# Frame sizes reviewed ...



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Basically my approach is the same.
This CVH here I ran through the winter on deep frames - just like pictured.
Bees died - different story.
This spring a swarm moved into the same deep frames.
I re-homed the bees into one my 12-frame deep hybrids - compatibility is great.
Took the CVH away, populated it with a shook swarm, and currently the bees winter in it on my mini-frame as was initially envisioned.
Full back and forth compatibility.
A bonus - the mini-frames can be used in the hybrid and long hives supers directly as-is.


----------



## sparkyApis (Apr 9, 2021)

little_john said:


> And so we see,
> Warre (original frame) = *300x400 mm*.
> Layens frame = *310x400 mm*.
> to which can be added,
> ...


LJ, interesting research as always. Are all these measured the same way, the width as the distance between the outside of the side bars and the depth likewise to the outside of the woodwork? So, to translate your imperial measurements to your plan, they would be 285 by 435 or thereabouts.

I now agree with you that horizontal skewers may be the way to go. I am finding that the bees can be a little reluctant to attach to my vertical skewers (4 mm) so that I end up with long tongues of comb unsupported and these flex a lot if the frames are tilted. With the horizontal supports they cannot go any distance without encountering support. (Given that they don't build out from the sidebars into thin air).

Sel.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

sparkyApis said:


> I am finding that the bees can be a little reluctant to attach to my vertical skewers (4 mm)


Too thick.
Try 3 mm or thinner - the results may change (regardless of vertical or horizontal orientation).


----------



## sparkyApis (Apr 9, 2021)

GregV said:


> Too thick


That may well be it and I recall LJ has made similar comment but those were the thinnest I could source in the needed length. Changing to the shorter horizontal also me gives more options for thinner material.
Sel.


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

sparkyApis said:


> That may well be it and I recall LJ has made similar comment but those were the thinnest I could source in the needed length. Changing to the shorter horizontal also me gives more options for thinner material.
> Sel.


Had the opposite problem last year so switched to fishing line. All those nice smooth pre-drilled holes in a lang frame that a bamboo skewer fits perfectly. Felt like Maxwell Smart "Missed It By THAT Much". Too much drilling / cutting to run them vertical. Put them in first then every Popsicle stick has to be cut, last then the drill goes crooked when it hits the thin stick. Assuming you let the glue dry, otherwise it pushes them out... Argh! Can string line while watching a video.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

sparkyApis said:


> LJ, interesting research as always. Are all these measured the same way, the width as the distance between the outside of the side bars and the depth likewise to the outside of the woodwork? So, to translate your imperial measurements to your plan, they would be 285 by 435 or thereabouts.


Exactly. The frame in post #1 was only drawn horizontally for a better display on a computer screen. Frame length (or width if viewing the frame from the side) is 11 1/4" by 17" deep. I think it's worth pointing out that there's nothing particularly magical about such *exact* measurements - it's the basic trend of 'narrow and deep' which counts. The 11 1/4" (285mm) was chosen as it fits across an already built 300mm (circa 12") cavity, and 17" just happens to be the depth of a stack of two British National Brood Boxes (which are the same depth as that I chose for my Warre-style boxes - to try and keep some consistency.)

Cavities with a 12" dimension have a long history, and just keep re-appearing. Moses Quinby, who was perhaps the highest regarded beekeeper in the pre-Langstroth era had specified a 12" (internal measurement) cube as being the most suitable size for fixed-comb brood boxes in all but Northern States (and Canada) where a depth of 14" was recommended for increased winter stores.
12" was a cavity measurement also to be found in the hives of Huber and Bevan, upon whose writings Langstroth had based his early experiments, when he enlarged a Bevan Hive from 12x12 to 18x18 with the sole purpose of increasing the honey-holding capacity of Bevan's Moveable-Comb ('top-bar') Beehive. He used a box depth of six inches for that experiment, and so would appear to have been working in six-inch multiples on a 'suck-it-and-see' basis. 
Although Langstroth succeeded with his aim of a higher honey-holding capacity, he recognised that such a shallow comb was impractical, and so chose a box of 18x12 inches (with a deeper depth) on which to base his 1852 Patent. When he later rotated his frames to run lengthwise* along *the box (rather than *across* it), the 12 inch dimension was retained and became the width of a modern-day 8-frame box.

Emile Warre conducted numerous trials before establishing that the 300x300mm (12x12") internal cavity cross-section was optimal (within Northern France), and then there's Layens and the Ukrainian Hives - and the hives of Doolittle and Gallup, and so on ...
So - although I don't think anyone need become 'religious' about a 12" box, there does appear to be extensive empirical evidence that it works rather well in practice. My own experience is that the Gallup Frame (at 11 1/4"x 11 1/4") is a great size - the bees love it - BUT it really is too small for a 'full-sized' working hive, and that lots of them are then required, but hopefully increasing the frame depth by an extra 50% will now solve this overall frame-size issue.

For me, an additional bonus of the 285mm (11 1/4") frame is that readily available 12" x 3mm bamboo skewers can then be installed horizontally. Now although I've not noticed any difference in acceptance by the bees of horizontal vs vertical 3mm skewers, with horizontal skewers the upper segment of the comb could very easily be cut-out to harvest honey (if needs be), and the bees would then quickly re-draw that area as it's located at the top. Not saying I'll ever do this myself, but this *could* very easily be done.
best.
LJ


----------



## sparkyApis (Apr 9, 2021)

little_john said:


> I think it's worth pointing out that there's nothing particularly magical about such *exact* measurements - it's the basic trend of 'narrow and deep' which counts.


Thanks LJ, I do appreciate your point about ball park figures, I am sometimes amazed at how some will go to the mat about quite small diferences. My query was to make sure I understood your text, the two inches or so of ears and bee space give rather diferent comb areas depending on it being top bar length, box inside or frame, plus I can be a bit pedantic sometimes .

For what its worth, my frames ended up in the same family at 315 wide by 395 deep. I find it surprising, considering the circuitous route I took, that I have arrived in a similar place to those who actually know something about bees.

Sel.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Keeping this thread updated, as promised ...

So - this is the rig I've cobbled together in order to make 24 Ukrainian-style frames - it's simply a rectangle made from 1.5" square section, but with precisely-made right-angles - with lengths and diagonals equal to < 0.5mm, which is laid on a sheet of thick glass as shown. As the battens from which the frame is made are cut precisely to length, all that's required is to set up the pre-cut battens referenced to one corner of this jig - this then automatically results in a frame with right-angles all round.

While the glue is drying, pressure is applied via a retort stand (could also use a scissor-jack, or a ratchet clamp in reverse-mode - so that it expands, rather than clamps). That central pressure is spread out to the ends of the frame by a slightly bowed piece of wood - the gap created by that bow hasn't shown up well in the photo, so I've highlighted that area in red.










It's a very slow way of making frames, but that's acceptable for a test batch of 24 which I can make a few of each evening in front of the fire over Xmas. But if I decide to make many more (which looks highly likely), then I may need to come up with a more efficient method. 

So here's what results:










When all 24 basic rectangles are made, I'll then add horizontal bamboo skewers, then a top bar, then popiscle sticks on edge as starters. Finally I'll add small spacing screws at the top, and at the bottom in view of the frame depth. I don't normally worry about spacing at the bottom - but these are much deeper frames than I normally use.
'best
LJ


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

Would "wedges" at the bottoms be easier than screws? It seems like the frames could hang up on acres, but wedges on the bottom might be easier to make consistently, and as easy to affix.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

I had been thinking more along the lines of using these frames within Long Hives, where frames can be separated to create a clearance before being extracted - then replaced vertically with the same sort of clearance before being finally closed up ... *but* ... when using these frames within Warre-style stacks, the last frame to be replaced will indeed be inserted vertically with precious little clearance - so yes, I agree - the use of wedges rather than screws would be a very good idea.
And - as I want all frames to be fully interchangeable between Long Hives and Warre-style boxes, it would clearly make sense to fit them *all* with such wedges.

Screws at the top (for a minimal contact area) and wedges at the bottom - sounds good to me. Thanks for that suggestion - appreciated. 
LJ


----------



## sparkyApis (Apr 9, 2021)

LJ, any particular reason for making frames with a separate top bar or is that just driven by the available material?
Sel.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

sparkyApis said:


> LJ, any particular *reason for making frames* *with a separate top bar* or is that just* driven by the available material*?
> Sel.


Hi Sel - sorry for the delay in replying - usual story: Nose/Hospital etc. Not an unreasonable proposition, but actually no. Scoring that obscene quantity of battens was pure coincidence - a case of serendipity/ opportunism.

I did once make a few 14x12" frames with one-piece top-bars:










which were 'ok-ish' - but I felt there MUST be a better way of making frames.

Such a method presented itself when I re-purposed an old unwanted ceramic tile-cutter into a miniature table-saw, by simply changing the worn-out diamond blade for a wood-cutting blade and making a crude but effective cross-cut jig:










I then selected the thickest pallet planks I had at the time (22mm) and, setting a table saw to 10mm, I then proceeded to pass them back and forth across the saw like a bacon-slicer to produce a stock of 22x10mm battens which were then cut to length using the above mini table-saw:










But as you can see, those edges are very rough, as there just wasn't enough excess width available to trim them up.

However, with those 'rough-cut' battens, I then started to make various sizes of frames, ranging from this 14x12 - 'eye-balling' against the workbench side to judge a right-angle:










to these mating-nuc frames, with which I used a precisely cut piece of coloured polycarbonate to provide a right-angle guide.

















Even after I sourced that huge supply of 10mm battens I continued to use exactly the same method:










The above is a mock-up of course, showing how I made around 30 standing frames - a project which sadly bit the dust due to an unforeseen complication. A vehicle scissor-jack works as well as any other compression method in this application.

Ok - just in case anyone has overlooked the core principle of this method, here's an 'exploded diagram':










However the above battens are obtained or made - they all have exactly the same cross-section: 10mm x 25mm (my preferred width, although 22mm would also be ok) - the only difference being in their length - thus all five pieces which make the frame can be produced using the same equipment and at the same time. By employing this method, using only that equipment, foundationless frames of ANY size and rectangular shape can be produced.
Personally, I can't see an easier or more straightforward method of making foundationless frames - but if anyone knows of one - then please DO let me know. 
'best,
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Final update on the frame build ...

This is my test batch of 24 frames after glue-up in the new jig - at this stage without top-bars, corner screws, skewers or starter-strips:










... and here they are with all those bits added:










... and here's a close-up shot next to the diagram from earlier:


















Near enough, I think ?

So that's it - just need to add spacing screws now and the bottom wedges. I'm really looking forward to installing these frames - I have Great Expectations of them. 
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Lee Bussy said:


> Would "wedges" at the bottoms be easier than screws? It seems like the frames could hang up on acres, but wedges on the bottom might be easier to make consistently, and as easy to affix.


Re: the 'wedges' ...

I've been making-up three-foot long 'wedges' by running a plane along a batten at an angle, then dicing them up into 10.5 mm lengths. I've only glued-up a couple of frames with them thus far, as I wanted to test-out a sample first - and after testing these, I must say that this wedge idea works a treat. 

In addition to fitting a wedge to each left side (on 'alternate corners', as it were) - I've gently 'rounded' each opposite side in the area which will impact the wedge's incline, so as to prevent any tendency to 'dig-in' to the incline. (Hope you can follow that vague description)








So - worst case is running one side-bar down hard against the side with the wedge attached. When this is done, the moving side bar simply floats away from the other effortlessly - I just cannot make them jam. A brilliant idea - works perfectly. Thanks.
LJ


----------



## JustBees (Sep 7, 2021)

little_john said:


> "The Hive Question Again - three veterans discuss the time-worn question of the best size for hives." progress as it occurs.


100 years later the question is still argued in this forum, isn't progress awesome!


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

JustBees said:


> 100 years later the question is still argued in this forum, isn't progress awesome!


Because it is becoming clear, for a change, there is no unified, single frame that is best for everyone at all times (as it was claimed once or twice by now).

Why, surprisingly, in our other lives some drive F-250s, others drive minivans, and yet others drive Honda Civic types - AND still everyone gets from point A to point B (the main vehicle function is the same, but additional benefits/liabilities are different and worth a consideration).

Thanks to the power tools and material availability, everyone can quickly and cheaply build their own custom frame that is best for them.
And so - why not?

Pictured - standard 5-story apartment building from the USSR times where the bulk of urban dwellers lived at the time (and a lot still do).
Most of these are now being torn down for about the same reason - many residents are willing and able to ditch these (and so they do).


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JustBees said:


> 100 years later the question is still argued in this forum, isn't progress awesome!


It is
I do not need to take a horse for a week to talk to Greg, Or a steam ship to talk to someone over seas.
Nor do I need to time travel to see what Brother Adam did or a few folks from the late 1800's

Keep in mind just as a single deep works in Fla and maybe a 2 deep is used in Montana, Hive size is affected by the climate. So One "debates" from their own point of reference. In the old days when you walked to debate a neighboring keeper it was likely you shared a climate, today I can say on line what your splitting in Jan, well I live in New Zeeland, so many questions, IE feed or not feed, hive size , frame size can enlist responses from a myriad of places.

GG


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Also - attitudes change. A hundred and fifty years ago, wax moths were viewed as being enemy number one. These days wax moths are viewed with a little more tolerance as being Nature's 'clean-up crew'. Same wax moths, still a nuisance, but viewed with a very different attitude.

I'd offer two pieces of evidence in support of narrow, deep frames - as opposed to the landscape-shaped frames which have become accepted as 'the standard' over so many decades. It was Brother Adam, I believe, who first coined the expression "Let the bees tell you." Well, bees have been trying to tell us something for quite a while, but it would appear that very few people are listening to them.

#1: In a single-story brood box housing 'standard' frames - if the space below the frames is excessive, then bees will draw 'wild comb' down there.
#2: In a multi-story brood stack housing 'standard' frames - if the spacing between those frames is either too little or too great, again the bees will 'become creative' with their cementing or wax-building skills.

Now beekeepers have come to view this as 'bees behaving badly', and the only way to prevent them from behaving like this is to maintain precise spacings around the frames - spacings which thwart the bees from creating what it is that they prefer - which is deeper combs. 

How can I say this with such certainty ? Because if the bees are provided with deeper combs, the space below those frames can be as large as you like - it is very unlikely indeed that the bees will ever draw 'wild comb' down there ... precisely because they have enough depth of comb for their purposes.

In the cases #1 and #2 above, the bees are either trying to extend the depth of a single comb, or join two combs together - it must surely be plain enough what they are trying to achieve ? And yet we force them to live under conditions which, thanks to the constraints imposed by 'the bee space', they are unable to alter in order to suit their own requirements.

We have even come to view the oval brood pattern with a crescent of pollen over and honey over that, as being that of a 'normal' healthy brood comb - only it's not - it's an artifact created by a particular frame shape and size.

Is it really any wonder that the debate regarding frame shapes and sizes continues to persist - even up to the present day ... ? 
LJ


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

So if I have "legal-sized" frames, where does the honey go and how do I harvest said honey?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> if the bees are provided with deeper combs, the space below those frames can be as large as you like - it is very unlikely indeed that the bees will ever draw 'wild comb' down there ... precisely because they have enough depth of comb for their purposes.


To this..
I have been looking over that interesting talk about the gizmo called "slatted rack".
Interesting, recurring topic.
But with sufficiently deep frames none of that complication and extra piece to make/handle is needed.
The problem the "slatted rack" is trying to solve just does not exist in a different frame dimension.


Referring to:








Slatted rack what direction for the slats.


Hello BS folks Hopefully some of you have played with slatted racks and/or understand the working mechanism behind them. I have made 3 new sets of 8F boxes and BBs now have the frames made for slatted racks. 13 3/4 X 20 1/2 x 4.75 deep I see a lot of these with the slats going the same way...




www.beesource.com


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Set free in properly sized hive to do (almost!) whatever they want bees don't really screw up that much.
Let alone attach to that feared floor and, OMG!, the walls - they really don't. 
But the allocated cavity size/comb sizes do matter to get away with it.


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

Yeah ... sorry to tell you this, Greg, most folks don't want to do what you've shown in other threads where you've cut and crushed around the brood. 

So, while I'm intrigued about the different comb sizes, I am thinking it invalidates any viable extraction methods at scale. I don't want to assume so I am asking.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Lee Bussy said:


> sorry to tell you this, Greg, most folks don't want to do what you've shown in other threads where you've cut and crushed around the brood.


Strange that LB you are unaware how much we already discussed regarding the conventional extraction options around seemingly "unconventional" frame sizes (which are really not - unconventional).

But I get it, we can not keep track of everything, let alone a zillion of discussions on the BS itself.

Pictures are just a demonstration how a suitable frame/cavity sizing removes the root cause of slatted rack necessity.
Now - just use conventional frames, not ad-hoc top bars - what is there to prevent you?

What prevented me?
Time takes to make actual frames - so hacked up top bars made it work just beautifully (as pictured).


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

GregB said:


> Strange that LB you are unaware how much we already discussed regarding the conventional extraction options around seemingly "unconventional" frame sizes (which are really not - unconventional).


I can't even balance my checkbook, let alone keep up with everything here. 



GregB said:


> Pictures are just a demonstration how a suitable frame/cavity sizing removes the root cause of slatted rack necessity.
> Now - just use conventional frames, not ad-hoc top bars - what is there to prevent you?


Well, the challenge I see in my head (dangerous terrain) is that with a "portrait mode" frame, I assume the idea would be to only use one deep? Or would one still have a "super?" If the latter, I have no further questions. If the former, I remain confused.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Not being able to fit the frames in a standard small Lang frame extractor would be a game killer for many. It is a different philosophy entirely but Greg likes mixing in pollen with his crush and strain honey. I have been rather puritan about not having ever had brood or pollen in my extracting frames but there are things about the narrow and deep frames that have definite benefits. I am in the process of putting one together ( stalled because too cold to glue in the shop) with the eye to haveing a no lifting beekeeping system with excellent wintering all in one box sort of thing.

At the same time I am moving to a single 10 frame Lang box with frames 12 3/4 deep instead of 9 1/8" These frames rotated 90 deg. will fit in the deep narrow Layens style hive. Since I am fairly well geared up for making my own frames that is not a problem. Incidentally one and a half sheets plastic foundation for lang deeps fit nicely into the oversized frame. I make some boxes that deep but they fit correctly in 2 medium hive bodies stacked so can be done with standard boxes. 

You have to enjoy the monkeying around.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Lee Bussy said:


> I can't even balance my checkbook, let alone keep up with everything here.
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge I see in my head (dangerous terrain) is that with a "portrait mode" frame, I assume the idea would be to only use one deep? Or would one still have a "super?" If the latter, I have no further questions. If the former, I remain confused.


You could use conventional vertical super - pictured a hybrid hive with two supers.
You could use "horizontal" supers as well.

LB, what I hanged up - those are *brood-nest*(!) combs.
Many people don't ever extract the brood-nest for their own reason.
Like @crofter does not.
Well, I do.
But you don't have to - you are the boss.

So, the deep brood-nest does not require some of the additional work arounds.
Shallow brood-nest does benefit from those additional techniques (e.g. slats).


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Lee they can be operated as one box one level and the honey tends to get put to the rear of the brood frames. The entrance generally under the brood frames. There is nothing stopping you from putting some conventional honey super boxes on above the bottom box frames and even put a queen excluder between. They might not be so easy to convince to jump the gap and put honey above when they have the expanse of the deep frames below. This latter I am only guessing at since I am not much more than google smart on this concept. A work in progress for when I can no longer handle heaving loaded boxes.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

crofter said:


> They might not be so easy to convince to jump the gap and put honey above when they have the expanse of the deep frames below.


So, frank, in that hybrid hive picture above they actually did - put the honey above of the super deep broodnest.

This was a very strong colony that went through a shake out (to stop the pending swarm - I posted about it at the time).
Afterwords they got their senses back; went back to work in a swarm mode AND made me a very good crop two (2) summers ago (that, after a shake out and two splits put away).

Of course, because of the "No Treatments" I successfully lost that very good colony - one that stored the honey above the super deep nest. 
Some other bees are very stubborn about NOT going up - I think they will require consistent squeezing/reducing to push them up.

PS: thinking back, I lost way too many good bees for a no-good reason.... 😢 went through all kinds of good bees like nothing.


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

Thanks, guys. Yeah I guess I am applying my limited knowledge to what is probably a different management method. I need to keep taking it back to what I know.

Frank, I'm all about not lifting heavy boxes. I figure our bodies all have an unlisted but limited "number" attached. After we exceed that, they will tell us we're done. No sense in burning that up when we don't have to.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Lee, I am starting to get a continuous flashing warning light! Greg, I think you have prepared me for the possibilities regarding honey storage. If they dont want to put honey up I have a few customers that have been asking me for chunk comb honey. I can get them drawing comb on frames that I can use in my Lang / Dadant colonies with supers on. With 24 frame capacity I should be able to winter two good sized colonies in each hive. Cheap fun anyways.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Lee Bussy said:


> So if I have "legal-sized" frames, where does the honey go and how do I harvest said honey?


It might help some if we wind the clock right back to around the mid-1840's, when we find American beekeeping woefully behind that of Europe - but things were soon to change.

In particular, the hives in common use at that time were fixed-comb box-hives. Now beekeepers had figured out how to avoid killing the bees in order to extract their honey by the use of two boxes: the lower box for brood, and the upper as a 'honey box'. But it was soon discovered that far more honey could be harvested per hive, if only there were some means of collecting it.

One method was invented by a John Weeks of Vermont, who affixed honey-boxes to the top and to both sides of the fixed-comb brood box. It produced an impressive honey yield, but at the expense of quite unbelievable complexity, with each honey-box being in the form of a sliding drawer. However, this hive was duly Patented and one farmer in particular - Gilbert Doolittle's father - purchased twenty of these Weeks' 'Vermont' Beehives, the honey yield from which was to create an indelible impression upon his young son.

Meanwhile, Lorenzo Langstroth - who had only 'discovered' honeybees in 1838 - had set himself the task of discovering a better method of achieving the same result. He reasoned that one larger (or several smaller) honey-boxes placed upon the brood box should suffice and, being a distinguished academic (a former phi beta kappa student of Yale University) he turned to books by the accepted beekeeping authorities of his day - these being Huber of Switzerland, and Bevan of Great Britain. This was to prove a most fortunate choice, with Huber keeping bees within frames, and Bevan keeping bees upon moveable Top-Bars.
Langstroth's experiment consisted of enlarging the Bevan hive from 12x12 inches to 18x18 inches, which more than doubled the hive's top surface area. By reducing the brood-box depth to 6 inches, the bees were then obliged to store their honey above the barely adequate brood chamber, and within honey boxes of an increased volume.

Although Langstroth is most famous for having invented the hanging-frame, that particular invention only occurred 'by accident', as it were, during the above experiment - the aim of which was primarily to increase the amount of stored honey *above* the brood nest, an objective which he fully achieved. BUT - Langstroth immediately recognised that a depth of 6 inches would be insufficient for colony survival over Winter, and from then on he only ever advocated brood frames with a minimum 10 inch depth.
Later, Langstroth seriously considered changing the shape and depth of frame currently in use:
He wrote a letter to Amos Root on April 4, 1872, as follows:
*"Dear Friend: I hope you will try the 12x12 in., but I have many years ago tried such frames and do not like them - ”too much cost to make and handle, etc. I think the hive 14x14x13 in. deep much better and shall probably adopt that shape, as the honey emptier ['honey extractor'] and side boxes make it no longer so desirable to have a shallow hive." 
The next day, April 5, he wrote: "You will see from my last that I propose to change the dimensions of my frame. Perhaps there will not be much choice between the hive 14x14x13 in. and 12x12x12 in., but I prefer ten frames to twelve." 
Gleanings in Bee Culture, Vol. 2, 1874, p. 58(sic - printer's error - should be page 38)*

So, although a square-section hive with a 12 or 13 inch box depth was seriously being considered by the hive's inventor - by that time, Amos Root was in full industrialised production with his own version of the Langstroth Beehive, and so 'the die was cast' ... and has been so, ever since that time.

Ok, so returning now to Gilbert Doolittle ...
When this guy was old enough, he left the family farm in order to work full-time as a beekeeper, and the lasting impression made upon him by the Weeks' Hive was such that he immediately set-about replicating that hive's performance, only now with a hive of his own design, employing the 'new-fangled' hanging frames - his aim being to collect honey both above and to the sides of the brood chamber, as per the Weeks' Hive.
He first tried the 'standard' landscape Langstroth frame, which encouraged the bees to store honey above the brood nest, but not to the sides. He then tried a 'portait' shaped frame which resulted in side-stored honey, but with very little stored above. He finally tried the 'Gallup' rectangular frame which resulted in roughly equal amounts of side-stored and top-stored honey - thus meeting his objective.

From Doolittle's experiment then, we can see that *frame shape can indeed influence where honey is stored* - that is, providing a storage facility exists in that location. If it does not exist, then bees will store honey wherever is most convenient for them. Good examples of this can be seen in variations of the Layens Hive, where top storage occurs even with deep frames. Likewise, there are similar variations with the Ukrainian Beehive (which has essentially the same frame size and shape).










My suggested variation - not yet tested:








'best
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregB said:


> To this..
> I have been looking over that interesting talk about the gizmo called "slatted rack".
> Interesting, recurring topic.
> But with sufficiently deep frames none of that complication and extra piece to make/handle is needed.
> The problem the "slatted rack" is trying to solve just does not exist in a different frame dimension.


Greg - you raise an interesting and important point - thanks. The only possible justification for using a Slatted Rack with Layens/Ukrainian frames I can see at the moment would be with the 'Granary' format Layens Hive (as above), or one of the variations I've suggested - where a rack beneath the shorter frames might be needed.
Otherwise, I agree 100% with your comment. 

I find it's easy to overlook such things ... 
LJ


----------



## Lee Bussy (May 28, 2021)

little_john said:


> From Doolittle's experiment then, we can see that *frame shape can indeed influence where honey is stored*


That completely explains what I was asking - thank you!


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

crofter said:


> At the same time I am moving to a single 10 frame Lang box with frames 12 3/4 deep instead of 9 1/8" These frames rotated 90 deg. will fit in the deep narrow Layens style hive.


Does the 12 3/4 frame fit in an extractor? I too am building some honey supers for my Ukrainian/Russian hive. I have never used an extractor but I want to make sure the frames will fit in the event I might like to use one in the future. I thought I might be restricted to the 9 1/8 deep frame but I really would like it to make it a bit deeper.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

The 12 3/4 frames dont fit in most small extractors in this country which is highly slanted towards Lang deeps and mediums. Some have optional baskets that will take the deeper frames. The European sources list more optional basket sizes. You could get around that by useing pairs of medium frames zip tied together but separated to extract.

Little johns reference to a Grenier style section where shallower frames are located for honey, would be an option. I had thought about standard Lang medium frames lengthwise in this Granary section. The far ends of them would be getting quite removed from the brood section though, so I dont know how well that end would get drawn out..
Hard to get one setup that will encompass all the best points without some tradeoffs.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

ursa_minor said:


> Does the 12 3/4 frame fit in an extractor?


Unfortunately, the North American sources are limited and expensive (my non-ending gripe).





Swarm Traps For Sale | Horizontal Hives







horizontalhive.com


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

ursa_minor said:


> Does the 12 3/4 frame fit in an extractor? I too am building some honey supers for my Ukrainian/Russian hive. I have never used an extractor but I want to make sure the frames will fit in the event I might like to use one in the future. I thought I might be restricted to the 9 1/8 deep frame but I really would like it to make it a bit deeper.


But nothing wrong with 9 1/8 deep frame either.
Just plug them as see fit.
So what if the bees will build some additional combs under the frame?
Simply slice off the extra comb away and extract the Lang frame in Lang extraction equipment.
C&S those additional combs OR use/sell as chunk honey OR feed back to the bees OR..

Please don't fall into the rut of the commercial beekeeping!
Let them have at it and have your own little fun.

In fact, I'd not even bother with the under-frame box insert.
Sorry, LJ - just a conceptual disagreement there.
Yes - this is a "neat" approach.








But those under-frame inserts reduce the volume of the hive (already fixed!) - the volume that can be filled with combs and honey. While that honey may get organized in irregular format - it IS still honey to be had and used (vs. not having it). And wax.
Not to mention the process of initial nectar storage and drying requires 100-200% more volume from the final volume that the capped honey takes.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

As far as the Ukrainian style hives - reusing the Lang frames for honey harvest purposes requires no more then two (2) zip ties.
Oh - and it requires breaking away from the mind set that the frames MUST HANG. They don't.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

This commercial(!!!) beek does his own unconventional stuff - while making living off his bees.
This is not a hobby.
While back he made a batch of certain frames *without ears *- they are in continuous use.
Notice the exact usage in the long hives vs. 12-frame square hives.
Free standing frames and no sweat about it.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

That is quite an eye opener! Make me rethink about how fussy I am with frames!


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

GregB said:


> While back he made a batch of certain frames *without ears *- they are in continuous use.


I rotated some deep langs to fit in my hive and cut the ears off. When I needed to hive a swarm in the only box I had, which was a leftover deep lang, I just put screws into the ends to act as the ears.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

crofter said:


> That is quite an eye opener! Make me rethink about how fussy I am with frames!


Notice how those ear-less frames and the enveloping boxes are completely out of sync.
In the case of 12-frame square setup - to be sure.
Matters not.
Moreover - once you realize you can simply stand up the frames - need for the reinforced top bar no longer exists.
In fact, you ran reduce the wood-ware and idle airspace - while increasing the comb space in the same volume.
Also in fact, the entire "hanging frame design" needs to be reviewed if free-standing is to be implemented OR both ways.

Anyway, the conventional thinking is "thinking in a box".
Being a free hobbyist - think out of the box because you can (unless insist on being conventional).
This entire bee-game is not for me if to be conventional (to be following the herd, meh....).


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

ursa_minor said:


> I rotated some deep langs to fit in my hive and cut the ears off. When I needed to hive a swarm in the only box I had, which was a leftover deep lang, I just put screws into the ends to act as the ears.


I hadn't thought about it but for sure in that case all you would have needed to do is put a couple of strips of 1" square or so down on the bottom board and stood the earless frames on them.

I notice on the frames in Gregs linked video that the sidebars are same width all the way down, keeping the comb surfaces apart. In one previous vids he showed putting frames in the other way up to get comb joined to the top bar. Some of those frames might need a screened cage to extract without blowing out but that would not be hard to do.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

This custom mini-frame I have is meant to be usable in both ways - hanging and standing (if space allows). In my long hives this minis can freely stand within the under-lid space - no special supers are needed.

There was a small adjustment I did mid-production - moved up the bottom bar just a tad to allow the bees to be squeezing under it when that is needed.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> Greg - you raise an interesting and important point - thanks. The *only* possible justification for using a Slatted Rack with Layens/Ukrainian frames I can see at the moment would be with the 'Granary' format Layens Hive (as above), or one of the variations I've suggested - where a rack beneath the shorter frames might be needed.
> Otherwise, I agree 100% with your comment.
> 
> I find it's easy to overlook such things ...
> LJ


Just to keep the wagon in the middle of the road, I disagree.
Rarely will the words only and never be in a bee discussion where they end up true.
We have air space
cluster space
Entrance and light management, from eggs to entrance.

I would totally agree under the Granary , slatted racks can/could be used.
And to Gregs earlier point , IF the frames are "unreasonable deep " then the Slatted rack is not needed, IS where I stand Rather the "too short frames need the stalled Rack and the "prefect ones" do not.
I like the double granary hive as it had balance and could be put on a couple large blocks. Fork lifted As well.
I would test the double Granary hive with cold way entrance,, and the single Granary with warm way on the non Granary side as the bees would want Brood near the entrance and Store behind the nest.

Be interested in your test LJ as I do see merit.

Still trying to wrap my mind around your both suggestion that Pastoral is the only way, and that Divisible can't be as good.

GG


----------



## BeesBorealis (Jul 1, 2021)

GregB said:


> Unfortunately, the North American sources are limited and expensive (my non-ending gripe).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Betterbee has a large frame extractor that is a little less expensive.






Lyson Manual Large Frame Extractor | Betterbee


Extract frames larger than the standard Langstroth frames! This manual extractor can extract 4 Layens, 4 AZ/Slovenian frames, or 4 Langstroth deeps/8 mediums.




www.betterbee.com


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Gray Goose said:


> Still trying to wrap my mind around your both suggestion that Pastoral is the only way, and that Divisible can't be as good. GG


GG - have replied in the Warre/CVH sub-forum ... it badly needs the traffic ! 
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> And to Gregs earlier point , IF the frames are "unreasonable deep " then the Slatted rack is not needed,


So, GG which one of these are "unreasonable deep"? 

From the post #1
----------------------------------------------
Warre (original frame) = *300x400 mm*.
Layens frame = *310x400 mm*.
to which can be added,
Levitsky frame = *240x432 mm*.
Ukrainian frame =* 300x435 mm*.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregB said:


> So, GG which one of these are "unreasonable deep"?
> 
> From the post #1
> ----------------------------------------------
> ...


It was said tongue and cheek.
Which of the above do you have an extractor for?
All mine I have an extractor for.
Deep frames can save me the cost of the slatted racks, but what is then the cost of the extractor.

GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> It was said tongue and cheek.
> Which of the above do you have an extractor for?
> All mine I have an extractor for.
> Deep frames can save me the cost of the slatted racks, but what is then the cost of the extractor.
> ...


I certainly have a self-made extractor for a conventional Land Medium frame.
My cheapness prevents me from buying a factory-made extractor.

Those "special" frames that spook people away can be used strictly for the brood-nest - which for most is not extract-able anyway (EVEN on standard Lang frames).
This obvious controversy is so darn obvious to me - people run *standard *frames in the brood-nest to NEVER extract them. Then we argue over a strange issue of extraction and standardization where it does not really apply. 

Meanwhile, this "extraction issue" is trivially resolved by:








AND/OR by conventional supers, of course, over the deep brood-nest.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregB said:


> I certainly have a self-made extractor for a conventional Land Medium frame.
> My cheapness prevents me from buying a factory-made extractor.
> 
> Those "special" frames that spook people away can be used strictly for the brood-nest - which for most is not extract-able anyway (EVEN on standard Lang frames).
> ...


partially agree most brood frames do not get extracted.
However I do extract 30 or so deeps every year. Run out of medium, add 3rd deep too soon, too many stores need space, spring dead outs. wonky frame resizing, fat to normal.

so re: the drawing, So in your opinion 2 top bars in the middle of the nest is OK, as you do it and show it off, why then the apparent dislike for a 2 deep or deep + medium set up where you have a top and bottom bar in the middle of the brood nest?

GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> so re: the drawing, So in your opinion 2 top bars in the middle of the nest is OK, as you do it and show it off, why then the apparent dislike for a 2 deep or deep + medium set up where you have a top and bottom bar in the middle of the brood nest?


The "2 top bars" hacked up frame you will place into a honey partition of a long hive, NOT into the brood nest.
You mean this hack to be extracted conventionally.
That's why is the hack.
The entire "inconvenience" is - to snip two zip ties and separate the frames. 

The brood nest partition you run on full deep frames and up to your HOW or IF you harvest them.
Like this one (this one is NOT meant to be easily taken apart - a permanent frame for brood usage only).











GG, I really, really like a single frame that spans three Lang boxes (all way through, top to bottom).

This year I happened to manage a typical double-deep Lang (for my student) and my own Ukrainian hybrid - side-by-side.

Ergonomics are such that I hated working that double-deep Lang (not to mention, it really requires mild bees to work it effectively).

I did not even treat the Lang with organic acid in November (unlike my standing by Ukrainian) - just inconvenient to work the Lang, ESPECIALLY when the boxes are loaded and heavy as death.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregB said:


> The "2 top bars" hacked up frame you will place into a honey partition of a long hive, NOT into the brood nest.
> You mean this hack to be extracted conventionally.
> That's why is the hack.
> The entire "inconvenience" is - to snip two zip ties and separate the frames.  *ya I get the snip extract, re tie*
> ...


I understand your resistance, but IMO you have an internal Bias toward the long frame, And that is fine to me, as I am biased to the lang. Wear the other guys shoes and absolutes will merge.

I *Could *if you ever convinced me, just change my end bars and go long frame, in my double deeps.
And you show pics of converting to "the Greg frame" 2 side by side mediums.
so we each are able to convert if we wanted or wished. It scares me we are so much alike.
Both chasing a rat into a culvert from opposite ends.

My original question I was trying to lead you into was the "insulation" debunked theory that the "wood" in the middle of the hive Hurts the wintering of the AM. Hence my opinion that Frame size matters not (if you insulate) and Hive size and configuration is where the goods are. So I can use the readily availed frames and extractors Etc.

I'll wait for a while till you get here, the rat is trapped.

GG

GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

This is one of my favorite videos about the hybrid hives - deep nest/conventional supers.
I don't need to film anything - people who have pionered the approach and doing it for living - have done it already.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> My original question I was trying to lead you into was the "insulation" debunked theory that the "wood" in the middle of the hive Hurts the wintering of the AM. Hence my opinion that Frame size matters not (if you insulate) and Hive size and configuration is where the goods are. So I can use the readily availed frames and extractors Etc.


The wood in the middle of the hive is nothing but a hack - don't look for any special design there.

The hack is necessitated by my lack of time to build proper frames - which I have done and will do again.
It is just cutting out the plastic Lang frames is a near perfect way to have foundation less frames already. My current go-to way - plastic frame gut-outs.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

This is pretty much my ideal "proper frame" for deep brood nest.
Three horizontal partitions.
This particular frame was harvested in fall 2021 - next season will go back into rotation and will be fully rebuilt from zero (just like any brood frame should be periodically fully recycled - nothing new - where C&S harvest of brood frames naturally and perfectly fits).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

BeesBorealis said:


> Betterbee has a large frame extractor that is a little less expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right.
This particular model looks to be Polish-made (Lyson) and should be pretty good.
Lyson should really flood the US market with their products and depress some pricing - fingers crossed.
Lack of options here is just hard to explain to the counterparts across the pond.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Gray Goose said:


> I would totally agree under the Granary , slatted racks can/could be used.
> 
> I like the double granary hive as it had balance and could be put on a couple large blocks. Fork lifted As well.
> I would test the double Granary hive with cold way entrance [...]
> ...


Of all the Layens variations, the granary format is the one I find the most interesting, and the one with the most potential.
Although I've posted it before, here's another look at a useful graphic:










The central 'landing board' (planche de vol) appears to slide out, and presumably has an entrance slot just over it. Sliding out like that would enable floor cleaning with minimum disturbance - and, a dummy floor with cavity attached could be used for dosing with VOA from below. Additional entrances could be provided on either side into the 'isolation chambers' which would have slatted rack tops (but not sides) - foragers entering via those side entrances during the season would therefore be required to pass through the stores area before joining the main colony, and I'd like to think they would prefer to dump their loads into those store combs in preference. Needs checking, of course.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this one, and the above are roughly my current intentions with a trial hive.
'best,
LJ


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

The above could be the way I go. Nothing written in stone yet. The granary sections could be just loose / unattached so different arrangements tested. Have not made any frames yet. I would have space for 6 honey frames either side and up to twelve in the central section. Plenty to winter on.

Food for thought for sure!


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> Of all the Layens variations, the granary format is the one I find the most interesting, and the one with the most potential.
> Although I've posted it before, here's another look at a useful graphic:
> 
> 
> ...


that is the one.
I would/will drop the deep frames down and have a row of Mediums across the entire top. So 5 on each side and 8 across the middle. can take or leave depending on hive size and flow , be a place to build out frames.
10 medium frames of honey only would be small ish for my flow, I am at 3 to 4 10F boxes to be supered OK

My initial idea was 2 deep lang instead of 1 very deep frame , but getting to the bottom set may preclude that as an option. so I would need to make my frames, not a show stopper.
it would take tippy out of the equation, and the bees needing to haul the honey up to the 4th or 5th box.
Mass x Lift is work, and a mushroom top would be less work for the bees..

GG


----------

