134 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



shape. Some want a large number of 

 small frames, while others contend that a 

 small number of large frames is better. 

 Some adhere to frames higher than long, 

 while others want square frames, and still 

 others, true disciples of Langstroth, pre- 

 fer the shallow frame. 



All these sizes, all these shapes, have 

 given good results, according to circum- 

 stances, but the question is not "are all 

 sizes and shapes good ?" but "is any given 

 size aud shape better than others, or 

 which are the sizes and shapes of frames 

 which compared with each other will 

 give the most profit ?" for in bee-culture 

 as in every other business, it is the n-et 

 profit which is our object. 



Reading the writings of American bee- 

 keepers leads me to conclude, first, that 

 the frame longer in height than horizon- 

 tally, oilers too small a space in its upper 

 part to place a good number of boxes or 

 surplus frames, besides the frames are 

 more difticult to remove from the hive on 

 account of their height. 



For a long time I had considered the 

 square frame better than the horizontal, 

 but after using both shapes in my apiary 

 for years, I have become fully convinced 

 of the superiority of the latter. In spring, 

 the bees between the combs form rings 

 more or less compact, more or less thick 

 according to the weather. These rings 

 which encircle the brood nest, serve to 

 maintain the eggs and larva^ at a degree 

 of warmth iudispensalle to their develop- 

 ment. As the heated air rises continually 

 in the hive, the rings are deeper and 

 thicker at the bottom than at the sides, 

 thicker too at the sides than at the top. 

 The nurse bees travel easily over the va- 

 cant space inside of the rings, and the 

 queen goes over all the enclosed surface 

 hunting for empty cells to deposit her 

 eggs. When she approaches the ring, 

 the bees retreat before her and she can 

 lay her eggs in the empty cells, but soon 

 the bees, on account of cold cannot give 

 the queen the place needed by her, the re- 

 ceeding ceases sooner at the bottom than 

 at the sides, and this is why if we examine 

 a comb occupied by a brood in spring we 

 find it invariably larger horizontally than 

 vertically, its bottom being always flat- 

 tened. Tiience the predilection that many 

 bee-keepers entertain in regard to frames 

 longer horizontally than strictly square. 



Besides, for the same motives, a large 

 ■frame is more convenient than a small 

 •one. In a hive containing many small 

 frames, the same surface of brood needs 

 more bees to encircle it, than in a hive 

 whose frames are larger. By aclual ac- 

 •couut, I have found that a scjuare frame 



13 inches both ways, needs 15 per cent, 

 more bees to encircle the same amount of 

 brood than in a Quinby hive whose frames 

 are larger, being 18 inches long by 11 

 inches in height. I have both sizes in my 

 home apiarj', more than 50 of each. I 

 examine them carefully every year, and I 

 have arrived at the conclusion that a hor- 

 izontal frame is better than a square 

 frame, and that the less numerous the 

 combs are in the hive for the same amount 

 of room, the better it is for the bees and 

 their owner. 



Last year I had an equal number of 

 each of the sizes above related ; by the 

 first of June my best colonies in Quinby 

 hives had above 10,000 cells of brood 

 more than my best colonies in square 

 frames. I think, in consequence that the 

 greater area of comb of ever frame had 

 something to do with the greater laying of 

 the queen. In the French bee-keepers 

 journal "LeApicultur%" for March 1873, 

 a gentlemen is cited who had a colony of 

 bees whose queen had laid more than five 

 thousand eggs per day. The hive had 

 frames IG inches both ways. 



As another proof of the advantage of 

 large frames, I can say that when I have 

 colonies in my nucleus hives, the queen 

 although enjoying the same surface of 

 combs, does not lay as much as if put in 

 a Quinby hive, the combs of my nuclei are 

 half as large as those of Quinby, being 

 the Quinby frame divided in two parts 

 and reunited at will. Leastly, another 

 proof of the superiority of the large frame 

 has been given to me recently by my 

 friend L. Abbie Sagot, a well-known 

 French bee-keeper, whose hive has small 

 frames ; he writes me asking how I man- 

 age to prevent tlie queen from going in 

 the surplus boxes. Although his hives 

 are very large, the queen goes so often in 

 the surplus boxes that he experiences a 

 considerable loss, and he consulted me 

 about the proprietj' of having the top 

 bai'S of his frames made of cast iron 

 and so near each other as to prevent the 

 queen from going in the boxes. With 

 my large frame I have very rarely such 

 laying of the queen in the boxes ; two or 

 three per thousand at most would cover 

 all my loss on that account. 



From all the above, it results that the 

 large frames spreading horizontally, arc 

 to be considered the best. Our friend 

 Langstrotli, had preceeded us in tliat way 

 when he diviscd the frames of his hives. 

 But in my opinion, his frame is too 

 long when conqnired with its depth. And 

 I know many of the most eager partisans 

 of the Langstroth hive who think of ad- 

 vising the beginners to cling to the prici- 



