# Crowder Hive in Action



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Hot Diggety **** !

Neighboring cattleman came by today and told me where to find a big swarm in his pasture. Hot footed it over there and sure 'nuf there it was. Put it in a Crowder-design hive, left it until dusk and brought it home. Had to sqush only one bee (caught between bars and I did not see her until too late) and did not leave a single bee behind. I now have both a Hardison and a Crowder-style hive filled and working. 

Now; all this talk about comb collapse: There are two proven designs--the Hardison hive and the Crowder--both work. 

In a post yesterday Limulus mentioned a beekeeper, Wyatt Mangum, who like Crowder is a professional using TBH's. If we knew what kind of hive Mangum used we would be pretty sure that we knew of three designs that would not fail. 

Limulus; if you are listening why don't you see what you can find out for us?

I see no reason to re-invent the wheel. If we know what works, lets start there and experiment later.
Ox


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

When I designed my latest I had not seen plans to any of these, but I had seen a lot of KTBH that were being used successfully in Africa and I'm sure it get's hotter there. So I decided to just go with what they were doing and see how it worked.

I agree, experimenting with a TBH can be very frustrating. It would be nice to start with a successful design and go from there.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

You can see Wyatt Mangum's tbhs in the cover shot aove most of his articles in the Bee Culture Magazine. His hives are shallow, narrow and short. They are adequate for his purposes in a warmer climate.

But they lack enough volume to be self sufficient in food stores or to prevent swarming for my conditions in Wyoming. I need the equilavent of about 3 deep supers. 

I think the jury still out on the comb collapse issue. Comb weight is a factor, but I have seen 6" comb collapse in a tbh. And I've seen pictures of feral comb 6'tall stand with very little reinforcement in a hot, poorly ventilated space.

I'm leaning toward different management techniques. When the bees start firmly attaching new comb to the sidewalls, it's time to be done with moving/inspecting comb unless it's to be harvasted. Once the comb toughens up these restrictions might not be needed. If I don't try it who will? I don't mind experimenting.

Congrats on the bees. I know you are going to be having fun and sharing lots of new ideas/observations.

Happy Tbhing
Dennis



[This message has been edited by topbarguy (edited May 23, 2004).]


----------



## limulus (Feb 10, 2004)

Oxankle, sorry for the delay, I sent you an e-mail hopefully I can get you the info you need. Wyatt's hives are small, I believe some of the ones he uses for pollination are only 14 bars deep. they are 19" wide, to be compatible with a Lang' hive, but I believe he has reservations regarding his dimentions. He does not harvest honey, but does inspect brood nests regularly, although he does not remove side attachments prior to migration. As far as swarm prevention, I believe that his spring method is to shake out packages (yes he shakes the bees off of tob bar combs, old hard combs to be sure ) and sell his excess bees.


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Limulus: 
Thanks for the Email. I got some ideas from the citations you gave me. Mangum's hive is shaped like the Hardison hive, but at l9" his top bars are 3 inches longer. One of his articles said that he makes his hives 60cm long, much shorter than we use. I had planned to make a short hive for a "Garden Hive" and put a peaked roof on it just for show. I may do that yet. 

Topbarguy: I think your are correct in that management technique is going to be a big factor in success with the TBH. I think that until the hives have run a full cycle of brood rearing they probably should be left alone. Constant handling can only weaken new comb. 

One of the citations Limulus gave me contained a design for a frame feeder. The article specified that the feeder held a litre of syrup. I don't know anyone who wants to fiddle with a quart feeder. I plan to make a triple-wide that should hold almost a gallon in my hives. 

It also becomes clear that any one beeman must settle pretty quickly on a design and then stick with it. It would be an awful aggravation to have odd sizes and designs of equipment that could not be interchanged.

Ox


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

Ox, that's true to some degree, but the beginning stages of TBH development are crucial. If the brood nest isn't developing neatly early on, you need to intervene early so that any damage you cause can be repaired swiftly. Waiting until later discovering you have combs crossing top bars and a nasty brood nest, you almost destroy the colony to fix it later.

Hampering them early on means a much faster recovery.

------------------
Scot Mc Pherson
Foundationless Small Cell Top Bar Hives
BeeWiki: <A HREF="http://linuxfromscratch.org/~scot/beewiki/" TARGET=_blank>
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~scot/beewiki/</A>
Pics:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~scot/pics/bees/


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Scott;

I finally quit fooling with my top bar hives other than to fog them for mites and to feed them in the fall. 

The Crowder hive is filled wall to wall, the Hardison hive is about 2/3 filled, both are heavy with stores. 

I know that the bees in the Hardison hive are on track, while those in the Crowder hive have tied two bars together toward the back of the hive. I've done enough to know that the rest of the hive is stable. 

Come spring we'll see what a tbh looks like when it is full of brood. 
Ox


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

What depths are the Hardison and Crowder. It's great to have a hive that works for you. Why not continue to experiment, keeping in mind that all evidence to date points to depth as a major factor in cell size and cell size a major factor in Varroa control. I would gladly risk comb failure and deal with attachments to have a hive that could survive on its own. Once they are surviving then we can devise a management strategy to deal with the minor problems. Before everyone goes nuts on me I say minor because I know that with all the inventive minds here these problems will be solved eventually its a matter of equipment design. IMO we should conquer the big problems first. Now how about 3 sided frames for a starter suggestion. 

------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Gary

Wow I like your thinking. 3 sided frame! that is as strong as it gets!

should give us something to play with this winter! it will be a challenge 

david


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

Please reiterate: compared to a Tanzanian or KTBH, what are the Crowder and Hardison design particulars? How do they differ? Depths? Advantages to each? Thanks


----------



## chemistbert (Mar 4, 2004)

The hardison and crowder are both Kenyan Top bar designs. Each has a different angle however.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

I think a top bar and two sides with the bottom left open would solve the problem of attachment and comb failure. You still cut out the comb for harvest and leave a little as a guide. If you also left the corners behind you may even solve the problem of crooked comb. Who knows the fun part is the experiment so far I'm having a blast.

Scot,
The less interference the better. I would rathar have equipment that did the job for me. Then I have more time for other experiments.

Here are some of the ideas I have been toying with:

Internal and external 5 Liter or better fast delivery feeders.

Top bars with a wire mesh cage as thick as comb that can be filled with fondant.

Stackable hives (hard one) 

starter strips and half moon foundation.

Think about this we get to be involved in the development stage, I know topbars have been around for a long time, but we are setting some kind of standards. Mabey I'm just being a dreamer but I think its cool!

------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

An idea I have yet to try out is a "frame" made by attaching a regular metal coat hanger upside-down along the top bar. If it could be secured easily to the bar (not sure the best way, yet), and made to hang straight, a foundation strip could be laid across it for a starter. The "hook" could be cut off or left on. Could make for an easy TBH frame. The comb could extend down past the hanger but the overall reinforcement would be substantial.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Hi Guys
I was thinking of a standard top bar with two frames extending to a single point, a triangle, which would be very strong. Although there would be more than just bee space between, you could make the hive more ofa triangle, make it deeper with a narrower bottom board. Maybe leave the bottom board off completely and screen it in. 

I like the wire idea too. You could drill a hole in either end of the top bar, run the wire down around the side bars, back up through the top bar, and twist, to give it strength. Not sure what the bees woould do with it, but it might even keep their comb a little straighter. Not sure if you need to put a groove in the side bar.

david


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Hey All,
Let's brainstorm the ideas, I mean photos and all. My site is not up yet but the bee blog site would be a good place to post (if I can figure it out). I am going to make some open bottom frames over the winter I want to get them in a hive this spring and try them out.

I will need someone in a hot climate to also try.

Anyone else want to participate in a word wide experiment?

------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

As I recall, when I was back at Cornell, Roger Morse was not a big fan of top bar hives, and figured it was not a whole lot more work to make a frame (even a simple straight sided frame)than to make a top bar. This talk of three sided frames reminds me of that, and at some point it seems you might as well make a regular frame, with bee space around it. ? And then we're back where we started.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If I were going to make a "TBH" with frames (that's a oxymoron) I'd just build a long Dadant deep (11 1/4" frames) with an 1 1/4" wide top bar and a triangular comb guide. You'd get the nice demenor that the solid top bars give you, the natural comb that a top bar gives you and a frame to support your comb.

Those are three of the four advantages of a top bar hive. As I see it the four advantages of a TBH are:

It's horizontal so there are no supers to lift.

The comb is natural built with no interference by us.

The top bars make a solid top that keeps the bees calm during maniuplation.

It's easy to build with simple hand tools and scrap lumber. Much easier than Hoffman frames.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

The idea is to brain storm it's an old concept that usually leads to very innovative ideas> I for one refuse to give up before I start. 

The idea with three sided frames is to not limit the depth. If you look at all the pics of the feral nests you will find they are very deep. They did not get that way over night. All the comments I read say that they must have been there for years, or something to that effect. All of Dennis' hard work and the Lusbys point to cell size as a major factor in Varroa control. 

Michael,
I agree thats why I made both I want to compare and contrast. However I think that it will boil to doing whatever you need to do to allow them to build comb to thier own specs.

------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

Hoffman frames are not necessary for a frame hive. Free-hanging frames were used extensively before and after the design of the Hoffman side bars (called "bee-mashers" by some, back in the day).

Free-hanging frames have no "shoulders" and require only simple cuts (simpler, I might add, than some TB designs). They are staple or hand-spaced. Morse mentioned them with favor and included illustrations of them in some of his books.

Natural combs can be built in them, and for that matter, they can be made to any depth desired. They can be wired, and provide the ultimate support, while obviating the comb attachment problem and allowing for ready and safe transport of colonies.

The practical advantages to a long hive (vs. vertical, storified) are many, as mentioned. As far as the top bars forming a cover, that makes for quieter and easier manipulations, I agree. (Full frames can be built with wide top bars to accomplish the same thing.)

One of the problems with horizontal hives is (again, according to Morse's experience and opinion) that the colonies do not develop as rapidly and don't thrive as well. I have had vertical (supered) catenary top bar hives that developed and produced pretty much the same as frame hives, although many the honey storage combs (in regular supers) were already drawn, so the bees were saved that work.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

JWG
I'm not familiar with the Hoffman frames you describe. Any pics or sketches on line? I will look in my ABC book tonight

david


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Hoffman invented the self spacing frame that is in common use in this country. Where the end bars are butted against each other for proper spacing of the brood chamber.

Langstroth's original design was not self spacing.

Eugene Killion was fond of making his own frames and putting a nail on the side of the top bar for a spacer. I have done the same with a staple when I've made my own frames.


----------



## Hillbillynursery (Nov 13, 2003)

I make my frames with the top bar pointed like some sites show you to do with TBHs. My end bars are the same width as the top bar and I use sheetrock screws to keep spacing. They do squish less bees and are easier to get apart as there is less surface area touching the next frame. This makes removing a frame much easier than the Hoffman/selfspacing type. I have a block of wood cut to the right thick ness and long enough to hold easy as my depth gauge for the screws and have 2 cordless drills one set up with the drill bit for predrilling the other with the driver bit. It surprized me how quick it was installing the screws.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

MIKI,
in regard to 3 sided frame: I had pondered that, and witnessed others' attempts to support the comb better and prevent bracing in TBH's... what I finally came up with was ..... the lang. hive. 

I decided that what I was doing in designing a tbh system to give me the benefits I wanted was simply reinventing the Lang. The only thing that a tbh would give me that the traditional Lang woudn't would be self-drawn comb. But then, foundationless frames solve that one, eh?

I also decided that, while I wanted to cut set-up costs, the effort and expense to experiement and design supported combs and the like, would put me right back where I am. I'm not bashing TBH's at all. I love their ability to allow introduction with limited capital. 

I would love to try a TBH, but still trying to get things running smooth and the varroa controlled. But sell me on the idea of a TBH over a Lang with foundationless frames.

Thanks,
WayaCoyote


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

>decided that what I was doing in designing a tbh system to give me the benefits I wanted was simply reinventing the Lang. The only thing that a tbh would give me that the traditional Lang woudn't would be self-drawn comb. But then, foundationless frames solve that one, eh?<


Eh? NO

Gary

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming...'Wow! What a ride!'"


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

With a free-hanging frame, of whatever size, the top bar, end bars, and bottom bar are all the same width, 1 to 1-1/4". Top bar is made of 7/8" stock, ends and bottom of 3/8" stock. The ends of the top bar are rabetted out, like with a regular frame top bar. Nails go through the top of the end bar into the top bar at the rabbet. The bottom bar is fixed between the bottom of the end bars. Very simple -- wish I could describe it better. They are cheap, fast and easy to make out of scrap.

Simple foundationless frames in a long hive configuration would be an effective practical arrangement, especially for those who move their bees, and 1-3/8" wide top bars would create a covered hive like a typical TBH. 

Another comb-support idea! Here is a website showing the Jackson Horizontal Hive, another long hive using frames in which the sides and bottoms are made of dowels:
http://www.rupertshoney.co.za/ http://www.rupertshoney.co.za/rh/new_JHH.htm http://www.rupertshoney.co.za/rh/why_a_new_hive.htm http://www.rupertshoney.co.za/rh/how%20to%20work%20JHH%201.htm http://www.rupertshoney.co.za/rh/jhh_advantage.htm 

and here is Mr. Dartington's UK version many of you are probably familiar with:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/longdeephive 

Hope some of this might be interesting. Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Happy Turkey day to all too!

JWG thanks for the links. I want to copy something from that South African Site that may answer a question/comment above.

"The Reverend Langstroth designed, in 1853, a beehive to accommodate his brilliant discovery, the beespace. We accept this beespace to be between 6 and 8 millimetres. No one has ever queried this beespace in relation to the smaller African bee races, but they seem to be happy with it. The only cheap, convenient, box he could find to take the bee frames was the wooden box that protected the standard fuel container of the time, the common wooden paraffin or kerosene box. The dimensions, less the bee space, determined the size of the modern standard bee frame in use throughout the world today. This standard is the only one we have followed in designing our new hive. We do not agree with it, believing from thousands of observations of wild swarms, that the natural shape of a brood comb is hemispherical, that is twice as wide as it is deep. It is only when our colonies are short of space that they start building comb into the corners to make a deeper, rectangular comb. However all modern equipment is built to accommodate the frame dimensions dictated by the old paraffin box!"

What is the support for "the natural shape of a brood comb is hemispherical, that is twice as wide as it is deep"?

Any agreement?

Thanks!

david


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2004)

Hi David and Everyone,

When I was running small cell hives, I noticed the bees sometimes reduced the space between the top bars. So I got out the camera and took a few photos. Superimposed a scale and did some measuring. I found a single beespace was about 4.3mm.

In a top bar hive a beespace is irrelevant. That's what makes them so easy to build and that also allows a wide range of materials/designs to be economically optimized.

When I switched to tbhs, my focus moved away from some of the photos and data I had pending with small cell/standard hives. That's why I didn't get the beespace page up and running:> ) But it could prove useful now.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Barry,
>What is the support for "the natural shape of a brood comb is hemispherical, that is twice as wide as it is deep"?<

What kind of support are you looking for?
Documentation?

I would also be interested to read that.

IMO, I think the above statement is not exactly true. I think it is just an observation. One thing we know is that bees or anything in nature for that matter, makes the best, most efficient use of it's environment = survival. However wider than deeper makes perfect sense as far as supporting weight goes. I know one thing and that is, the bees know what is best for them. We can try as we may to figure out why they do what they do, but untill we can read thier minds it will always remain one of mother natures mysteries


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Hi all
Nice page on beespace Dennis.
The support I was looking for (natural bee hive is twice as wide as deep) was either anecdotal or written. It seems like a pretty big point. But it would be difficult to determine since bees use preexisting natural cavities.
The Jackson Hive is wider than deep. This really adds volume. The structure makes a lot of sense too. The two parallel bars that supoprt the top bars are the main structural feature. The body of the hive is plastic. Makes the hive cheaper and lighter.
By extending the top bar supports you provide yourself with a natural place to rest your removed top bars.
The frames are four sided, with simple dowels at each side and below. The bottom of the frame is a smaller dowel, maybe 1/4inch, which goes through holes drilled in the bottom of the side dowels, which are about 1/2 inch.
So you have to buy the dowels, drill holes, and glue.
Any ideas for a cheap source of material for the hive sides and bottom?
david


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

When people are throwing away bulk trash you can pick up boards for nothing by the side of the road. Construction sites are a good source of scrap ply. Someone else has used large military surplus or shipping boxes, and Jim Satterfield, I think, has used old parts of furniture, drawers or whatever. But if you build your own cavities from scrap boards, of course, you can standardize them. 

Apparently the Jackson Hive is meant to be supported by hanging, the weight being borne by the two side rails, so the walls don't have to be strong. I wonder if the plastic (corrugated plastic?) could be had inexpensively. I have checked around once or twice and it was a bit pricey, but from the right supplier it might be feasible and a good material to experiment with. Dowels tend not to be cheap but in bulk from the right vendor they might be OK too. 

(So many ideas but after all they are not too much good when the bees are so hard to keep alive in the first place! ;o/ )


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Barry's tbh was both wide and deep. The bees built ll bars of comb and they stopped around 16" deep. For that cavity, the nest shape was more hemispherical. 

It seems the bees prefer a shape that is volume rich and surface are poor. But they are highly adaptable regarding the cavity. It's amazing how the amount of the different kinds of comb, in the different hives, was pretty much the same.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It is true natural comb, as it is drawn is "somewhat" hemispherical. If it WERE true hemispherical it would be, by definition, twice as wide as it is deep because a hemisphere, hanging down, is twice as wide as it is deep.


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

...and aren't feral nests found in the open typically longer than their width? (in the temperate zone anyway)


----------



## Oxankle (Jan 8, 2004)

Fellows;
This is simply a reflection of the conservation of energy. 

Bees will build semi-hemispheric combs in unrestricted space because the circle (or half circle) gives the greatest volume for the expenditure of materiels. (A given length of perimeter provides more volume in a circle than in any other shape.) This may be academic since colonies that build these semi-round combs usually do not survive in the environment where found. Cave bees in the tropics perhaps, but not in N. America.

Feral bees ordinarily seek cavities. In a tree bole the comb will be longer than wide, as it will when built between the walls of a house. 
Ox


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm just talking about how they build it. In the end they fill all available space with it.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

So-
with all that said we are at two distinct opinions ....
the first being that no matter what we try to devise we are led back to the langstroth

and

the advantages of natural comb and the TBH

Who knows all we can do is keep trying.



------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

Not necessarily. As mentioned before, very simple frames (free-hanging frames, those made with dowels, or whatever) can be used, with wire reinforcement, if desired, and the natural comb built within them. They can be of any depth (see pic at http://www.gutostler.de/Imkerei/body_imkerei.html ), and they can used in a long hive -- similar to a TBH -- which does not require any supering or lifting. Sort of the best of both worlds.

I have used TBH's in which each top bar was cut lenghtwise down the middle (into two half bars). I would pinch a 2.5" to 3" deep strip of duragilt plastic reinforced foundation between the halves and nail them together with brads. This type of starter strip provided some good reinforcement at the top portion of the comb, where there would be a lot of stress. The bees build their combs naturally below the strips, and did not attach them to the hive walls, which were curved.

After a year or two the brood combs were quite tough and could be handled easily without too much care. A longer starter strip might not hang true so I never attempted to use a larger piece of foundation than this. Anyway, it worked very well, at least for brood combs used season after season. New, heavy combs of honey would still be prone to breakage and one would still have to be pretty careful with them.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Hey all,
Great site with good ideas, however if you read it the Imker herself states that the project was only in it's infancy started early this year and that she will post the results later. I like the idea however, it's proof of nothing, still just an experiment which leaves us back at my previous post.

------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The nearest thing I have to that kind of a hive is a double wide Dadant Deep. Of course that's 11 1/4' frames. I put a comb guide (bevel) on the top and sides and I had to put a support half way down or the combs would collapse. I put a 1/16" welding rod half way down. I didn't want a lot of wires getting in the way of cutting comb out. I still have not found that a very long, heavy, new, comb can support itself without some help.


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

Mike,
Did you notice the triangle shaped topbar on the frame in the close up. I read the site: the timing, idea and designe would suggest that this Imker (Beekeeper) is also monitoring this site, would not suprise me in the least it's a popular site here in Germany also. Most Germans will read english however corresponding can be more of a challenge.

------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It does look like a beveled top bar.

I posted a picture of my Dadant Deep foundationless frames on my web site:
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/DadantDeep1.jpg


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

Top bar hives are fascinating. I enjoy reading all your ideas and innovations.
Apparently all of you guys keep only a few hives for fun, since I have not read ANY notes on crop size (honey, wax).
Please share some of your data on harvesting and honey processing. 

I believe that using simple, triangular or elyptical frames with comb attached to more than the top bar will be an advantage if one chooses to use extractors (the tangential type) instead of having to crush and squeeze the combs.

I live in Guatemala, Central America, and most beekeeping is stationary, so moving hives is hardly done. Depending on the site and weather conditions, folks are getting from 40 to 100 lbs of honey per hive, but very little wax. Does anyone know of bee projects being very profitable using TBHs ? 
Has anyone tried putting in small cell foundation to frames in a TBH ? 
Evidently one of the advantages of the TBH is the lower initial cost as compared to Langstroth style.

I invite you all to share crop figures and not only design concepts. I am sure money is important to some of you.

How about pollen traps fitted to TBHs ? Anyone come up with that kind of innovation ?


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

It's all in your imagination; design the hive around what you want to do. If it's pollen you want design the entrance to accommodate your pollen trap.

Topbars produce much more wax than Langs do but Langs produce more honey. As far as pollination and crops go I cannot comment I don't have any experience. I don't think there are any keepers on the site using topbars for pollination. I wouldnt want to try to move them with fragile comb.

If you search the site for designs you will find many posts and links to sites with different plans. A big advantage is that you can build them out of almost anything. 

A press can be made from a scissor jack and I have read somewhere that the quality of pressed honey is better than that of honey flung through the air...don't really know if it's true.


------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

I agree that creativity has no limit.
Some have said that if we seek to have full frames on top bar hives, we might just use Langs. I agree there too. The point I was trying to make was that reinforced combs will improve on top bar hive management; besides, making a three sided frame (triangle) WITHOUT the precision cuts and notches has to be a lot cheaper than state- of-the-art-Hoffman-self-spacing-bees-couldn´t-care-less frames. 

A basic question here arises: since top bars yield more wax BECAUSE combs are crushed to extract whatever honey there is, 
could beekeepers switch to making equivalent money return from the extra wax and less honey ?
The reinforcement of combs by means of making full frames does not necessarilly mean you will not crush the combs. It simply means that combs will hopefully be attached to the sides and prevent comb breakage before it´s time to render them.

Screened bottoms are also becoming quite popular. How much cheaper it is to screen the underside of a top bar hive !

As far as top ventilation goes, I suppose any little crack between tops bars provides for that.

About colony manipulation: do you apply the same management criteria for top bar hives, regarding the re-accomodation of combs in the brood chamber? Or do you let bees do their own design ?

Let´s try some math: I´ll throw in figures for Guatemala market conditions, because it´s what I know best:

Langs yield 
honey = 70 lbs @ $1.35 retail price if sold directly to customers = $ 94.50
wax = 2 lbs @ $ 3.00 = $ 6.00
pollen = 4 lbs @ $ 7.50 = $ 30.00
Total sales =$ 130.50

Top bar yield:
honey = 50 lbs @ $ 1.35 = $ 67.50
wax = 5 lbs @ $ 3.00 = $ 15.00
pollen = 4 lbs @ $ 7.50 = $ 30.00
Total sales =$ 105.00

The cost of the hive is at this point irrelevant, because the investment must be divided by the number of years the equipment will be serviceable.

This excercise is intended to get a conversation going. I have actually no idea of top bar yields, so my figures might just be unrealistic. Any inputs ?


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

>Some have said that if we seek to have full frames on top bar hives, we might just use Langs. I agree there too. The point I was trying to make was that reinforced combs will improve on top bar hive management; besides, making a three sided frame (triangle) WITHOUT the precision cuts and notches has to be a lot cheaper than state- of-the-art-Hoffman-self-spacing-bees-couldn´t-care-less frames.<

Here is where the misconception of the idea occurs. My idea of a three sided frame is not a triangle it is only a topbar with the two sides NO bottom. The idea behind the experiment is not to limit the depth. My hives are 16 inches deep so I dont think the bottom will limit the cell structure..this is yet to be seen. The overall idea is to let the bees build what they want, where they want to take max advantage of the natural way they combat mites i.e. cell size. I suggest you go to Dennis' site and read his research and all the Lusby's work in the POV section and you will get a better idea. 

>could beekeepers switch to making equivalent money return from the extra wax and less honey ?<

Depends on your market.

>Screened bottoms are also becoming quite popular. How much cheaper it is to screen the underside of a top bar hive !<

Haven't tried yet.

>As far as top ventilation goes, I suppose any little crack between tops bars provides for that.<

Not always they seem to glue them up pretty good. I just had an opportuity to open them and there was moisture on the bars.

as far as your market conditions go. Are you sure you can make a profit?




------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

Thanks for replying Miki.
I guess depth is in fact limited by the bottom of the hive. I´ve seen some impressive pictures of natural comb on TBHs a few minutes ago, and I guess a triangle shape would in fact limit comb shape. It looks more like elyptical, so perhaps a bent piece of thin lumber (veneer) or bamboo will mimic natural shape better.

Profit is to me an important issue. Market conditions of course determine sale price.

Any comments on yield ?

How do you crush the combs ? Are you getting pollen-rich honey ?
Do you harvest any combs that have small brood areas, or just all-honey + pollen-honey combs ?

Is your wax loaded with pollen that didn´t get squeezed out ?


----------



## MIKI (Aug 15, 2003)

I did not harvest this year it was a bad season here in Germany. I left it all on for winter. I think Michael or Dennis are more qualified to answer that one.

------------------
Procrastination is the assination of inspiration.

Gary


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

gauatabee,
>Some have said that if we seek to have full frames on top bar hives, we might just use Langs. I agree there too.<

I sort of agree. For comb honey though I designed a triangular section frame for my TBHs. They are also made from the scraps I have left over from cutting topbars.

>The point I was trying to make was that reinforced combs will improve on top bar hive management; besides, making a three sided frame (triangle) WITHOUT the precision cuts and notches has to be a lot cheaper than state-of-the-art-Hoffman-self-spacing-bees-could´t-care-less frames. <

This I don't agree with at all. The bees care VERY much about their space. When you use a TBH design, if you don't find a way to space the TopBars exactly as the bees like, OR provide a starting guide somehow, you will discover how much they do care when the gets farther and farther off center as the bees move back into the hive. Plus they have different ideas how comb should be spaced once you move between brood nest and honey storage.

Usually:
Brood spacing == 32-35mm
Honey Spacing =>38mm

>A basic question here arises: since top bars yield more wax BECAUSE combs are crushed to extract whatever honey there is, 
could beekeepers switch to making equivalent money return from the extra wax and less honey ?<

Only if your market supports a price for bees wax that is roughly 8x more than the proce for honey, which is I think in almost every case not so. Here in the USA we can get between $1 - $8 or more per Lb. for honey depending on how and who we sell to and how special the honey is. Wax fetches between $.50 - $2 per Lb. and so far I haven't ever seen "special bees wax". So its generally more economic to focus on honey sales, and either use the wax for your own personal use as candles or lib balms or whatever. Perhaps you can develop you own bees wax product to improve the value of your wax, but then you aren't selling bees wax per se, but a bees wax "product".

>The reinforcement of combs by means of making full frames does not necessarilly mean you will not crush the combs. It simply means that combs will hopefully be attached to the sides and prevent comb breakage before it´s time to render them.<

For the most part, if you are going to develop frames you are defeating the purposeful simplicity of a TBH, might as well stick with a langstroth or other national standard langstroth type hive you might have.

>Screened bottoms are also becoming quite popular. How much cheaper it is to screen the underside of a top bar hive !<

Probably not much unless steele screening is significantly cheaper than wood. I think screened bottom boards can be quite useful though. Again though if you are building a TBH, you are defeating the purpose of simplicity. With a Lang, you can just buy ready made Screened Bottom Boards.

>As far as top ventilation goes, I suppose any little crack between tops bars provides for that.<

The bees will quickly fill in the cracks with propolis and wax. Top Ventilation is important during cold winter months to let off humidity buildup. I am not sure this is going to be important in guatamala unless you are up high in the mountains.

>About colony manipulation: do you apply the same management criteria for top bar hives, regarding the re-accomodation of combs in the brood chamber? Or do you let bees do their own design ?<

Its not at all the same keeping bees in TBHs. You can't just willy nilly move frames around at your pleasure. They bees do develop a nest structure that you must try to maintain with as little disturbance to the structure as possible. When you wish to make changes to the brood nest you do it a tiny little bit at a time. The 1st year you let them do what they want, and the subsequent years you might add one or two bars into the center of the brood nest EARLY spring do enlarge the brood nest for subsequent years. Otherwise you pretty much leave them alone. If you don't like a particular brood comb, you can cull and replace it with an empty bar at the right part of the season.

>yields<
Well I don't know where your figures come from, even if from the top of your head. In guatamala I would believe you have quite long and quite volumous honey seasons. In a lang you could easily produce anywhere between 100 to several 100s of Lbs of surplus honey each year.
My first year TBHs in Florida USA produced and average minimum of $150 Lbs. That's pretty phenomenal for any hive in its first year.

>The cost of the hive is at this point irrelevant, because the investment must be divided by the number of years the equipment will be serviceable.<

Depending on your sources, lumber for hives can be quite cheap. TBHs can be built for next to nothing, OR you can spend as much as a langstroth if you desire. The economic benefits are longer term over langs as well, because the recurring keep up of the operation is reduced. Hives that are taken care of can last much longer than langs. There are no hoffman frames to replace. All you have to do is protect the outside from the elements and it can last far longer than langs. Langs when they begin to rot, rot at the dovetail corners and usually at the tops and bottoms where the boxes come together usually. Langs are by their nature consumable because when we tear down and rebuild boxes of hive bodies we are working toward destroying them. TBHs on the other hand are not so disassembled, they remain as a single hive body that is never taken apart. The only things removed are the top bars and if one has the patience one doesn't need to use tools to free the bars when the get glued down by the bees. I use a pocket knife as a tools to just work the bars apart, so I guess I take the middle road there, but I never damage the hive body or put leveraging pressures on it.


>I guess depth is in fact limited by the bottom of the hive. I´ve seen some impressive pictures of natural comb on TBHs a few minutes ago, and I guess a triangle shape would in fact limit comb shape. It looks more like elyptical, so perhaps a bent piece of thin lumber (veneer) or bamboo will mimic natural shape better.<

A trapazoid shape is easier to manage usually and mimics the ellipse of the comb very well in practice. The sides of my hives are 28.5 - 30 degrees and the bees attach so little so that I don't require cutting the attachments first, except with heavy and virgin honey stores one must still take great care. Honey combs that have matured just a couple of months are several magnitudes stronger than virgin combs. My honey combs that stayed in the hives for more that 2 or 3 months I am certain can withstand a visit in a redial extractor. Older I am even more certain. I do not extract though, I crush and strain or do cut comb. I save the wax and make candles for home use, though when my operation grows I may find that is just too much wax to use and will have to find an outlet for it.


------------------
Scot Mc Pherson
Foundationless Small Cell Top Bar Hives
BeeWiki: <A HREF="http://linuxfromscratch.org/~scot/beewiki/" TARGET=_blank>
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~scot/beewiki/</A>
Pics:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~scot/pics/bees/


----------

