Chris Slade wrote:
> Assuming the hives are together so if one has foul
> brood, so will the other, ....

I'm not sure the former (hives are together) implies the later (if one has
foul brood, so will the other).  If the "dead" hive does not have foul
brood, I might agree with the advice to combine the two.  But I would check
the "dead" hive quite thouroughly first.  I speculate that the only thing to
be gained in the combination is wax moth protection.  My recollection of the
original description is that the hive has been in decline for quite some
time, hence all the remaining bees will be old and not of much use to the
stronger colony.

One might take the position that combining the weak hive (at this point in
time since it is SO weak) with the stronger hive would be throwing good
money after bad.  I might be more inclined to depopulate the weak hive and
protect it from wax moth until it can be given new bees next spring, rather
than burdening the strong hive with the added real estate and tired, old,
grumpy bees.  But first, I'd find out for certain what caused the decline of
the "dead" hive.  Were I certain there were no pathogens being passed around
I might distribute the depopulated boxes amongst my stronger colonies (but
the original poster only has one other hive).  Perhaps consolidate the
stores in one box to give to the stronger colony and protect the remaining
equipment from wax moths until next spring when it can be repopulated.  By
next spring the strong colony will likely have emptied one of the 3 deeps,
which can be given back to the newly started package once it is picking up
steam.  This would be my advice for the seasons in upstate New York.  I do
nor recall where the original post came from (or if we were even told).

But foremost in this advice, regardless of location, determine why the
"dead" hive declined!

Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee!