spacer and the 

 eight-penny nail it should be done as fol- 

 lows: The spacer-point, which is at a right 

 angle to the rest, is placed in the pierced 

 hole; the upper end with its loop is brought 

 to its proper point; the large nail is inserted 

 and driven down the right depth. Next the 

 point of the spacer is clinched, which draws 

 all up good and tight. You will readily see 

 that, if the spacers are all of the same 

 length when they are inserted in the hole 

 pierced for them, and the loop brought into 

 the proper position, it marks the point where 

 the large nail should be driven. Thus all 

 frames will hang even. 



