346 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



hive the best, enough best to pay for 

 my paying extra iirices for irregular 

 supplies, 1 would use it ir I was the 

 only man that did, and all the world 

 clammored against me. I honor him 

 who has the grandeur to entertain 

 convictions of his own, and the 

 bravery to announce them on all 

 proper occasions. I am the last one 

 who wishes to force him to sacrifice 

 his manhood by renouncing liis con- 

 victions, either by the finger of scorn 

 or withdrawal of patronage. I like 

 Mr. Stewart's spirit, but I fear he has 

 over-estimated the call to join the 

 standard frame army. 



A CORRECTION. 



In reply to Mr. Schrock, on page 336,1 

 wish to correct an error made by you, 

 or I, Mr. Editor, and that is : " If I go 

 to a colony of any kind or size, at any 

 time, and remove the queen, they 

 cotisiruct no such queen celh as the 

 same colony will when they do it of 

 their own accord, with the queen in 

 the hive." The italics shows the 

 change. I presume, in my hurry, I 

 made the mistake. 



The pending "honey glut," that 

 which I have so long expected, it 

 seems, is well-nigh upon us. It is 

 with much interest that I await and 

 watch the results which this state of 

 things will have upon the tweedle-dee 

 element of our pursuit. 



Dowagiac, Mich., July 4, 1883. 



For the American Bee Journal, 



The Best Size for Brood Frames. 



DR. G. L. TINKER. 



All things considered, what is the 

 best size for brood frames V We are 

 told time and again that the standard 

 Langstroth frame is. It is argued 

 chiefly that it is the best, because so 

 many use it. As practical, valid rea- 

 sons do not appear to be forth com- 

 ing why it is the best, we are inclined 

 to the belief that much of the high- 

 sounding praise bestowed upon it is 

 either vague or intended for buncombe. 



The truth is, that so many bee- 

 keepers use the Langstroth frame 

 because it was the size recommended 

 by the Rev. Langstroth, and first 

 introduced under his patent. Thou- 

 sands of his original hives were dis- 

 seminated over the country before 

 any other size of movable frame hives 

 were extensively known. And many 

 continue to use his frame not because 

 it is thought to have special advan- 

 tages over any other size, but out of 

 respect to one of the most noted bee- 

 keepers of this country, past or 

 present, which is a reason of some 

 merit. Again, it has had extensive 

 and systematic advertising, and it is 

 due, unquestionably, to the above 

 causes that it is more widely and ex- 

 tensively disseminated in this country 

 than any other size of frame. 



It is well known that the adoption 

 of the Langstroth frame in Europe 

 has made no great headway. If it 

 had the singular merit of being the 

 best frame for any and all purposes of 

 bee-keepers, as is claimed so con- 

 fidently, we can well think that our 



European friends would not be slow 

 to adopt it as a standard. 



THE SHALLOW FRAME. 



What were the inducements that 

 led the Rev. Langstroth to adopt a 

 shallow frame ? It will be remem- 

 bered that there was a time when it 

 was thought that a honey-board hav- 

 ing auger holes through it for the 

 bees to pass up into two or more large 

 boxes, was the right thing. Very 

 well, it did not take so good an ob- 

 server as the Rev. Langstroth very 

 long to ascertain that even black bees 

 would not travel more than half a 

 mile through shallow chambers and 

 auger holes in order to get into the 

 boxes and expect them to store sur- 

 plus to advantage. He, therefore, 

 made the shallow frame, and set the 

 boxes down as near to the brood as 

 possible. And he found that a frame 

 about 9 inches deep gave the best re- 

 sults. As to this one point, I do not 

 believe there is a bee-keeper in the 

 country who will dispute the correct- 

 ness of his finding where a honey- 

 board is used, and this principle will 

 hold true in any case where the shal- 

 low chamber above the brood frames 

 is allowed, honey-board or no honey- 

 board. 



So ray first argument against the 

 Langstroth frame is to score one for 

 it. Is not that fair ? But an un- 

 prejudiced consideration of the points 

 that go to make the best frame de- 

 mands it. My objection, therefore, to 

 the standard Langstroth frame is in 

 the length, and I opine that the sole 

 reason that it was made so long was 

 to accommodate just two more 6- 

 pound boxes at the rear of the hive, 

 as the modern system of tiering up 

 section boxes was as yet unthought 

 of, and without which sufficient sur- 

 plus capacity on the top of the hive 

 could not be had. There is, however, 

 just one advantage m the length, but 

 this is slight, and more than counter- 

 balanced by a number of serious dis- 

 advantages. 



BEST WINTER FRAME. 



It will be remembered that in the 

 spring of 1881, after the hard winter, 

 conceiving that there might be some 

 very great advantage in the size of 

 brood frames, either in depth or 

 length, or both, for safe wintering, 

 the writer undertook a searching 

 investigation to that end, and col- 

 lected much valuable information on 

 the subject. This investigation de- 

 veloped the fact that there are two 

 points of advantage in the size of 

 frames for wintering; an advantage 

 in the length as well as in the depth ; 

 that the advantages of the American 

 and Gallup size of frames in depth 

 over the Langstroth frame were offset 

 by the greater length of the latter. 

 Consequently the result in wintering 

 on these frames, other things being 

 equal, was about the same. 



As a matter of fact, the Shuck and 

 Quinby size of frames are the best to 

 winter bees upon, and both of these 

 are longer and deeper than the Langs- 

 troth. The reason that the editor of 

 the Bee Journal was able to give 

 a better showing for the Langstroth 



frame in his general report than I 

 gave in mine on the result of winter- 

 ing 10,000 colonies of bees in the 

 northern States, whs due to the fact 

 stated by Mr. Geo. W. Baker, in the 

 June number of the American Bee- 

 Keeper, viz. : " The report being 

 taken from all over the United 

 States." That is accounted for as 

 follows : There are probably ten 

 Langstroth hives in the South to one 

 of all other kinds of movable frame 

 hives. As bees winter the best in the 

 South, it can be readily seen how re- 

 ports from Virginia, West Virginia, 

 Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas 

 should materially alter the footings of 

 the reports made here at the Nortli, if 

 included with them. Recognizing 

 early this liability to error, it was 

 stated expressly in my report that it 

 was from the northern States only, 

 and the result, as is well known, was 

 a showing against the Langstroth 

 frame, squarely and honestly made, 

 and which, in my opinion, approxi- 

 mated the result here at the North 

 very closely. 



The difference between our reports 

 not being very great, caused me to 

 give little attention to it at the time 

 for a reason given in my report (see 

 page 180, Bee Journ.vl for 1881 ), viz. : 

 " As to the best winter hive, the 

 tables do not show such a great dif- 

 ference between the standard hives 

 as between the different modes of 

 wintering." My conchision was, that 

 the difference in the size of frames, 

 as far as wintering is concerned (es- 

 pecially in protected hives), is not 

 worth contending about. 



I have been thus explicit in the re- 

 view of that investigation, to set at 

 rest, if possible, the idea of so many 

 bee-keepers that the shape of the 

 brood frame is any considerable factor 

 of the problem of successful winter- 

 ing. Hence, in footing up the points 

 of the best frame, I shall not take 

 into consideration the fact that a long 

 and deep frame is a little the best to 

 winter bees upon, since, if properly 

 protected and ventilated, bees will 

 winter about as well in one kind of 

 hive as another, and if I remember 

 aright, the editor of the Bee Jour- 

 nal has expressed himself to about 

 the same effect. 



The points that can be sustained 

 against the standard Langstroth 

 frame are as follows : 



1. It is a great disadvantage over a 

 shorter frame in building up weak 

 colonies in the early spring, since the 

 bees will cluster in the front end of 

 the hive, leaving the whole back end 

 vacant, so that the heat of the colony 

 cannot be pconomized by a division- 

 board. 



2. The top-bar is 5 inches longer 

 than necessary to set on a rack con- 

 taining 28 one-pound or 21 two-pound 

 sections. I use racks of these sizes 

 on 9 Gallup frames with fair success, 

 and the top-bar of the frame is only 

 13 inches long. 



3. It cannot well be made so that 

 the top-bar will not sag in the centre. 

 Nor can it be wired by any process 

 that I have seen, so as to hold the top- 

 bars true and in line with each other. 

 The result is, that in producing comb 



