In 1885, James Heddon, of Michigan, announced his contraction method. He hived all swarms in eight-frame Langstroth hives in which were placed two contractors, or dummies, to occupy the space of three combs. This left only five frames in the brood nest. It seems strange that the absurdity of such action was not apparent to everybody. Heddon argued that contraction left much of the bee bread out of the hive and left it in the field, which was a better place for it in his locality. All his honey went into the supers, and it was necessary to feed sugar syrup to carry the bees through the winter. He apparently failed to see any connection between small colonies in the fall with no pollen reserve and the fact that one-half of his bees in the home apiary were dead in the spring.

G. M. Doolittle (center) in apiary which became the center of world-wide interest among the beekeepers through his writings for the bee press.

This was the signal for the arguments to begin in earnest.

Charles and C. P. Dadant contended for hives with room to permit queens to lay to capacity, and with ample storage for honey and pollen. Nearly every issue of the bee magazines of that day had one or more articles for or against the contraction method.

James Heddon became the leader of the advocates of the contraction system.

W. Z. Hutchinson was quick to join the ranks of the contraction advocates and in the October, 1885, number of the American Bee Journal, came to the defense of Heddon in an attack against the Dadants' contentions. Hutchinson contended that the important consideration was the total amount of honey obtained and not the yield per hive. The Dadant reply stated that: "A hive is too small if it does not allow the queen to lay to the utmost of her capacity previous to the honey crop. Disprove it who can. " This disagreement with Hutchinson over the size of hives lasted for years and was the cause of some unpleasant incidents. In 1889 Hutchinson reviewed the Dadant revision of Langstroth's book at length. In the main, the comments were complimentary, but when he came to discuss the chapter on hives he objected to the treatment of the small hives. It was in that review that Hutchinson betrayed his own limitations as a beekeeper. He said, "We see nothing gained by 'developing the fertility of the queen. ' " He said also, "The Dadants say, be sure and have the hive large enough so that the queen can lay to her capacity; we say, be sure and have the hive small enough so that the queen will keep the combs full of brood. "

This review aroused Charles Dadant to protest through the American Bee Journal. In his opening paragraph he stated that he sent it to the American Bee Journal instead of the Review because Hutchinson had previously refused him space to discuss the same subject. To this Hutchinson replied, also in the American Bee Journal. Both occupied much space in their arguments in support of their own positions as to whether a large or small hive was most practical. Their differences appear to have been solely due to a difference of opinion on this point.

Heddon announced completion of his divisible brood chamber hive in 1885.

In 1885, Heddon published his Success in Bee Culture, in which he announced his divisible brood chamber hive with frames 5 3/8 by 18 1/16 in. He argued that by the use of this hive all necessary operations could be carried on without the necessity of handling the frames. He quoted Hutchinson as to the advantages of reversible hives and offered his hive as adapted to that purpose. By its use the brood chamber could be contracted by simply removing a horizontal section without the necessity of moving frames.

Heddon was aggressive in his business methods and by vigorous advertising found an extensive sale for his hive for some years.

With so many of the leading writers advocating the small hives, the large hive advocates were greatly overshadowed. Dadant carried on the fight for large hives almost alone, through a long series of years. With Doolittle, Heddon, and Hutchinson, many lesser lights occasionally joined, and it was a very natural result that small hives came into almost universal use.

The demand was for a small and cheap hive, and since the dealers were principally intent on profits they offered the thing most sought. The result, however, was hardly anticipated. Up to this time bees were present on nearly every farm. It was the common practice for the farmer to keep a few bees for his honey in much the same way that he kept hens for eggs, cows for milk, and a garden for vegetables. When the small hives came into use the farmer found his supers full of honey in the fall and removed them the same as he had always done with the deeper hives formerly used. He did not realize that no honey, on which the bees must depend for the winter, was left in the hive, and in the spring his bees were dead and he had only empty hives. In a few years the bees largely disappeared from the farms of the Middle West from this cause. Thus, the supply dealer, by pushing a small hive poorly adapted to the let-alone beekeeper, destroyed his best market.

This shallow hive adopted by some beekeepers was an adaptation of the divisible brood chamber first advocated by Heddon.