HIVES 
447 
THE HEDDON HIVE. 
This hive was patented and introduced 
in 1885. Its peculiar and distinguishing 
feature was in the use of one brood- 
chamber divided into halves horizontally, 
each half containing a set of eight closed- 
end close-fitting brood-frames, 5% inches 
deep by 18 1-16. The end-bars, as already 
stated, were close-fitting — that is, the 
brood-frame slid into the hive with just 
enough play to allow of its easy removal 
and insertion. On the bottom inside edge 
of the ends of each case were nailed strips 
The Heddon Hive. 
of tin to support the frames, and the whole 
set of eight were squeezed firmly together 
by means of wooden thumbscrews as 
shown. Under the head of Comb Honey 
mention is made of the value of compres¬ 
sion for squeezing sections or section-hold¬ 
ers or wide frames. The more tightly the 
parts are held together, the less chance 
there is for bees to chink propolis into the 
cracks. 
The bottom-board of this hive was much 
like that used on the standard hives, in 
that it had a raised rim on the two sides 
and end to support the brood-chamber, to 
provide a bee-space above the bottom-board, 
and at the same time provide for an en¬ 
trance at the front. The cover was the or¬ 
dinary flat one-board, cleated by the ends. 
The purpose of the inventor in having 
the hive divided in this way was to afford 
more rapid handling, and to accomplish 
contraction and expansion by simply tak¬ 
ing from or adding to the brood-part of 
the hive one or more sections. This divisi¬ 
ble feature of the hive, according to its in¬ 
ventor, enabled him to handle hives instead 
of frames, to find the queen by shaking the 
bees out of one or both of the shallow sec¬ 
tions. The horizontal bee-space thru the 
center of the brood-nest he considered an 
advantage in wintering, in that the bees can 
move up and down and laterally thru the 
combs. 
This hive, as was explained at the close 
of the article on Contraction, was respon¬ 
sible in a large measure for the failure of 
the crops of those who used it. The prin¬ 
ciple of small hives and excessive contrac¬ 
tion has been shown to be a monumental 
failure. 
THE DADANT HIVE. 
Almost the very opposite of the Heddon 
in principle and general construction is the 
Dadant hive. While Mr. Heddon divided 
the brood-chamber into one, two, or three 
separate portions, the Dadants have it all 
in one large complete whole. The frames 
are 18 y 2 x 11%—that is to say, they have 
the Quinby dimensions. There are ten to 
the hive. Such a hive has about the equiv¬ 
alent capacity of a twelve-frame Lang- 
stroth, regular depth. The Dadants have 
always insisted that their ten-frame Quin- 
bys, when compared with the ten-frame 
Langstroth, averaged up year after year, 
would give far better results, both in honey 
and in economy of labor. This opinion is 
not based on the experience of two or three 
years, but on a period covering a good 
many years. In the large hives, they claim, 
bees swarm less, produce more honey, and 
winter better. They claim they do not have 
to exceed two per cent of swarming, and 
this average has been maintained year after 
year. Apparently the colonies in these, 
large hives have very little desire to swarm; 
but when they do swarm the swarms are 
enormous. 
THE TEN-FRAME HIVE OF EXTRA DEPTH. 
It was suggested by A. N. Draper, for¬ 
merly of Upper Alton, Ill., one of Mr. 
Dadant’s followers, that, instead of mak¬ 
ing a hive after the Quinby’s dimensions, 
and on the Dadant pattern, a hive be con¬ 
structed after the pattern of the regular 
ten-frame Dovetailed, having Langstroth 
