1897. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



lOi 



Report of the Michigan State Bee-Keepers' 

 Couveutiou, Held at Mt. Pleasant. 



BY W. Z. HUTCHINSON. 



[Continued from page 86.] 



The Secretary then read a paper from Hon. R. L. Taylor, 

 of Lapeer Co., entitled, 



REOUIREWBNTS OF THE HIVE. 



I have found myself willing to write upon the well-worn 

 topic of the bee-hive, because there is perhaps no point relat- 

 ing to bee-keeping about which I am askt so many questions 

 as this. 



It is well to understand that the bees themselves are not 

 much concerned about the characteristics of their hive — they 

 will store as much honey, other thinors being equal, in a shoe- 

 box or a nail-keg as in a hive of the latest pattern or patent. 

 So the form of the bive is a mere question of convenience to 

 the apiarist. He may shape it so as best to secure the object 

 he has in view. But bee-keepers have many objects, so hives 

 are wanted, 1st, for catching moths; 2nd, for pleasure ; 3rd, 

 for preventing swarming ; 4th, for producing bees ; 5th, for 

 wintering bees; 6th, for rearing queens ; 7th, for producing 

 extracted honey ; 8th, for producing comb honey. 



Fortunately, a different kind of bive is not required for 

 each of these objects ; if a hive is to be selected for one object, 

 an eye may be had also to points calculated to secure other 

 objects that are subsidiary and yet necessary to the full attain- 

 ment of the main one ; thus, whatever the main object, the 

 hive must be such that it will prove as little fatal to the bees 

 in winter time as possible. Still, no particular hive is likely 

 to prove the best for all purposes. 



The numbers of those who delight in hives simply on 

 account of their moth-catching qualities are of course small, 

 but as there are some whose chief pleasure and occupation in 

 life is to tame mosquitoes and train fleas to perform tricks, 

 we are not to be surprised that there are some whose chief 

 consideration it is to trap wax-moths. It might be well if all 

 of that type of bee-keepers were confined to moth-trapping. 



To be clast with these are those who keep bees and select 

 hives for pleasure only ; not that they are equally eccentric, 

 but because the prescribing of hives for each of these two 

 classes is alike outside the lines of apiculture proper. 



Intermediate between these two classes and those that 

 have an eye strictly to financial returns are those who are 

 intensely interested in non-swarming, producing bees, and In 

 wintering bees. I call these intermediate because a part of 

 each class is so passionately absorbed in inventing or other- 

 wise securing or in testing a hive specifically adapted to the 

 attainment of one of these ends that all interest in the primary 

 objects of bee-culture are so lost that they fade out of view — 

 (who has not met those who are in ecstacies over their large 

 or frequent swarms, yet who either forget to put on the sur- 

 plus boxes or to take them off?) — while the other part make 

 these objects more or less subsidiary to the attainment of the 

 proper rewards of bee-keeping. The first part of these classes 

 must be relegated to a place with those who are pursuing 

 pleasure and moths; with the hope, nevertheless, that by 

 chance some device may be hit upon by them sometime that 

 will be found worthy to be incorporated into the mass of real 

 value to apiculture, while the latter part will receive such 

 brief attention in connection with hives for honey-production 

 as the limits of this paper will permit. 



While queen-rearing is a legitimate department of bee- 

 keeping, yet the characteristics of the hive best adapted to 

 that branch is only of special interest to so few that I would 

 not be warranted in taking time on the topic, even if I could 

 hope to make any valuable suggestion touching it. The hive 

 in use for other purposes will generally be found sufficiently 

 serviceable for this. 



This brings me to the important point of this subject — the 

 hive best adapted to the production of honey. I confine my- 

 self to a discussion of the brood-chamber, and that chiefly in 

 relation to general principles. 



The successful production of honey is the oneovershadow- 

 ing object of apiculture, and to this in my estimation all 

 others ought to be made unhesitatingly to bow. 



For my use, at least, there are certain qualities which a 

 hive for that purpose must not possess : 



1st. It must not be expensive. Fifteen or 20 cents should 

 purchase lumber enough of sufficiently good quality for body, 

 cover, and bottom. Lumber called " shipping culls," of white 

 pine, is good enough for the body, and a grade or two better 

 will do for covers and bottoms, if the best of It is selected for 

 covers. The apiarist must not be seduced by one or two good 

 crops into failure in point of economy. 



2nd. It must not be cumbersome. Its bulk and weight 

 should be as small as may be, loose parts and projections 

 should be avoided except where tliat is impossible. A hive 

 that cannot be handled easily by one man when it contains a 

 colony of bees with stores enough for winter is, as a rule, to 

 be shunned. There may be an exception where the hive is 

 seldom or never to be moved summer or winter. Even the 

 risk of the displacements of the combs would, I think, better 

 be obviated by fixed frames. 



3rd. It must not be complicated. Slides, drawers and 

 such like traps never work well inside of a box occupied by 

 bees, and if they would, they could hardly accomplish any- 

 thing which may not be more easily attained by simplicity. 



Besides these negative points there are, in my view, some 

 positive qualities to be sought for in any hive at all well calcu- 

 lated for an apiary to be conducted for the highest net profit. 

 The first and most important of these is that the hive be fitted 

 to conveniently repress the production of bees that can only 

 detract from the net income. No doubt there are localities 

 where, on account of the continuous character of the honey- 

 flow, or from the fact that the late crop is abundant and 

 equally valuable, or nearly so, pound for pound, with that of 

 the early crop, this matter may not require consideration, 

 but in localities like central Michigan, where the June and 

 early July honey from white clover and basswood is nearly 

 twice as valuable pound for pound as that gathered in the 

 fall ; and where the fall crop is generally scant or entirely 

 wanting, and in any case a period of 30 or 40 days of entire 

 dearth between basswood and fall flowers, it is of the first 

 Importance. 



I have heretofore attempted to show, and have, at least, 

 about convinced myself that it costs two pounds of honey to 

 rear one pound of brood, and that as a Langstroth frame is 

 capable of containing two pounds of brood, therefore, I hold 

 that one such frame of brood costs four pounds of honey. 

 Moreover, it needs no argument to show that five such frames 

 will contain sufficient brood to keep the colony up to the 

 highest strength desirable in this locality for fall and winter 

 purposes. 



Suppose, now, the clover and basswood season here, any 

 given year, July 15, it is evident, since it requires 35 days 

 from the laying of the egg to mature a field-worker, that all 

 eggs laid in any colony in excess of the number required to 

 keep comb to the extent of five Langstroth frames supplied 

 with brood can produce no bees that will prove of any practi- 

 cal utility. During these 35 days — the height of the season — 

 average queens, if allowed room, will keep eight frames filled 

 with brood, and as it is for nearly 1% generations, the total 

 excess over the required five frames would amount to about 

 five times during the 35 days at an expense of 20 pounds of 

 honey, or in an apiary of 1< lO colonies a matter of $200 to 

 $250. 



If space permitted it would be easy to mention one or two 

 other items that would make the amount considerably more. 

 It would be comparatively easy to select a hive that would 

 secure the repression, if it were permissible at no time of the 

 year to allow more than five Langstroth frames of brood, but 

 it is just as imperative that every cell possible be used pre- 

 vious to June 10, as that unnecessary brood should be pre- 

 vented after that date. The selection of a hive must be made, 

 therefore, first, with reference to the earlier period. 



In the production of extracted honey the size of the hive 

 during this period would not be very material, as honey in 

 combs at the side of the brood-nest would be about as valuable 

 as that in combs above it, but for the production of comb 

 honey it should be of such size as to give as nearly as possible 

 merely room for the brood, and thus secure the storing of the 

 honey in the sections where it will be of double value. In this 

 locality only a small proportion of colonies would occupy more 

 than eight Langstroth frames with brood prior to June 10, 

 so I deem a hive of greater capacity than that objectionable 

 for the production of comb honey. If the field was lightly 

 siockt with bees, so that as large an Increase as possible 

 were desirable for the gathering of the crop, each queen could 



