# Has the modern TBH actually become the cutting edge of beekeeping innovation?



## Adam Foster Collins

I apologize for the long post, but I've been thinking hard on this, and I'd like to share these ideas and hear what you have to say about them.

In another forum, a person made a comment that suggested that using a top bar hive was akin to trading in an automobile for a horse and buggy. He was suggesting that using a top bar hive was odd, because it meant using old technology over what innovation and invention had replaced. Michael Bush made a very interesting response, some of which I'd like to quote here for the purpose of further discussion:

*"I'd have to say that Europeans and Americans never had top bar hives until very recently. The Greeks had them hundreds if not thousands of years ago and still do today, but Americans were not looking for an improvement over a top bar hive as they had never seen or heard of one at the time the Langstroth came out. They were looking for an improvement over a log gum (in the US) and the skep (in Europe). And a top bar hive is a huge step above either... The Langstroth did not displace the top bar hive. The Langstroth has never been in any competition for acceptance with the top bar hive until quite recently. And so far the Langstroth is losing ground."*

His remarks really got me to thinking. 

In that light, the top bar hive and the langstroth are two separate design solutions for housing bees in a way which suits both human and bee needs. One design did not succeed the other. Each hive type was developed in different parts of the world, at different times. And for most of us in North America and Europe, the top bar hive is a "new discovery"; being considered, used and experimented with for the first time.

If you look at it this way, the tbh is a "modern" solution, and a viable, inexpensive, highly efficient and functional solution in the true spirit of modernity. And very much in line with a lot of the current values and interests of a lot of people in our society today.

The fact that the core concept has been around for thousands of years, doesn't change the fact that the top bar hives in use by a lot of people today are benefiting from all of the experience, discovery and advancement in beekeeping, the understanding of bee behavior, chemistry, physiology, nutrition etc etc - centuries of advancement in a great variety of areas that now can come to bear on how each of us builds and manages our top hives.

Many detractors see the top bar hive as a "throw-back", like driving an antique car. They see them as a way to enjoy "a simpler time" by keeping history alive. And there are likely some tbh enthusiasts who do see it that way. But I don't.

It might be more accurate to see the tbh in a similar light as one might look at the use of wool. Sheeps wool, merino, alpaca, etc. For years, people moved away from these traditional fibers in favor of "new technology" in synthetic fibers, but over time, with more experience and the trial of more technology, we're seeing even high-tech sporting wear companies returning to the use of wool in their products. The reason? After decades of experimentation with other solutions, we just have to admit - wool works pretty darned well.

It doesn't matter that people have used wool for thousands of years - the use of wool today is modern, and technologically current. Wool is now being experimented with in new ways and new fabrics are being developed to further exploit its natural properties. There are likely many similar examples out there that we can think of - old becomes new again as our education throws new light, and our new perspectives revise our value systems. And with those revisions, we place new value on old ideas. But those ideas are not just repeated; they are rediscovered and made new by the fact that this world is not the same today as it was yesterday. 

I'm seeing that while the core ideas behind the top bar hive are ancient, the top bar hive of today is very much a new technology in beekeeping for the industrialized areas of the world that are beginning to use them. The top bar hive of today is not the one found in ancient times. And if you take a short look at the vast array of designs and experiments out there among modern tbh beekeepers on the internet today, you might see (as I do) that - at this grass roots level - the top bar hive is on the cutting edge of innovation in modern beekeeping.

I'm not saying that the same spirit of innovation and advancement is not going on with the langstroth hive (and others), for it definitely is and long has been. But what I am suggesting is that looking at the top bar hive as some fanciful trip down memory lane for the sake of nostalgia is for most of us - way off. I think that what's driving most of the top bar hive interest is just the opposite.

We're using it because it's a great basic design to start from, and it offers a lot of room for experimentation and innovation. And all of those weird concoctions and contraptions, the boxes, "coffins", and "bird houses from hell" that are sprouting up and filled with bees in yards and fields and on rooftops all over the world are actually a rapidly growing hotbed of beekeeping innovation and experimentation.

And because they are not the norm; not what the catalogs are selling. Because they are not easily found in most books in the library, and because most of the established beekeepers in the world have little or no experience in their use, I'd argue that puts them even more into the "experimental" realm. And I propose that the top bar hive's position on the outskirts of "normal beekeeping", combined with its rapid growth in popularity puts it on the cutting edge.

It's the latest thing. 

But this latest thing is not just a re-use of an antiquated design. It is alive and moving with bright ideas, trial and error, elbow grease and passion. And it's just getting started.

What are your thoughts? Has the top bar hive actually become the cutting edge of beekeeping innovation?


Adam


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, you are correct. That is lengthy. I'm glad it was broken up or I wouldn't have read any more than I did. Thank you.

The two different designs, Langstroth style and TBHs, can coexist, even in the same apiary. But, I would contend that the use of one or the other, for the most part, goes along w/ the intentions of the user. TBHs on a commercial basis would be hard for me to imagine. But, sometimes, my imagination is limited.

Cutting edge? I don't know. Different type of equipment demanding a certain kind of attention and different kinds of manipulation, I would think. Does that make them "cutting edge"? I think "cutting edge" means something like the leading edge of improved design, style, innovation in useability. TBHs seem more like one hive back yard beekeeping to me. Not that there is anything wrong w/ that.

I have next to no experience w/ TBHs, so what do I know? This is just my perspective as a small commercial beekeeper.


----------



## snl

Tough to use them for pollination.......... I believe that they are for the backyard beekeeper...... enjoy............


----------



## WLC

I think that the appropriate term for the TBH is 'sustainable'. You can make them out of a wide variety of 'repurposed' items and materials (scrap).

However, they do require alot more attention/care than a Langstroth.


----------



## David LaFerney

My opinion would be no - definitely not the cutting edge.

The advantages of Langstroth hives are many while the advantages of top bar hives are very few - chiefly that they are relatively cheap, possibly that you don't "have" to remove boxes to get into them - which could also be phrased "you *can't* remove boxes to get into them." - and that they are "more natural". Which is debatable.

I'm not knocking them, just saying - don't be thinking they are something that they are not. If the way you can afford to start keeping bees is by using top bar hives then go for it. I would have done just that, but I ran across a good deal on some pre-owned new langstroth equipment first. 3 years later I have one top bar hive and many langstroth hives. The lang hives made me some money this year - the lonely top bar hive has not. Yet. If I had all top bar hives that might be reversed, I don't know. 

Anyone make money off of *products of* top bar hives? 

And no, money isn't all there is to it - but it's not nothing either.


----------



## snl

Many a Langstroth hive is made from "repurposed" items............


----------



## WLC

snl:

You don't need any hand tools whatsoever to make a TBH.

A 'hobo' could make a TBH apiary from scrap and some comb from a feral hive.

I don't think that you can say that for a Lang.


----------



## BEES4U

The biggest advantages of the Langstroth over the TBH hive is the movement of frames, durable frames, honey extraction, straight well drawn out frames, power uncapping, adapted to migratory beekeeping, brood nest management, IPM mite contol using drone comb, shaking bees, making nucs, over wintering survival and initial cost.
I have worked several TBH locally and I am not impressed by their function or designs.
I viewed a video last year of a man recieving his very first langstroth hive bodies and frames that were donated to him in an area of Africa where he had been using TBH's for a while. His happiness and the smiles on his face said it all!
The bottom line is that the langstroth frames can be extracted, supered, extracted, supered and because the bees do not have to make wax every season the bee keeper will have more honey for a cash flow or home consumption.
:thumbsup:You just can not beat the interchageability of the langstroth frames.


----------



## snl

Very true, can a "hobo" pollinate with TBH? How much honey can you get from a TBH? 

Again, a backyard hobby...........not that there's anything wrong with that


----------



## WLC

'...can a "hobo" pollinate with TBH? How much honey can you get from a TBH?'

Uh...

The 'hobo' can pollinate his 'hobo veggie garden' and gather 'hobo honeycomb'. 

But then, he wouldn't be a 'hobo' anymore. 

My point is that anyone can make/use a TBH. You're not going to make any real money, but then it doesn't take any money or tools at all to start.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> snl: You don't need any hand tools whatsoever to make a TBH.


W/out the use of any hand tools? Seems like an extreme statement. Certainly a hammer and nails are necassary and maybe a saw too, No?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

So far, some of you are missing the point, as you seem to be listing the virtues of the langstroth for the purposes of extraction, pollination and commercial interests - at present.

I'm not saying the top bar hive is better, and I'm not saying that the Langstroth isn't better for commercial beekeeping practices. 

I'm saying that it is at the cutting edge of innovation and invention (the acts of innovating and inventing - not the results - at least not yet). I'm saying that there is a fairly large number of people, over a wide geographic range, who are beginning to look at them, work with them, experiment, design and redesign - pushing that particular envelope in an effort to explore their particular needs. Many of these people do not need some of the design aspects of the Lang. What are the unique needs of the back yard beekeeper or the hobbyist? And many people are working at exploring ways to make them do more that the lang does.

And let's consider this.

When the Langstroth was invented, the population of the US was between 38 and 39 million people. Around the present population of Canada (which had 3.6 million then). The North American population alone has grown to almost 10 times that number today. Even if the top bar continues to be modified only to better suit the hobbyist market, there is still the potential there for a great number of users.

I'm talking about where there the biggest hotbed of innovation and activity is that's outside the status quo in beekeeping. 

Adam


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> My point is that anyone can make/use a TBH. You're not going to make any real money, but then it doesn't take any money or tools at all to start.


Realistically, how many TBHs are made w/ no money? I don't know anyone who builds TBHs from found or scavenged materials. Not even Sam Comfort. I don't think he steals slab wood from mills, does he? And most of the TBHs I have seen illustrated on beesource are quite well built show pieces. Lots of time, money and effort went into building them.

Is it too bold a statement to say that they aren't easily moved? Compared to Langstroth type equipment? Sure, I could move a TBH w/ my Bobcat. But 4 at once?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Again, I'm not trying to argue that the tbh is "better" than the langstroth. That's a pointless discussion. The langstroth is a great design in my opinion, and has plenty of good reasons for dominance. 

That's not the point of this thread. 

Adam


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

All you need is a cavity and topbars. Any old 'box/bucket', and fallen branches of about 1-2" that you can break to size. Of course, you'd need to find comb (that you can tie onto topbars) from a live hive to get it going.

I've generally thought of TBHs as being associated with subsistence/minimalist beekeeping.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

When it comes to actual established usefulness for the production of honey or modern pollination of crops, the top bar hive is below the long hive, which is below the Langstroth. The Greeks used the top bar hive in skep form for migratory beekeeping as late as the 1950-60s but modern Langstroth hives were replacing them as the Greeks were able to afford the change over. TBH or Long hives are ok for hobby beekeepers (which I am one) to play with (which I do) but they are not for serious work. I don't think the Langstroth hive manufactures will have to worry about going out of business.


----------



## sqkcrk

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I'm saying that it is at the cutting edge of innovation and invention (the acts of innovating and inventing - not the results - at least not yet). I'm saying that there is a fairly large number of people, over a wide geographic range, who are beginning to look at them, work with them, experiment, design and redesign - pushing that particular envelope in an effort to explore their particular needs.
> 
> 
> I'm talking about where there the biggest hotbed of innovation and activity is that's outside the status quo in beekeeping.
> 
> Adam


How can it be at the cutting edge of innovation and invention when it was invented ages and ages ago. Its' basic design has never changed.

Yes, there is a large group of people using the TBH. all for their own reasons. I think that for many those reasons say more about the user than what is being used. They want to do something "different" and unlike the established way. I can relate to that. That's one of the reasons I got into beekeeping in the first place.

What are some examples of experimentation, design and redesign which you mention?


----------



## snl

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Again, I'm not trying to argue that the tbh is "better" than the langstroth. That's a pointless discussion. The langstroth is a great design in my opinion, and has plenty of good reasons for dominance.
> 
> That's not the point of this thread.
> 
> Adam


Dominance? Dominance? Whoa.................


----------



## madasafish

sqkcrk said:


> Realistically, how many TBHs are made w/ no money? I don't know anyone who builds TBHs from found or scavenged materials. Not even Sam Comfort. I don't think he steals slab wood from mills, does he? And most of the TBHs I have seen illustrated on beesource are quite well built show pieces. Lots of time, money and effort went into building them.
> 
> ?


So far I have built 4 topbar hives.

The first I bought the wood for the sides - tongue and groove - as I was not too sure of what I was doing. The roof was a reclaimed bedend, the legs were from an old pallet and the Open Mesh Floor was from an old fruit net.

So not entirely reclaimed.
The next three have been built (along with two warre hives ) from reclaimed wood - mainly pallets. Fasteners and roof felt and OMFs have been purchased (I ran out of old netting) and I have used surplus insulation for the roof. I bought wood for topbars as it is essential they are true and straight - something that cannot be said of my carpentry.

I am a retired accountant (!) and costed hives 2 thru 4 at approx $18 each - being glue, fasteners , meshfloors and roof felt... 

I paint them with a mix of wax (heated) plus oilseed rape oil (dirt cheap as subsidised).

Obviously I use a drill, a jigsaw, and rulers and a straight edge - altho' looking at my cutting you would say probably not!

Not as easy to manipulate as langstroths - yes I use them at our Beekeeping Apiary - but for home beekeeping it's cheap and easy and fun..

Which is more than you can say of most hobbies.. Oh and it gives me more honey than I can eat...


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

snl said:


> Dominance? Dominance? Whoa.................


Yes. I said the Langstroth is dominant. Is there any question about that?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

sqkcrk said:


> How can it be at the cutting edge of innovation and invention when it was invented ages and ages ago. Its' basic design has never changed...What are some examples of experimentation, design and redesign which you mention?


Experimentation in length, width, height, materials, observation windows, supering, portability, shape... There's more, but that's afair amount of experimentation right there.

Adam


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

There are numerous threads on this forum still innovating the TBH and Langstroth with different frame/top bar widths, manipulating frames/top bars, pest management techniques, honey removal, brood manipulation. It is a biased response from all that have not had both types for several years. I have TBH, 8 frame and 10 frame langstroth. Warre is a hive design and a management style (some may say lack of) just one example of many contemporary innovations.


----------



## sqkcrk

madasafish said:


> The first I bought the wood for the sides - tongue and groove - as I was not too sure of what I was doing.
> 
> Fasteners and roof felt and OMFs have been purchased
> 
> I bought wood for topbars
> 
> hives 2 thru 4 at approx $18 each


Like I said, not for nothing.


----------



## sqkcrk

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Experimentation in length, width, height, materials, observation windows, supering, portability, shape... There's more, but that's afair amount of experimentation right there.
> 
> Adam


I guess. Any results? Such as X is the best size, shape, etc., etc..?


----------



## RiodeLobo

Modernizing a old technology is not the same as cutting edge. Take black powder fire arms. There have been many advances in the technology, new and better powders, projectiles, ignition systems and materials. 
That does not make a .50 cal muzzle loading rifle the cutting edge of weaponry, cool as they are.


----------



## sqkcrk

Is there a need amongst TBH beekeepers to be considered cutting edge?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

RiodeLobo said:


> Modernizing a old technology is not the same as cutting edge. Take black powder fire arms. There have been many advances in the technology, new and better powders, projectiles, ignition systems and materials.
> That does not make a .50 cal muzzle loading rifle the cutting edge of weaponry, cool as they are.


In that case, there likely is a "cutting edge" of black powder innovation. If it were causing a stir in the entire realm of firearms - if people in and out of the black powder realm were consistently finding themselves in or aware of the conversations and innovations around what's happening in black powder, then you might call the innovations in black powder and muzzle loading the cutting edge of innovation in weaponry - but I don't think that's happening is it? My father's a muzzle loader, and I haven't got that sense - but I don't know. Is a large portion of the firearms community acting threatened by the use of black powder, and taking every opportunity to condemn their use? We see that kind of emotional reaction toward the use of top bar hives pretty commonly.

Mark, I don't know how to assess what individual tbh keepers feel the need to be seen as. What I'm interested in is the idea that the recent and marked increase in top bar hive use and interest might actually be a hotbed of innovation in the realm of beekeeping. Sure, it may have most of its activity within the hobbyist market - but I'd argue that does not make it any less relevant.

Again, I am not suggesting that the top bar hive is "better" or "more advanced" than the langstroth. I'm countering the idea that it is like driving a horse and buggy instead of a car, or that using a top bar hive amounts to using an "outdated" design which has been supplanted by the langstroth.

Given the fact that almost every aspect of the top bar hive is being pushed and experimented with, I'm arguing that in the realm of beekeeping as a whole, there's no other area where that much is in flux. And where that many people are experimenting and sharing ideas, I see that as a major center of innovation.

There is a lot going on in the area of varroa management, but that has more now to do with management and treatments than it does in equipment. The screened bottom board is the biggest shift in that area in terms of the hive.

Adam


----------



## sqkcrk

Maybe an analogy would be something like a comparison between a Peterbuilt and a Izusu. They are both transport vehicles, but built for different markets.

?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Maybe that's it, Mark. They're built for different markets.

Both designs have their pros and cons, and which one you choose depends on what you want to do with it.

But there is a ton of experimentation going on now in the realm of top bars, aimed at eliminating some of their less desirable characteristics. There are a lot of people trying to make them do more of what the lang does.

They may never succeed. But the fact is that they are trying. 

And it's not a question of competition, but one of invention and innovation. Right now, the only thing consistent in the area of top bar beehives is that they have top bars. Every other aspect is somewhat in flux. Sure, we see trends, but one good conversation between a few tbh keepers quickly reveals that we are all in different equipment to some extent. My bars are 18" with cove molding for comb guides; his are 19 with wax starters; hers are 15 with grooves. My hive is 4 feet long and 12 inches high with an end entrance; his is 3 feet long with an entrance on the side, and hers is 3 and a half with a top entrance. Next season, we are quite likely to have different dimensions in some or all aspects of our gear again.

One of the prime characteristics of the top bar realm is that it is not standardized. That means that there is still very much experimentation going on. And it would be one thing if it were a few people who were relatively unknown, but there's a top bar discussion going on in every major forum. There is a consistently growing presence of the top bar hive in North American and European beekeeping. We're talking about thousands of people in many countries - all experimenting and talking at the same time.

When was the last time we saw a movement like this in beekeeping equipment and the hive itself? Was it around the time the Langstroth first appeared?

Adam


----------



## snl

Gotta stop the feeding. Evidently someone thrives on adversity & will be right no matter...........


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Deleted by author.


----------



## RiodeLobo

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe an analogy would be something like a comparison between a Peterbuilt and a Izusu. They are both transport vehicles, but built for different markets.


I do like that analogy better. My point was they both preform the same function, but with different strengths and advantages.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

If I don't say "the cutting edge", but suggest instead that the top bar community is a "major area of innovation" in beekeeping today, does that make it any more viable to anyone?

Adam


----------



## RiodeLobo

Or actively evolving ??


----------



## Beethinking

Good conversation in this thread. 

Adam, you asked about whether this type of innovation was happening at the time of Langstroth. I think it was, but even more so. I highly suggest reading "The Quest for the Perfect Hive" by Gene Kritsky -- especially chapters 9-10 where he discusses the advent of the Langstroth hive. There was a great deal of push back to his new idea, and a myriad of other hives being used.

Best,
Matt


----------



## sqkcrk

Adam Foster Collins said:


> But there is a ton of experimentation going on now in the realm of top bars, aimed at eliminating some of their less desirable characteristics. There are a lot of people trying to make them do more of what the lang does.
> 
> One of the prime characteristics of the top bar realm is that it is not standardized.
> 
> When was the last time we saw a movement like this in beekeeping equipment and the hive itself? Was it around the time the Langstroth first appeared?
> 
> Adam


Which makes me wonder why they don't just get a Langstroth type hive. When a Peterbuilt driver trys to do what an Isuzu driver does, it's time to get an Isuzu.

Not standardized? Is that a good thing? Not being able to exchange parts? Even in the same apiary? That's why equipment builders build supers of similar dimension. So a Dadant super will fit on a Mann Lake super. When we had an Amish guy up here build equipment he sold 7/8 inch stock rather than 3/4 inch. Seemed like a good idea, until you tried to set that super into a pallet clip. Oops.

Yes, that could be so. When the kinks, such as standardization, was being worked out of Langstroth type equipment. Or smokers. Or extractors. Or suits.


----------



## dreamlandart

Very interesting thread. As a complete newbie I would have to say that beekeepers seem to be some of the most opinionated people I have met  I believe in beekeeping just like in any other aspect of life one should be open and accepting to learn different ways of "doing" things. No right or wrong just different. Clearly there is a wonderful opportunity for people to learn about bees and their keeping without having to invest half a fortune into beekeeping equipment through TBH. The more beekeeping is encouraged the better for the dwindling bee population. Just from that perspective TBH are a blessing in my opinion.


----------



## sqkcrk

Adam Foster Collins said:


> "major area of innovation" in beekeeping today, does that make it any more viable to anyone?
> 
> Adam


I don't think it matters much. I think we pretty much understand what you are going after. I don't see the innovation in the ressurection of an ancient method of beekeeping which, from my point of view, seems antiquaited and unsofisticated.

I still think this ressurection stems from the reinvention of this style of hive in Africa. And then it became stylish because some folks here thought that it must be more natural. "Those Africans must know something we don't."


----------



## The Honey Girl's Boy

I keep bees in Langstroths, Warres and Top Bars- no particular reason other than I love keeping bees. Each hive design has advantages and disadvantages, mostly depending more on the keeper then the bees themselves. When new keepers ask me about what hive they should have, I always ask them, “What do you want bees for?” Personal hive selection depends a great deal on the intended propose by the keeper. If a keeper says “money and honey” I tell them go Langstroth and don’t look back. The bottom line here is that there isn’t a right and wrong hive, a better or worse hive, even a good or bad hive, it depends on what is right for the keeper. I will never tell anyone that one hive or method is better or worse than another, they are just different. It isn’t a matter of “us against them” in beekeeping styles. I truly believe that all styles of beekeepers, down deep, want the same thing for the bees.
Ernie


----------



## Beev

sqkcrk said:


> Which makes me wonder why they don't just get a Langstroth type hive.
> 
> Not standardized? Is that a good thing? Not being able to exchange parts? Even in the same apiary? That's why equipment builders build supers of similar dimension.



That would be like telling Edison to just get a gas lamp. If a TBH is left as is, then it becomes just a resurrected form of beekeeping, if however, creative beekeepers continue to experiment, a new form that outperforms the Lang might (I said might) get discovered. 

IF and when that ever happens, standardization will follow.


----------



## sqkcrk

Beev said:


> That would be like telling Edison to just get a gas lamp.


Having used both, kerosene and incandecent, incandecent is a definite improvement over kerosene. I don't see that w/ TBHs and Langs. Buty, maybe you do. That's fine.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

As has been said by others, it really isn't about a competition so much as it is about realizing that there are different needs and interests, and that those needs can be satisfied in a variety of ways. This leads to design and innovation.

It seems to me that there hasn't been so much invention going on around a beehive design since the time the Langstroth was invented, and with modern communication working into it, these enthusiasts are able to share their ideas and move each other forward very quickly.

Mark, I don't think the lack of standardization is a good or bad thing. I just point it out as a sign that the top bar hive is in a complete state of flux and experimentation. Standardization comes from satisfaction. And in that sense, we can see that the Langstroth is quite satisfying of the needs it was designed to address. It is a great design, and I don't dispute that.

Whether the top bar hive continues to gain traction in the beekeeping community will depend on how these experimentalists fare. I don't know how many years it will take, but eventually we may see more standardization. If we don't, then we can assume that it is the invention itself that is driving the top bar enthusiasts, and not real "solutions" at all.

Adam


----------



## Beev

sqkcrk said:


> Having used both, kerosene and incandecent, incandecent is a definite improvement over kerosene. I don't see that w/ TBHs and Langs. Buty, maybe you do. That's fine.


I only meant that maybe Mr. Edison thought he could improve gas or kerosene lighting by experimentation, and he did, and it was improved. There will never be any improvement without experimentation. TBH's may never gain the popularity or versitility of a Lang, and without innovative people trying new things, they certanly never will.

Cheers


----------



## sqkcrk

Adam Foster Collins said:


> It seems to me that there hasn't been so much invention going on around a beehive design since the time the Langstroth was invented,
> 
> Adam


Do you suppose Warre hive users would see it that way?

I remember seeing a Colateral Hive Design in an issue of ABJ on time. It may have been on the cover. Something about that illustration and the article about it being a new design in use in Isreal bothered me. I felt I had seen it before. I went back to my copies of illustrations of beehives in Diderots Encyclopedia of 1660 and there it was.

So, how new and innovative was this "new" colateral hive, when it was illustrated in an encyclopedia from over 300 years earlier.

Which, I would contend, is an equivalent case w/ TBHs. Not that it means that people shouldn't be using them and trying to make improvements on them.

Also, there is nothing new about observation windows in TBHs. It has been done even way back when glass was hard to get and isenglas was used. Knock yourself out.


----------



## sqkcrk

Beev said:


> I only meant that maybe Mr. Edison thought he could improve gas or kerosene lighting by experimentation, and he did, and it was improved. There will never be any improvement without experimentation. TBH's may never gain the popularity or versitility of a Lang, and without innovative people trying new things, they certanly never will.
> 
> Cheers


I agree. So why don't they start w/ something w/ bugs worked out of it and try to improve it. Langs. Y'all have to work w/ TBHs because they are the ones that can use or benefit from improvement. Maybe?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

It seems to me that warré users are mostly sticking to Abbe Warré's original principals and design. There have been modifications, but a warré hive is a particular design and there is a particular management approach set out in Warré's writing to go with them.

I know that observation windows have been around a long while. But were they ever commonly found in top bar hives before? I point them out as another variation that a lot of tbh users are experimenting with - not that it's never been tried before. I'm sure lots of things have been tried before. When you try to open a combination lock, you might use the same number a bunch of times before you get a combination that unlocks anything. But each new combination is a new attempt at a solution.

So your position Mark, is that the modern top bar hive does not represent any major innovative activity in beekeeping?

Adam


----------



## Michael Bush

I'm not sure why people are still referring to top bar hive as "ancient". The long top bar hive was invented in the 1970's. It's hardly ancient. The concept of the the bars is anceint, but it's no different than the concept of the Langstroth frame (which was foundationless and had a bevel for a comb guide) in fact Langstroth started with the concept of the Greek basket hive and worked from there. But he went up instead of across. Long hives, according to Eva Crane (whose authority I can hardly question) have been and still are (at least when she wrote the books) the most common hives in the world from the tundra to the desert. combining the two concepts, the long hive and the top bar, is very recent. It was only about 40 years ago in fact.


----------



## sqkcrk

Isn't this sort of a contrary view from your reaction to TBHs being invented in Africa?

I guess you could say that Adam. I don't see it as innovative. What is it an innovation of?


----------



## brendantm130

WLC said:


> snl:
> 
> You don't need any hand tools whatsoever to make a TBH.
> 
> A 'hobo' could make a TBH apiary from scrap and some comb from a feral hive.
> 
> I don't think that you can say that for a Lang.


I Challenge you to put together a TBH without at least a hammer, a "hand tool."


----------



## WLC

>I Challenge you to put together a TBH without at least a hammer, a "hand tool."<

Get 5 gallon plastic bucket, break up some old furring strips to length by using your foot as a fulcrum. Make a lid out of whatever you want, and weight it down with a rock.

I'm not sure why you think that it's such a challenge?


----------



## Beev

sqkcrk said:


> I agree. So why don't they start w/ something w/ bugs worked out of it and try to improve it. Langs. Y'all have to work w/ TBHs because they are the ones that can use or benefit from improvement. Maybe?


That's quite possible. Although people try to improve on Lang's every day, I'm sure, as soon as you deviate from that design, it is no longer "standard" and it then has a major flaw. People who are working with TBH's don't have their hands tied that way. For me personally, if I see something that needs improvement, and I can dream up a way to do it and actually put it to use, it doesn't matter if it is the perfect beehive or whatever. Only that that was my idea and I had fun building it and it actually works. Or not. But it was fun to try anyway. Maybe that is part of the draw.

Cheers


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Get 5 gallon plastic bucket, break up some old furring strips to length by using your foot as a fulcrum. Make a lid out of whatever you want, and weight it down with a rock.


If that is what you pictured in your mind when you said that TBHs could be built w/out the use of hand tools or any expense, you were the only one. The rest of us imagined a Kenya TBH or something like that, I imagine. Not a basket hive, which would more closely resemble the Ancient style.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

I learned about TBHs before I learned about Langs (or Beesource).

I've seen photos of old refrigerators (and the like) converted into TBHs.

My perspective is this: TBHs are state of the art, if (and only if) they are made sustainably.

It's not about high tech. It's the exact opposite.

It's minimalist.


----------



## Bodhi

brendantm130 said:


> I Challenge you to put together a TBH without at least a hammer, a "hand tool."


Dr Wyatt Mangum had one at EAS 2010 that he wove together from reeds and (I think) single strands of telephone wire. Pretty neat and fully functional. 

He runs hundreds of TBHs for commercial pollination in VA & NC and produces several tons of honey a year from them. Everything is done manually. I wasn't the only one in that lecture who was blown away with that man's ambition and dedication.

He also has witten a monthly article for ABJ for _years_ without missing a single issue.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

WLC said:


> ...
> 
> My perspective is this: TBHs are state of the art, if (and only if) they are made sustainably.
> 
> It's not about high tech. It's the exact opposite.
> 
> It's minimalist.


Good point. And a lot of the present experimentation with tbh's largely amounts to trying to make them operate as a Langstroth does. Perhaps most of that to fall away over time, as what you say is true. The modern TBH is a great design as much for what it is not as for what it is. It is not complex at all, and at present, it's strength is in its simplicity.

I have myself considered ways to super the tbh in order to better deal with late flows and space requirements, and found myself moving back to the simplicity and looking at dimensions instead. Simplicity is presently it's great strength. It is possible that all the experimentation will come full circle and decide that they are best the way they are now. 

But as Michael Bush points out - even that is not an old design.

Adam


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Bodhi said:


> Dr Wyatt Mangum ... runs hundreds of TBHs for commercial pollination in VA & NC and produces several tons of honey a year from them...


Very interesting. Did you get a sense of why he chooses to use TBH's for commercial purposes, when 99% of the beekeeping population would say he's crazy for doing so? 

Adam


----------



## Delta Bay

I have a total of 14 TBH's in two locations which I move on my own by having a stand that allows me to slide them along when needed and at the right height so that they easily slide onto my utility trailer. I haven't as yet had a comb collapse during transport. I've been doing it for five years. The fencing companies in my area that send the old cedar fence boards to the land fill when replacing are more than happy to give them away to save on the dumping fees. I've built hives with these at a cost of about $15 which is for a piece of ply for the roof, some paint and a few screws. A complete hive built from new material cost me $50. I don’t glue them together as I may in the future need to tweak the design to better suit my location. I guess that some of use are just not inclined in following but rather do things our own way. The path less traveled can very easily turn up forgotten treasurers. It is good to have choices.
My bees pay for themselves and for their housing plus a little extra for me from selling honey and wax. Next year I may be able to sell a few bees for yet a bit more. I would say a pretty good hobby that only costs me some time well spent.


----------



## WI-beek

I dont see a TBH as cutting edge or anything of the like to any degree. Innovative? Sure. For someone who wants to keep a colony or bees or a few at a minimum expense you can make it happen with top bar hives. You can avoid all the gadgets needed like extractors, uncapping knives, etc and crush and strain. Thats the advantage of top bar hives and I think that is pretty much where the advantages end abruptly. It is ancient tech as far as im concerned like sticks on top of a hollow log except you actually make the log so it is uniform and can have movable combs.

Will the TBH stick around or fade out like the crazy wings girls made with their hair and white rain hair spray? I think they might actually stick around. They will never take over the hobby beekeeping industry or a major share but I do see them making a foothold because for a couple hundred dollars anyone can be a beekeeper with A TBH (bees included).

All the "greatest beekeeping innovation in 100 years" hype will not be sold to me though. If you have a shortage of cash flow and time to waste fixing brace comb and such im happy for those who are able to use the new and improved skep. But for those who take an interest in beekeeping other than back yard adventures, the lang or its cousins are a necesity, not an option. I believe even skep beekeeping would be more practical than top bar hives for pollination, or large scale mobile honey production as seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upbONroWPic&playnext=1&list=PL74CCC61E24A25F8A

All this stuff said, I would recommend a backyard beek to be, start with a lang and avoid the tbh unless they cant aford it or really just want to be different and ride a horse to work.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> My perspective is this: TBHs are state of the art, if (and only if) they are made sustainably.
> 
> It's minimalist.


Okay. I guess I should just have said YES right from the beginning, cause obviously I don't know from squat or my perspective of skewed. I guess.

But, minimalist equals state of the art? As long as it is built from junk or discarded materials? Interesting concept. In the long run, nothing is sustainable, except change. What once was state of the art and sustainable has morphed to meet the demands of the modern era to become the new state of the art and sustainable. Maybe TBHs are it. I don't see it. But maybe that's because of who I am and where I come from.

Should I live another twenty years, what should I see, if TBHs are state of the art and sustainable? Design dominance? Industrywise? Smallscalewise? Sidelinerwise?


----------



## rwurster

I honestly liked the top bar hive concept and have plans on making a few. Looks easy to screen off the bottom and to make it so the bottom can also be closed off during the winter. The design of the hive is such that mites falling off the bees should roll right out the bottom and as far as innovation goes i would personally make it a top entrance type of hive. The only drawbacks i could see from the design is that there isnt room to expand (ill make mine 4 feet long) and having to move that beast if its full of honey. The hive design would seem to work better for someone who would never have to move the hive such as someone with one in their back yard. But there are interesting aspects to the hive such as the width of the top bars, no frames, foundationless, and that you can make a dummy board to keep the space the hive has to use at whatever you want it at (as long as its not more than the length of the hive lol.) 

I like the design and plan on keeping 2 of these hives in my apiary. I went foundationless, i use sbb with top entrances, there are no queen excluders in any of my hives so to me its like turning my langstroths on their sides and i basically have the same thing other than the option to stack or go taller (longer) than 4 feet. Another thing is that it wouldnt be hard to actually make V shaped frames for the hives so you wouldnt have problems with the comb folding if you turn the top bars incorrectly during inspections. 

Although its my first year keeping bees, the biggest innovations in beekeeping seem to be the modern smoker, knowledge about bee space, and (even though i dont practice it and dont plan to unless absolutely necessary) medication. Someone said old refrigerators are used to house bees, ive seen videos of bees being removed from just about every type of structure ever conceived of by nature or man. I dont think its the vessel that bees are contained in that makes one practice better than another (i could keep bees in a garbage can so long as i provided them with something to draw comb from and an entrance/exit) as much as the ease of inspecting hives, moving brood/bees, moving hives etc. etc.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

I think that asking a commercial beekeeper to adopt TBHs for production isn't really reasonable.
TBHs have many drawbacks that are only partially balanced by their cost effectiveness.

Besides, the whole environmentally responsible beekeeping trend seems to be more ascendant.


----------



## gjd

I'm a new beekeeper-- 2nd year Langstroth, first year KTBH. I'd say horizontal TBHs are simply nonstandardized, and varying results people discuss are just random variations with too many variables to be useful. It's hearsay, not science. The internet just amplifies it.

One thing I've been very struck by in my learning is how beekeepers are not scientists, with careful experiments, controls, and statistics. To the hobbyist, there is almost no hard data or evidence backing up common practices stated in books and debated in forums like this. Thomas Seeley has written some wonderful accessible books describing some basic stuff, like hive dimension preferences, and Warre apparently did a lot of work to arrive at his concept. And I'm sure there are scientific journals full of bee physiology in university libraries, but it's not practical information for beekeepers. I don't subscribe to the established apiary magazines, but I suspect I'd see some mentions and quotes in forums if they were putting out new useful data. 

An example-- a study of winter hives. Take a few dozen standard hives, design a cluster simulator producing heat and moisture, rent a walk-in cooler from a closed restaurant (my town has several!), instrument them with easily available sensors connected to a PC, and carefully compare various venting and insulation strategies for winter hives, using the usual scientific methods of controls and varying specific items in turn. And produce a zone chart like for plants, to guide what techniques for what areas. It won't guarantee success for every hive, but would help the odds. That's got to be worth many millions per year to the pros, and could be easily done by a grad student with a small research grant. (And has little value with TBHs, where every hive design is slightly different). If you've got $100k to spare, I'll do it for you.

I'd be delighted if someone can call me ignorant and back it up with pointers to such work. I just don't know where it is.


----------



## SFelder

Hi, Adam! I'm a relatively new beekeeper here in NC and I am in the process of opening a hobbyist beekeeping supply store. I agree with most of what you have said about the TBH. In my view, the TBH is a NATURALIST, hobbyist beekeeping hive. The reason that I say "naturalist" is because the bees have to draw their own comb, which, by reason makes it just about as "pure" as you can get it. We all know that the wax foundations that we buy in bulk are "recycled" beeswax and have rather high levels of formic acid and coumaphos, etc. The most obvious, and easiest way to get the purest form of comb honey is via the TBH. 

Although the Langstroth and the TBH are both beehives, they are approached with a different mindset. They each have their place. For the commercial grower, the TBH is almost out of the question because of the extraction process. To extract from a TBH, you virtually have to squeeze the honey out of the comb and destroy the comb. I'll let you envision that! I am going to offer TBH for sale in my shop. There is increasing interest and use here in the Blue Ridge mountains of NC.

I have several friends that have TBHs and love them....and they are like me....they keep bees to increase the healthy bee population in the world and are not really concerned about massive honey production.

Hope that helps, if for no other reason than to get another opinion.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Besides, the whole environmentally responsible beekeeping trend seems to be more ascendant.


Yes, I seem to have noticed this too. That's one reason we had Sam Comfort at eshpa's 2010 Summer Picnic. To see an example of ther trend. To give it some attention. And that's why we may have Dee Lusby this year in Nov.. And Jim fischer has been invited this year. And others, like Michael Bush in 2012 at the Nov. Mtng.

What is the trend in beekeeping should be paid attention to and given its' due. The tent should be big enuf for all to have a place and a voice.

I hope to see you in Syracuse in November. This year or next.


----------



## sqkcrk

SFelder said:


> they keep bees to increase the healthy bee population in the world and are not really concerned about massive honey production.


Well I hope they are doing more than just keeping bees in boxes, cause it seems like they, and you, could encourage the healthy bee population by discouraging folks from collecting swarms and doing cutouts and colony extractions.

Good luck w/ your business.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

SFelder,

I appreciate your first post here. You, WLC and others are correct in seeing the rise of the tbh as being powered by a naturalist interest. Having worked with both, I don't see either hive as being more natural on its own, and "natural" being more of a management approach - no matter what box you've got bees in. But a great percentage of the top bar keepers have come to that hive type for that reason.

And I don't see "innovation" as needing to be scientific, high-tech or driven by any official body or authority. To me "a hotbed of innovation" amounts to a large number of people all focusing on a similar set of interests and purposes and all working to satisfy those purposes through design and invention. As far as I can tell, the top bar hive we see around us today has never been seen as consistent a form (regardless of its lack of standards), in these kind of numbers, with this much focus and experimentation in their use in an enormous range of geographic locations.

The interest in TBH's is driven by an interest in low-cost, "green/recycled/sustainable", and bee health. Whether these goals are completely satisfied remains to be seen, and as design solutions reconcile themselves with the interests of the users, we will likely see standardization, followed by wide-spread sale of those hives with whatever "accessories" people will buy.

The Langstroth is a great design. To me, that is why despite millions of units manufactured, built, bought and sold for over 100 years, the Langstroth in my yard is not really that much different than the ones my Gramp was using in the 80's. And that's why so much of the literature from so long ago applies to their use and management today. They've pretty much evolved to suit the purposes of their users. The innovations happening there are relatively minor, and things are highly standardized - because they work really well.

Now there are new enthusiasts who have a slightly different range of interests, and they are exploring a different hive type and management techniques to find that balance for them. That's where the innovation is. A lot of that activity will involve trying to emulate aspects of the lang, as they try to settle on what aspects are important - and of course because the Langstroth is the gold standard to this point more the industrialized nations. A lot of things will be recycled ideas. But every time a person sets to invent something to solve a problem, they have to innovate. 

Adam


----------



## HiveAtYourHome

Interesting that multiple times in the thread "Not that there is anything wrong with backyard beekeeping" has been mentioned as in actuality I believe (not for the purpose of offending my commercial friends) that TBH interest is because there is a movement that says there IS something wrong with commercial beekeeping, there is something wrong with commercial agriculture, and that the solution is cheap economical local small scale solutions. So by saying they might not work for large scale pollination, then the movements answer might be GREAT thats one thing we want to be less dependant on and by offering co-existing alternative of small scale local pollinating TBHs are a great tool. My foundationless Langs are great, their standardization though can be seen as a trap as the millions of gadgets produce ways for money to be extracted from individuals and communities towards larger companies. I like gadgets and not to knock bee equip. suppliers but the current TBH interest taps into the movement of self dependance. Last Oct/Nov there was an article about standardizing TBHs by Conrad. Although I respect his knowledge (nice book too,) I believe it misses the essence that is driving this burst of innovation and interest in beekeeping - self dependance. Also if things are supposedly not working well in beekeeping, maybe standard beekeeping practices are to blame, and hence the solution is to explore all options and maybe many different answers are needed.


----------



## HiveAtYourHome

One thing I find confusing is guessing at what people are talking about when just typing TBH. In all this thread people are mostly referring to horizontal, I only have vertical TBH, which are not really Warre, simpler. Also as I'm short frames for my foundationless Langstroth hives, if I expand hives next year with just top bars and not Hoffman self spacing frames, would it be just a Langstroth vertical TBH? There's a big difference from one of those managed just like a conventional langstroth, to a Kenyan/Tanzianian horizonatal TBH, or vTBH Warre or Warreish hive. Not just confusing on this thread, always thought Beesource should break TBH forum between verticle and horizontal.


----------



## sqkcrk

I think KnNashua is right. Top Bar Hive beekeeping is a statement. What that statement is may be different for every beekeeper who makes it.

Some are saying I don't want to be part of your community. I want to be part of this community. 

Which is exactly what I was saying back in the '70s and '80s. I don't want to be part of the community I grew up in, I want to be selfsustaining and independant and part of an alternative community. Which I think is something alot of nonTBH beekeepers could relate to, if they would give themselves a chance.

"Tune in, turn on, drop out."

After more than 40 years of use and development, especially in this modern age when things are so much faster w/ the internet and all, why haven't the kinks been worked out of TBHs? How come there is still so much room for innovation. Is it because so many TBHers build their own?

On the note of innovation, isn't it Tia, here on beesource, who has hives in her garage built out of milk crates and styrofoam board? Innovative and clever. she wanted to keep bees so bad she figured out how to under her own special circumstances. Admirable.


----------



## WLC

'Top Bar Hive beekeeping is a statement.'

Yeah. and it says, 'I want to keep bees without spending alot of money.'


----------



## sqkcrk

Aren't some saying they just want to keep bees?

One thing that one never would have heard 5 or more years ago is "I want to keep bees to help keep them alive and healthy.". I believe that's something new.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

That's a good point too, Mark. I don't every remember hearing so many people talking about keeping bees, and in the same sentence talking about not really caring about honey. That's a definite change. And once you're in the land of low-cost, keeping bees for the sake of the bees -- then we're dealing with people with a completely different set of purposes. Thus the interest in a different hive and different methods.

Adam


----------



## Bush_84

I got into kTBHs and Warre hives because I simply couldn't afford a Lang system. I don't have the cash to keep pumping money into frames and foundation. I don't have the money to spend almost $2000 for a good setup (centrifuge included). I don't have the money to be constantly pumping chemicals into my bees when not needed. I've never been the best with my hands, but I do have some useful tools in my garage. I built my first TBH out of wood given to me. I build my second out of wood that I bought. I then expanded and built 3 Warre hives and got all of the wood at a very reasonable price. I couldn't tell you how much I spent on my hives, but I'd guarantee you that I spent more buying a nucleus of bees than I did on 5 full hives and 2 nucleus hives. 

I got into beekeeping to save money on homebrewing. As I read more about it, I truly became more addicted. My goal still stays the same. To become self sufficient and to save money. So ultimately this is all about keeping my bees healthy. This year it only reached into the low 60s and was rainy until July. So that sucks for honey production. My bees didn't store any honey until mid July. That along with this being my first year of beekeeping, I will likely not get much if any honey this year. I am ok with that as long as my bees are given the best chance at surviving the winter. 

So that's my 2 cents worth. If somebody were to sell me a Lang hive at a reasonable price I would definitely use it, but would likely go foundationless.


----------



## Grant

Bush_84 said:


> I don't have the cash to keep pumping money into frames and foundation. I don't have the money to spend almost $2000 for a good setup (centrifuge included). I don't have the money to be constantly pumping chemicals into my bees when not needed.


 
There was a time I didn't have the money either. I was told money didn't grow on trees, but I found out it comes pouring out from square white boxes when sound management meets hard labor in the hot, humid summer.

And I empathize with you. I hear similar sentiments from TBH people who see the all-or-none, black-and-white polarization of TBH vs. Langs. I am a Lang guy with one top bar hive that continues to frustrate me. I'm learning to lower my expectations with this lower intensity hive. In my Langs I am close to chemical free with natural treatments. I use foundationless frames in the brood area. And I don't simply add chemicals when they are not needed. I'm sure there are many beekeepers who do but I'm not one of them. 

My point is Lang's don't immediately translate into feed lot mentality of drug-addicted bees. You can still operate a Warre or TBH and joyfully dump all the chemicals your heart desires into it. I am continually approached by well-meaning people who want to get into bees, do it in a sustainable, healthy manner, and they believe the only way to do it with a TBH. TBH require a different philosophy and different management, but they aren't the only "natural" way to keep bees.

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Grant, I agree with you. There are a lot of people that think the tbh is more "natural", but I'm not one of them.

On the other hand, I can see how a lot of newcomers feel a mistrust for the predominant system of beekeeping. The fact is that over the years, a great many "unnatural" manipulations and gadgets have been incorporated into the normal routine of beekeeping. Extreme splitting, regular movements of comb and brood between hives, conscious enlargement of the worker brood, reduction of drone populations, migratory beekeeping, pollen substitute, honey substitute, artificial insemination, global trade in queens. The list goes on and on and on. Not that any of those practices are good or bad, but people have made a long list of alterations to bee life over the years. That's a fact.

When a new person comes along who's interested in beekeeping, and they just watched a documentary on CCD, they know that we haven't figured out what's killing the bees, and it could be an one or a combination of this multitude of long-held, tried and true practices. And these newly interested people start looking around, and they hear about a simple, low-cost, method of beekeeping -- which is often called "ancient" and "more natural" (two concepts which are generally equated to "goodness") And it all sounds like a pretty nice way to dabble in some backyard beekeeping. 

There are two very clear facts that push this thing the hardest:

1) Some beekeeping practices may be to blame for CCD.

2) We don't yet know which exactly which ones they are.

So a lot of newcomers just look at the top bar hive as the quickest route to a clean slate. Couple that with the fact that they're so cheap to make, and it's hard to beat. Especially to someone who doesn't know much about the subject at all, and really doesn't want to spend money and time on a "system" of beekeeping which sounds more complicated and more expensive.

Again, I'm not saying it's correct, but I can see why it's happening.


Adam


----------



## Bush_84

Grant said:


> I hear similar sentiments from TBH people who see the all-or-none, black-and-white polarization of TBH vs. Langs. I am a Lang guy with one top bar hive that continues to frustrate me. I'm learning to lower my expectations with this lower intensity hive. In my Langs I am close to chemical free with natural treatments. I use foundationless frames in the brood area. And I don't simply add chemicals when they are not needed. I'm sure there are many beekeepers who do but I'm not one of them.


Ya I did say that if I could get a Lang at a decent price I would definitely like to use one, but again if I did so I would probably go foundationless. I am not sure that I have the skill to build my own Lang, but may end up giving it a go. I would likely have to buy the unassembled frames as I know that I don't have the skill to make those.


----------



## charles adams

I'm going with TBH for the simple reason that I'd be unable to lift a super full of honey. I like the fact of being able to remove a seven pound bar instead of a seventy pound box. If in the future I decide to sell honey instead of just covering our use I will go with the lang and hire help.


----------



## sqkcrk

I never met a 70 lb box of honey, not even a plugged deep. But I know what you mean. You can get to any comb in your tbh w/out taking off a box of honey.

In Nature, and suppsoedly in Langstroth hives, honey is accessible thru the winter because it is above the bees. How does this work in a TBH, w/ honey beside instead of above them?


----------



## Michael Bush

>I never met a 70 lb box of honey, not even a plugged deep. But I know what you mean. You can get to any comb in your tbh w/out taking off a box of honey.

A full deep is 90 or more lbs. I've seen too many of them...

>In Nature, and suppsoedly in Langstroth hives, honey is accessible thru the winter because it is above the bees. How does this work in a TBH, w/ honey beside instead of above them? 

The same as when bees are in a hollow limb or a floor joist or, according to Eva Crane, the most popular hives in every climate through all of time, horizontal hives.


----------



## WI-beek

charles adams said:


> I'm going with TBH for the simple reason that I'd be unable to lift a super full of honey. I like the fact of being able to remove a seven pound bar instead of a seventy pound box..


Not to be a donkey charles but what you say makes no sense, Frames come out of those supers just like the tbh. I like to use my nuc boxes to carry honey in. That way i can also keep the bees out of the box so the yard dont become a robbing frenzy by the time im done. A hand truck is also handy if its a ways to the truck/car. If you dont have a nuc box make a box for carrying honey.


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael Bush said:


> A full deep is 90 or more lbs. I've seen too many of them...


I guess I'd better weigh the ones I have. I've taken off quite a few of them and either I'm stronger than I think I am or they are lighter than 90 lbs. I don't ever recall getting a full 60 lbs of honey out of them. Seems more like 45 to 50 maybe. Aren't full deep combs about 5 lbs each, not 8?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

sqkcrk said:


> I guess I'd better weigh the ones I have...Aren't full deep combs about 5 lbs each, not 8?


My combs are only 2/3 the size of a deep frame comb, and they weigh between 5lbs and 6.5lbs average full of honey. Sometimes reaching 7lbs. So Deeps likely go 7 to 9, or even 10 depending on the spacing and how thick they get.

WI-Beek, your point is a good one, as long as the tbh keeper is going to harvest honey. Then he or she has to move the poundage - whatever it is. On the other hand, a lot of top bar beeks won't actually take much honey. A lot of them will just pull a few bars for use and leave the rest, believing that the bees will have the best chance of living through the winter if you just leave most of the honey right where it is.

Adam


----------



## WI-beek

good point adam.

I built my last yard so i can drive my truck between rows so i can throw boxes right into the truck. Im also going to build a cart on wheels to pull down the rows so i can set boxes on it and eliminate bending over. With time a beek should be able to use his head instead of his back to accomplish things in the yard. You just have to talk yourself into believing the time to make things is economically sound.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

The hive type will necessarily cause the beek to accommodate any weaknesses. The Lang is an approach which requires lifting. The fact that lifting is possible with a lang means that other operations where made possible - like migratory beekeeping and lending out hives for pollination.

Top bar hives (at least as the modern ktbh is presently designed) are more or less a stationary object once they are placed.

Adam


----------



## charles adams

WI-beek said:


> Not to be a donkey charles but what you say makes no sense.


 didn't think you were being one. i take two,three frames at a time and just drop them in a bucket. all i care about now is meeting my families usage and take what I need when we do if the hive has it to spare. But when I get three,four more hives going I will have a hand truck and hopefully an extractor.


----------



## sqkcrk

WI-beek said:


> With time a beek should be able to use his head instead of his back to accomplish things in the yard.


I started early and get some ribbing from commercial friends of mine for using shallows for honey supers. They use mediums and deeps. There is quite a bit of difference in weight between the three. Alot less empty space in shallows than in deeps at the end of the year. Shallows help when you work 500 colonies alone.


----------



## sqkcrk

Adam Foster Collins said:


> The hive type will necessarily cause the beek to accommodate any weaknesses. Adam


I know any 80 year old guy who runs about 80 colonies in Langstroth equipment, all deeps. He runs three deeps for the brood, so he doesn't have to lean over to check that bottom box. He pulls frames of capped brood up above an excluder to produce large crops of honey. He lifts hives and deep supers mechanically w/ an apparatus he built himself, since he works alone. We can't all be as ingenious as he.

He rebuilt my 60 frame Dadant extractor after it went thru a fire. He built his own version of a Dakota Guiness Chain uncapper using rollers. He's clever. He's quite the mechanic.


----------



## WLC

I've recently had my third hernia. I wonder how many beekeepers find that a hernia limits the type of equipment that they can use?


----------



## psfred

This has been an interesting discussion.

Some points of interest:

The Kenya TBH was developed in the 1960s, partially by the Peace Corps, for several reasons. In an area where bees are naturally aggressive, a top bar hive is always mostly closed if one bar at a time is lifted. The bars are usually spaced close enough together (and they can actually touch) so that the bees aren't exposed much. A good thing when they are quite mean. The slanted sides "help" the bees make sturdy comb with less tendency to attach it to the sides and bottom of the hive, although they will. No precision bits, so they are easy to make from scrap lumber or something like that, and roughsawn is fine. 

The TBH as we know it now was a response to a specific need -- low cost/low precision beekeeping in Africa. Honey flow is more or less constant except in areas with strictly seasonal rainfall, although even there, no winter cold is fournd.

There are several things that make them problematic in the US, particularly the north. All long hives suffer from cluster movement difficulties -- once the bees move to one end in the winter, they will NOT move to the other. Split clusters will probably die, so the hive has to move one way or the other, and unless the beekeeper has moved all the honey and pollen to one end, this is going to be a problem for winter suvival. In a Lang, the bees will fill from the top down and move up or sidway a little, but have access to all the stores in most cases. I've noticed in some posts, pictures, and videos concerning cut--outs that typical feral lives in "long hive" configuration (ceilings, etc) that the hive is uni-directional, with brood near the entrance and honey on the far end.

In vertical cavities, the bees will make fairly tall combs (several feet, maybe more if there is support for them) and move up and down. I suspect this is natural behavior for the EHB, since they have a distinct preference for hollow trees when available. I'm sure this is the inspiration for Warre and Langstroth hives, with the addition of removable "supers" making honey removal non-destructive.

Most of the people I know around here who have tried top bar hives have had problems with die-outs over the winter. All of them were new beekeepers, so I'm sure there is an effect there, too, but the bees are still going to need the same 80 lbs or so of honey to make it through to the spring flow, and in a top bar hive that means either moving all the honey and pollen to one end, putting the entrance on one end and controlling the hive to make the honey and pollen end up on the other end, or saving 160 lbs of honey so they can access it in the three or four months of wet, cold weather.

The Langstroth hive (and the major European designs, which differ mainly in size, not function) are a response to the need for hive inspection and manipulation using removable frames. Box size was calculated to mimic natural hive sizes and further to make it easy to work them (shallows rather than 90 lb deeps, for instance). Precision machine tooling was and is quite common, and the expense is minimal once one gets some hives set up. 

I'd never discourage anyone from keeping bees, whatever hive they want to use, however. I'd not attempt a commerical operation with top bar hives -- the hassle of crushing and straining several hunderd gallons of honey just isn't an option vs extraction or comb honey, the combs are fragile for a few years, and genearl management isn't as easy (no way to carry a box of frames around a yard without some extra work and broken comb).

As to which is better, that is entirely determined by one's purpose. I'm sticking with Langstroth since I intend to actually produce honey and all the equipment I need is readily available, but I may try a top bar just for fun. A top bar hive as a hobby hive is probably easier for many people, so long as they understand that beekeeping is NOT management free unless you want to start new bees many years when a neglected hive starves out. Had too many people tell me "well, they look sorta weak so I'll just see what happens", lose a hive two years in a row because they wanted it "all natural" in a terrible drought, and quit beekeeping because it's not very rewarding.

For more than a couple hives, I'd suspect that Langs are much easier in the long run. Not only that, if you keep the boxes and covers in good shape (paint or otherwise protect the wood from water) the hives will last decades. Costs go way down after a proper supply of parts is built up with re-use.

Peter


----------



## Beethinking

psfred said:


> There are several things that make them problematic in the US, particularly the north. All long hives suffer from cluster movement difficulties...


I know plenty of horizontal top bar beekeepers in the north without the difficulties you're referring to. I, for one, have only experienced the problem you mention when I started colonies in the center of the hive and moved follower boards out as the colony expanded. Inevitably, the colony put honey stores on each side and brood in the middle. If left in this configuration they will almost certainly eat through their stores toward one end and starve, leaving the rest of the honey uneaten at the other end. 

I do not, however, start my colonies in the center of the hive, nor do I recommend it. Today I start all of my colonies at one end and expand in one direction. In my experience this always leads to brood at one end and surplus stores at the other. I've not had any issues with starvation in this configuration. I believe Michael Bush and others manage their hives in a similar way in quite cold climates without an issue. 

Best,
Matt


----------



## psfred

My point exactly. All the designs I've seen so far put the entrance in the middle, which is pretty much going to cause trouble. Run the hive uni-directional and it should work well, but the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance....

As far as the center of innovation, no. Center of experimentation and getting people interested in beekeeping, sure!

Peter


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

psfred said:


> ...All the designs I've seen so far put the entrance in the middle...the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance....
> As far as the center of innovation, no...
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I'm glad that you're in the conversation, and I respect your opinion, but I do want to point out that if you've only seen top bar hives with the entrances in the middle, then you're can't really paying that much attention to current top bar beekeeping.
> 
> Not that you should, and I mean you no disrespect by pointing this out, but if you more closely at their current development, you might find more innovation than you think is out there.
> 
> You seem to be well aware of some of its history, but you make some statements like "the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance...." which don't hold together if you're paying attention to beekeeping in top bars. If you type "kenya top bar hive" into google and hit "images" you'll get all kinds of designs. Lots with end entrances, and some with side. But there's even hives in Uganda with end entrances.
> 
> You point out that "vertical space is more natural", and I just don't see that as being true. Bees have made nests in all kinds of cavities, vertical and horizontal and diagonal for millions of years - because even the hollows of trees are not only vertical. And bees can move between combs just fine. The fact is that to bees - all spaces are vertical. It's just the comb height and number that varies.
> 
> Phil Chandler's design, which he published on line and made free to all is where I see the root of the design with the entrance in the side. I'm not sure if he was the first to do it, but his plans and his book "The Barefoot Beekeeper" has propagated that style of hive far and wide. But it's not the only one out there - not by a long shot. Given that Phil lives in the UK, I don't think harsh winters were at the center of his thinking. But that design works well for many people in many parts of the world. Phil is a contributing member of this forum and others.
> 
> On the other hand, Michael Bush has to be one of the most prominent beeks on this forum who has a lot of experience with tbh's in the US, and in harsher winter climates. He has been talking about end entrances for a long time. So ideas and opinions about middle entrances, end entrances and others have been discussed here, and in other forums many times. They're easy to find if you're interested in them.
> 
> Adam


----------



## WLC

'As far as the center of innovation, no...'

How about we just call it a 'paradigm shift'?

Why are we stuck on the KTBH as 'the' design?

Some say that the sloping sides aren't necessary.

Frankly, I think that TBH design is open to interpretation and whatever resources are available.

I've even tried a 19" top bar in a Lang. The bees ignored it, and I replaced the bar with a frame.


----------



## psfred

Note that I said "designs that I have seen". I make no claim to be an expert on top bar hives.

I believe the sloping sides are there to make the comb relatively stronger and much safer to more around. The bees are less likely to attach it to the sides of the hive as well, or at least that is the claim. New comb without a frame isn't very strong, all you have to do is tip a bar over sideways and the comb will fall off, making a mess. A few years of use as brood comb and it won't matter so much. 

As far as innovation goes, what's really new? Moveable frames or bars are not, long hives are not, maybe putting it up on a stand is, but people kept skeps on tables several hundred years ago. I've even seen pictures of people making hoop frames for top bar hives, recreating the Langstroth innovation! One is also limited in the amount of honey one can produce, unless one wants to be continuously harvesting or have a very long hive. Not a problem for a hobby hive, per se, but when you get a couple going it can be a problem. Langstroth hives you can just leave the supers on until it's convenient to pull them and extract, and if the bees fill them up you can add more until you cannot reach them.

As Kipling put it, "your glazing is new and your plumbing is strange, but otherwise I perceive no change". 

The only other failing I see has nothing to do with hive design, but the notion that top bar hives are "natural" and all one has to do to get honey every year is dump the bees in and stand back! Lots of disappointed newbies 'round here since top bar hives have small hive beetles, varroa mites, wax moths, nectar and pollen dearths, ants, and all the other problems one has with Langstroth hives. Bad information, not a bad design.

I may make one just for the fun of it, but don't plan to wander far from my standard hives -- so far they work just fine, I can make everything but the frames myself for little more than a TBH would cost (especially when one makes a proper cover), so I don't see much of an advantage. We have access to an extractor. plenty of boxes now, and so forth, no reason to change, and I do not want to crush and strain three or four hive's worth of honey!

Peter


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

The KTBH just seems to be quite common at this point. I don't think it's "The" design, but it's probably the most common one here in North America. The Tanzanian top bar hive and the Warré are other popular top bar hive designs as well.

A lot of people on this thread have posted the many virtues of the Langstroth over the ktbh, but I'm not disputing that at all. The fact that there are a lot of people experimenting with different hive designs isn't rooted in any design flaw in the Langstroth. It has to do with shifting interests of beekeepers and different reasons for keeping bees.

It's that paradigm shift that you mention, WLC. The desires of beekeepers are shifting, and a new type of beekeeper is becoming a major group - the beekeeper whose main interest is the bees themselves.

And this is a different identity, and it is taking shape through experimentation with different hives. And I suppose that Peter, you and others are right in saying that not much is actually "new" - so perhaps there is not so much innovation in the strictest sense of the word. But there is a great deal of experimentation going on as these "bee-focused" beekeepers try to find what suits their needs best.

Adam


----------



## Michael Bush

>All long hives suffer from cluster movement difficulties -- once the bees move to one end in the winter, they will NOT move to the other.

As in any vertical hive once they go up they will NOT move back down. In either vertical or horizontal you would ideally start the winter at one end (in the case of vertical it matters which end) and end up at the other end.

>Split clusters will probably die

I haven't seen one...

>unless the beekeeper has moved all the honey and pollen to one end, this is going to be a problem for winter suvival.

I recommend that, but mine ARE at one end without having to move them.

>In a Lang, the bees will fill from the top down and move up or sidway a little, but have access to all the stores in most cases. 

That is not my experience. At least not until I went to eight frame boxes.

>I've noticed in some posts, pictures, and videos concerning cut--outs that typical feral lives in "long hive" configuration (ceilings, etc) that the hive is uni-directional, with brood near the entrance and honey on the far end.

Exactly.

>putting the entrance on one end and controlling the hive to make the honey and pollen end up on the other end, or saving 160 lbs of honey so they can access it in the three or four months of wet, cold weather.

If you put the entrance on one end the stores will already be on one end.

>I'd never discourage anyone from keeping bees, whatever hive they want to use, however. I'd not attempt a commerical operation with top bar hives -- the hassle of crushing and straining several hunderd gallons of honey just isn't an option vs extraction or comb honey, the combs are fragile for a few years, and genearl management isn't as easy (no way to carry a box of frames around a yard without some extra work and broken comb).

A system of beekeeping always takes everything into account. If you were to use them commercially (and I'm not recommending anyone do as it's much easier to manage space in an outyard with Langstroths) you could easily make some smaller boxes for handling and harvesting.

As far as "hassle of crushing and straining". I think crush and strain is exactly the same amount of work and mess as extracting and I've done plenty of both. And it frees you up to not buy an extractor and it frees you up to not have to worry about guarding empty comb from the wax moths.

But of course comb honey is a nice product as well.

Also, if you work to where you have some old tough brood comb throughout the hive you could extract these in most extractors with minimum modifications.

>beekeeping is NOT management free

And top bar hives are even less so.

>My point exactly. All the designs I've seen so far put the entrance in the middle

I have seen some that do put it in the middle but I would not say that is typical. I don't recommend it and have never recommended it. Here's mine:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beestopbarhives.htm

I've been recommending not putting ANY holes in it.

> which is pretty much going to cause trouble. 

Agreed. But that is just a design choice. One I wish people understood the ramifications of...

>the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance....

This has been my KTBH entrance for the last six years or more:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/TBHEntrance1.JPG
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/TBHEntrance2.JPG

So I think "always" is an overstatement.


----------



## sqkcrk

Anyone keeping top bar basket hives?


----------



## WI-beek

">In a Lang, the bees will fill from the top down and move up or sidway a little, but have access to all the stores in most cases. 

That is not my experience. At least not until I went to eight frame boxes."

Im a little confused. What was not your experience? Im guessng access to all the stores until you went to 8 frames.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Im a little confused. What was not your experience? Im guessng access to all the stores until you went to 8 frames. 

Sorry, that is correct. With an eight frame they don't have to move sideways, just up and they don't leave stores behind. But with a ten frame lang they often do leave stores behind and later starve.


----------



## snl

Sure wish we could all go to 8 frame square hive that has the dimensions of milled lumber.........


----------



## WLC

snl:

I'm not quite sure what you mean?

1 3/8" x 8, plus 3/8" for bee space would give you a square box with the inner dimensions of 11 3/8" x 11 3/8".

Did you have some particular lumber in mind so that boxes and top bars hives could be made most economically 'off the shelf''?


----------



## HiveAtYourHome

snl said:


> Sure wish we could all go to 8 frame square hive that has the dimensions of milled lumber.........


WOW!!! Just today I was taking my rough cut lumber (have a huge pile sitting in field) and making 8 frame square hives, to the dimension of the lumber I had. Kinda copying bait hives I made that Sam Comfort showed me. I'm doing 1 1/4" spacing for the 6 center "top bars" and 1 1/2" spacing for the outer 2 "bars" plus extra 1/8" on sides (small cell, so gonna try 1 1/4 versus 1 3/8 this time) . There are simple strips stapled 3/8" down from top which the "top bars" rest on. The 1" true board is 8" wide, so my boxes are 8" high. The only cut is all 4 sides are 12" long, I use snips for the "top bar" to 11" long (Sam used unused frame wedges I had free strips of wood.) the boards are just screwed to the next side in a spiral (so all sides the same.) The boards are from an abandoned project, screws laying around the barn. Total cost $0 for 4 hives of 5 boxes each. thinking over wintering in 5 boxes, just grab a box or 3 a year from the top warre stylish. My Langs with slatted racks, screened bottom, hoffman frames cost me a lot more than $0 each. But with my Langs I guess I'll have the pleasure of working them completely 6 times/year and maybe another 10 simple openings, while these $0 boxes will only get looked at 3 times a year once I start them next spring. If they can't compete honey wise per hive against my Langstroth hives, then I bet they will per time spent on them, and its a guarantee they will per dollar invested.


----------



## HiveAtYourHome

You're right on with the math WLC, but I think whats great about simple top bars is precision cuts are no longer necessary. An inner dimension between 10.5" and 12" would still work (combs vary, bees vary.) And one could just eyeball 8 strips evenly spaced. I'm too picky and measure twice, but it seems there is a lot of leeway to what the bees figure out, and actually a big variability in to how they thrive. Basically I'm saying a unattended 9 year old child could build a highly functioning hive if given scrap wood and told make a box of any height about a foot wide and lay 8 strips across. Its the pesky interchangeable frames that lead to needing precision.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

KnNashua,

What was the bait hive design like that Sam showed you?

Adam


----------

