THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



83 



The Divisible Brood Chamber Hive not 

 The Equal of the Langstroth. 



E. EGGEMAN. 



m 



'R. Editor: As you ask in the 

 October Review for others to give 

 their experience with the shallow 

 divisible brood chamber hives, especially 

 as to the difference between them and 

 the Langstroth in regard to bees breed- 

 ing up in early spring, 1 will tell you some 

 of my observations regarding the same. 

 1 want to say that I have had in use for 

 several years a fev/ divisible hives, by 

 using the common shallow extracting 

 supers eight- and ten-frame size. I have 

 also used a number of other sizes as to 

 depth of frames and number to the hives; 

 and, as for a brood hive, I have thrown 

 the divisible hives all away as inferior to 

 the Langstroth. I find after trying and 

 comparing the tv/o, side by side, and 

 under different conditions or manipula- 

 tions, that the Langstroth is ahead in this 

 locality. My observations and results 

 are about the same as Mr. Townsend's. 

 Sometimes, I, too, had some rousing big 

 colonies in the spring in the divisible 

 brood chambers, but had those bees been 

 on Langstroth frames they, most likely, 

 would have been still stronger. Did you 

 ever investigate to find out the amount 

 or number of bees that seem to loiter 

 around the empty combs, and do not 

 cover and nurse brood, in the divisible 

 hive? It does not matter what size of 

 hive it is; they are simply there to fill a 

 lot of useless spaces. Did you ever 

 notice in the spring how slow the queen 

 is in crossing over from one section to 

 the other to lay and start a brood nest 

 there? Scores of times I have seen 

 enough surplus bees to cover and nurse 

 a Langstroth frame of brood, cluster in 

 the bee-way spaces, and on empty 

 combs of the adjoining section, for a 

 week or more, waiting until they got 

 strong enough in numbers for the queen 

 to establish a patch of brood in that part; 

 and the same conditions will be found to 

 prevail, without any exceptions, to my 



knowledge, in any kind of a divisible hive. 

 After steady warm weather, say in June, 

 July and August, I could see but little 

 difference between the two as to the 

 amount of brood cared for. 



Now, as to exchanging the two brood 

 sections to force that honey along the 

 top bars into the surplus boxes, it works 

 fairly well, providing the change is made 

 before the honey is sealed. If it is sealed, 

 the bees will remove very little, except in 

 two or three central combs. 



Again, by hiving a new swarm in a 

 single section, with excluder between 

 that and the boxes above, the result is 

 more or less pollen in the sections, nearly 

 every time; even with one empty brood 

 comb below. 



I should judge that in a warmer climate, 

 like that of the Southern States, many of 

 these disadvantages would not be as 

 noticeable. 



I have also used a seven-inch deep- 

 frame, eight to the section, which, by 

 using one section through the harvest, 

 gave fine results in section-work, but was 

 not at all satisfactory in other respects. 



Now, while I am at it, I want to re- 

 peat a little history. I have on hand 

 some 50 hives that once belonged to 

 Adam Grimm, of Jefferson. They are 

 not all exactly alike; for apparently, he, 

 too, was experimenting with hives. Lots 

 of things of some importance that have 

 popped up in the bee journals now and 

 then, I find that he had either adopted 

 or thrown away. Here are a few that 

 are the same, or involve the same 

 principle: Dr. Miller's deep bottom with 

 Alexander feeder, combined; Stachel- 

 hausen's rabbet-frame-spacer; At- 

 water's rabbet clear across the hive- 

 ends with cleat on the outside, and 

 Holtermann's moving screen attachable 

 to the portico. He certainly must have 

 been a bee master. 



Neillsville, Wis., Oct, 20, 1909. 



