AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



213 



dations prepared for use in sections, 

 some of which are : Are those of all 

 makers equally good ? Do the bees have 

 a choice and consequently work more 

 readily upon some than upon others ? 

 Has the thinner any advantage or disad- 

 vantage as compared with the heavier ? 

 Is that long made equally as good as 

 that just out of the machine? Are all 

 kinds in equal danger of a well founded 

 accusation of leaving a "fish-bone ?" 



With the hope of throwing some light 

 upon some of these, I procured a variety 

 of foundations, to the number of eight, 

 distinguished from each other either by 

 weight, make or age. Each kind for 

 the purposes of the experiment was dis- 

 tinguished by a letter of the alphabet, 

 and the number of feet to the pound of 

 each carefully determined, all of which 

 was made a matter of record. Each 

 was then cut to the same size and fast- 

 ened into sections. Twenty-eight sec- 

 tions of each were used for the purpose 

 of the experiment and each section was 

 plainly marked on the top with the let- 

 ter used to designate the kind of foun- 

 dation with which it was filled. These 

 sections were then put into cases with- 

 out separators, alternately, each case, 

 after the first, beginning with a section 

 marked with a letter immediately suc- 

 ceeding the letter used in marking the 

 final section of the previous base. 



These cases thus prepared have been 

 adjusted to colonies best fitted by their 

 character and condition to work in all 

 parts of the case equally. What valu- 

 able results, if any, can be expected ? 

 Worked out under such circumstances, 

 can those least liable to produce "fish- 

 bone " be determined by comparing the 

 combs ? Can those most profitable to 

 the apiarist be determined by comparing 

 the weights of the comb honey produced 

 from each? I shall later desire the 

 assistance of a few of the most compe- 

 tent apiarists in making comparisons of 

 the septums of comb built from these 

 different kinds of foundation. 



IS COMB FOUNDATION PROFITABLE IN 

 THE BROOD-CHAMBEB ? 



This is an old but still unsettled 

 question. To obtain some definite in- 

 formation if possible on this matter, I 

 prepared four sets of hives, each hive 

 being one section of the new Heddon. 

 Each set consists of three hives — one 

 filled with drawn comb, one with founda- 

 tion, and one with frames furnished 

 with narrow starters only. The sets 

 are numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4, and those 

 furnished with comb, foundation and 



starters are designated by the letters A, 

 B and C, respectively. A record is 

 made of the weight of each hive and of 

 the cases adjusted at the time of hiving 

 each swarm, and, also, of the bees in 

 each swarm. Fach hive with its cases 

 and bees was again weighed upon the 

 morning of the day succeeding the hiv- 

 ing to determine as far as possible the 

 extent of change which had taken place 

 in the denizens of the hives by their 

 going from one hive to join another as 

 they frequently do when there has been 

 any commingling of bees in swarming. 

 It will be seen that at the end of the 

 honey season I can easily determine the 

 increase in weight both of the brood- 

 chamber and of the supers, and so be 

 able, I hope, to draw some solid conclu- 

 sion with reference to the comparative 

 value of comb, starters and foundation 

 for use in the brood-chamber. 



These sets of hives, it has occurred to 

 me, are well adapted to throw light 

 upon another question which perhaps is 

 not given the consideration it deserves, 

 viz : Do colonies produce results in pro- 

 portion to their strength, or is there a 

 golden mean in this respect, and is it 

 true that when that is either exceeded 

 or come short of, there is less relative 

 profit ? How the above-mentioned sets 

 of hives may help to elucidate this ques- 

 tion will be evident when I mention the 

 fact that swarms put into IC, 2C, 3C 

 and 4C weighed respectively T3^, 10%, 

 5 and 434 pounds. Among the swarms 

 hived upon combs and among those 

 hived upon foundation there was also a 

 considerable difference in weight, though 

 not to the same extent. I am looking 

 with great interest for the results, inso- 

 far as they may have a bearing upon 

 this point, and much care will be taken 

 that the exact facts shall be arrived at. 



THE PEATT 8ELF-HIVEE8. 



Five of these hivers were procured 

 and adjusted to as many hives, and as 

 I must be brief I shall now only mention 

 results thus far by giving an outline 

 history of No. 2, deferring further men- 

 tion till another time. To this hive the 

 hiver was adjusted June 17, upon the 

 issuing and return of a swarm. After 

 this adjustment the queen was, of 

 •course, in the old brood-chamber, not- 

 withstanding which, the swarm did not 

 issue again till June 29th when it was 

 allowed to return. On July 2nd it again 

 issued and then became mingled with 

 other swarms so that it was necessary 

 in making a division to allot the proper 

 portion which was returned to the hive. 

 This colony, though furnished with a 



