1861. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



335 



For the New England Farmer. 

 BEE-HIVE IMPUDENCE. 



I read a communication in the Farmer of May 

 18, from one Mr. Brackett, headed "Straw Bee- 

 Hives," in which he says the best part of my pa- 

 tent hive was stolen from Mr. Langstroth's hive. 

 The charge I emphatically deny. I suppose he 

 has reference to the movable comb guides, or 

 frames, of which my hive is supplied. 1 am aware 

 Mr. L.'s hive contains rather an ill-shaped frame, 

 some eighteen inches long by seven inches wide, 

 quite different, however, in both style and con- 

 struction from the one I make use of. The mov- 

 able frame seems to be the principal, and, in fact, 

 the only point about the Langstroth hive that is 

 worth a penny. I purchased the Langstroth hive 

 in 1855, and probably have had as good an op- 

 portunity of testing its qualities as any other 

 man, as but few of those hives were introduced 

 prior to that date. Perhaps Mr. B. is interested 

 in the sale of the Langstroth hive, and to this 

 may be attributed the reason why he has made 

 such an unceremonious attack upon the Kidder 

 hive, when in fact he has never used it, and prob- 

 ably has never seen one in use. It is a way some 

 persons have of introducing, or recommending 

 their favorite machine or instrument, to swear 

 vengeance against everything else, and Mr. B. 

 undoubtedly has caught the complaint. He says 

 he is not tickled with Mr. Quinby's straws ; per- 

 haps he may be tickled with a communication 

 from Mr. Quinby, published in the Rural New- 

 Yorker, of Dec. 18, 1858, wherein he says, "That 

 he had a large number of the Langstroth hives in 

 use, and two-thirds of the swarms that were put 

 into the hives built their combs in every possible 

 direction, without any regard to the frames, mak- 

 ing them, so far as movable combs were concerned, 

 no better than a common hive." He also adds, 

 "that the frames were worse than useless, and par- 

 ties that had purchased the Langstroth hive, had 

 lost both time and money, and at the same time 

 recommends the use of the common hives in their 

 stead." 



Should Mr. Brackett wish for any more testi- 

 mony in reference to Mr. Langstroth's • hive, or 

 like to know the real difference there is in the 

 two hives, he can hdve the information, (or any 

 other Bee-Keeper, should he desire it,) free of 

 charge, on the receipt of his post-office address. 



Burlington, Vt. K. P. Kidder. 



for a length of time, I sprinkle the bushes with 

 water, before applying the lime. — R. Turner, in 

 Farmer and Gardener. 



Caterpillars on the Gooseberry and 



Currant. — My currant and gooseberry bushes, 

 some years since, were largely infested with cat- 

 erpillars, especially the former. In many cases 

 they denuded the bushes entirely of leaves, and 

 as a cansequence destroyed the fruit. After re- 

 peated experiments, I resolved to try quick lime, 

 which I found to answer the purpose admirably. 

 My plan is as follows : 



In the morning, before the dew has disappeared 

 or just after a shower, I dust the bushes with 

 quick lime, using for the purpose, a dredge, like 

 a common flour dredge, only that the holes are 

 larger. I apply it usually about the time the 

 bushes are expanding their foliage, repeating the 

 operation eveiy four or five days, until the cater- 

 pillar season is over. If the weather is very dry. 



CLEABINa FIELDS BY BURYIJSTQ 

 STONES. 



An exchange has the following on the above 

 subject: 



"With regard to the disposal of stones, I think 

 there is one rule of universal application, which 

 is this : On all land that is not so rocky under- 

 neath as to make digging expensive, never take 

 a stone that is not wanted for wells, or for some 

 other special purpose, but dig holes and place 

 them in so that they shall not come nearer than 

 eight or ten inches of the surface. This can be 

 done as cheaply as they can be carted off and 

 piled up in some other place. There are, at least, 

 four advantages in this process. 



1. The surface is relieved of them, so that they 

 are out of the way in cultivating. 



2. If not too far below the surface, they at- 

 tract moisture, and are especially valuable where 

 deep-rooted plants are cultivated in times of 

 drought. Fruit trees flourish finely over them. 



3. They are storehouses of heat, warming the 

 soil about them and the young roots that pene- 

 trate it, and acting like bottom heat in a forcing- 

 house. 



4. So much of the land as is dug over to receive 

 the stones, is thoroughly trenched, and will feel 

 its influences for many years, whether it is culti- 

 vated or kept in grass." 



We object to articles like the above, and be- 

 lieve that the writers are doing serious injury to 

 after generations, by suggesting such wasteful 

 painstaking. The idea of burying stones, and at 

 eight or ten inches from the surface, so as to pre- 

 vent full surface plowing, and to entirely do away 

 with the possibility of easy subsoil plowing, can- 

 not be endorsed. The surface should be relieved 

 of them by their removal, unless they can be 

 placed in under-drains immediately, and at least 

 to a depth of thirty inches below the surface. As 

 to their attracting moisture when at the proper 

 depth, this they will do by extracting it from the 

 soil. We do not believe that a soil full of stones is 

 any better for fruit trees than one without them. 

 Nor do we believe that stones should be viewed 

 as storehouses of heat, warming the soil about 

 them, etc., for they only become heated by cool- 

 ing the soil. The fourth item of the above, how- 

 ever, we fully believe in, viz., "that the digging 

 of the soil for the removal of stones, or for any 

 other purpose, materially benefits it. — Working 

 Farmer. 



That portion of the above article commented 

 upon by the Working Farmer, was written by us 

 and published only two or three weeks since, in 

 this paper. It was prompted by an actual expe- 

 rience of many years, is sound in doctrine, and 

 an article that we have no desire to recall. If ag- 

 ricultural editors would spend more of their time 

 in the fields and less in the closet, their teachings 

 would be more reliable than they now are. 



In the first place, we are charged with "waste- 

 ful painstaking," for stating that it is as cheap to 



