342 



"TM® m^mmTtiGmm mmm j&^mmmi^. 



HIVES. 



Large vs. §niall Brood-Cliaiiibcr§ 

 Considered. 



Writtcyi for the American Dee Journal 



BY W. Z. HDTCHINSON. 



I desire to reply here, instead of in 

 the Review, to the argument of Mr. 

 Dadant in favor of large brood-cham- 

 bers, on pag-e 311, as I wish all the 

 readers of the American Bee Journal 

 to hear both sides of the discussion. 



It is true that I declined to publish 

 and article from our Illinois friend, 

 but I was not actuated by any motives 

 of partialitj'. I could, of course, tell 

 ivhy it was refused ; but while I sin- 

 cerely desire to stand well in the opin- 

 ions of the American Bee Journal 

 and its readers, I prefer to be mis- 

 judged by those who cannot take my 

 simple word in the matter, rather than 

 still further wound the feelings of so 

 honorable an ojjponent. I will say 

 this much, however, that the article 

 which appeared on page 311 of the Bee 

 Journal would have been accepted 

 with pleasure. 



To review a book containing so 

 much valuable information as is to be 

 found in " Langstroth on the Honey- 

 Bee, Revised by Dadant," and attempt 

 to give, in a few short columns, the 

 gist of the volume, at the same time 

 criticising, praising or condemning, as 

 the occasion seems to require, is a very 

 difficult task. Others may be better 

 fitted than myself for this work, but I 

 do strive, and that most earnestly, to 

 do the author no injustice. 



Mr. Dadant thinks that I did not do 

 quite the fair thing by not giving the 

 reasons why he preferred large brood- 

 chambers. He gives a paragraph from 

 which I quoted a sentence. He thinks 

 that it would have been better if I had 

 quoted the whole paragraph, which 

 reads as follows : 



309. As the harvest of honey is always in 

 proportion to the number of bees in the 

 hive, and as a large colony requires no more 

 labor from the apiarist than a small one, the 

 hive should afford the queen sufficient space 

 to deposit all the eggs which she is able to 

 lay during 21 days, the average time for an 

 egg to be transformed into a worker. Be- 

 sides, it should contain a certain amount of 

 food, honey and pollen. 



Let us investigate this idea that "a 

 large colony requires no more labor 

 from the apiarist than a small one." 

 I believe that the/o/-<e of my opponent 

 is that of producing extracted honey ; 

 can he extract the honey from a large 

 colony with as little labor as from a 

 small one ? 



The advocates of large hives assert 

 that their bees are housed more cheaply 

 in large hives. I s&yno. Large hives 

 are not only more expensive in propor- 

 tion to their size, but the width of 

 lumber needed for their construction, 

 is more expensive. But I think that 

 thei'e is little difference, so far as ex- 

 pense for hives is concerned. 



With large hives, and the use of the 

 extractor, I know that swarming can 

 be well-nigh overcome ; but not so in 

 producing comb honey. 



In speaking of large hives, Mr. 

 Dadant says : " This space must allow 

 of contraction, according to the needs 

 of the colony, by what is called ' mov- 

 alile division-boards.' " He still further 

 says: "Besides, I could add that 

 while we can reduce the capacity of 

 our large hive, he cannot increase the 

 size of his small one." Beg pardon, 

 Mr. Dadant, but the small hive that / 

 use and prefer, can be at once the 

 smallest or the largest hive, simplj' by 

 adding or removing sectional parts. 



But this is not exactly the point un- 

 der discussion. Mr. Dadant advocates, 

 and uses, a large brood-chamber — one 

 so large that the most prolific queen 

 will never be cramped for room, so 

 large that some of the queens do not 

 fill them with brood, and the space at 

 the sides must be filled with combs of 

 honey, or else the brood-nest must be 

 contracted with division-boards ; while 

 / advocate and use a brood-chamber 

 that is no larger than an ordinary pro- 

 lific queen will keep full of brood in 

 the forepart of the season. We are 

 discussing which size of brood-cham- 

 ber is the better ; and not which could 

 change over to the other size the most 

 readily, although I should be willing to 

 discuss the latter point. 



I am still indoubtas to Mr. Dadant's 

 exact views in regard to honey-boards. 

 He quotes a paragraph in which he 

 admits that a skeleton honey-boartl is 

 sometimes used in comb-honey produc- 

 tion ; but there is another paragraph 

 in which he says : " 331. The movable 

 honey-board, between the brood-cham- 

 ber and the upper stories, has also 

 been discarded of late years." Dr. 

 Miller suggests that Mr". Dadant has 

 reference, in paragraph 331, to the old 

 obsolete honey-board, that was really 

 a board having holes bored through it, 

 and upon which honey-boxes were 

 placed. I shall be glad to know that 

 Mr. Dadant does not condemn the 

 modern, slatted, break-joint bee-space 

 inventions. 



In reference to patents, Mr. Dadant 

 thinks that I ought to have publislied 

 the paragraph in which he gave his 

 reasons for cautioning bee-keepers 

 against investing in patent hives. Here 

 is the paragraph : 



35S. More than 8U0 patents on bee-hives 

 and Implements have been issued in the 

 United States since January, 1873. Not ten 

 of these have proved to be of any use to bee- 

 keepers. The mention of this fact will 

 sufhce to show the small value of these 790 

 patents, and the loss incurred by those who 

 have bought them before they were able to 

 judge of their merits. 



During this time that 800 apiarian 

 hives and implements have been in- 

 vented and patented, many others 

 have been invented that were not pat- 

 ented. I fail to recognize their superi- 

 ority over the patented articles. The 

 patenting of an article does not add, 

 neither does it detract, one iota of 

 usefulness. 



My opponent calls attention to the 

 point that manj' have been led to in- 

 vest in patents upon worthless articles. 

 True ; but the pittance paid for a pat- 

 ent is a mere drop in the ocean, com- 

 pai-ed to the mistakes of adopting an 

 undesirable hive ; and the mistakes 

 will be none the less grievous, be the 

 hive unpatented. 



Mr. Dadant complains because I did 

 not mention that he had arrived at his 

 conclusions in regard to the best size 

 for brood-chambers, after an experi- 

 ence of twenty years with hives of dif- 

 ferent sizes. Of course it would have 

 been perfectly proper to have done so, 

 but then I should have been in duty 

 bound to have mentioned others who 

 had experimented in a similar manner 

 and arrived at opposite conclusions. 

 Instead of simply giving our expei'i- 

 ences, let us strive to learn the reason 

 for things. 



I cannot close without thanking Mr. 

 Newman for his kind editorial on page 

 307, upon this discussion and the pre- 

 ceding circumstances. I feel like say- 

 ing " amen " to the whole of it. Until 

 I commenced publishing the Review, I 

 did not fully realize the many difficul- 

 ties and delicate tasks that fall to an 

 editor. Not the least of these is that 

 of declining articles, especially when 

 they come from prominent personages. 

 I have several times thought it neces- 

 sary to do this, but never without 

 wishing that I might, for the time be- 

 ing, change places ; and I sincerely 

 hope that I have lost the friendship of 

 no one by doing what I believe is for 

 the best. 



Flint, Mich. 



TEXAS. 



Report of the Texas State Bee- 

 Keepers' Convention. 



Written for the American BeeJov/mal 

 BY rev. j. n. hunter. 



On May 1, 1889, the eleventh annual 

 session of the Te.'cas State Bee-Keepers' 

 Association was held at Vice-Presi- 

 dent W. R. Graham's apiary, at Green- 



