I02 



Amc»rican 'Rqq Journal 



April, 1912. 



ary among the number, may say, "We 

 are not considering which bees will do 

 the best at cleaning up the disease, we 

 are considering which are least likely 

 to f(i/c/i it." And the right to that view 

 must be cheerfully admitted. The 

 question then comes, " .^re Italians 

 more nearly immune to European foul 

 brood than others ?" As a subsidiary 

 question, it may be asked whether Ital- 

 ians have had a better chance than 

 blacks to become immune. In other 

 words, have Italians been longer af- 

 flicted with the disease than blacks, 

 and so had a longer time in which to 

 become immune ? Certainly. American 

 foul brood is no novelty to either Ital- 

 ians or blacks. Possibly our cotem- 

 porary can enlighten us as to European 

 in this regard. 



A more important question, perhaps, 

 relates to actual experience, .'\meri- 

 cans and Australians in general say 

 that Italians are the bees for tliose who 

 fear foul brood. In Europe it stands 

 the other way, especially in Switzer- 

 land. Is one wrong and the other 

 right, or is there a difference between 

 Swiss blacks and American blacks ? 

 Frankly, there is a fair chance for dif- 

 ference of opinion, and more light is 

 really needed on the question. An 

 open mind will be found in this locality. 



As to the practical part, however, 

 there need be little difference of opin- 

 ion. If any one happens to have a 

 strain of hybrids or blacks that are 

 above the average, that does not alter 

 the fact that the general experience in 

 this country is that Italians are more 

 vigorous than blacks or hybrids, and 

 so in 99 cases out of a hundred it is 

 good advice to urge the introduction 

 of pure Italians. 



Divisible Brood-Chamber Hive.s 



Samuel Simmins, one of the British 

 authorities, laments the decadence of 

 bee-keeping in this country, and lays 

 it chiefly to tlie fact that we use a frame 

 so shallow as the Langstroth. Louis 

 H. Scholl thinks great gain is to be 

 made by giving up the Langstroth for 

 a shallower frame. The one tells us to 

 make our frames "-s of an inch deeper; 

 the other tells us to make them 3'4 

 inches shallower. What is the begin- 

 ner to think .■' 



It does one good to see a man thor- 

 oughly filled with enthusiasm when he 

 thinks he has gotten hold of a good 

 thing. And Mr. Scholl's enthusiasm 

 about divisible brood-chamber hives is 

 something worthy of admiration. Re- 

 minds one of old times when the Hed- 

 don hive with its divisible brood-cham- 

 ber was to make an utter revolution in 

 bee-keeping. Certainly there seems 

 little room to doubt that Mr. Scholl 

 has had better success with shallow 

 frames than with deeper ones. Still, 

 there is some room to raise the ques- 

 tion whether Mr. Scholl may not have 

 been to some e.xtent unfortunate in his 

 use of the deeper frames, and is more 

 successful with shallow frames, not be- 

 cause they are inherently better, but 

 because he has thrown his wliole en- 

 ergy into using them. Is it entirely 

 fair to compare the inexperienced 

 young Scholl with the Scholl of mature 

 years and brilliant energy? 



On page 47 Mr. Scholl gives some of 



the advantages of the divisible brood- 

 chamber with its shallow frames, but 

 does not th-is zeal in their behalf some- 

 times lead him too far — even to claim- 

 ing advantages for the divisible brood- 

 chamber with shallow frames that be- 

 long equally to hives with Langstroth 

 frames ? " One of the main advan- 

 tages is the interchangeableness of the 

 various shallow stories, or the frames 

 from one part of the hive to another." 

 But why does not this advantage apply 

 equally to deeper frames and hives ? 

 He replies that "this is impracticable 

 in this day and time of shallow supers, 

 for not only comb honey but extracted 

 honey as well." If that argument is to 

 have weight, it is equivalent to saying: 

 "Nowadays every one uses shallow su- 

 pers for surplus, so there can be no ex- 

 changing between the two departments 

 of brood and surplus." For if any one 

 uses the same frames in his supers that 

 he does in his brood-chamber, he surely 

 has the advantage of e.xchanging, no 

 matter whether the frames be deep or 

 shallow. As a matter of fact, however 

 many may use shallow supers with 

 deeper hive-bodies, there are still thou- 

 sands who use Langstroth brood- 

 frames in the brood-chamber and in 

 the extracting supers as well, and who 

 use them interchangeably. This is not 

 saying that it is not better to use shal- 

 low e-xtracting-frames. But it is say- 

 ing that the advantage of interchange- 

 ableness is an advantage of having the 

 satne frames above as below, and >wt 

 an advantage of shallow over deeper 

 frames. 



The second advantage claimed is the 

 chief one, and "is //it- m<nn reason why 

 the divisible brood-chamber hive was 

 adopted." This second and greatest 

 advantage is based upon the fact that 

 in deep-frame brood-chambers "the 

 bees store a rim of honey above the 

 brood and up to the top-bars and seal 

 it there." This objection is overcome 

 by using the divisible brood-chamber. 

 Frankly, this is enough to warrant 

 making the change, and is sufficient 

 explanation for the warm place the 

 divisible brood-chamber has in Mr. 

 Scholl's affections. 



But, Mr. Scholl, do you really think 

 this appeals to all others as it does to 

 you ? Certainly it does not to me. I 

 have no trouble about that rim of 

 honey in brood-combs above the 

 brood. At the time when it is needed 

 my bees rear brood clear up to the top- 

 bar, leaving not a single row of cells to 

 be occupied with honey. If there has 

 been a rim of honey there, I suppose 

 they empty out the cells and fill them 

 with brood. With a poor queen there 

 may be a rim, right in the height of 

 brood-rearing. Later on, toward the 

 close of the season, a rim is begun at 

 the top-bar, gradually extending down- 

 ward until there is more honey than 

 brood. And this is as it should be. 



Now what makes the difference in 

 our experience ? Are your queens too 

 poor to keep the frames well filled ? I 

 do not believe it. Do differences of 

 climate, pasturage or seasons have 

 something to do with it ? Possibly. 

 But I have a little suspicion that the 

 combs in your deeper frames had 

 something to do with the case. The 

 complaint is only too common that the 

 queen does not occupy the cells within 



an inch or two of the top-bar, and it 

 has transpired that in many cases the 

 cells were not exactly right because 

 the foundation had stretched near the 

 top-bar. With the right kind of wiring 

 or splinting the cells at the top of the 

 comb may be just as good as at the 

 bottom. You probably remember that 

 it was taught by high authority that 

 brood-frames should be wired horizon- 

 tally, and that the wires should be left 

 slack to allow for the sagging of the 

 foundation that w'ould occur! With 

 the foundation fastened at the top-bar 

 and sagging below, what else could 

 there be but stretching of the cells near 

 the top-bar ? Fortunately, I did not 

 have occasion to fill frames with foun- 

 dation at the time that wave was at its 

 height, so was not caught in it. Pos- 

 sibly you were. Of course, I don't 

 know, and don't pretend to say that 

 this was the trouble with you. I only 

 know you had the disadvantage of that 

 rim of honey with deeper frames, and 

 that it is not a trouble inseparable from 

 the Langstroth frame. 



The tliird advantage claimed is that 

 with shallow brood-frames there is not 

 the same need of heavy foundation or 

 of wiring as with deeper frames. That 

 claim is entirely valid. 



The fourth claim — a claim which oc- 

 cupies nearly one-half the article — is 

 the claim that there is great advantage 

 in having shallow frames in the super. 

 This claim is well made, and it would 

 be hard to gainsay a word in it. But 

 please play fair, Mr. Scholl. What un- 

 der the sun has the advantage of a 

 shallow super to do with the question 

 you are answering ? Please remember 

 that the question you placed before 

 yourself to answer was, "What are the 

 advantages of the divisble hive?" 

 Whatever advantage a shallow super 

 may have, surely you can not claim 

 that it is an advantage possessed by a 

 divisible hive and not by a Langstroth. 

 You might just as well claim that the 

 movable frame was an advantage of 

 the divisible hive. Just a little while 

 ago, when speaking of "this day and 

 time of shallow supers," you talked as 

 if only shallow supers were used over 

 deep frames, and now you talk as if 

 shallow supers were used only over 

 shallow frames. While it is true that 

 thousands use deep frames above and 

 below, it is also true that thousands 

 use shallow supers who have never 

 thought of using shallow brood-frames. 

 The Dadants, for example, use brood- 

 frames considerably deeper than the 

 Langstroth, yet they use shallow ex- 

 tracting-supers. 



Some of the things that you lightly 

 touch upon in the closing paragraph 

 you might well have enlarged upon, 

 omitting soine of the paragraphs that 

 have no bearing on the case. 



C.C M.__ 



American Bee Journal for 1911 — We 



have a number of complete volumes of 

 the American Bee Journal for 1911, 

 which we offer for 60 cents for the 12 

 numbers, as long as they last. Or, 

 should there be among our subscribers 

 those who would like to have any 

 copies of the American Bee Journal for 

 1911 to complete their volume or other- 

 wise, we will fill such orders at 5 cents 

 per copy. Address this office. 



