318 



fHE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



What is the Langstroth Hive? 



Our attention lias been called par- 

 ticularly to the above question by the 

 following argument by Mr. G. M. 

 Doolittle, Borodino, N. Y., against 

 the adoption of a " standard size of 

 frame" for America. At first he 

 starts off as an eloquent advocate of 

 the Langstroth frame, taking broad 

 grounds, including " nearly all the 

 frames in use in the United States " 

 in the term " Langstroth frames." 

 Then, gradually, forgetting his elo- 

 quent beginning, he narrows his views 

 down to the idea tliat only those 

 whose dimensions are n% or ITf^xltig 

 should, in fact, be called "Langstroth 

 frames." But we will not forestall his 

 arguments. Here they are : 



There seems to be much written, 

 of late, regarding the Langstroth 

 frame, and 1 see there is a tendency 

 on the part of those writing on this 

 subject, to classify all frames that are 

 not 175.^x918 as other than the Langs- 

 troth frame. Now I claim that nearly 

 all (if not quite) of the frames in use 

 in the United States, to-day, are 

 Langstroth frames, to all intents and 

 purposes, and I would here say that 

 whether I use a frame 10 inche."; 

 square, or one 9x13, all lionor is due 

 Mr Langstroth for giving us a prac- 

 tical frame that each can adopt to suit 

 their climate or fancy. 



Because 1 adopt the form used by 

 E Gallup, it does not make it any the 

 less a Langstroth frame. Mr. Gallup 

 told us, years ago, in the good old 

 American Bee Jouhnal, that he 

 considered the frame he used the 

 Langstroth -frame, but that he had 

 varied the dimensions of it so as to 

 suit Elislia Gallup and the cold 

 climate of Wisconsin and Iowa. 



That Mr. Langstroth himself con- 

 sidered all frames in use embodying 

 his principle, as the Langstroth frame, 

 is proven where he says, " Mr. Quinby 

 prefers to make my frames longer and 

 deeper." Hence it is no more than 

 right that we give Mr. Langstroth the 

 credit of the frame, no matter how 

 far from the original we may have 

 varied the dimensions. 



Then again, I notice that some are 

 disposed to try to compel all to use 

 the standard Langstroth frame. This, 

 1 think, can never be done, and I see 

 no necessity for it, unless it is to favor 

 tlie supply dealers. If the supply 

 dealer cannot live at the supply busi- 

 ness as it is, perhaps it would be well 

 for him to try apiculture in a more 

 practical way, by getting his " bread 

 and butter " from the honey he is 

 able to produce. 



Wliy I do not believe that the ii%x- 

 9% inch frame can ever become a 

 standard, is because we will not all 

 give up our views and notions regard- 

 ing our frames, to adopt the views 

 cherished by others. We see by the 

 last few numbers of the Bee Jouk- 

 NAL that there is no prospect of Mr. 

 Heddon and Mr. Alves even reconcil- 

 ing the difference of H of an inch, and 



if two, who are so near a standard, 

 will not make an alteration of I4 inch 

 for tlie sake of a standard frame, how 

 can it be expected that those using a 

 frame as shallow as the Bingham, or 

 as large as the Quinby, can ever be 

 brought to unite on one frame ? 



When I first began bee-keeping, I 

 started with the Langstroth frame as 

 given in his book, but after three 

 years, I adopted the Gallup, and am 

 better pleased with it to-day than I 

 was when I first adopted it, for the 

 reason that, after handling various 

 frames, I am confident that I can 

 make more money from my bees, 

 taking all things into consideration, 

 than I could by the use of any other 

 style of the Langstroth frame. How- 

 ever, I once said, and so say now, 

 that had I 30 colonies of bees in hives 

 containing any of the frames now be- 

 fore the public, which are practical, I 

 would not go through the operation 

 of changing all fixtures, for the differ- 

 ence it would make as regards pro- 

 ducing honey for market. 



Most of the frames now in use are 

 practically good enough for the pro- 

 duction of honey, and were all men 

 half as enthusiastic over qualifying 

 themselves to be first-class, practical 

 managers of an apiary, as some are 

 over a standard frame, our production 

 of honey in the United States would 

 be doubled; no matter what frame 

 was used. 



As I said befoi-e, I prefer the Gal- 

 lup size of the Langstroth frame, but 

 I wish it understood that I believe 

 the manager lias more to do with the 

 securing of a good crop of honey than 

 has tlie style of frame. 



Again, I notice that nearly all who 

 advocate a standard frame, are men 

 claiming to use a frame 17% or 17%x- 

 d'-g. Now, if these are valid reasons 

 wliy I should adopt a frame 175^x9i^, 

 I have failed to see them, and it 

 rather looks as if these men who are 

 clamerous for that frame, are not 

 satisfied with it, or else have some 

 selfisli point in view. 



Once more, Mr. Porter tells us, on 

 page 2S8, that one reason why we 

 should adopt the Langstroth frame is, 

 that the returns are greater than from 

 other styles ; and winds up by saying 

 that " Doolittle comes the nearest to 

 it, but I forget the dimensions of his 

 frame. But he has been greatly sur- 

 passed." Who byV Lots using the 

 Langstrotli frame. Admitted ; but 

 who surpassed the lots? L. C. Root 

 with the Quinby frame. Does this 

 help Mr. Porter any? Then, Mr. 

 Pond says (not in the Bee Journal), 

 in trying to sustain the merits of the 

 n-'gzf>^s frame, that Doolittle winters 

 bees poorly, while a certain man using 

 the Quinby frame winters every time. 

 Again, I ask does this help the Langs- 

 troth frame any V Where does A. I. 

 Root and J. Ileddon stand regarding 

 successful wintering as a plea for your 

 lauded style of frame. Another 

 thing, let me just whisper, if I am 

 correctly informed, that persons said 

 to have wintered bees with his Quinby 

 frame every time, has brought more 

 bees in the spring (since I kept bees) 

 to replace his loss than Doolittle ever 

 owned. 



Just .one more point and I have 

 done. A. I. Root often tells us, in 

 Gleanings, that there are more Langs- 

 troth hives and frames in use than of 

 all othe;rs put together (I saw a report 

 of a convention not long ago, where 

 but two used that frame out of 13 of 

 our largest bee-keepers, which did not 

 look as if Mr. Root's assertion would 

 stand the proof), but for the sake of 

 argument I will admit that there are. 

 Now, I ask Mr. Root, in all candor, 

 liow came such a state of affairs to be 

 brought about V Was it not because 

 he had machinery all rigged to turn 

 out the Langstrotli hive, and then 

 told all,' through Oleanings, that all 

 ordering the Langstroth hive and fix- 

 tures for it, would get " the regular 

 goods " at once, while if they wished 

 odd sizes their orders must be delayed 

 till the others were filled. And did 

 he not tell all the beginners that they 

 should fall into (that) line ? Now, if 

 Prof. Cook had edited Gleanings, and 

 been as strenuous for the Gallup 

 frame as Mr. Root has been for the 

 Langstroth frame, and L. C. Root 

 had been editor of the Bee Journal, 

 and was pleading for the Quinby 

 frame, would the Langstroth frame 

 been in the ascendency V I trow not ! 



I am willing that any one in the 

 world should use a frame n%x9}i, if 

 they so desire, but I do like to see the 

 advocates of such a frame come out 

 square and honest before the world, 

 and let the people know the whole 

 truth regarding what caused the state 

 of affairs, which now exist. 



Borodino, N. Y., June 11, 1S83. 



Mr. Doolittle is quite unfortunate 

 in the latter part of his argument. 

 At first, he claimed that " nearly all 

 (if not quite) of the frames in use in 

 the United States, to-day, are Langs- 

 troth frames, to all intents and pur- 

 poses"— the principle and not the 

 size, being the distinctive feature of 

 this deservedly-popular frame. 



Then towards the close he chides 

 Mr. A. I. Root for claiming "that 

 there are more Langstroth hives and 

 frames in use than of all others put 

 together," notwithstanding that Mr. 

 Doolittle had made a more sweeping 

 assertion even than that, in the first 

 paragraph of his argument. 



This shows that Mr. Doolittle is 

 not quite clear about what the dis- 

 tinctive feature of the Langstroth 

 frame is ! or, perhaps, he became so 

 heu-ilderecl by the magnitude of his own 

 argument, that he lost his balance, 

 and tumbled to the other side of the 

 question. 



His assertion is doubtless true as 

 given in the first paragraph— but, this 

 admitted, proves also that Mr. A. I. 

 Root is correct in his assertion, which 

 Mr. Doolittle chides him for making ! 

 There is no escaping this conclusion I 



Prof. A. J. Cook also takes the 

 same view of the matter. In his 



