BEE-spoke-data/bees-v0 huggingface dataset:
If you introduce an Italian queen in a colony of common or black bees, say on the first of May, after having killed its black queen, there will not be a single black bee left in that hive on the first of August, 3 months (90 days) later. When you killed the black queen, there were eggs freshly laid in the cells. Those eggs have required 21 days to hatch. So in 71 to 72 days from the hatching of the last eggs, the black bees have disappeared, showing an average of 36 days for the life of a worker-bee in summer. During the fall and winter their life is longer, for they do not wear themselves out then with hard work, as they do in summer.
We must compute the time when the marshalling of our army of bees will be needed, by the crops of the country in which we live. We must rear our bees to work upon the bloom of either clover, alfalfa, basswood, sage, heather, mesquite, palmetto, gallberry, buckwheat, spanish needle or bidens, etc., as the case may be. The strength of the colony must come for the opening of those crops; for the general who brings his soldiers too late upon the battlefield will lose the battle.
In other words, to use a most forcible expression, from one of our best teachers among the bee educators, Mr. Geo. S. Dennuth, we must rear our working force of bees _for the honey crop and not upon the honey-crop._ The secret of success is all there.
However it is very clear that we cannot have a full force of bees, if the capacity of the brood chamber is inadequate to supply breeding space for our most prolific queens. The queens must not be cramped for room to lay, at the time when bees are most needed.
## Chapter 2 Size of Hives
The Quinby hives originally made by Moses Quinby and first adopted by us contained 8 frames measuring 10\(\sfrac{\zeta}{2}\)x18 inches inside.
The Langstroth hives of standard size contained 10 frames, measuring 8x167\(\,\)s inches inside. The former hive had therefore a capacity of 92 square inches of comb over the latter. We found both too small, for when we placed supers with
Figure 6: Frames of Langstroth size and of Quinby-Dadant sizecombs over those hives, in the spring, the quecns would go up into those supers and lay eggs, after they had filled the lower story. Mr. Dadant senior then tried Quinby hives of different capacities, up to 20 frames of comb, or with a capacity of 3780, square inches of comb.
These were too large by all means, and although we used some 40 of them for several years, we could only produce honey on what was later called "the long idea,' that is to say we had both brood and surplus honey in the same apartment. Although the colony usually occupied one side of the hive with brood, the queen often roamed from one end of the hive to the other and honey sometimes had to be extracted from combs containing brood, a very undesirable arrangement.
To give the reader an idea of the number of hive experiments made by the senior Dadant, we will say that he tried hives with frames 18x18 inches, looking like regular barns.
Figure 7: Twenty frame Dadant hive tried by Charles Dadant
These conbs proved too large; they would break down readily in hot weather. He also tried hives with frames in the shape of a coffin, because he had noticed that bees rear their brood and cluster themselves in as near a round shape as possible. The coffin shaped frame was the nearest possible to a circle in a hive made of lumber. The bees thrived in them. But the difficulty was in placing supers on those hives. After a few years of trial they were discarded also.
After a number of similar experiments, Dadant senior finally adopted a Quinby hive of 11 frame capacity, reducing it to 10 or to 9 frames or even to a less number for small swarms, with one or two division boards.
Figure 8: Coffin-shaped frames tried by the senior Dadant to obtain the nearest to a sphere
The ten-frame Quinby brood chamber which is now called the "Dadant hive,"contains 1890 square inches of comb or 540 square inches more than the 10-frame Langstroth. That this brood chamber is sufficient and the 10-frame Langstroth insufficient, for the average prolific queen, in spring, was ascertained positively by us when, about 1876, we handled several hundred of these hives under exactly the same management, side by side with 110 10-frame Langstroth hives, which we had leased for honey production from an old Missouri
beckeeper by the name of Barlow. During the month of May quite a number of the Langstroth colonies, having been given supers of built combs, began to breed in those supers, while none of the quecns in the Quinby-Dadant hives occupied the supers. This was clear evidence that it took more
Figure 9: Eight-frame Langstroth hive and Dadant hive side by side
than one story of Langstroth ten frame size to supply a good queen with sufficient breeding room, at the time when we must marshal our forces for the harvest.
Additional evidences of the superiority of a large brood chamber were plentiful when the results were weighed. Aside from the fact that numerous old time beekeepers sang the praise of large hives, even when only logs or boxes, we found that the increased population, from ample breeding room given to the queen, unhampered by divisions or spaces, secured a much increased harvest. Perhaps the most cogent evidence that we can cite is the opinion of a farmer's wife on whose farm we had located an apiary composed of both Dadant large hives and ordinary Langstroth lives in about equal number, managed in the same manner. We were paying these people for the rental of the apiary site, in a share of the crop. The lady, who was a very keen manager, asked us one day why we had brought any small hives to their farm; why we did nor keep those hives at home. She did not think we treated them fairly, for she could very plainly see that the large crops came from the large hives and she gave us to understand that she objected strenuously to our keeping an apiary at their farm in future, unless we kept only large hives there. Although we had seen for ourselves the advantages of large brood-chambers, nothing brought the matter to our notice more forcibly than this avariicous complaint.
However, it was necessary for us to keep some bees in standard Langstroth lives, for very few people have, until lately, been willing to buy bees in such large brood chambers as we use. And yet, for success, especially in running for extracted honey, there is no comparison in results.
It is true that, with Langstroth lives of the standard size, one may use a story-and-a-half or two stories, for brood. But here we found objections. When the quecns ascend from one story to another, compelled by necessity, to find room to lay, they hesitate in turning back. We have seen and have often had reports of quecns laying in three stories, so that their brood was scattered everywhere in those stories. So the using of a small hive, to be made larger by doubling it, is only using a more or less inconvenient large hive. An 8-frame Langstroth hive is too small. An 8-frame Langstroth hive, doubled to 16-frames, is too large. One may do as our venerable and most practical friend, Dr. Miller did, reduce the 16 frames to 8, when putting on supers. This gives the queen ample room to develop her fertility previous to the honey crop, but it compels the beckeeper to make numerous manipulations afterwards. We want a brood chamber neither too large nor too small, capable of accommodating the most prolific queens, in the main apartment, reserving the upper stories for honey. We found it in the hive in question.
### Twelve and Thirteen-frame Langstroth Hives
A number of practical beekeepers, who have also discovered the insufficiency of the 8 and 10-frame Langstroth hive, are using hives containing 12 and in some cases 13 frames. These brood chambers are equal in capacity to the 9-frame Dadant brood chambers, but the great number of frames makes them less desirable. **Mr.** C. F. Davie made the statement, in the American Bee Journal for October 1919, that comparative experiences between 12-frame Langstroth hives and the deeper hives with a less number of frames were all in favor of the latter.
### Small Hives
As we have shown in the preceding chapter, we ascertained positively that small hives produce less bees than large ones, because they do not allow full scope to the queen for her breeding. But this is not all. Small hives cause much swarming. Small hives contain a scant amount of honey for winter. Small hives, being less populous, their cluster is in greater danger in winter. Small hives do not enable the apiarist to recognize the best or most prolific queens, when he wishes to select breeders, since they are in a reduced space. Small hives cast more but lighter swarms than large ones. Small hives require queen-excluders over the brood chamber to keep the queen out of the supers. Small hives have a smaller base of support than larger ones, have to be tiered higher for honey capacity, cause a higher climb to the honey-laden bees and are probably more difficult to ventiate than larger ones.
It is true that small hives are cheaper than large ones. But as they often have to be tiered higher and are more prone to cast swarms, it takes a greater number of them to supply an apiary. So the economy is much less than would appear.
Small hives, however, have the advantage of being easier to carry to the cellar and back, easier to transport from one apiary to another, easier for women to handle in making increase.
An advantage in the manufacturing of the shallow hive which has had great weight with manufacturers of hives is that it may be made of narrow widths of lumber, since the standard Langstroth brood chamber may be cut out of 10 inch stock
Figure 10: Several stories of eight frame hives make too tall a pile
boards, while the Quinby-Dadant brood chamber has to be made of lumber over 12 inches wide, which is now very scarce, or be pieced together with a tongue and groove joint. This has been made less objectionable by placing the tongue and groove near the top of the brood chamber, where it is covered by the strip that supports the telescope cover.
Of late years, in a view of economy, even shallow brood chambers have been made in two pieces. As this use of narrow lumber is likely to continue, there is probably little manufacturing advantage in the shallower hive. We mention it only because of the criticism expressed by some manufacturers.
Many people, bee owners, rather than bee kceppers, do not think that their bees are doing well if they do not cast swarms. For such people the small hive is a boon, for the swarms are numerous. Commercial beekeepers view the matter in a different light.
The greatest excellence of the small hive, in the minds of many people, is its low price. But what would we say of a farmer who built a barn insufficient to accommodate more than one half of his live stock, hay and implements? As Mr. Langstroth put it: "Hiving a large swarm of bees in a small hive may be compared to harnessing a powerful team of horses to a baby wagon or wasting a noble water-fall in turning a petty water-wheel."
These are the qualities as well as the limitations of the small brood chamber.
From the experience mentioned above, the writer came to the following conclusions:
A large brood-chamber should be compact, sufficient for all the requirements of the best quecns and for supplying all the honey that a populous colony needs for winter and spring, as well as pollen for breeding.
There are several ways to increase the capacity of the Langstroth hive. A 10-frame hive may be increased to very nearly the proper capacity, equal to that of the Dadant, by adding a shallow story super such as we use for extracting. The hive may also be doubled by adding a full story on top.
We have tried both methods. Neither of them suits us. The explanation will be found farther along.
Shallow brood-chambers, six inches or less in depth, in two, three or more stories are recommended by some. The Heddon hive which was so praised by its inventor about 1886 and created quite a sensation, on account of the undoubted ability of its deviser; the Danzenbaker hive, adopted and recommended also by capable beckeepers and dealers; both of these styles, as well as some others of similar kind and on the same plan as the eke or the nadir of old time beckeeping, have been used and sustained, because the brood-chamber, could be'storified' as the British say, to suit the requirements of the best or poorest queens. One of the best commercial beekeepers of Texas, Mr. Louis Scholl, uses such a brood-chamber and succeeds. His
Figure 1: Shallow brood chambers of the same depth as supers are recommended by some
example, however, is not followed even among his neighbors, and we believe we know the reason why.
In our experiments with bees, we ascertained a fact well-known to the practical beckeeper; the cluster is, as much as possible, in the shape of a ball; the laying of eggs follows a similar plan; the queen begins in the center of the cluster, where
Figure 12: Ekes or nadirs of by-gone days
Figure 13: The DeLayens long idea hive
the most bees are congregated, and lays her eggs in a circle around that center. This is very clearly evidenced when one examines a comb of brood, the older brood always being at the center.
If we stop to think a few moments of the work which is required of the queen, in order that she may lay more than 3,000 eggs per day during weeks in succession, we will readily comprehend that she must not lose much time. Should she lay her eggs without method, here and there, she would be unable to fill the cells with regularity and celerity. When she is about to lay, she thrusts her head into a cell that she believes empty. If that cell is clean and ready for an eggs, she inserts her abdomen in it, lays the egg and proceeds to another cell. Without a regularity continued for hours and days together, it would be impossible for her to supply the numerous cells with eggs, so as to leave few empty. She is therefore regular in her actions and goes around the circle with but little loss of time. A very old queen fails in this regularity and should be superseded.
Figure 14: A regularly laid and well filled comb of worker brood
In a shallow frame, when she reaches the edge of the comb, the queen finds wood instead of cells. This disturbs her and often causes her to retrace her steps and go the opposite way. Even only a cross bar, in a frame, will throw a queen out of direction so thoroughly that she may put brood only on one side of this bar. When she has to go from one story to another she again loses a serious amount of time. When the season is on for her active laying, she is fed so plentifully by the workers that her eggs are produced and protrude from her aodmen, whether she is able to lay them in cells or not. A good queen, in a swarm, will often drop eggs in such number that they may be noticed if the swarm is shaken upon a black cloth. A queen, imprisoned in the hand, during the period of active laying, will often leave eggs between our fingers. So if we would get the best service out of a queen, we must put her in a hive which will give her the greatest facility for finding cells without too much search. This is to be found in a brood-chamber with large combs, where the queen may lay for hours without being turned away from her routine by obstructions of any kind.
When we wonder why a queen lays a greater number of eggs, in a brood-chamber with few combs of large size, than in two or more shallow brood-chambers, superposed over one another, with a bee-space between each of them, the explanation is found in the above statement. The same thing explains why, when a queen has once gone into an upper story to lay, she hesitates to return. She is more likely to go up into a third than to come back into the first. But when she has ample room, on a limited number of combs, to satisfy her propensity to lay, she is much more likely to be contented and there is more egg-laying, a larger increase of population, with less swarming.
This, then, is the explanation of the advantage which we found in results, in those large brood-chambers, as compared with shallow ones.
**Safety in Wintering**
The advantage of the large brood-chambers is not only in securing larger families at the right time--a large force for the harvest--it is found also in better wintering conditions. The winter cluster of bees occupies a sphere-shaped space, in from four to eight frames, in the center of the brood-chamber. This cluster of bees is perhaps on an average 7 inches in diameter. This means that, in a frame measuring eight inches in depth, the cluster will probably be within an inch of the top. In a frame measuring 10\(\sfrac{\swarrow}{2}\) inches in depth, the cluster will be 3\(\sfrac{\swarrow}{2}\) inches from the top. In the deeper frame, there may be 4 or 5 inches of honey, placed by the bees at the top of the combs. In the shallower frame, under similar conditions, there will not be much more than three inches of honey in the same position. The deeper hive is therefore safer for wintering, if our bees are compelled to remain clustered in the same spot for a number of weeks, in very cold weather. As heat ascends, they will be able to eat the honey above them when they would not be able to eat honey at the end of the combs, away from the cluster. This theory, again, is an explanation of the better wintering of bees in the larger and deeper hive, which we found invariable whenever a hard winter made a test of comparative conditions.
### Frame Spacing
Another advantage of the large brood-chambers, which we adopted after the example of Quinby, is to be found in the greater spacing of the frames. Quinby spaced his frames--and therefore the combs of the colony--1\(\sfrac{\swarrow}{2}\) inches from center to center. He followed former apiarists, such as Dzierzon, in this, and thought it the correct distance. Langstroth spaced his combs a fraction over 13\(\%\) inches apart and thought it correct. The manufacturers of hives of the United States, without investigating the matter very deeply, made the spacing of frames exactly 13\(\%\). They had good authorities behind them, for Berlepsch, one of the leaders of the middle of the 19th Century, asserted that this spacing was the one followed by bees. Adopting the Quinby hive, we adopted his spacing. When the matter was discussed and we referred to the bees, in natural condition, for their testimonial, we found that they make all sorts of spacing in building their combs, from one to two inches or even more, from center to center. But they aim to have their worker-brood combs a half inch apart, between the combs, which would about represent the \(13\,\mathrm{\char 37}\) spacing, from center to center.
All this may look very unimportant to the beginner. Yet much of the success or failure of beckeeping depends upon just such small matters.
The supporters of the narrow spacing look upon the wide spacing as a detriment and Mr. Julius Hoffman, inventor of the frame bearing his name, wrote:
"If we space the combs from center to center \(11^{c}_{2}\) inches, instead of \(13\,\mathrm{\char 37}\), then we have an empty space of \(5\,\mathrm{\char 37}\) inch between two combs of brood, instead of \(13\,\mathrm{\char 37}\), as it ought to be; and it will certainly require more bees to fill and keep warm a \(5\,\mathrm{\char 37}\) than a \(1^{c}_{2}\) inch space. In a \(1^{c}_{2}\) inch space, the breeding bees from the two combs facing each other will join with their backs, and so close up the space between the two brood combs. If this space is widened to \(5\,\mathrm{\char 37}\) the bees cannot do this, and more bees will be required to keep up the needed brood-rearing temperature. What a drawback this would be in a cool spring, when our colonies are still weak in numbers, yet breeding most desirable, can readily be understood."
This is a good argument but it does not work well in practice, in large hives. When the breeding season ends, the bees living between combs spaced \(1V_{2}\) inches put more honey in each brood comb, since there is more room and they do not need, then, to keep the cells down to the exact length of the bee chrysalis, as in breeding time. So the comb, or that part of it that is filled with honey, is thickened so as to leave just the necessary room for the bees to pass through. This gives a larger amount of honey than in narrow combs; the bees congregate there in greater number and thus winter better. They are more powerful in spring and the cycle of the year is reached with better success.
The above theory is backed by facts. Bees in large, deep brood-chambers, with the wide spacing, are stronger, winter better, gain strength faster than those in shallow hives, all other conditions being equal. The reader will remember that these facts were established before we tried to explain them by a theory. No theory is strong unless it is backed by the facts of experience. The experience must also be secured on a sufficient scale to make it proof against possible exceptions. The testing of this matter on hundreds of hives, in separate apiaries, treated in similar manner, leaves but little room for doubt of the correctness of the theory. On half a dozen hives, other conditions might change the result.
The spacing of combs, the wider way, has also some influence upon the question of swarming. This will be treated in another chapter.
### The Supers
The proper supers to use in beckeping depend upon the kind of honey that we propose to produce. If we are to run our apiaries for comb-honey, we must have it stored by the bees in a way that will enable us to sell it in the most satisfactory and profitable manner.
When we began beckeeping on a large scale, the little section, made of basswood folded and containing a pound of honey or less, had not yet made its appearance. But sections made of wood, holding from 2 to 4 pounds, had already been produced. Much of the honey was also secured in boxes, the average of them being made of light wood, with one or more sides of glass and of a size to hold 6 pounds, more or less. One or more holes, an inch in diameter at the bottom of such a box, allowed the bees to enter, but did not provide for sufficient ventilation. So the supers used at that date were designed to prevent, rather than encourage the storing of honey.
In producing large crops, we found the bees hostile to small compartments. They would place hundreds of pounds of honey in those large Quinby frames, if available, while they very reluctantly stored a few pounds in small receptacles.
Other beekeepers have found the same thing. Oliver Foster, years ago, wrote:
"When we take into consideration that the object, on the part of the bees, in storing up honey in summer, is to have it accessible for winter consumption, and that, in winter, the bees collect in a round ball, as nearly as possible, in a semi-torpid state, with but little motion, except that gradual moving of bees from the center to the surface and from the surface to the center of this ball, we may imagine how unwelcome it is to them to be obliged to divide their stores between four separate apartments, each of which is 4 inches square and 12 inches long, with no communication between these apartments."
All the experiments made by us led us to the conclusion that we could produce twice as much honey in frames located above the brood combs, without hindrances to the travel back and forth of the workers, the honey to be taken out of these with the honey extractor which had then just been invented, as we had ever produced in small sections or boxes.
But whether to use the double story, or a shallow story for super, on the top of the large brood-chamber, was a question upon which we had to experiment, for very little had been done in this line.