490 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



For tlie American Bue JournaL 



The Development of the Standard 

 Langstroth Hive and Frame. 



L. L. LANGSTROTH. 



This form of hive was the result of 

 many experiments. In the spring of 

 1852, as early as the weather would 

 allow the bees to be shaken from the 

 combs of my bar hives, {IS^xisyi and 

 only 6 inches deep) uprights and bot- 

 toms were nailed to these bars, so 

 that in a few minutes they became 

 movable frame hives. In the latitude 

 of Philadelphia, at least, I never 

 knew good colonies to increase faster, 

 if as fast, than in such shallow hives.* 



Not to speak of hives 13x13, xl3 

 whose cubic contents were about the 

 same with the standard Langstroth, 

 and of other discarded sizes, I made, 

 in 1854, hives 12x12x36, with frames 

 now called " Gallup frames." The 

 surplus honey was taken in boxes or 

 frames in the rear of the main breed- 

 ing apartment. They had movable 

 tops as well as movable sides. The 

 side doors, being chamfered on their 

 edges, in opposite directions, could 

 always be easily opened, and being 

 suspended like frames, by top bars 

 upon the frame rabbets, the size of 

 the hive could be changed at will. 

 Two such hives were placed, Dizerzon 

 fashion, side by side — with entrances 

 in different directions — crosswise on 

 these, two more were placed simi- 

 larly, and the pile continued, in the 

 same fashion, as high as could be 

 conveniently reached for manipula- 

 tion — the whole colony having a 

 common movable roof. Although my 

 judgment was against such an ar- 

 rangement, I could not rest satisfied 

 until I had given this system a fair 

 trial, and proved, by actual experi- 

 ence, that the necessary manipula- 

 tions were so tedious, as greatly to 

 out-weigh the advantages promised 

 by such a compact arrangement. 

 However it may be with our uerman 

 friends; with us, economy of time is of 

 vastly more importance than economy 

 of space. I, therefore, took down the 

 stack, and used the hives as top as 

 well as side openers, until I left New 

 England. I also used frames even 

 larger than the Quinby size, but 

 found them objectionable, because 

 of theweightof the combs when full 

 of honey. 



These facts are sufficient to sliow, 

 that tlie standard Langstroth hive 

 was not tlie result of mere theoretical 

 notions, or of traditional prejudices, 

 nor did it come, by what some would 

 call, a chance " happy go lucky " hit. 

 Born out of many experiences, it was 

 deliberately adopted, with tlie knowl- 

 edge that at that time the great 

 majority of our best bee-keepers did 



* BinKham, Marvin 

 about six inches deep. 



and others prefer hives 



not approve of such " low flat things." 

 So deep was my conviction that its 

 shape was better than the approved 

 forms, that I could not consent to 

 recommend any other.t 



Although the chief reasons for the 

 shallow form have been often given, 

 it may be well, in this connection, 

 very briefly to repeat them. Those 

 who wish to see the subject more 

 fully discussed, are referred especially 

 to the old volumes of the American 

 Bee Journal, where they will find 

 the merits and demerits of the stan- 

 dard Langstroth hive very thoroughly 

 canvassed. J 



My tenacious adherence to the 

 Langstroth form, led some to im- 

 agine, that perhaps in some way or 

 other, the validity of my patent might 

 depend on this shape. This reminds 

 me of a once noted writer on bees, 

 who while warning persons against 

 infringing upon his patent (although 

 he had never taken out any patent), 

 closes thus : " Even an external im- 

 itation of my hive will not be suffered 

 to pass with impunity I" 



The broad and low shape which I 

 introduced, in addition to giving the 

 much-desired top surface for surplus 

 honey receptacles, has the following 

 advantages : 



1. It IS obviously much better 

 adapted to the use of upper stories, 

 than taller hives. It seems more 

 natural to bees to place their stores 

 over their central brood-nest, than any 

 where else. When extracting un- 

 sealed honey, I kept neither honey 

 board nor any thing else over the tops 

 of the frames to interfere with hand- 

 ling the frames, as soon as the roof 

 over them was removed. A glance at 

 the tops of the frames was enough, 

 with Italian bees, to show if extract- 

 ing was needed, for they would begin 

 to extend their comb-building up- 

 wards, even if they had plenty of 

 room for tliis work on empty side 

 frames. Now. why should bees at- 

 tempt the difficult work of upward 

 comb building, against the law of 

 gravity, by which their suspended 

 combs are kept in a perpendicular 

 position, while they have ample side 

 room for building them in the natural 

 way ? Why, I say, do they act thus, 

 unless it is most in accordance with 

 their instincts to place their stores 

 above their brood-nest ? 



If honey, to have its choicest flavor, 

 ought not to be extracted — as the 

 Dadants and other of our leading 

 apiarians assert|| — before it has been 



t In latitudes where bees can be either safely 

 wintered In the open air, or In proper in-door de- 

 positories, a still shallower form of hive may, 

 perhaps, be found preferable. 



t Of all editors whom I ever known Mr. Samuel 

 Watfner was the most judicial, In his attitude on 

 all matters pertaining to bee-culture. Fair play 

 was to him a precious jewel Indeed. 



II I use the word apiarian both as adjective and 

 substantive, without the authority of Webster or 

 Worcester, because it sounds much better than 

 apiculturlst, and is repeatedly so used by Dr. 

 Edward Beaen in his wt>rk on the honey-bee— 

 than whom there is no writer on bee-culture who 

 is higher authority auiong English-speaking 

 people. 



capped, and If when all bee-work is 

 most pressing, more colonies can be 

 taken care of by piling hive upon hive, 

 filled with empty combs— to be 

 emptied when more leisure comes — 

 then the advantages of shallow hives 

 are easy to be seen. 



2. If we do not make the number of 

 frames so small, that to get the re- 

 quisite comb surface, they must be too 

 heavy for easy handling, then for 

 cheapness and other obvious reasons, 

 the fewer frames the better. For 

 this reason, if there were no others, 

 frames of the Gallup size seem to me 

 objectionable. 



3. Long and shallow frames are 

 more convenient for most of our 

 necessary manipulations. 



(o.) In handling them the arms 

 take a natural and easy, instead of a 

 cramped position. 



(6.) With such frames the eye com- 

 mands the whole surface of a comb, 

 in searching for the queen, etc., with- 

 out that uncomfortable craning of 

 the neck which deep frames compel. 



(c.) As has been already explained, 

 there is less danger of hurting bees in 

 removing or replacing the shallow 

 frames. 



(d.) Less motion, and of course less 

 time, is needed to take out or put 

 back such frames. 



(e.) It is very much easier to make 

 such frames hang true, then deep 

 ones. If their hives had gla^ on 

 their backs, many who use deep 

 frames would be surprised to see how 

 much " out of true " they often are. 



Whatever may be the case with bee- 

 keepers, in a small way only, those 

 who are manipulating for hours to- 

 gether, in large apiaries, and to whom 

 in the press of work, time saved 

 means more money, than in any other 

 season of the year, will find the above 

 reasons for giving the preference to 

 the long and shallow frame, worthy of 

 careful consideration. They are sub- 

 mitted, however, in no spirit of 

 dogmatism, and I am far from claim- 

 ing that the standard Langstroth is 

 demonstrably the best under all condi- 

 tions, and for all parts of our widely 

 extended country. The time will 

 probably never come, when uni- 

 formity will be as much insisted on as 

 in the standard weights and meas- 

 ures of the same country. If by a 

 simple volition, I could, without 

 pecuniary loss to any one, or violence 

 to any one's feelings or prejudices, 

 change every movable comb hive in 

 America, into the standard Lang- 

 stroth size, I would will no such 

 change. Let the Dadants, Hether- 

 ingtons, and others, have'full scope 

 for testing on the largest scale their 

 different forms, only let there be, as 

 far as possible, uniformity in each style, 

 so that any purchaser will know pre- 

 cisely wliat size, under a given name 

 of hive, he is getting. I am sure that 

 Mr. Root, and others, will be willing, 

 when requested, to make hives of the 

 standard Langstroth size — and if Mr. 

 Root will call his size of frame the 

 Simplicity Langstroth frame, there will 

 in the future be plain sailing, at least 

 before all who use the shallow Lang- 

 stroth frame. 



Oxford, Ohio, September, 1883. 



