812 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Aug. 1 





^ '^^^ ^7^ 



THE HOFFMAN FRAMES AND THE SIB- 

 BALD PLAN. 



Some Corrections Concerning Them. 

 BY L. STACHELHAUSEN. 



In Gleanings for June 15 I find my arti- 

 cle on the subject of Hoffman frames, in the 

 Rural Bee-keeper, mentioned twice. An ed- 

 itorial speaks of it as a very readable arti- 

 cle, and Mr. Harry Lathrop criticises it. In 

 both cases the Hoffman frame is compared 

 with the unspaced loose hanging frame of 

 twenty and more years ago. I think it is a 

 rule of literary courtesy to read an article 

 before criticising it; but this was not the 

 case here, as I compared the Hoffman frame 

 with another fixed frame, and not with this 

 loose hanging frame, which, too, I consider 

 as not satisfactory. The space between two 

 of my frames is fixed by some device on the 

 rabbet, and for this reason all that Mr. La- 

 throp says about these loose hanging frames 

 may be true, but has no bearing on my ar- 

 ticle. My frames can't move and do not 

 move in transportation from one apiary to 

 another. For twenty-five years I have used 

 such frames and hive-stories about 5| inches 

 high for brood-chamber and super all alike, 

 and for such shallow frames this kind of 

 spacing is sufficient. It would be astonish- 

 ing for every bee-keeper to see how easy 

 such hives and frames can be manipulated. 

 For deeper frames like the Langstroth a 

 second spacing-device of some kind near the 

 bottom-bar will probably be necessary. 



I find a mistake on page 645 in an editori- 

 al on the subject of the Sibbald plan. You 

 say, "Mr. Sibbald makes it emphatic that 

 the new hive on the old stand must have one 

 frame of brood and the queen." No, sir! 

 He gives to this swarm one frame of brood 

 with one or more queen-cells. The old queen 

 remains in the parent colony; and the pur- 

 pose of the whole manipulation is that this 

 parent colony may be weakened so much 

 that the queen-cells will be destroyed by the 

 bees. This will be in four to six days. If 

 this is the purpose the plan will work all 

 right, especially if some more bees without 

 the queen are brushed or shaken into or in 

 front of the swarm, to weaken the parent 

 colony still more. The plan is not new. It 

 is described in a book written by G. Wurz, 

 printed in Germany in 1889. 



If the division is to be permanent and for 

 increase I would not recommend the plan. 

 In such a division the colony with the least 

 brood should receive the old queen. Shaken 

 swarms on the old or on a new stand are 

 much better. 



If you use a modification of the Sibbald 

 plan, and give the queen with this one brood- 

 comb to the swarm on the old stand, you 

 have the same condition as with a shaken 

 swarm, except that you have in the swarm 

 fewer bees and no young ones, and you 

 must hunt up the queen in the old colony. 

 This takes considerable time and is not nec- 

 essary with a shaken swarm. As with the 

 Sibbald plan, you can reunite and prevent 

 swarming in this way; but it is necessary to 

 wait till one of the young queens has hatch- 

 ed in the parent colony, and has destroyed 

 the other queen-cells. This will probably 

 take a few more days than with the Sibbald 

 plan. 



Now a few words on the plan of dividing 

 a colony temporarily, and reuniting when 

 the queen-cells are destroyed. I have found 

 that, for extracted honey, we have ways to 

 prevent swarming which take less time and 

 labor. For comb honey I prefer to use a 

 large brood-chamber (three stories) before 

 swarming-time to favor the development of 

 the colony as much as possible. When the 

 honey-flow commences I make a strong sha- 

 ken swarm, hive it in a contracted brood- 

 chamber (one story) on starters, and so 

 force the bees into the sections. In this 

 way I can get more honey in sections than 

 if the brood-chamber or a part of it with 

 now many empty cells be given back to this 

 swarm in four or six days. 



Converse, Texas, June 24. 



[A frame-spacing rabbet has been advo- 

 cated at various times; but so far as I know 

 this arrangement has never been very popu- 

 lar, and I was not aware that so extensive 

 a bee-keeper as Mr. Stauchelhausen was 

 using it. As I said in my editorial in our 

 June 15th issue, and say again, his opinion 

 is well worth consideration. 



I also accept the correction in regard to 

 the Sibbald plan of non- swarming. I was 

 expecting to go over the proof just before it 

 went to press; but yard work started up 

 with such a rush that I was obliged to go 

 out into the field at that particular time, 

 with the result that the error passed uncor- 

 rected. 



Regarding the Sibbald plan of non- swarm- 

 ing, my experience this summer has not 

 been altogether satisfactory, for the simple 

 reason that the bees seem very much in- 

 clined to go back to the old entrance, no 

 matter whether a new queen was in the new 

 hive or whether there was very much brood 

 or not. In order to make it work satisfac- 

 torily the entrance of the old hive should, I 

 think, be some distance away; and in the 

 case of one colony of hybrids, at least, I had 

 to turn the entrance right about face, and 

 in the course of an hour or so I discovered 

 that the old field bees had found their old 

 home. Then I carried it to another new 



Eortion of the yard, and here again the field 

 ees found it. This may have been an ex- 

 treme case, and that of the others mention-^ 

 ed unusual. I hope so.— Ed.] 



