THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



215 



combs. This plan, or system, has been in 

 use now nearly seven years. 



It is the practice of beginners, when ex- 

 amining the condition of the colonies, to 

 lift out each comb to note the amount of 

 brood, honey, etc. With the old bee keeper, 

 with many colonies to look after, this is too 

 slow, besides unnecessary, as he can deter- 

 mine the condition or needs of a colony 

 fi'om outside appearances or a glance at the 

 top of the combs. On this account we find 

 them seeking plans to handle the whole 

 hive at once, or at least several combs 

 together. 



To contract the brood nest, reverse the 

 combs and exclude the queen from the sur- 

 plus combs is to accomplish three results. 

 My idea is to combine all of these so that 

 one fixture will accomplish all. 



To do this I construct narrow strips of 

 perforated zinc so as to lie in the ordinary 

 bee spaces between the brood frames, and 

 having a clasp on the edges that extend out- 

 ward to hold the frame. While the zinc, 

 maintaining the proper distance between 

 the frames, the perfoi'ations admit the pas- 

 sage of the bees. 



Instead of using a division board of per- 

 forated zinc, a sheet of perforated zinc is 

 adjusted to the outside faces of the outside 

 frames. 



The frames used are of the common kind, 

 except the projecting arms are left off, and 

 the frames that are fastened together are 

 borne upon the rabbets by reversing wires 

 similar to single-frame reversing wii-es. 



In this arrangement I have a complete 

 cage in which the queen may be confined 

 while the working bees may pass unre- 

 strained in and out throiigh the perforations. 

 The apartment may be enlarged or made 

 smaller by adding or taking away a frame 

 and a strip of zinc. 



It is contracted to prevent unreasonable 

 quantities of brood being reared near the 

 last of the harvest ; reversed to destroy 

 (lueen cells and prevent swarming, while 

 the zinc divisions restrain the queen from 

 the sections. 



The reader may have questioned what re- 

 lation this may have to " the use or abuse of 

 comb foundation." 



Well, it enables me to confine the queen to 

 one comb of brood, so when I fed the bees 

 honey from a feeder, they could not use it 

 to rear brood but were obliged to go into the 

 sections to build comb and store it with 

 honey, which they did. 



When the sections were not supplied with 

 foundation it took nearly three pounds of 

 honey in feed to produce one pound in the 

 sections. 



When-7-to-the-foot sections were filled full 

 of foundation measuring 12 ft. to the pound, 

 and no separators used, it required 2% lbs. 

 of feed. ^Vith !)-feet-to-the-pound founda- 

 tion it took nearly 21^ pounds of feed. This 

 was without separators and 4i^x4i4x7-to-the 

 foot sections. Then the same experiment 

 was tried and separators used, and I got one 

 pound of finished comb for 1 3-5 pounds of 

 honey from several colonies, and at one 

 time .50 pounds were produced from 72 

 pounds of feed. 



The season being too short my experi- 

 ments were stopped until another year, 

 when I shall experiment with 1}^ inch wide 

 sections filled full of foundation running 

 about 81.2 or 8 feet to the pound, and I expect 

 to get 100 pounds of comb honey by feeding 

 180 pounds of extracted honey. The founda- 

 tion used was Vandervort, which I manufac- 

 tured, and. consequently was new and enti- 

 cing. 



The heavier the foundation the slower 

 should the feed be given, at first, so the bees 

 will have time to draw it out ; otherwise 

 they hasten in the honey and are compelled 

 to finish the outward part of the cells with 

 their own wax. 



In these experiments I fed from five to 

 twelve pounds of honey a day. Some colon- 

 ies take care of it much faster than others, 

 while the slow at storing honey is often the 

 best at comb building or capping. 



These trials were made with from three to 

 eight colonies, and a general average of all 

 taken. 



Clinton, Wis., Nov. 25, 1890. 



Friend Dayton, there is a lack of com- 

 pleteness in giving details when you come 

 to that part of your article where you de- 

 scribe your experiments in the use and non- 

 use of foundation when feeding back. W'ere 

 the bees allowed their liberty ? Could they 

 gather any honey ? Were the experiments 

 with thick or thin foundation, and no foun- 

 dation, and with and without separators 

 all carried on at the same time ? If they 

 were not, then there might have been 

 other conditions affecting the i-esults. As 

 we understand it, the use of one pound of 

 12-feet-to-the-pound foundation efifected a 

 saving of 134 lbs. of honey! That of 9-feet- 

 to-the-pound, at>out the same — 132 pounds 



