34 
THE AUSTRALIAN BEEKEEPERS’ JOURNAL. 
frame hives stopped as abruptly as it had 
commenced. In my own apiary I have care- 
fully experimented with a variety of frames, 
including the British Standard, I4in. x 8jin. ; 
Langstroth, 17fin. x 9Jin. ; Dzierzon, 9|in. x 
10£in. ; Quinby, 17in. x ll^in. ; and L. C. 
Root’s hanging frame, I6|fn. xtlfin. These 
experiments convinced me of the superiority 
of the Lnngstroth foi honey production, 
although for rapid brood rearing I prefer a 
deeper frame. One great objection to small 
frames is the extra number required, thereby 
adding to the cost of the hive and increasing 
the difficulty of manipulation. 
In America it is generally conceded that 
although in the Northern and colder States a 
different shaped frame may be superior, the 
Langstroth is most suited to the Southern 
States and a warm climate. 
There appears to be no occasion in a discus- 
sion of this kind to compare the merits of 
English and American apiarists ; but since 
“ Drone Comb” has done this, 1 would ask 
him what was the condition of apiculture in 
England before the introduction of American 
methods and appliances? Until the publica- 
tion of Mr. Cowan’s excellent little book there 
was no practical work on modern beekeeping 
published in England; at least if there was, 
I am not acquainted with it. A glance at the 
British Bee Journal of say five years ago, 
will show what old-fashioned ideas were in 
vogue, and what queer looking hives were 
advertised for sale. If we are indebted to 
the Americans for anything, it is for showing 
us how to make apiculture a certain and 
profitable pursuit. 
With regard to the details of construction 
of frames, “ Drone Comb ” instances metal 
corners as an admirable invention. I have 
tried these, and do not find them satisfactory, 
because it is not practical to have combs at a 
fixed distance apart if they are frequently 
manipulated. Frames with tin corners are 
simply an abomination. I acknowledge that 
sagging of the top bars is most undesirable ; 
but where this occurs it is no proof that the 
size of the frame is Rt fault, it simply shows 
that there is an error in construction. Top 
bars are usually too slight. Let them be 
made at least fin. deep, and there will be no 
occasion for the use of central bars to support 
the combs. 
I am a great advocate of hives of the 
simplest form of construction, and am certain 
that they will prove the best in the end. 
Where foul brood is prevalent, simplicity is all 
important, because the labour and difficulty of 
eradicating this disease is much increased by 
the use of complicated hives. Unfortunately 
in this country all beekeepers must expect to 
experience foul brood seoncr or later, aud 
the hive that has the fewest, parts is sure 
to become the most popular. In view of the 
elaborate and costly hives used in England it 
is no wonder that Mr, Cheshire advocates his 
laborious phenol cure. 
“ Drone Comb ” recommends that hives 
should be made to fit either the British Stand- 
ard or Langstroth frames. That is to say, one 
frame would hang cross-wise and the other 
length-wise of the hive. But the objection to 
this is that, in hot climates like ours, it is 
indispensable the combs should stand at right 
angles to the entrance, so as to permit of 
perfect ventilation, and whilst such a hive 
would bo right in this respect for one sot of 
frames it would be all wrong for the other. 
I am confident Victorian apiarists will 
decide upon adopting the Langstroth frame 
in preference to any other, and will take this 
opportunity of suggesting the importance of 
at once fixing its exact dimensions. Many of 
the so-called Langstroth frames vary a little 
in size, which is sometimes very annoying. 
Would it not be possible for the beekeepers' 
associations in the different, colonies to commu- 
nicate with each other and thus determine the 
standard size for the Australian Langstroth 
frame? — I am sir, your obedient servant, 
A. E. BONNEY. 
[To the Editor of the Beekeepers' Journal.) 
D it Alt Sir, — Business having during the 
end of the last month called me to your colony, 
I was gratified to note the amount of interest 
which was being directed towards apiculture, 
and during the time spent there had many 
opportunities of becoming acquainted W'ith 
what was being done in the way of beekeeping 
generally. I noticed particularly that your 
season appears to be considerably later than 
ours here, and that in all parts visited by me 
a very steady flow of honey was coming in 
stocks, showing activity and wonderful 
strength. 
In October last I sent to a friend in the 
North-east half-a-dozen hives with written 
instructions how to use the bar frame, and 
hearing from him in December, not only 
that he had succeeded in obtaining six swarms 
of bees in the bush, but of wonderful progress 
they had made, I was anxious to see for 
myself especially what source the honey was 
coming from. 
The first swarm was caught and hived 
about the middle of the month (October) and 
other five during the remainder of the month. 
Since that time I find even r comb nicely 
made (they having been supplied with starters 
only,) have thrown off seven swarms, and are 
now splendidly strong, and capping honey in 
every frame. One colony— the first hived — 
are working sections very nicely in a half-storey 
