142 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



little's position. Others, probably, view- 

 ed the matter in the same light as did 

 friend Hasty; and it is well that friend 

 Doolittle has explained more fully. By 

 the way, our Borodino friend uses one 

 illustration that seems scarcely to the 

 point. It is true, as he says, that with 

 the large, old fashioned boxes the out- 

 side combs might be more inviting and of 

 a better grade than the inside; but this is 

 something over which the bee-keeper has 

 no control. He is not to blame if such 

 proves to be the case. With our modern 

 sections and system of grading, the char- 

 acter of the contents of the case is under 

 the control of the bee-keeper; and he is 

 responsible for that character. That is, 

 if the outside is one grade, and the in- 

 side another, it is the bee-keeper who 

 made it so. — Ed.] 



CLOSED-END FRAMES. 



Some of Their Advantages as Compared 

 With Other Frames. 



L. A. ASPINWAIJ,. 



mHE inherent 

 T objections to 



all open end 

 frames are more 

 or less prejudicial 

 to those having 

 clo.sedends. With 

 many bee - keep- 

 ers, m o V a b 1 e 

 frames are mova- 

 ble, only to a cer- 

 " tain extent. Fre- 



quently, upon opening hives which have 

 been occupied by bees two or three sea- 

 sons, we find the frames firmly secured 

 by burr combs and propolis. The pre- 

 sent low price of honey has necessitated 

 its production with the least possible 

 manipulation; resulting in an increased 

 accumulation of propolis and burr-combs. 

 Under such circumstances most bee-keep- 



ers can scarcely afford to scrape and 

 clean sections by hand-work, much less 

 attend to keeping open end frames in 

 working order; while man}' are inclined 

 to neglect that which adds no immediate 

 profit. 



If through disuse, or otherwise, open 

 end frames are in any degree immovable, 

 the logical conclusion will be that closed 

 ends are altogether impracticable. There- 

 for, all advantages possessed by closed 

 end frames must be based upon the facil- 

 ities offered in manipulation. Closed 

 ends being siibject to propolising, neces- 

 sitates other features of construction 

 which shall compensate for that which 

 is seemingly objectionable; so, in con- 

 sidering the advantages of closed end 

 frames, a distinction should be made be- 

 tween them as a class, and those possess- 

 ing additional points of excellence. 



Frames of any and all construction are 

 m^ich more difficult to remove from hives 

 without a removable side. This being a 

 recognized fact, most closed end frame 

 hives are so constructed. 



While the projecting top bar of the 

 Langstroth frame is an essential feature, 

 which has given it more prominence than 

 most of us realize, still, it has been dis- 

 carded hy most users of closed end frames. 



Although a small feature in construc- 

 tion, let me emphasize its inlportance. 

 Projecting ends are the handles for ma- 

 nipulation, without which the inconven- 

 ience of propolis and bees is much in- 

 creased. Another advantage is the facil- 

 ity offered for rapid handling by placing 

 them in a comb rack or empty hive. 

 Like the combs attached above, project- 

 ing top bars afford the most natural sup- 

 port, without the slighest danger of fall- 

 ing over. Furthermore, the projections 

 as used by myself are entirely outside and 

 be\'ond the reach of bees and consequent 

 gluing. It is a comfort to handle frames 

 without the necessity of bringing our fing- 

 ers in contact with bees or propolis. 



The seemingly objectional feature al- 

 ready alluded to in closed ends (that of 

 propolising) to me is one (like the pro- 



