# production..tbh vs langstroth



## blkcloud (May 25, 2005)

I'm guessing the langstroth hive will produce more honey?? if so normally how much more??thanks!!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Maybe a Langstroth hive will produce more honey while you have to pay a little less attention, but I'd say a TBH will produce more honey for the actual labor. More per hive? Probably no real difference. The top bar hive will have to be tended more often with less lifting and labor involved.


----------



## Jimmy (Mar 23, 2005)

How do you know when to stop harvesting honey/comb so they will have adequate winter reserves? What are your guidelines?

Jimmy


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jimmy,

Just let the bees show you. Don't get too greedy the first couple of seasons. Watch what the bees consume until they can start making a living the following spring. Any more than that is surplus.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Blkcloud

My experience indicates a typical tbh just can't produce as much honey as a Lang. Simply because a tbh is usually vertically challenged.

As the bees prepare for winter, they attempt to pack all comb directly above the broodnest core. And then they will put enough honey in the honey storage area to carry them through the winter/early spring. At some point, the colony will become complacent and not store any more honey.

A Lang hive, with it's infinitely flexible open space above the broodnest, keeps the bees working. But a tbh, with it's fixed space above the broodnest can be quickly filled depending upon the depth of the comb.

Another factor that complicates this process is the time of the season for the major honey flows. Less impact is seen if the honey flows occur in the spring, after swarming. They are very pronounced if the major flows are just before swarming or toward the end of the summer. It is at these times that the bees are vertically focused.

Regards
Dennis

[ March 05, 2006, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Wojtek (May 31, 2005)

"(...)As the bees prepare for winter, they attempt to pack all comb directly above the broodnest core. And then they will put enough honey in the honey storage area to carry them through the winter/early spring. At some point, the colony will become complacent and not store any more honey.(...)" (Wrangler)

So, this could indicate that rather deeper than wider combs, I think, what is more natural shape of combs. That is why my last hives are deeper, more slopped side walls. With movable bottom cradle I can position it higher or lower, this way making dipper or more shallow combs. This may cause some problem with manipulating. It is definitely more difficult to manipulate deep combs than shallow. Wee have to work-out the optimal shape, means the most natural and still manageable. 
Wojtek


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I'd say a TBH will produce more honey 

A claim refuted by the general trend of
movement away from "primitive" beekeeping
in 3rd-World nations, where top-bar schemes
are "traditional", to "Langstroth" type hives,
where supers can be added at whim. Iran is
a great example, where an agricultural company
named "Korpa" has production statistics that
are compelling, given that blooms are scarce
in Iran, and conditions dry:

Where average honey production is 25 kg/year
35% of hives are Langstroth hives (350,000)

Where average honey production is 12 kg /year
25% of hives are Langstroth hives (120,000)

Where average honey production is 8 kg /year
10% of hives are Langstroth hives (50,000)

Iran's beekeepers are connecting the dots in
the data above, and moving hives to Langstroth
equipment so that they can get more honey from
their brief blooming periods.

> for the actual labor. 

Any "savings" in woodworking labor gained through
using TBHs are quickly eaten up by the extra
labor required to deal with the mess of unframed
combs, the destruction of drawn comb inherent in
most harvesting (crush/strain) approaches used
with TBHs (but the new Swienty extractor might
solve this problem for the very few rich hobbyists
among TBH beekeepers), and the inherent limits of 
not being able to add several times the brood 
chamber volume of drawn comb to maximize nectar 
storage and evaporation surface area.

If one were to jury-rig "supers" for TBHs, and
remove a few top bars to allow the bees to move up
to the supers, this would create a more level
playing field, but without supers, one is doomed
with a TBH to an inherently "horizontal" set-up,
and one with a limited comb volume.

> More per hive? Probably no real difference.

The entire planet is realizing that this is
not at all true.

The figures from Iran were provided as a part
of Korpa's proposal to become a Bee-Quick dealer,
as using Bee-Quick within a top-bar hive is
problematic, due to the small total volume, and
the need to move bees sideways to get them off
the crop to be harvested.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

One a lbs/hive basis the Langs will produce more than a tbh. But there are other ways to compare production.

I can build a tbh, equivalent to a 3+ deep Lang hive, from new material for about $26. Looking at the latest bee catalogs, it would cost about $190 for a new equivalent Lang hive. So I can build about 7 tbhs for the material cost of a single Lang.

Taking the lowest figure from Iran of 8kg/year, my investment in tbhs could produce 56kg.

While taking the highest figure from Iran of 25kg/year, the same investment in a Lang would yield only about half the amount of honey that the tbhs produced. 

In reality lots of other factors can skew this example. Tbhs can be built for almost nothing using locally available materials. While Langs are usually shipped in at a much greater expense.

Risk and loss are distributed among a great number of tbhs when compared to the Langs. Loose the production of one tbh out of seven, ouch. Loose production of the single Lang, bankrupt. ;.)

My tbhs more than kept up with my three story Langs in production of both honey and bees throughout the summer. The difference between vertical and horizontal focus was negligable. 

But the Langs surpassed the tbhs when they prepared for winter at summers end. If a beekeeper lives in a climate where most of the honey production occurs at this time, major differences in per hive production will be seen. But if most of the honey production occurs during the late spring and early summer, the difference between the two types of hives could almost be negligable.

This seems to be the case where the primary honey source is tree related(acacia, citrus, locust) versus the more agricultural related crops like alfalfa, etc.

Concerning labor costs, I thought all beekeepers worked for free :>)))

Sorry Jim, but Bee-Quick isn't needed in a tbh. When the bees are brushed off a comb face, they quickly race toward the front of the hive leaving the comb ready for harvest. Zip, the comb is cut off the top bar into a bucket and the top bar is returned to the hive. Only the honey is transported.

Regards
Dennis

[ March 07, 2006, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I can build a tbh, equivalent to a 3+ deep Lang 
> hive, from new material for about $26... it would 
> cost about $190 for a new equivalent Lang hive. 
> So I can build about 7 tbhs for the material cost 
> of a single Lang.

What's your *LABOR* worth?
The comparison is laughable - clearly, not apples
to apples to compare the price of ready-made
hive components with the price of lumber.

We build everything except frames here, mostly
because we don't like bridge comb, and square
boxes are easier to build than the slope-sided
TBHs, so a fair comparison should assume that
the "cost delta" is the cost of frames, but even
this comparison is overly-generous to the TBH.

> Tbhs can be built for almost nothing using 
> locally available materials. While Langs are 
> usually shipped in at a much greater expense.

Gee, why would it be so easy to build one box
but so impossible to build another? Woodenware
can be built anywhere, including frames. Those
willing to make jigs can and do make their own
frames, so again, we have a bogus comparison.
Of course woodenware can be locally made.

The other comparisons made are equally bogus.
Face it, TBHs are a choice, and beekeepers
planet-wide are voting with their feet.

> Zip, the comb is cut off the top bar into a 
> bucket and the top bar is returned to the hive. 
> Only the honey is transported.

And ZAP the bees have to start over from square
one DRAWING NEW COMB, the costliest step of all,
the most time-consuming step of all!!!

Having a deep inventory of drawn comb is the
only thing that allows one to fully exploit
a nectar flow, so if one could somehow "super"
a TBH, I don't think that there would be
much difference, save for the restrictions
inherent in a "single box" brood chamber, where
the broodnest is forced into unnatural
horizontal shapes.

But puhleeze... don't make comparisons that
do not take into account the advantages of
each approach, as each approach has specific
upsides and downsides, and TBHs are a choice
to sacrifice production for a lower-cost 
initial investment, while Langs are a choice
to maximize production by capitalizing with
comb that can be reused many seasons.

(Here's an idea - kludge some permacomb into
a sloped-sided TBH configuration!)


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

-Iran is
a great example

according to the media iran is also trying to develop nuclear power plants etc. maybe good maybe bad.

-as using Bee-Quick within a top-bar hive is
problematic

you dont need bee-quick or a host of other stuff using a minamalist approach. be kinda problematic to sell me foundation too


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim,

>What's your LABOR worth?
>The comparison is laughable - clearly, not apples
>to apples to compare the price of ready-made
>hive components with the price of lumber.

>We build everything except.....

I compared the cost of the raw materials only omitting the labor costs. I'll bet I can build a top bar hive with less labor cost than you can your equivalent Lang. So, what's your labor worth? You must have some kind of operation if you can buy the lumber and build the woodenware cheaper than it can be purchased from the manufactures!

>Gee, why would it be so easy to build one box
>but so impossible to build another? Woodenware
>can be built anywhere, including frames.

Well, if you include building the frames, that's got to increase the labor cost even more. But a resourceful tbher isn't restricted to woodenware. Lots of other options are available and can be used where even a table saw isn't available.

>The other comparisons made are equally bogus.
>Face it, TBHs are a choice, and beekeepers
>planet-wide are voting with their feet.

That's not been my experience. In fact, tbh beekeeping has been increasing in popularity if the hits on my website are any indication.

Much concerning modern agriculture and beekeeping in particular have been focused on the sell. And most suppliers have been very good at it.

>And ZAP the bees have to start over from square
>one DRAWING NEW COMB, the costliest step of all,
>the most time-consuming step of all!!!

It's not as costly and doesn't take as much time as one might think. Bees in a tbh can easily and rapidly draw out comb when needed. Bees have a much harder time drawing out foundation based comb. And with foundation it's very time consuming. Beekeepers with only foundation experience assume that the bees have as much trouble with natural comb as they do with foundation, which they don't.

And new comb is actually an advantage for colony health, especially for those beekeepers that dump every kind of chemical in their hives to treat mites or chase bees. Or for those who live in the pollution associated with urbanization or modern agriculture frame rotation is a must. Frame rotation isn't a problem in a tbh. But it's a real pain in a Lang.

>Having a deep inventory of drawn comb is the
>only thing that allows one to fully exploit
>a nectar flow,...

Depends on the type of nectar flow, I think! Beekeepers in SA have reported an increase in production using tbhs as compared with Langs.

>Here's an idea - kludge some permacomb into
>a sloped-sided TBH configuration!)

Why would anyone what to do that! You'd end up with the same kind of mess that is found in Lang beekeeping today. A single cell size which is too big for mite tolerance. A comb that is a pain to rotate. A increase in the hive cost. And the promulgation that comb is a capital assest rather than a consumable.

I've run thousands of hives as a commercial beekeeper. I've run tens of hives as a hobbiest. And I run a few tbhs as well. From that perspective, the thought that a sideliner or hobbiest should run bees on a mini-commercial basis is laughable. I tried it, not knowing any better, until I ran a few tbhs.

But my perspective changed after the tbh experience. Any beekeeper with a few hives who attempts to mimic the large commercial guys is only placing himself on the beekeeping spending treadmill much to the delight of all those suppliers. And there are some substantial additional costs beyond the hive cost if combs are to be re-used. Did I forget to mention the cost of the extractor and uncapping knife, etc. :>)

I can go to my garage and for less than $30 build a fully functional beehive. And I won't need a single item from the bee catalog, not frames, foundation, fume boards, chems, treatments, extractors or any of the other assorted stuff except for a veil, bee brush and a smoker. 

And come harvest time, I will spend 15 minutes preparing my comb mash. Gravity will do the rest, over a few days, without any help from me. That's alot different that spending the entire weekend running a capping knife and a small extractor.

And I don't care about a lb/hive average. If I want more honey, I can build another tbh for about the same cost a Lang beekeeper spends to add another super to his inventory!

The thought that the main measure for beekeeping can be found in a lbs/hive measurement is a very narrow perspective. It's quite common in the US and I think some commercial beekeepers are going to learn that another factor like cost/lb is more important, especially with the fuel prices and with wholesale honey prices being what they are now.

Regards
Dennis

[ March 11, 2006, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> tbh beekeeping has been increasing in popularity 
> if the hits on my website are any indication.

The people I am talking about are NOT hobby
beekeepers with computers, but instead, those
who use TBH or similar hives in 3rd world nations
because they "always have done things that way".

> I compared the cost of the raw materials only 
> omitting the labor costs.

No, you compared lumber cost with the price of
a pre-cut, pre-drilled, ready-to-assemble hive
with precision joints and tolerances!!!

>> DRAWING NEW COMB, the costliest step of 
>> all, the most time-consuming step of all!!!

> It's not as costly and doesn't take as much 
> time as one might think.

Anyone who would believe THAT silly claim would
injure themselves on sharp cheddar!

> Bees in a tbh can easily and rapidly draw out 
> comb when needed.

Oh, yes... suuuure... just put the bees in a
different BOX, and somehow they are able to
draw comb with ease.







*Get real*!

> Bees have a much harder time drawing out 
> foundation based comb.

Oh, yes of COURSE... actually giving the bees
some wax to work with and a surface to work
upon slows them down every time! That's why
foundation is only bought by the newbies and
the foolish among us... again, *get real*!

Regardless of what estimate you use, every
fully-drawn comb I can slap on a hive before
a flow means that my hives produce multiple
pounds of honey for every pound TBH bees can
provide when they must draw new comb with
the bulk of the flow before they even START
to store and evaporate nectar.

> And with foundation it's very time consuming. 
> Beekeepers with only foundation experience 
> assume that the bees have as much trouble with 
> natural comb as they do with foundation, which 
> they don't.

If the statement above were true, no one would
EVER buy foundation, at least for brood boxes.
Funny how commercial operations, where cost is
such a big factor that they will argue over a
penny per frame, will never fail to use foundation.

> A single cell size which is too big for mite 
> tolerance.

Oh, so you haven't heard that foundation is
even available in "small size" for those who
have drunk the Kool-Aid, and want to buy new
packages every 2 to 3 years?









I'm sorry Dennis, but your rationalization of
TBHs as somehow "more productive" is simply
laughable. If even ONE point were valid, the
idea/concept would have spread far beyond the
fringe element that limits their bees to TBH
enclosures.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hello Again,

>The people I am talking about are NOT hobby
beekeepers with computers, but instead,...

Well, I don't know everyone you are talking to but the ones you've mentioned here had a decided commercial interest in getting all those poor backwards folks converted over to the modern way of doing things.

>No, you compared lumber cost with the price of
a pre-cut, pre-drilled, ready-to-assemble hive
with precision joints and tolerances!!!

Well, that's the way every commercial beekeeper I've known buys them. And they buy them knocked down, on pallets, by the semi load because they simply cannot even buy the lumber for the cost of the pre-cut, pre-drilled, ready to assemble hive. I'd still like to know how you can do it when the big boys can't.

I suspect that if tbhs were produced by the bee equipment manufactures, like the Lang equipment is, it would be half of my current cost. Maybe even less. $15/hive?

>Anyone who would believe THAT silly claim would...
... just put the bees in a
different BOX, and somehow they are able to
draw comb with ease...
... actually giving the bees
some wax to work with and a surface to work
upon slows them down every time...

Well, just what has been your experience with natural comb versus foundation based comb? What are your observations? Are your statements based on your experience with bees? Or are you simply repeating what someone else has told you? Or maybe it's just the result of an active imagination fueled by a combative spirit? 

And yes that has been my experience. It's not about the empty box. It's about bees drawing out comb their way versus making them drawn it out the foundation way.

There's something about foundation that slows the bees down. And others have noticed it also. This may be a shock to anyone who is arrogant enough to think that man can produce foundation better than the bees can produce a midrib, but foundation wasn't designed to enhance the bees ability to draw out comb. Rather, it was designed to make comb stronger and straighter so that it could withstand the rigors of the extractor. But a few things like cell size and broodnest structure were either not seen or ignored as unimportant when man thought he could organize and manage the bees better than the bees themselves could.

>Oh, so you haven't heard that foundation is
even available in "small size" ...

You know that I'm quite aware of that fact, as I've been reporting my small cell results since 2000. And it was questions regarding my small cell experience that lead me to build my first tbh.

>and want to buy new
packages every 2 to 3 years?

And quite to the contrary, since running small cell comb, I haven't had to buy a single package. In fact I don't have any empty equipment, but a surplus of bees. I've only lost 4 hives(queen problems)while overwinter a dozen or so over the last 7 years. And none of them have required any treatments. Honey production is slightly over twice the local average.

Jim, you need to slow down and read all of my posts. I never said tbhs were "more productive". In fact, in my first post I said they were less productive on a per hive basis. But I said they could be more profitable. And certainly more suitable in some instances.

It may be laughable to you Jim, because it's obvious you simply don't have any natural comb experience. And certainly not even any small cell experience.

What I find laughable is the unbelievable difference between my beekeeping now and the way it was when I was doing it your way. 

>If even ONE point were valid, the
idea/concept would have spread far beyond the
fringe element that limits their bees to TBH
enclosures.

I don't expect any kind of majority of beekeepers to flock to these concepts. Because like you, they are following the big boys, thinking that because they are big they must be smart. But it's that thinking that got most beekeepers down the pesticide treadmill. And it's that thinking that has alot of beekeepers producing 90 cent honey in a 60 cent market. For a sideliner running a mini-commercial operation, it's probably closer to $4/lb. And it's that kind of thinking that keeps most beekeepers from really knowing their bees for themselves. Because they just don't understand that the big boys have neither the time nor the energy to really know very much about the bees. For them, comb is just something you stick in the extractor. And a hive is just something you stick comb in. And bees are just something you stick in the hive.

For me, Im learning to work with my bees. My hives have never been more productive even with the extreme drought. And they have never required less management. And have never overwintered better. My queens last three years and I always have a surplus of bees. My greatest problem is swarming. And I don't treat or feed.

For me, beekeeping has become a non-issue because most of those issues that keep you guys so engaged are now, simply irrelevant to my beekeeping.

Regards
Dennis

[ March 11, 2006, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> the ones you've mentioned here had a decided 
> commercial interest in getting all those poor 
> backwards folks converted over to the modern way 
> of doing things. And I bet those folks were 
> prepared to sell a few more things their converts 
> couldn't live without than just Bee-Quick :>)

Now you are being insulting, you ill-informed *******.









The effort in Iran is funded by many agricultural
assistance groups attempting to build a
self-sufficient industry in Iran, so no one is
getting rich at all. I'm also tossing in - the
deal is that the first few thousand bottles of
Bee-Quick are gratis, and even the shipping will
be handled by an aid group, so it is a 100%
no-cash deal.

As elsewhere, late season harvesting can be
a painful experience, as the bees get defensive,
so the idea here is to reduce the need for
bee suits, which are another expense that all
concerned wish to avoid, hence an interest in
the product.

> just what has been your experience with natural 
> comb versus foundation based comb.

I tried empty frames in brood chambers on and off
for years, and I saw no big difference in speed,
but I DID see more irregular comb when no
foundation was provided. Regardless, for honey
production, so-called "natural comb" is a burden
that _massively_ reduces crops of harvestable
honey, a point which should be obvious to even the
casual observer.

> I'd still like to know how you can do it when 
> the big boys can't.

I am a big enough boy to buy directly from the
mill, no big feat given than the mill is owned
by a buddy who likes his all-you-can-eat free
honey.

> an active imagination fueled by a combative 
> spirit?

Sorry if you read my writing that way - I am
simply poking fun at (and holes _in_)
your fantastic claims about TBHs having some
sort of advantages over any other sort of
box for bees, and foundation being "bad" rather
than "good".

Its a BOX, get over yourself! The bees
don't care what sort of box they are put into!

> It's about bees drawing out comb their way 
> versus making them drawn it out the foundation 
> way.

Pseudo-mystical new-age mumbo-jumbo. If you want
to rant against foundation, you have an entire
planet full of beekeepers to argue against,
not just me.

> I never said tbhs were "more productive". 
> But I said they could be more profitable.

I can't see much profit in an operation where
the bees must draw out each comb on every
flow. Where I come from, we call that "comb
honey", we use Ross Rounds, and it goes for
a serious premium over extracted honey.
You are trying to produce extracted honey
with costs that are as high as a comb honey
producer!

> because it's obvious you simply don't have any 
> natural comb experience.

Not true... I did not like what I got when leaving
the bees to their own devices. Foundation gives
me (and the overwhelming majority of beekeepers)
more predictable results, which is why its use
is so popular, even if the alternative is "free".

> And certainly not even any small cell experience.

Ah, no... I just *fund* studies so that
those more qualified than I can do the actual
work, and thereby instruct me without my wasting
my time.

Look, if you are right, the world will beat a
path to your door, and throw themselves at
your feet. Don't hold your breath, because I
see the exact opposite trend in places where
TBH and other "primitive" methods have been 
replaced by "modern" methods, and created an
EXPORT CASH CROP where before, there was only
subsistence beekeeping.

So, do what you want, but realize that getting
rid of "traditional" mindsets can make the
difference between grinding poverty and a little
actual folding money for folks who have very
little folding money.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

im not sure that a tbh is all that primative compared to a lang. simpler and more enjoyable to work maybe-kinda like my vw micro bus.
i can see were tbh hives could give some folks much more control over their operation,hence more sustainability. were ya gonna get foundation? who owns the extracter? if some one with capital comes into an area with to efficient an operation it could disrupt what little the have nots already control. the rich do tend to get richer, the poor poorer. modern methods could bring in laws like you must use movable frame hives or be an outlaw. that would be pretty sweet for the supplier but rough on the farmer. ive read that some places want wax over honey. tbh's are good for that. some areas work ahb's. ive never been around ahb's but cranky italians sure are easier to work in a tbh.


----------



## Wojtek (May 31, 2005)

"(...)Rural extension programs, whose thrust is usually developed in urban, national headquarters by personnel who have little field experience, often attempt to encourage "modern" equipment, meaning Langstroth hives (the KTBH is, in fact, about 100 years more modern as Langstroth made his discovery of the bee-space and incorporated it into his hive design in 1851(3)). The misguided rationale is, "If they use 'em in the U.S. they must be the best". However, cultural and environmental conditions call for beekeeping of a substantially different flavor from that familiar in North America. The promotion of Langstroth equipment and all its accoutrements is often inadvisable because economic resources at the rural level are at a much higher premium than manual labor. Often what is warranted in developing, tropical countries is another technology, one that is easier to use and less costly to obtain and maintain. Such a system is available in the Kenya top-bar hive.

To illustrate, the price of a honey extractor can easily exceed the yearly income of a rural farmer. (For instance, in Paraguay, from whence I write, a brand-name extractor costs the equivalent of almost three hundred dollars <$275.00> , a simpler locally made model can be had for about sixty <$60.00> ; nonetheless a field laborer earns only about a dollar per day and most small-scale farmers earn less than two hundred dollars <$200.00> annually.) I have encountered countless small-scale beekeepers who prefer cutting the comb from the frames rather than investing in an extractor-- which effectively invalidates any advantages that the Langstroth system has over the KTBH.(...)"

It would bee good to reed this entire article: "The Kenya Top-Bar Hive as a Better Hive in Developing Countries". Conrad Berube. American Bee Journal. August 1989.

Go to Google and punch "Conrad Berube". You will find this article, and a lot on this subject.

Wojtek


----------



## limulus (Feb 10, 2004)

Last spring when I returned home from a trip I saw a swarm in a tree in my front yard. One of my TBHs had swarmed. I ran back to my shed, cut up a pallet and some scrap wood, ripped some top bars out of pallet wood and scrap plywood with a circular saw, and built a TBH. I stole a comb of brood and eggs from another hive and put it in my new box. I caught the swarm and put it in the box. All this took about an hour. The hive is not pretty, but it worked and I harvested honey from it last year. It is still going strong. 
Maybe I can't pretend to be a commercial beekeeper and dream of getting rich off my bees. But I have a lot of fun working with them, watching them work my garden and fruit trees and eating their "surplus" stores. I get a lot of joy out of cutting out a crooked piece of comb and sharing it with my daughter while I work the hive. I don't wory about contamination in my wax or honey as I don't put anything in my hives except bees. 
As I keep bees for my own enjoyment, and give my extra honey to friends and family, or trade it. I don't care about lb/hive efficiency. I know my bees are a pleasure to work and my hives look cool (even the quick built one looks good now that I painted it). I get enough honey to suit my needs and require no specialized equipment other than a smoker.
I am lazy. I have a real job to pay my bills. I love holding a freshly drawn comb and looking at its organic shape. My kids like to work the bees with me.
TBH beekeeping is the way to go for me, and I bet many others would like it as well.
I also bet (know) that many people see it as primitive, silly, or just a waste of time. I don't care. To each his own. 
I am a biologist, some of the time I do field work, the rest I spend on a computer, or in a lab beeing utterly anal retentive, measuring things with rediculous precision. When I get home I want to relax. During the spring and summer my biggest worries with my bees are that maybe I have not harvested enough honey from one of the hives and and the hive will fill up and swarm when I am not there to see it. 
I am learning to deal with the stress. Chewing a nice fresh piece of comb still warm from the hive helps.


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

Jim all Dennis is saying on the bottom line is that there are somewhere between "some" and "a lot" of situations where TB may be a better way to go for people. He isn't disputing that lang populations may be higher or that a given bee in a lang produces more honey and less wax than a TBH bee. But in some situations, that kind of efficiency is going to be more important and in others less so. Dennis is suggesting that under some circumstances and levels of production, TBH are more capital efficient. And he is especially identifying the sideline business as one possible case of this.

I think one thing that would affect the equation would be hive density. If you aren't approaching maximum density, exanding the number of cheap TBH's to increase production is viable. If you want to run as many bees as as a given forage area can support, and you want all that production going into honey, it seems to me that langs with reused comb fit that bill exclusively. But there will be more costs associated with running this way, both initial and ongoing, and thus there will be more risk and more reward. This is inherent in requiring a higher capital invesment, which I think you will agree lang keeping does require, at least to some extent. Jim it almost seems like you are kind of acting like we shouldn't regard the capital problem. If capital wasn't a problem though, would beekeeping really be the most viable option for an investment anyway? I don't know, but it's something to ponder.

The only other thing I'll comment on is the question of how quickly bees draw when they are building from the leading edge versus building up on foundation. I have to say it definitely seems my topbars get completed faster in equal conditions. But on the other hand, it seems the foundation may have multiple large portions where the cells are drawn half high, and things start happening there (egg laying, etc.) long before they reach depth. That isn't the way the foundationless comb develops. It seems there is less urgency and less of a "whole group" effort in wax drawing on foundation--perhaps because they can get to other things quicker on the foundation. There may be no real way to compare what is overall more efficient for the bees on the first draw. Clearly, in succeeding stages a lot of nectar is going into wax instead of honey in a TBH, and while wax has a market value too it is usually not a good equation there.


----------



## PaulR (May 24, 2005)

Dennis has a great site. He speaks from personal experience and personal research. I'm going tbh this year. Thanks Dennis! TBH ROCKS, ask K. Ruby.


----------



## MGBee (May 25, 2004)

Hey, Dennis!

Pass the Kool-Aid! I love my TBHs. 

As far as productivity-- who cares? If I were commercial or sideline, I would care and would use standards. 

I kept bees in the 60's, in Langs, for maximum production. They worked.

Now< i want the least amount of sweat and lifting possible with the greatest chance of disease and mite resistance. TBH work. 

The economics and production part of the argument bring to mind two of my neighbors. One farms 350 acres of corn and beans with some dairy. The other farms 5 acres of organic vegetables with some value added stuff. Mr. 350 acre is financially insolvent ready to sell his family farm. Mr. 5 acres is making a reasonable living and has 0 debt. Mr. 350 acre produces far "more" product, but Mr 5 acre makes a very good "return on investment".

Why sell 60 cent honey when you can sell $5.00 honey?

Thanks Dennis for your website. About 25% of your hits have come from me.

Did I say I love TBH?

Regards,
Miles


----------



## Jimmy (Mar 23, 2005)

I cannot but help to notice an ironically similar tone to this debate to one in which I deal with everyday; organic vs. conventional farming. Im a County Agent and work with both groups and am often caught in the middle with discussions much like this one. This one is also unfortunately coupled with the obviously angry overtones which can be all too familiar.

It also shares familiarity with respect to the scientific, economic and perhaps social perspectives. Organic producers, once converted, often cite great satisfaction in their respective practices, which sounds very similar to Dennis comments  it just seems simpler and more enjoyable! In many respects Dennis is pointing out how TBHs appear to be more consistent with nature along with a tendency to favor the economics of the producer, especially a smaller producer. A striking similarity to organic food production.

Jim on the other hand makes comments that tend to be very similar to those made by the detractors of producing organic food (chemical, pharmaceutical, genetically modified seed companies (ironically, which all seem to be one in the same, these days). Basically, all of these companies (I dont know if this is true with Jim or not), depend heavily upon commercial producers for their source of income -- they "farm" the farmers. In the farming world, its too the point in which the suppliers seem to be the only ones that seems to make a decent living from the deal, while the farmer gets only whats offered (at least from the farmers perspective). Perhaps Jims vocation is threatened (at least philosophically) by TBHs, much the way Monsanto is by organic farmers? If so, thats a different, and not necessarily, a trivial issue.

Ive also learned, after working for many years at a major University, that research is often skewed in favor of those paying for it  not always  but Ive seen it first hand too many times. I have become very suspect of some research. Its become a sad state to say the least. 

I've also become very suspect of organizations helping in foreign countries. Many of the NGO's are doing great things for the right reasons, but many are there for economic reasons under the guise of "helping" -- in truth, they see "new" markets.

I am just learning about TBHs so I am not an expert (I have kept conventional hives till now), but what does intrigue me is how TBHs appear to work with nature, something that seems absent in conventional agriculture and perhaps to some degree, in commercial beekeeping -- not to mention the sheer simplicity and economic advantages. 

Finally, from an educational standpoint, I think TBHs may be a wonderful tool for the backyard gardener wishing to maintain their own beehive, but are daunted by the expense, physical labor and complexity of the conventional system. For them, a TBH is a much better system and a more sustainable fit. 

Jimmy


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> the price of a honey extractor can easily exceed 
> the yearly income of a rural farmer

Yes, and Ross Rounds can be shipped planetwide
by simply tossing them into a box, and padding
them with some crumpled newspaper, so comb honey
can be the best way to get a crop to market.

But "cut comb" is such an unsightly and unsanitary
mess, it might be just as bad as the results
of "crush and strain", so I would not expect
much success at the local market unless some sort
of sanitary packaging was used.

But beekeepers don't START to make money until
they admit that they are living in at least the
20th, if not the 21st century, and realize that
their "traditional" methods and equipment is
what is keeping them poor, and keeping their
hives weak and sickly.

> Rural extension programs, whose thrust is 
> usually developed in urban, national 
> headquarters by personnel who have little field 
> experience, often attempt to encourage "modern" 
> equipment, meaning Langstroth hives

Why don't you e-mail Ann Harmon and Bob Cole,
who have been to more countries than you can name
teaching beekeepers, and ask them what they have
seen. The comment is an insult to the many
highly skilled beekeepers who take time out of
their lives to do such work for no pay.

> ironically similar tone to this debate to 
> one in which I deal with everyday; organic vs. 
> conventional farming

I have no idea how this applies here, other than
it is another debate. Organic is hard work, and
requires high tech approaches to make it work.
When all you can spread is cow manure, you need
to get your application just right, meaning you
need that GPS-driven manure spreader and satellite
recon of your fields to look at soil moisture
and such. Organic means you need MORE data, not
less, so a profitable organic operation needs to
have more modern capital equipment than a non-organic one.

Bottom line, people are going to do exactly
what they want, and that's just fine. But
trying to claim that a TBH is going outperform
a hive with a modular broodnest that has expanded
to 3 times the interior volume of any TBH
is just plain silly. With the right weather,
a good strong hive with 4 mediums of brood will
fill 5, or 6 mediums of drawn comb in the spring
flow. At 30 - 40 lbs each of honey each, it only
takes one crop to more than pay for all the
"expensive" equipment.

But you have to have drawn comb!
And you have to be able to stack it up!

'Cause empty drawn comb is a MOTIVATOR to
bees, aside from giving them more room to
evaporate nectar in one or two drops per
cell.

So come up with a TBH that can be supered,
and my objections go away. Come up with
an approach that does not destroy drawn
comb, and my objections go away. Otherwise,
TBH bees simply have to work too hard to
produce the same amount of harvestable honey
as Langstroth-equipped bees.

I should make stickers: "Powered By Langstroth"


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim,

>Now you are being insulting, you ill-informed *******. [Smile] 

Gee, did I forget to add a :>). That seem to be the difference between shooting holes and being insulting!

>I am a big enough boy to buy directly from the
mill, no big feat given than the mill is owned
by a buddy who likes his all-you-can-eat free
honey.

Well, if you are trading all-you-can-eat honey for all your lumber, you aren't as big a boy as you'd like me to think, regardless of the amount of honey your friend can eat.

>The bees don't care what sort of box they are put into...

You missed the point again Jim. It's not about the box. It's more than a box. It's about bee behavior when the bees are allowed to build their own broodnest versus their behavior on a foundation based system. 

>Pseudo-mystical new-age mumbo-jumbo....

Now, I think I beginning to understand your real motivation here. I'm just talking about boxes and bees. But equating what I say with a religious philosopy and using that as a way of denegrading my observations, indicates that you aren't just talking bees and boxes. Your are expressing and protecting your religion! And just what kind of religion do you have? What is it's spirit? Anyone can read your posts for themselves and see!

>I can't see much profit in an operation where
the bees must draw out each comb on every
flow...You are trying to produce extracted honey
with costs that are as high as a comb honey
producer!

Well, much about profit concerns the cost of production. And I know that it costs considerably less to produce real comb honey in a tbh, than it does in a Lang with the special super, Ross frames and inserts, thin foundation inserts, etc. I'm not trying to produce extracted honey in a tbh. But it can be done if a person desires it.


>Ah, no... I just fund studies so that
those more qualified than I can do the actual
work, and thereby instruct me without my wasting
my time.

Hummm.... The difference between a hobby beekeeper and a commercial beekeeper is based upon economic risk. And from what I read above, you definately fall in the hobby class with little or no economic risk regardless of how much honey your friend can eat. So, it looks like we're both just a couple of hobby beekeepers discussing bees with our computers :>)

>Look, if you are right, the world will beat a
path to your door, and throw themselves at
your feet. 

Jim, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not trying to sell anything. I don't claim to be a messiah. Beekeeping is not my religion. And I can't believe anyone would throw themselves at any beekeepers feet. There's not right beekeeping and wrong beekeeping. Or good beekeeping and bad beekeeping. After all, it's only bees and we are only beekeepers. The bees don't care and neither does anyone else, except for a few beekeepers. 

You aren't looking for anyone to beat a path to your door or throw themselves at your feet are you? :>)

I have had a long experience with the one size fits all mentality that comprises American beekeeping, much of which is based upon a commercial slant. And I've also experienced another kind of beekeeping that offers something beyond that approach. It's been my intent to share that experience so that others can have a choice. As you said earlier it's all about choice. 

>So, do what you want, but realize that getting
rid of "traditional" mindsets can make the
difference between grinding poverty and a little
actual folding money for folks who have very
little folding money.

That only works if the traditional mindset has incorporated errors that result in mismanagement. And if the replacement for that mindset is economically feasible and culturally acceptable. 

Folding money will be the result of a profitable operation. And that might not always be the one with the highest productivity. It might be the one with the lowest affordable production cost or the lowest risk.

And from what I've seen in my tbhs, there seems to be a few errors incorporated in the traditional beekeeping mindset in this country.

Regards
Dennis

[ March 11, 2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<Oh, yes... suuuure... just put the bees in a
different BOX, and somehow they are able to
draw comb with ease. Get real!>>

<<Oh, yes of COURSE... actually giving the bees
some wax to work with and a surface to work
upon slows them down every time! That's why
foundation is only bought by the newbies and
the foolish among us... again, get real!>>

So Jim -

Exactly how long have you been working TBH's to have "gotten real"?

- Barry

[ March 09, 2006, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## Jimmy (Mar 23, 2005)

I see the debate continues? I woke up this morning recognizing another very familiar tone to this debate, which may be noteworthy ? at least for those with a sense of morbid curiosity! 

As I mentioned before, as a County Agent (aka ?Hank Kimball? ?), a similar argument rages on between conventional and organic dairy farmers. But before I get into that, I need to make one point clear regarding Jim?s last comment on organic farming:

?I have no idea how this applies here, other than
it is another debate. Organic is hard work, and
requires high tech approaches to make it work.
When all you can spread is cow manure, you need
to get your application just right, meaning you
need that GPS-driven manure spreader and satellite
recon of your fields to look at soil moisture
and such. Organic means you need MORE data, not
less, so a profitable organic operation needs to
have more modern capital equipment than a non-organic one.?

Your comments strike me as someone who has had little experience with organic farming or farmers. Although I can provide little technical information related to the debate on TBH?s, I can speak with some authority on organic crop and livestock production. Just to the record straight? Although there are exceptions, organic production means greater management, a greater understanding of natural systems, but does not necessarily mean a greater capital investment. But it does mean less purchases from the normal suppliers (pesticides, patented seeds, synthetic fertilizers, etc), working more with nature, and nearly always, more profit for the producer. 

My point in bring up the organic vs. conventional is to simply point out that in working across an array of biological systems, I see trends, and this debate has a VERY familiar ring to it. Let me get a specific example.

A similar issue rages on with dairy cows, organic vs. conventional. So, what in the world does this have to do with TBH?s and bees? Well, in conventional systems ?we? have tended to change how the cow lives ? we put her in a ?box?. A cow?s natural pattern is to graze, eat forages and for the most part, live out doors; where she is most content ? weather permitting. But that?s not terribly convenient for a large farm with an army of migrant laborers to milk 5000 cows, twice a day. These cows are confined in barns, housed on concrete and fed about half of their ration in grain and injected with artificial hormones to produce more milk. 

Why is this important? Cows are ruminants, meaning they have four ?stomachs? and have a natural ability to convert something that we cannot eat (hay) to something we can (meat and milk). But ?we? figured out that if you ?push? the grain, they will give us more milk and meat. But there?s a cost? when fed grain, the cows tend to get ?acidic?, much like when you eat the wrong kinds of food. But of course, unlike us, cows eat whatever?s put in front of them, so they are in a constant state of acidosis. Now, ?we? figured out that you can ?correct? this by feeding them something akin to a giant Rolaids, which tends to mask the symptoms, but does not address the root problem.

Now that we have learned how to get the most milk out of a cow, in a fashion most unnatural to her normal behavior, what do we have? The average lifespan of the modern dairy cow is 42 months ? she does not even get to finish two lactations. Not to mention that her milk now has the ?wrong? composition of fatty acids. Contract that to a grazing, forage based organic system, cows typically lives 4 to 5 times that long and produce milk that is healthier for you (it?s the whole ?omega ? FA? thing).

Please be patient? I?m getting to the punch line?

Now, couple this ?unnatural? diet with unnatural housing (on concrete, maybe chained in a stall, poor air quality, etc) and you have a cow that tends to need a vet on an all too regular basis. In short, your cows tend to need more antibiotics and other medicines to keep them ?healthy?.

So here?s the punch line? When you place a cow in an unnatural environment and feed her in a way that ?we? want, we are finally figuring out that the cow?s immunity is compromised. When she is fed in the way nature intended (nearly all forages, little grain) and allowed to graze (weather permitting), her immune system is working the way is should and she?s able to fend off many of the common cow related problems (there?s very good evidence of this). The downside? To do things in a way that nature intended, it makes industrializing a cow difficult, and that?s why you pay more money for organic milk; small herds, somewhat lower production ? but healthier cows and healthier milk for you to drink. Indeed, a more sustainable system. Of course, this is definitely the downside to the drug salesman? And of course, he or she tends to say all kinds of bad things about organic milk production.

So, (at long last) is it possible that the purported ?benefits? of the TBH?s could be somehow analogous to the bovine biological system, and how we have tried to make them conform to a system that is convenient to man, but somehow ?unnatural? to the bee? Is this a reason why we have such a need to feed antibiotics, put insecticides in the boxes to fend off diseases and pests? Is it possible that we are compromising the bee?s immunity? Could this be related to why the TBH?s owners cite fewer problems? Less disease and greater simplicity? More fun? Less expense? More profit?

As I said before, the phrases I hear touting the benefits of TBH?s ring familiar, it?s the same ones being used by organic dairy farmers. In short, it works because they?re working with nature instead of fighting it.

Do you see any trends here?

Jimmy


----------



## MGBee (May 25, 2004)

Well said, Jimmy.

Regards,
Miles


----------



## girl Mark (Oct 25, 2005)

Leaving the troll's arguments about beekeeping as a business aside, as a hobbyist, I did find I got a. an easier time working some very defensive bees with a TBH versus their sisters in a Lang and b. I got to keep more of the honey, with less work and a lot less mess by doing squeeze/strain extraction than with a Lang-style extractor. It seemed like the hand-cranked extractor left a quarter of the honey in the comb whereas crush/squeeze extraction got it all.

Mark


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

"I got to keep more of the honey, with less work and a lot less mess by doing squeeze/strain extraction than with a Lang-style extractor. It seemed like the hand-cranked extractor left a quarter of the honey in the comb whereas crush/squeeze extraction got it all."

That's fine, but bear in mind that there was a lot of honey you didn't get because the bees had no drawn comb to store nectar in in the first place. 

If you were using a small-diameter radial extractor (as commonly available) and/or the honey was cold it is not surprising that you would leave a good deal of honey behind. 

I agree that TBHs are great for the DIY/backyard enthusiast and they are easier to tend but the crops cannot be expected to be even half what a properly managed Lang could produce in extracting supers. 

Though I enjoyed playing with tbh's Roger Morse used to put them down as a waste of time and material. After all, he contended, with just a little more effort frames could be made for the same box, and then you'd have a frame hive which you could super w/comb, and production would go *way* up. Also, he was convinced that colonies did not thrive as well in a horizontal configuration. He had been around the world many times and was quite familiar with the results being obtained with all different types of equipment and management styles. 

You start making little improvements to the basic TBH design and it isn't long before you are back to a box with frames. But for sheer simplicity and lowest initial cost the TBH is an interesting and educational tool that will yield a nice albeit limited honey crop. 

Much the same situation as the comb honey producer, whether using rounds or frames. 
It is apples and oranges, to some extent. Like the section or bulk comb honey producer you can't expect your crop to even approach what the extraced honey producer can achieve. It's a different situation, although a multi-story Lang would likely produce more comb honey than TBH due to the vertical arrangement. 

With a TBH one can focus on some of the finer points and enjoy producing a clean and natural product with a minimum of expenditure and a lot of satisfaction. No combs to store. No wax moths. The drawbacks as I see them are the odd crooked comb building problems and the marked lack of portability, but others have shown that with experience there are ways to manage both to some degree.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim and Everyone,

All bee bantering aside, I would like to commend Jim on his efforts to improve the lives of other beekeepers around the world. Don't ask me how I got to this subject in a tbh vs lang forum :>)))

And I hope you succeed. But be careful as it is very easy to repeat the agricultural errors of exporting non-sustaneable solutions, which can leave people worse off when the markets, weather, rain or politics change for the worse. Such cases are rampant in Africa where cotton and the attendant fertilizer, chems, supplanted the native subsistence farming. Those that bought into the process make some fast money. But when the market changed they were left in starvation, with land that would not support their subsistence farming. They starved, while their neighbors who maintained the traditional ways continued on as they had for almost a thousand years, poor but fed.

One of the best ways to improve the lives of impoverished beekeepers might initially involve more education that capitalization. Maybe there are areas, or a mindset, that prevents them from attaining a maximum profit from what they are currently using.

The successes in African beekeeping involved establishing a stable and non-corrupt coop type marketing system. Then when the beekeepers got a little surplus cash, more modern methods of honey production became viable.

And I've gone back and read a few of my posts in this forum. And I've shot more than a few insults, rather than holes for which I appologize. Nope, putting a smiley face on them doesn't change them for me either. But I can go back and edit them.

Regards
Dennis
Is too! Is not! IS TOO! IS NOT! IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO!!! IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT!!! says Jimmy and Denny just before the teacher took each one of them to timeout. :>)

[ March 11, 2006, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I think it's important to point out in this discussion where there are basically two opposing views on the statements, that one side (Dennis) has had several years experience working and observing TBH's and the behavior of those bees, and the other side (Jim) has not had such experience but is basically relying on secondhand knowledge to back his statements. This was also the case in the DL discussion. I am all to familiar with these discussions as I've had them before with people regarding small cell, and I finally gave up because it was futile trying to discuss with those who wouldn't do the work themselves to verify.

I know Jim is off base in some of his comments because I have also observed some of the same things Dennis has in my TBH (fast comb construction, etc.) While he makes some good points, making comments such as

<<Oh, yes... suuuure... <snip> Get real!>>
<<Oh, yes of COURSE... <snip> again, get real!>>

lets me know he has no firsthand experience on the topic.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Well, I've been out of town and haven't been able to keep up on the rare occasions I have a minute of free time. Let me just say that I DO have TBHs and have had them for a while. I built my first in 1975. I don't see a difference except in a remote yard with Langstroth boxes you can throw on a bunch of supers and come back in the fall. This allows outyards that otherwise are not practical with a THB. With a TBH you need to harvest more often than that and if the hives are long ways, this may not be practical.

>So come up with a TBH that can be supered,
and my objections go away.

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/LongHiveSupered.JPG

Like this?

>Come up with
an approach that does not destroy drawn
comb, and my objections go away.

I get more for comb honey than extracted. I thought you raised comb honey? Don't you get more for it?

> Otherwise,
TBH bees simply have to work too hard to
produce the same amount of harvestable honey
as Langstroth-equipped bees.

In remote areas, quite often it is the shipping that controls the amount of folding money you can get. Beeswax is worth more when you include the cost of the shipping, than honey.


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

Maybe a few numbers might help in this debate as knowing the capacity of a Lang hive and a TBH provides another dimension on the issues being argued.

Lang Deep 11.1 gal 42 liters
Lang Medium 7.7 gal 29 liters

If you assume two deeps or three mediums for brood and four supers for honey, the total hive capacity is 53-54 gallons and 200/203 liters.

The TBH size which Scot McPherson promotes in Wikipedia is 13.8 gal/52 liters. The Crowder TBH is 16.4 gallons/62 liters.

The TBH sizes Dennis (BWrangler) uses are 35.7/125 to 41.6/157 liters. He has written that his experience suggests the largest is too big in his area and that the midsize of 37/140 TBHs is most suitable.

The 'natural/ideal' size of a hive is influenced by climate, flow intensity, flow periods, rural/city, pasture/trees, crops/natural etc.

Conclusions:

- Langstroths minimize labor. Supers can be added during flows to keep bees producing, and the task of extraction can be concentrated in short periods using casual labor to handle the workload. Mechanization boosts productivity and reduces labor costs.

- TBHs need consistent attention to remove honey during flows to prevent becoming honey bound and subsequent swarming. Extraction/Crushing is a near-continuous operation which requires no additional labor and little/no justification for mechanization.

Honey no longer appears to be a source of significant profit to many commercial beekeepers in the United States, and the complaint is that the price received is too low because of the cheap honey being imported from overseas.

In this regard beekeeping is no different to the latest highest tech product you have in your house, it too was made in China, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc. All this does is prove the points that Adam Smith made in 1776 when "The Wealth of Nations" was published.

- The Lang lends itself to a high overhead operation in terms of both capital and working capital, in the hopes (and reality) of higher productivity per unit. For several months of the year there are storage requirements to protect the assets of supers and fully drawn comb, during which the risk is run of predators (wax moths) destroying the value of these assets.

- The TBH lends itself to a low overhead operation in terms of both capital and working capital.
Storage/loss costs are virtually non-existent because the assets are being protected by the inhabitants. Increased production can be achieved by adding more TBHs or taking a hybrid approach and use supers by assuming the risks of asset storage/loss during winter.

There should be no argument here, as these are economic facts of life.

On a more philosophical note:

- Langs involve the same issues of overcrowding as occur with cattle (feedlots) and people (cities). There is more stress, more medication, more.... but most of us choose to live in cities where we trade off those things for what we perceive as a 'better' life.

- TBHs reduce the overcrowding aspect because a hive does not have as many bees, and the comb is constantly being renewed. Since TBHers tend to replace brood comb on a regular basis, the queen is laying in fresh comb and that appears to be a factor contributing to hive health.

It is hard for beekeepers to draw straight lines in the sand because any factor that one considers an absolute can be disproved by another beek somewhere else who is dealing with a different climate, different breed of bee, different flows, etc. For example, it makes good sense for cold-weather beeks to like breeds that have small clusters over winter which can survive on smaller stores whereas warm weather beeks could care less.

On a personal note:

- As a Lang keeper I dreaded extraction and happily bought more supers as needed in order to avoid doing it more than once a year.
- As a TBH keeper I don't care any more, it is easy to walk around with a bucket, cut off the combs and let the honey drain courtesy of gravity rather than extraction.

Both methods work, simply a different way of achieving the same end.

Background:

My experience is strictly backyard in an area where the winters are mild and bees can gather nectar/pollen from trees/gardens at least half the time.

- Langs are no longer being used for honey production, but are used for splits, swarms and nucs.

- Two sizes of TBH are used and both are rectangular because I see no advantage to the sloping sides. The bottoms are open, screened with #8 cloth and stand high on legs (the frames are at desk height to avoid having to bend over).

- Narrow TBHs are 12Wx10Dx32L long with a capacity of 16 gallons. These are pleasant to work with and easier to relocate. If the frames/bars are to be used in a Lang/Compatible for splitting or some other purpose, a 3/8"x19" ply strip is screwed on.

- Compatible TBHs are 19Wx10Dx32L with a capacity of 23 gallons, and the top bars can be exchanged with Lang frames.

Strong, concentrated flows do not occur in this area and my observations of comb production will likely conflict with those who live in areas that have strong flows.

- Full foundation is rarely fully drawn, the bees chew holes in the corners and often along most of the the bottom bar.
- 1/2" starter strips encourage comb to be started along most of the top bar.
- On 1/8" center rails the bees start near center and radiate out in a semi circular pattern. They tend to begin on the next top bar rather than fill out the full width of the bar.

Fully drawn comb appears to be produced in less time on starter strips and rails than on full foundation but I have no statistics to confirm this. BTW, this has nothing to do with TBH or Lang, it is true of both.

JP


----------

