# Newcomer building custom warre hive



## Lostfrog

Welcome, raist,

My bars are 24 mm wide which is close to your 1" ones and I use 12 mm spacing between my topbars. I wanted to try and keep it inspectable so I made half frames which looks like you are planning to use as well from your plans. I did go with 9 mm spacing between my hive wall and the frame side bar which it looks like you are using 1/2". From everything I've read regarding bee space, I think it's only a space over 1/2" that they will fill in with comb. If you already have your frames made, why not try them, I don't think it would really hurt. Most of us are cobbling frames by hand and I know mine are probably off a mm or 2 on several by the time I finished. Good luck!


----------



## Mutt bee

Welcome!


----------



## raist

Lostfrog said:


> Welcome, raist,
> 
> My bars are 24 mm wide which is close to your 1" ones and I use 12 mm spacing between my topbars. I wanted to try and keep it inspectable so I made half frames which looks like you are planning to use as well from your plans. I did go with 9 mm spacing between my hive wall and the frame side bar which it looks like you are using 1/2". From everything I've read regarding bee space, I think it's only a space over 1/2" that they will fill in with comb. If you already have your frames made, why not try them, I don't think it would really hurt. Most of us are cobbling frames by hand and I know mine are probably off a mm or 2 on several by the time I finished. Good luck!


Thanks for the infos! No i havent made the bars and the hive yet. Im still tweaking the plans. I would hate to make 3 boxes and find out my top bars and my spacing are wrong. Hence, why i realy appreciate your input! Thanks again


----------



## raist

Mutt bee said:


> Welcome!


thanks. sure looks fun here


----------



## odfrank

Notes from someone who started Warre hives after 40+ years of using Langstroth hives:

I recommend that you do not attempt to complicate things but closely follow the bee spacing and design details on a good set of Warre plans. Bad bee spacing can be very unforgiving. 

I would hang my topbars on the standard rabbetted edge rather than all the complicated slots you show on your design. Topbar ends will show on the outside of all your boxes and allow for moisture intrusion, propolis leakage and dry rot. 

I use 1 3/8" center to center comb spacing. A 1/2" space between bars will promote brace combing.

I would also recommend you start with a foundationless all medium depth eight frame Langstroth hive. The frame hive is a brilliant invention and and a topbar hive is antique technology. A Warre hive is too small for many climates, bees do not work down as promised, all the comb attachments limit the workability of the hive. Do you have a smartphone and do email or do you write on papyrus scrolls with ox blood ink? Do you ride a horse for daily transportation or drive a car? If you use modern technology for most of your lifestyle do so with your beehives also. I'm glad Warre and topbar hives were not recommended when I started in 1970. They might be cheaper and cuter, but they are not easily functional.


----------



## raist

odfrank said:


> Notes from someone who started Warre hives after 40+ years of using Langstroth hives:
> 
> I recommend that you do not attempt to complicate things but closely follow the bee spacing and design details on a good set of Warre plans. Bad bee spacing can be very unforgiving.
> 
> I would hang my topbars on the standard rabbetted edge rather than all the complicated slots you show on your design. Topbar ends will show on the outside of all your boxes and allow for moisture intrusion, propolis leakage and dry rot.
> 
> I use 1 3/8" center to center comb spacing. A 1/2" space between bars will promote brace combing.
> 
> I would also recommend you start with a foundationless all medium depth eight frame Langstroth hive. The frame hive is a brilliant invention and and a topbar hive is antique technology. A Warre hive is too small for many climates, bees do not work down as promised, all the comb attachments limit the workability of the hive. Do you have a smartphone and do email or do you write on papyrus scrolls with ox blood ink? Do you ride a horse for daily transportation or drive a car? If you use modern technology for most of your lifestyle do so with your beehives also. I'm glad Warre and topbar hives were not recommended when I started in 1970. They might be cheaper and cuter, but they are not easily functional.


I just spoke with a professionnal beekeeper with who i will be taking a class soon and he pretty much had the same opinion. If i am to build a warre hive with frame and windows i might as well simply use a langstroth. he also said that the warre, even tho its nice, is less functionnal. Ill probably go with a langstroth and keep a warre as an experiment and see how it goes. Thanks for your input and wisdom.


----------



## odfrank

I became more discouraged with Warres last year when one swarmed. I did not dare separate the boxes to harvest queen cell divides because the queen cells would have bee right at the joint of the topbar and bottom of the upper comb. I would have had to cut that joint with a wire to seperate the boxes, likely cutting through some of th queen cells. 

Warres are good for living garden sculpture. Every one says they are "cute".


----------



## odfrank

You can manage an eight frame medium Lang with the same fixtures and management style of Warres, with the practicality of frames. The size of the comb space in a box is almost the same between a Warre (91 sq inch comb) and 8 frame medium (89 si comb). Add a quilt box to your Lang, run it foundationless, and you have a modern Warre.


----------



## raist

odfrank said:


> You can manage an eight frame medium Lang with the same fixtures and management style of Warres, with the practicality of frames. The size of the comb space in a box is almost the same between a Warre (91 sq inch comb) and 8 frame medium (89 si comb). Add a quilt box to your Lang, run it foundationless, and you have a modern Warre.


Indeed! yes thats exactly what i am going to do i think! thanks again


----------



## raist

odfrank said:


> You can manage an eight frame medium Lang with the same fixtures and management style of Warres, with the practicality of frames. The size of the comb space in a box is almost the same between a Warre (91 sq inch comb) and 8 frame medium (89 si comb). Add a quilt box to your Lang, run it foundationless, and you have a modern Warre.


Now that i think about it. About that modern warre your mentionning. Would you use a queen excluder and would you nadir or super ? Thanks

Thé more i think about it thé more i think ill juste go with a lang for starter (1-2 years)


----------



## GaryG74

Welcome to BeeSource and good luck!


----------



## Houstonbees

WOW! I've had complete the opposite experience from odfrank. I guess it comes down to if you want to constantly fiddle around "inside" the boxes, or leave the girls alone to do thier thing. Granted I don't have 40+ years experience, but so far after 2 years I can share some information:
--started my first hive built "almost" to Warres' spec. Only slight mod is the boxes are deeper by an inch because I thought it ridiculous to cut of an inch from the board to get the correct "depth"(hasn't made a bit of diff).
--Pkg hived May 11 2013. They built up nicely, moved down to the second box, I nadired a 3rd in late August which was filled with comb by 1/3. I'm also fairly certain they superceded the pkg queen since there was a lot of drone activity for 2 or 3 days in late August, well before the Sept "kickout" started. Did not take honey that year.
--Over wintered on thier own honey(was a good decision--was a long, cold one here in Houston)
--Exploded growth in sping of 2014, nadired a 4th box. 
--Started second Warre April 8th, 2014 from swarm caught at the airport. I've left them alone since then but will for the first time at the end of Feb lift the hive, remove the bottom board, and see whats going on inside, and nadir if needed.
--Took honey from the first hive (top most box) at the end of August 2014. Got 23lbs of honey from that one box, negligible amount of wax(that was a surprise).
--As of Jan 26, both hives are alive and kicking. The girls were flying yesterday and pollen was coming into both hives. Really looking forward nadiring both of the hives, and start a few more.
Gunther, in Houston, NE side close to the big airport, suburban area with hives in the backyard.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Nice...you start with a Warré hive, remove bottom, roof, add some frames and queen excluder and you end with a Lang. Now that is a bit boring...isn't it?!

It is not just a cute garden hive. You can keep bees in them quite well. What you can't do is to handle them like a frame hive. It is a _wooden skep_ and old craftmanship to work those hives. Someone who kept bees in frame hives for all his life will find it troublesome to work a fixed comb hive. For the beginner there is a new craft to be learned either way. The only problem is: there are only few people left that could possible mentor you in that craft. You have to do your first steps on your own.

The best thing to do, is to stick with original design as close as possible and to learn from the Warré book. See:
http://warre.biobees.com/bfa.htm => or download here: http://www.users.callnetuk.com/~heaf/beekeeping_for_all.pdf

Make splits by the box to prevent swarming. Do check hives regularily (from below by tilting the box upside down) regularily to keep the boxes moveable and to make sure everything is alright. (No, this is not a leave-alone type of hive! If you want to be a bee hippie and do not want to get in touch with the bees, get yourself a bee gum...)

It is as satisfactory for the hobbyist to keep bees in a Warré as is to work with good ol' hand tools. It is a joy to do it the traditional way.

Bernhard


----------



## raist

Thanks all. Ive set m'y mind up. I will d'un both a standard unmodified warre and a langstroth. Next year i will also try a moddified warre


----------



## odfrank

>(No, this is not a leave-alone type of hive!

I thought that leave alone beekeeping was Warre's stipulations. No?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

No. Certainly not.

That is an modern interpretation of the bee hippies (how I call them, with a friendly wink) but has nothing to do with Émile Warré's intentions. Read the book. There is small chapter about keeping bees in a distance, but that's about it. The Warré hive never meant to be a non-intervention hive. It is like you design a hammer and use it as a screw driver...

Warré experimented a lot (with about 300 hive types) shrinked the hive size down to eight frames (yes, the first Warré hives had frames). He then cut the deep frames into half, to better manage the honey within the hive. Later he dropped the use of frames, to further simplyfy the design of the hive. He continued to extract the combs by using an extractor. He put the combs into extraction cages.

There have been many precursors of that hive, the most similiar used by the Priest Christ. But that "wooden skep" has been used since the middle ages. It derived from log hives cut into sections. I reckon there were a many similiar "box hive" type of hives in the anglophone countries in pre-frame times. At least I stumbled upon a many patents about box hives.

Before starting a Warré hive it would be good to read the book, so you get what it was designed for. 

Bernhard


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Some impressions from Émile Warré's apiaries.





































He certainly ran a good bee business, selling hives and queens and a lot of honey.









Here he is dissecting one of his frame Warré hives. That hive had 9 combs and a wider inner dimension: 35x35 cm (13.8x13.8 inches). He used a wider dimension and one more frame because frames do use a lot of volume. To balance this he used one more comb and more width. He further shrinked the hive dimensions when turning away from frames. No frames means less volume needed. 


















In this picture he himself is preparing fixed comb hive combs for extraction by cutting them out, lifting them out (the topbar still attached) and placing them into an extraction cage. You see those extraction cages stacked in front of the extractor.









After extracting he returned the combs back into the hives.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

This is a modern version of those cages: 


















photo credit: http://www.metallwaren-riffert.at 

Basicly perforated stainless steel plates/mesh, those prevent the combs from breaking when extracting.


----------



## odfrank

All those hives are a lot bigger than the current style.


----------



## raist

Very interesting pictures. Im halfway thru warres book. Lots of info. Im also reading recent books


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

odfrank said:


> All those hives are a lot bigger than the current style.


Yes, as said because of the frames. In his late work he propagated the smaller hives without frames. His book has had 12 editions in total. In the 5th edition (1923) frames were described, but not anymore in the 12th edition in 1948 were he strongly voted for frameless hives.


----------



## TBHKeeper

Hi Raist;

Bees need an accurate "bee space" between each comb.

The most common hive in this country for the last 160 years, has been Langstroth.

Much as I don't like the Lang design... it does have one feature that has served for the last 160 years fairly consistently.... success.

That success comes from somewhere specific. My suspicion is that there is one single "magic bullet" item in the Lang hive that causes it's success. It is not particularly because of being a magic hive... what it does, is to manage / honor / accurately identify it's use of "bee space" very very well.

This is a Warre hive forum here. Don't throw rocks at me for advocating Lang here on this topic, I'm not advocating use of that hive. It's too big to suit me, and I don't care for it. Having said that, disliking it is not a good excuse to flatly ignore it as if it doesn't exist.

If you plan on living immortal, and plan that you can keep a good back forever... and can plan to pay the highest cost for the most expensive hives, then go ahead with a Lang. I don't advocate that, but that's your call. I'm not immortal, and my back isn't quite as strong as it used to be.

What I am advocating for is a change in thinking to make SURE we (Warre proponents) begin as a group ... to honor the bee space that has succeeded most for (very conservatively) 60-70+% of the beekeeping "industry" in this country for the last 160 years. IMHO, we as a "Warre" proponent group would be wise to examine **why** so many consistently stay with Lang hives, and do something productive about it instead of being the outcast few who seem too insistent on "natural" to recognize what succeeds.

Lang isn't a magic hive. It's just a box that has well sized frames made for it. Scale it down, and you could make a Warre size hive with Lang style frames. Then again, you'd be creating something tha nobody else has ... not even the Warre people.

The bigger issue is to solve the real problem.

Here on a Warre board, Lang users come in here and starts preaching Lang almost as if it's a magic hive. Then a Warre user preaches Warre... but the real issue seems to get a bit lost in the sauce of agendas. It did get mentioned here, but ... somehow a bit shunted to the edge in favor of preaching a dogma of "Either / Or".

What if the answer is something else. I prefer cooperation and honoring that you are a new beekeeper and need good info instead of a "Pick me" sermon?

Visually spacing of the top bars changes cell depth when their keeper plops a bar back in 1/32" different than it was. When workers find that the space between combs is larger... I believe they (the young comb building bees) are prompted by the fuzz on their backs to make a cell deeper to have the space feel right. It may be "natural" for their keeper to just eyeball a bar back into position, but I doubt momma bee is very forgiving if the cell is too deep. If a cell is too shallow, a queen may lay... but if it is too deep, I doubt she will lay as much, perhaps at all. That cell becomes a honey cell instead. Do that multiplied by a few thousand cells, and a hive just got honey bound ... with decreasing workers to handle the process because they are all being converted to foragers without the needed replacements to keep the hive expanding. Growth stalls.

Additionally, "momma" may be concerned that they will turn that cell into a new queen and put her out... or make her face a rival she is strong enough to not want to tolerate. If she is feisty enough to refuse to allow a queen cell to be made, she may just plain move on to look for a new cell. Decreased population by the induced egg laying depth cell shortage can then translate to decreased honey for us because when they should be charging ahead, they just went into a population growth stall, even a decline at the wrong time.

THAT is why many Warre keepers "settle" for hives of 2 or 3 little boxes... and quietly seem to accept that as "normal".

I believe THAT is why Warre hives tend to have no more boxes than a Lang... or even less than a lang in spite of the boxes being smaller.

My conclusion is that use of the Warre design as printed... respectfully of Mr Warre, does *not* allow the hive to expand to the level it should or could be capable of if the queen were given accurately build cells to lay eggs in as a habit. If more Warre users respected that, they / we might begin to have better success. It has taken me a few years of exploring and playing, designing, & redesigning... to slowly find each of several little issues in the Warre design, but the biggest magic bullet from this chair of going out there actually thinking for myself ... is bee space use.

Having said that... I believe we can reverse the marginalizing of the Warre design if we work together to begin to recognize the vital nature of bee space so carefully... that we get organized into making sure to produce top bars / frames that are well spaced as Lang frames are. Again, please don't beat me up as if I'm trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.... I'm NOT. Exactly the reverse is true. I don't object to Mr Langstroth's users using his hive if that makes them happy. Yet, don't go preaching to a Warre forum about a Lang hive just because it worked for you. Nor should Warre people happily settle for 2 box hives just... well... just because that's all that can be done. With all due respect to both, there is a different answer. I'd like to see the general Warre philosophy honored even if it is adjusted some bit for beekeeping 2015.

What I say is... give a queen flawlessly built cells that are clean (the WORKERS job), AND precisely sized for depth (the beekeepers job by how he builds the hive), and she should happily fire off eggs like machine gun bullets. Give her "randomized" cells... for whatever reason (perhaps by her keeper moving her cells around so the workers have to adjust) ... and it messes things up.

My method of choice now... after 4 years working Warre, and 2 before that trying a bit of Langstroth and Kenyan top bar, is to get ready to use precision top bars that can even be converted for use as fames... the best of both worlds. The plan this year is to be very precise in top bar design to honor bee space as used in the most successful hive on the market today, instead of fighting it tooth and nail like some Warre or Lang proponents seem to want to do.

I'm probably not making friends here today. I see things on each side that truly bother me about how we can't seem to have open dialog and open discussion that honestly calls out problems for the sake of FIXING them instead of just playing propagandizing games. Instead a lot of forum "discussions" turn more into propagandizing for "my favorite design".

My further intent is to seek out others who might wish to help experiment with this during this year... to watch it closely to see how it goes.

Here is what is ***starting*** to happen as I am adjusting things. This hive (below) is not right yet... but does contain a couple of the major adjustments I've been making to the Warre design the last 3 years now. the first picture merely shows the hive during early evening if I recall correctly... many bees not back yet.









The second picture is the same 2 hives, just after sunset a couple weeks later. As you can see, the bees themselves are telling what boxes they are occupying. Box 6 is full, and they are working a little on #s 7,8, and barely starting to look at #9 ... out of 10 on the stack.









They did go on to make some progress beyond that... but not as well as I would have liked... I suspect because of the bee space issue. there was no other good explanation that slowed them down. No beetles, no predators, no varroa, just... slowed down... during mid august... and never really seemed to do well right into fall. I took very little honey from them by the end of the season. So, success yes. Failure yes. Call it a mixed bag of learning... while knowing that things could be both much better, and much worse.

I could go on, but this is already long. Would really like to see a few guys willing to do some Warre testing a very specific way with me this year to validate some concept work in process right now. Or... people could just keep preaching messages just because "We've always done it that way before". Much as I'd like to succeed, I'd rather also think for myself, even if that means throwing out a measure of conventional wisdom to have a genuinely original think for myself thought in my head.

Often I see Warre people burying heads in the sand as if it's normal to have 2 little box hives.
Then I see Lang people walking around as if they know it all, stepping on the Warre people as if "you're so stupid for using that thing". Things are not always black or white guys. How about us working together to find better solutions and not just grab some nonsense that masquerades as truth... out of thin air. Beekeeping as a whole needs ALL our creativity... and ALL our cooperative resources to find solutions to major issues we all face.

Now that I perhaps peeved everybody off... hopefully you'll all understand that what really bugs me is... the bi-polar way discussions go in throwing out a concept without even genuinely thinking for your / ourselves about it. There are more colors in the rainbow than black and white.

My pictures above... speak for themselves. My process is getting there. It would be great to see a group of guys get relentlessly cooperative on working together to get things done... as happens here sometimes.

TBHKeeper


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I have not the slightest clue what you are saying? :scratch:

Bee space in a fixed comb hive? :scratch:

Two boxes per hive? :scratch:

Could you say it in other words?


----------



## raist

TBHKeeper,

Wow what a read. Ive already picked up, visiting apiaries and beekeeping supply stores, that the warre really isnt popular around here. Montreal, Canada. First thing most people told me when i told them i was going to use a warre (with proper bee spacing and all) is that i really shouldnt do it. 

Ive read 3 books, took a class, visited 3 apiaries. I am quite a beginners and i do not pretend to have one bit of experience on beekeeping but its not like im totally clueless either. I find your ideas of a better communications and recognition between ''style'' very apealing. 

In fact, ive already decided to use 2 lang, 1 warre and another ''hybrid'' hive next year once i have a better understanding of beekeeping. Count me in to help next year!

Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion.


----------



## TBHKeeper

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I have not the slightest clue what you are saying? :scratch:
> 
> Bee space in a fixed comb hive? :scratch:


Bee space is the space a bee needs / reserves / builds in to move between two combs. It does not matter what kind of comb (fixed or movable) is used, that space is still defined by the creatures themselves. Our only input is to measure what that is... accurately. That is obviously a slightly variable task since not all bees are identical.

If the comb is "fixed", that naturally will allow the bee to keep things to their liking... and keep the beekeeper's hands out. One problem is that since, some states do not allow fixed comb, discussion here can't very well stay on fixed comb very well since this forum is available to everyone.

Apologies that I didn't jump through the hoop of saying that directly. Perhaps that muddied the water.




BernhardHeuvel said:


> Two boxes per hive? :scratch:
> 
> Could you say it in other words?


I've seen / heard a noticable number of Warre detractors relegate a Warre hive to being a "smaller / second class" hive, indicating less prosperous and / or lesser quality. That contains a sort of semi-accurate, yet also semi misused fact that seems to be a habitually ignored "elephant in the living room" item.

For as long As I've had hives, I've not yet noticed anyone actually address that as a freestanding important issue that followed through to do something productive with it. Granted, I don't go hunting for that on this forum habitually as I could... so maybe somebody came up with a solution that I don't know about. Beat up on me for that if you will... but it would seem to me that if the solution came, there would be adjustment to the online plans that say "Don't build it with method 'X', whatever 'X' is... use this method 'Y' because it resolves ... the elephant issue.".

That's a bit longwinded way of saying nobody has fixed the problem as far as I can see.

Notice all those pictures of Warre on this very page. What I notice is... I didn't notice any that showed a 6' high hive stacked so high that he needed a stepladder to climb to the top boxes. I do know a guy right here (Northern Indiana) who *habitually* has Langs stacked to that height... and... regularly needs a stepladder to get his top boxes off their perch. There is a reason why that is so. His hives prosper... habitually.

In my book, when someone actually fixes the problem, the word will begin to spread naturally, so people will begin to recognize that "Yes, Warre is a truly equal quality hive to a Lang". The answer is there guys... right in front of us. We need to just stop doing the ostrich syndrome and "notice" how to fix the issue.

Frankly, I don't want to use Langstroth, but I do want my hives to prosper... to have them strong enough to be able to be stacked 6' high (or higher) habitually, and have them need to be restacked / split on a habitual basis because they grow "gung ho". Much as I dont want them stacked that high, having them strong enough so they *could* be... is my issue. As you saw in that picture... they are getting there. Much to do... much to do.

...and by the way, it is appreciated that (apparently so far) nobody took offense. I really didn't intend to try to ignite a flame war... we really have too much to gain by working together.

TBHKeeper


----------



## TBHKeeper

raist said:


> TBHKeeper,
> 
> Wow what a read. Ive already picked up, visiting apiaries and beekeeping supply stores, that the warre really isnt popular around here. Montreal, Canada. First thing most people told me when i told them i was going to use a warre (with proper bee spacing and all) is that i really shouldnt do it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In fact, ive already decided to use 2 lang, 1 warre and another ''hybrid'' hive next year once i have a better understanding of beekeeping. Count me in to help next year!
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion.


Although you don't even have a hive yet, welcome to beekeeping Raist.

You'll do yourself a massive good service by talking to a lot of people, but then making your own choices. The generally recognized "bee space" amount is ... as you probably already realize... GENERALLY <but not always> recognized as 3/8". It's definitely a trick to master having hives prosper... but having the right box, good workmanship, precise bee space, and diligent study, things are helped by being very careful.

I would caution against plastic frames in your Langs because the plastic edges have a whole bunch of little "beetle hotel rooms" that let hive beetles have lot's of places to hide. In fact, ANY little places to hide = places to diddle up lot'sa new little beetles to help nicely populate your hive with beetles... obviously a bad idea.

Also, watch out that you take your time on being accurate on measurements if you're building your own.

Finally, if you're interested in what I'm researching... I can send you info on a private message.

It DOES include one other yummy little area... described by the thread at this link...

<http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?281064-My-full-size-warre-style-observation-hive>

I've talked with Margo by phone about her project... and have gone further with it.

Not ready to talk about that on the forum yet. That might also be worth a private message.

TBHKeeper


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

One of the old beekeepers that teached me beekeeping always said:

"_It is not the hive - it is the bee that brings the honey!_"

And there is much truth in it. I experimented with a lot of setups and hives myself. I did comparisons side by side. And found, that you can produce the exact same amount of honey in a Warré hive than you do in other hive types.

I recommend starting with the original design and method, which is in the book. Adapt later in the progress, not from the first start. Read the original book of Warré. The most common mistake is to work a Warré like a frame hive.

I do not use more than four to five boxes for one hive. I rather extract the honey and replace the boxes than stacking them higher and higher. What should that be good for? One box holds 14 kg of honey, that is 30 pounds. By three boxes that makes 90 pounds. In a very heavy flow bees can tuck away huge amounts of honex, up to 10 kg/20 pounds a day. (Maximum, not every day.) A flow usually last a week or two and fades out with lower intakes of honey.

So the number of three supers really is sufficient for a single flow, especially if the flow is not so strong. If the flow continues extract in between and put the wet supers back on the hives.

As said, it is not the hive, it is the bee that brings the honey. What you need is a good bee - most people start with a low quality queen - and swarm queens are not of a superior quality by itself. Keep those bees well fed, nectar and pollen, feed!, keep down varroa numbers - and the bees will thrive very well.

As I said, the hive is not a leave-alone design. A log hive would suit better for keeping bees only with no intention to produce at least some honey.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Along my trails with different hives, I experimented with very narrow hives (20x20cm), still got a lot of honey and bees:


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Late winter inspection and first brood in a fixed comb hive: (cut the sides, lift the comb with the topbar)









Comb building in the progress, viewed from below:









Hives are boiling with bees, swarm cups are drawn. Again: viewed from below. You work the hive like a skep, turn it upside down or tilt it on it's side.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

One adaption I use: by putting in two foundations per box, you have a "bee ladder", so bees can climb and cluster the new box. Either when supered or nadired. 









Winter cluster, hive packed with bees:


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Who said bees can't thrive in a Warré?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Concerning frames for inspections. This Tim Malfroy from Australia. He uses half frames in the center for inspections. He uses the double height:


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Ivan Brndusic from Serbia made this adaption.
http://www.brnda.com/Home/tabid/36/language/en-US/Default.aspx 


A beekeeper in Slovenia is showing his adaptions. (Mr. Odisej.)










































































*Honey supers with smaller frames:*


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

For another easy frame design, see the Delon frame: http://warre.biobees.com/delon.htm

You basicly bend a strong wire to form the sides and bottom of the frame.

Two friends of mine have done this intensively. But they use shallow frames instead.

A honey comb on a wire frame.


















So as you see, a lot of room for adaptions and modifications.

For a start, try the original method as described in the book by Émile Warré.

Basicly: install bees with a good quality queen in one box. Feed, nadir a second box. Feed. (In a Northern state, nadir a third box.) Feed. Treat against Varroa. Next spring add one super with two bee ladders (foundations) spaced two combs apart. Add another one as the first super got filled with comb. Repeat. Either split the hive before swarming, removing the old queen with a box of brood) or you let the hive swarm. Make use of swarm cells for small matings nucs by cutting them out. Swarm goes into one box, let draw comb. Swap honey supers onto the swarm.

To increase honey harvest above the local average, extract the combs. That's it.


----------



## TBHKeeper

Hi again Raist;

First ... answering your original question in the first place....

Use of a 1" "top bar" (or a 1" top piece of a frame... amounts to the same thing) is correct.

As to the bee space amount...
Use of a 3/8" space... is the closest I can guesstimate of what size a the space should be.
Half of that will need go on each side of each frame... so the vertical side pieces you make...
should end up 1 3/8" wide as accurate as you can make them.

How I chose those two numbers... is also vital.
they were not merely "off the top of my head" numbers.

They came off a frame that was made from a $20,000 injection mould that had to be right the first time... or it would be creating nothing but trash frames. I got the numbers using something that was checked, cross checked, and probably surveyed by .... I don't even want to guess how many people they probably asked to make absolutely certain that would be 100% accurate. They only had one choice... make the mold perfect the first time... otherwise they wasted that money on building an expensive paperweight that is useless to make parts in the first place. Much as I don't like use of Plastic frames, that doesn't change the wisdom of using those two sizes as benchmarks.

Second...



BernhardHeuvel said:


> I recommend starting with the original design and method, which is in the book. Adapt later in the progress, not from the first start. Read the original book of Warré. The most common mistake is to work a Warré like a frame hive.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As I said, the hive is not a leave-alone design.


Bernard, I must respectfully voice a major concern about using the original Warre design unmodified.

Starting with my source of hive design in the first place...

From this website page:
http://warre.biobees.com/plans.htm

This item (near the top, the imperial measurements version)
http://warre.biobees.com/warre_hive_plans_imperial.pdf

On page 4, you will see that the hive box is 13 5/16" wide.

The "rebates" as they are referred to on that page are 3/8" wide.
The wood itself is 3/4" thick.
Thus, the remaining actual space for a top bar is 12 9/16"
The top bar size is recommended at 12 3/8"
That leaves a space of 3/16"... a space VERY small for a bee to squeeze into in order to chase out a beetle.
Remember, they don't have access to the top of a bar / frame as we see it with hive open. They would need to squeeze in to chase the beetle from beside the bar end. hat is why I didn't figure out at first why they weren't chasing the beetles out in the first place. "It SHOULD be big enough!!!" A YEAR later... "D'UHHH!".

Worse, that space is divided by 2 ends... so it cannot be larger than 3/16", but could be 1/2 of that size... at 3/32", or could even be smaller at one end if the bar is favored towards one end or the other. At it's biggest, the bee can't squeeze in to chase the beetles... and that size is a Luxury suite for a good dozen beetles just in ONE of 2 possible spots PER BAR where they can hide.

What this means is...

1: The thing that messed me up ***most*** was using his top bar design closely to
how he did it... namely the space at the end of the bars talked about above. That
was wrong and allowed beetles to have 2 neat little "hotel rooms" on top of every
single bar to make it easy to make more little beetle children.

2: I actually decided to thicken the bars to 3/4" thick too... meaning there was also
a "notch" needed on the underside. I tried to make the notch a tight fit, but it
ended up either too tight, or too lose... creating 2 MORE beetle hotel rooms PER
BAR. Ugh! The beetles KILLED me for the next 18 months until I worked through
both finding the problem(SS), and then figuring out the fix on populated hives that
had a major design flaw. The other little beetle hotel rooms created, became an
even bigger exacerbation of issue #1 above... double trouble.

So, I would not suggest using the design unmodified... the Warre bars with that specific set of spaces at the ends... that is not good for the beetle problems it creates. Maybe what I really should do is write to them at that site to suggest a change in those plans.

It is well worth having Raist hear that there is a specific issue that MUST be watched careful... spoken by the voice of having done it the wrong way... when explicitly using a measurement directly from the Warre plan.

But the final insult is... this problem can exist on ANY home brew hive if certain specific little details are not handled just right... yes, even a home brewed Lang. The above issue pair is major on *any* home built hive.

I'm ok to make my mistake here in front of "God and everybody"... and yeah I know I'm not the first guy to notice that the bars aren't right... so I changed that design as needed "reactively" instead of knowing to do it proactively as could have been.

You also said...

"Who said bees can't thrive in a Warré?"

I do see too many <Lang> people who say that... we do seem to have a Lang prowler on this thread now too... but your picture where it showed a good healthy looking hive... is a GREAT dispute to their objection. So... no I'm not trying to beat up on anybody or... be polarized to a far end of a spectrum somewhere. I'm just a guy who has screwed up enough stuff to not want to see "the new guy" (Raist at this moment) do the same stupid stuff I did to mess myself up.

IOW, Raist... if you MUST mess something up... hopefully you can find something NEW to mess up. That's all I'm after... not just to belch out an opinion or polarize anybody. We all know what opinions are like... and everybody has one of each.

Anyhow... best wishes to you as you get going.

TBHKeeper


----------



## odfrank

Bernhard, you are a proponent of Warre hives, but in your last post showed nothing but modified Warres with frames. Why would we use a size hive with frames that is so little different than the Langstroth we have so easily available?


----------



## TBHKeeper

Post deleted as stated...


----------



## TBHKeeper

odfrank said:


> Bernhard, you are a proponent of Warre hives, but in your last post showed nothing but modified Warres with frames. Why would we use a size hive with frames that is so little different than the Langstroth we have so easily available?



Hmmm... first of all, your question of Bernhard is off topic for this thread.
HIS info ... the pictures ... offering variations on Warre frames... is at a
minimum more appropriately on topic.

Second, aside from the fact that it looks a whole lot like you're trying to just
antagonize by asking the loaded questions... it wasn't Bernhard that was asking
questions in the first place.

Third, if I did try to answer you, THAT would still be off topic.

Fourth, this thread was about a Warre design already being worked on... and you're trying for the second time now to drag a man away to your own "opinion" ... to do his thinking for him without bothering to have the courtesy to talk WITH him instead of AT him. Frankly, I don't respect the little maneuvre you just did... again ... so I won't bother to dignify the answering your question.

Fifth, there are very good reasons why people choose different hives, but that is STILL off topic on this thread because that's not what he asked about in the first place.

Finally... even if it was on topic to discuss his hive choice... nobody on this thread (including me) has taken time to ASK Raist why he wants to use a particular hive... not that it is necessarily any of our business in the first place, but it would be nice to at least talk with the man about what HE wants to do instead of trying to just indoctrinate him to some "opinion".

Perhaps it would show a little respect for his questions if someone actually ... you know... answered them, or maybe even asked him if he is open to discussion of why he is choosing some particular hive ... instead of belching out Langstroth indoctrination that is so off topic here?????????????

TBHKeeper


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

odfrank said:


> Why would we use a size hive with frames that is so little different than the Langstroth we have so easily available?


Hi Frank, you have a valid point there, Langstroth is widely available and that is a big plus, especially if you want to buy equipment like an extractor or so. On the other hand, if you build your own stuff for only a couple of hives, that doesn't count much. In Europe there is a different situation, since there all sorts of Warré hives and equipment available from different suppliers. 

As for standardization, have a look at: http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/lang.html - so there is no such a thing as "the Langstroth hive" or Dadant hive or ... It seems to be a beekeeper thing to modify _everything_ they get hold of. 



TBHKeeper said:


> original design unmodified. ...hive beetle
> 
> Luckily I don't have first hand experience with the hive beetle because we don't have them here (yet). Tim Malfroy from Australia reports, he has less beetles in his Warré hives. You may want to contact him at: http://www.malfroysgold.com.au/home.html
> 
> 
> 
> TBHKeeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wood itself is 3/4" thick.
> 
> 
> TBHKeeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wood has to be 1 inch thick in my opinion. I don't use anything thinner for the sake of stability and hive climate. But that's only me. I need something to get a grip on.
> 
> 
> 
> TBHKeeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves a space of 3/16"... a space VERY small for a bee to squeeze into in order to chase out a beetle.
> 
> 
> 
> Usually those gaps are closed with propolis within the first season, at least in the second season. Bees tend to glue all gaps they can't reach into. If you need to close down those hive beetle hiding places from the start, you may want to fill those gaps with wax or resins.
> 
> As said Tim Malfroy reports he has less beetles in his hives, and he reckons that it is due to the lack of frames: much less bee space around frames, since the combs get attached to the walls. Maybe it is because his hives are booming and have a lot of bees - I heared that matters when it comes to the hive beetle.
> 
> Bernhard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## TBHKeeper

Bernard;

I had problems getting hives to survive against beetles FOR a single season, much less make it to a second season. At one point I had a hive that came home and crashed within about 3 weeks of it's arrival. They never had time to get through a first season before crashing.

I do have the hive beetles pretty well beat over the last 2 seasons now... just with good hive design + better workmanship.
Using good design once I understood the problem... solved the issue. No traps, no other methods, just hive design. Just to prove it to myself, a tiny few beetles still show up, but having no place to hide to make babies ... translates to problem solved.

Frames, or absence of frames is also not the issue about beetles, it's if they have places to hide / breed, or not.

My point was show that the Warre design plans on that page have a flaw built in.
The gaps at the ends of bars makes a way to have beetle problems if you have any beetles in your area in the first place.
You're welcome to test that for yourself. Try making two hives side by side with one that has lots of gaps at the ends of frames or bars in one of the two. 

As to making hives thicker, that's of course a great idea. They'd fare better against our Indiana winters. Building them out of 2" stock has crossed my mind too.

TBHKeeper


----------



## jadebees

I built some with 2x8. Also some with 2x10 cut to the metric height. (Approx 8. 3/16"). They are great for wintering over. Strangely, the bees seem to prefer them. They do better. U.S.standard lumber is barely 3/4" thick. Much thinner than the 20 mm minimum Warre recomended. The top bars interchange with other warre hives.


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

As others have mentioned, there are major differences between the Warre hive and Langstroth hive. Attempting to make a hybrid is a bit fruitless. As BernhardHeuvel explained, Warre experimented with hundreds of others until he finally settled on the design we think of today. In the end, it wasn't that this was necessarily the best hive for the bees, he also factored in cost and workability. It quite possibly is the most natural for bees (short of being in an actual tree or log), it's definitely not the best for honey production though.

The dimensions of the hive are somewhat important for the purpose of the hive. Using frames in a Warre, in my humble opinion, defeats part of the purpose. If i wanted to use frames, I'd use a Langstroth.

I've been fiddling with my Warres for a few years, figuring out how to innovate. The only innovations I've come up with that were worth keeping is my octagonal design. I feel it's in keeping with Warre's purpose, and he even mentioned that if we could make circular hives, that would be ideal. The octagon is pretty close to circle.

Are these hives easy to manage? Heck no. Warre wasn't a fan of beekeepers constantly meddling inside of the hive. Are they easy to keep? Heck yeah. Unless you have a need to manage the hive (commercial honey production, queen rearing, nuc building), you just leave it alone most of the year. Observation windows have allowed me to satisfy my curiosity without opening the hive.

When it's time to extract honey, I do crush and strain. If I had a large apiary, I'd perhaps consider an extractor and use cages; I still, however, would not use frames. I would use frames only if I wanted to manage the bees, which I don't want to do. 

So, Raist, the question really comes down to what kind of beekeeper you'd like to be. I use the Warre because I like honey once in a while. I like the rich taste of crushed-comb honey. I like that I only have to work the hives for about 3 hours each year. I like the fact that they're easy to build. I like that the bees propolis everything on the inside to keep out pests and diseases. I like that the bees don't drown in condensation. Again, however, if I were to be a commercial honey producer, I'd likely reconsider all of this, because as a hobbyist, profit is not a consideration.


----------



## raist

wagnerwoodworks said:


> As others have mentioned, there are major differences between the Warre hive and Langstroth hive. Attempting to make a hybrid is a bit fruitless. As BernhardHeuvel explained, Warre experimented with hundreds of others until he finally settled on the design we think of today. In the end, it wasn't that this was necessarily the best hive for the bees, he also factored in cost and workability. It quite possibly is the most natural for bees (short of being in an actual tree or log), it's definitely not the best for honey production though.
> 
> The dimensions of the hive are somewhat important for the purpose of the hive. Using frames in a Warre, in my humble opinion, defeats part of the purpose. If i wanted to use frames, I'd use a Langstroth.
> 
> I've been fiddling with my Warres for a few years, figuring out how to innovate. The only innovations I've come up with that were worth keeping is my octagonal design. I feel it's in keeping with Warre's purpose, and he even mentioned that if we could make circular hives, that would be ideal. The octagon is pretty close to circle.
> 
> Are these hives easy to manage? Heck no. Warre wasn't a fan of beekeepers constantly meddling inside of the hive. Are they easy to keep? Heck yeah. Unless you have a need to manage the hive (commercial honey production, queen rearing, nuc building), you just leave it alone most of the year. Observation windows have allowed me to satisfy my curiosity without opening the hive.
> 
> When it's time to extract honey, I do crush and strain. If I had a large apiary, I'd perhaps consider an extractor and use cages; I still, however, would not use frames. I would use frames only if I wanted to manage the bees, which I don't want to do.
> 
> So, Raist, the question really comes down to what kind of beekeeper you'd like to be. I use the Warre because I like honey once in a while. I like the rich taste of crushed-comb honey. I like that I only have to work the hives for about 3 hours each year. I like the fact that they're easy to build. I like that the bees propolis everything on the inside to keep out pests and diseases. I like that the bees don't drown in condensation. Again, however, if I were to be a commercial honey producer, I'd likely reconsider all of this, because as a hobbyist, profit is not a consideration.


quite interesting indeed. You game me much to think about!


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

Raist, regarding the question about dimensions and what-not, there are several things to consider. First, Warre's original design put the bar spacing at about 1.4". I used that the first couple of years, but I've since changed my designs to be closer to 1.25 - 1.3", based on many of the observations that Michael Bush has made. This also allows me to fit 9 bars in the standard box size. I don't know what kind of difference it will make for honey or brood production.

I've experimented with the design of the top bar itself. I first used bars that were 3/8" thick and I cut a 1/8" groove down the middle of the bottom. In that groove I would run wax, or sometimes use starter strips from foundation (glued in with wax). I would then notch each end to slip over a nail (note that Warre would actually nail the bars down). I've also made top bars that were 3/4" thick, with the bottom coming to a triangular point. For those, I just ran a bit of wax along the tip. I've also built top bars that were flared at the ends so that the top bars all fit snug against one another, thus keeping the spacing precise and eliminating the need for nails. The first design is the easiest to make and uses the least amount of wood. I'm in the process of milling 480 bars that are the 3/4" thick ones with pointed bottoms...it's tedious and will use twice as much wood.

As for the thickness of the box walls. 1" is nice but it's not always easy to find, unless you mill your own wood. 3/4" is easy to find, and it usually adequate in most climates. I've used 3/4" and 7/8" both, and I really base my choice on the strength of the wood (stronger softwoods and hardwoods are 3/4", softer woods are 7/8"). I've also built a square one out of 2x4's, such that the walls were 1.5" thick. It makes for a strong hive, but it is noticeably heavier, and I don't think the bees really care.

In the end, my recommendation to you is that no matter how much you change dimensions and stock thickness, try to keep the inside cavity the same dimensions. This will allow you to move top bars back and forth if necessary. When I first started designing my octagonal hive, I experimented with a few different dimensions before settling on one; now I have some hives that are incompatible with one another. Luckily I don't have a large apiary.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

​With a Warré (with frames, strictly spoken a Gatineau hive) I make much more honey than my neighbours and I produce the same honey as with my other hives (Dadant, Langstroth, German hive DNM, long hives ...).

An oldtimer teached me: it is not the hive, that produces the honey, it is the bee. So once you learned to keep bees for honey production, you can produce honey in any type of hive. 

Of course there are other issues than honey production. Availability of professional extracting equipment and so on, that is a real issue. So for professional use the Warré hive is limited. In France there is Gatineau who had 500 Warré hives for a living, and there is Giles Dennis, who has about 400. While Gatineau was a honey producer (he retired recently after 35 years of professional Warré beekeeping) Giles Dennis is more selling queens and packages.


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

Bernhard, that is great information. I've always been told that Warre's produce less honey, but it has never been a concern of mine, so I took it at face value. I don't have much interest experiment with both, since I'm quite content with my Warre. Warre himself had the choice between the Langstroth and his hive, and he must have chosen the latter for good reason.

I do think I'll build a KTBH some day, but it seems that they require a lot of monitoring and managing for expansion


----------



## TBHKeeper

wagnerwoodworks

"Attempting to make a hybrid is a bit fruitless."

Oh really?

One reply starts with brushing off 'hybrid' hives, while immediately turning to waxing eloquent about "Warre Purism" and then switches gear to defending *your* Warre hybrid hive. You don't see a conflict in that?

"I feel it's inkeeping with Warre's purpose..."

Hmmm... a rose by any other name!

You also use "windows"????

Another item Warre never used! ... or did I miss something.

So your idea of a "Warre" hive (or is it a "TRUE Warre" hive???) is of course the *only* hybrid (or is it NOT a hybrid?) idea that's not "fruitless" while you brush off someone else who is thinking for himself the same exact way you are.

How about a suggestion here. Instead of bi-polar discussions that insist on painting someone else black while painting yourself the cowboy with the white hat... perhaps a bit of serious discussion that isn't just bi-polar to try to posture oneself as a know-it-all while in turn posturing other as ... something lesser to be instructed.

Frankly, your design has an interesting concept in being closer to being "tree shaped" than most others.

There is a cost to that.

* Structural ease of building (and structural integrity issues). Don't even try to defend that. It should be obvious to you if you are honest with yourself. It will be obvious to those who are not so adept at woodwork as you likely are.

* complexity of handling internal parts that are close to "one off" on each and every single layer. Bars that are different sizes for each one... is a handlers nightmare if one wants to have any flexibility.

* Making bars that sit just perfectly in size, leaving no extra little spaces for beetles... WHILE having them spaced accurately between one another is going to be an issue on your hives once you discover the joy of coping with hive beetles. Go ahead and *try* to tell me how easy that will be for a major part of hack n slash woodworkers who might not build fixtures to make things perfect.

There is also benefit to the concept

* It's a closer proximity to their authentic original hive shape... a tree. That probably translates to #2 on this list being important to hives that might be short on winter feed as approaching spring.

* It's going to be harder for small clusters to miss honey on the way up through the hive during winter.

Those are advantages / disadvantages I notice in about 2 minutes of thought on it.

It tires me out to see people paint things totally black or white... while of course making sure to appear as the guy wearing the white hat as if "nobody else knows like I do".

Be real m'friend. There's plenty of room for us to all explore and innovate. Someone might figure something out that actually begins to help beekeeping. I for one would be happy to see some good design work emerge naturally as well done and watch it gain momentum strictly from the merits of it's design instead of horn tooting or bi-polarism.

One thing I would like to see the Warre community begin to pay closer attention to is the spacing between bars / frames that DOES make a difference on how large a hive has potential to grow to. It seems that is the "elephant in the living room" that Warre users love to ignore as "inconvenient truth". That is exactly as bad as the Lang people who love to ignore that the design is rectangular, 150 years old, and invites only 35 year old immortal men with good backs to participate... no kids, no elderly people, no women... zip.

In other words... sometimes "conventional wisdom".... sucks! Nuff said. Make room for one another guys. Stop being so bi-polar.

TBHKeeper


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Well said and analyzed, TBHKeeper.



TBHKeeper said:


> One thing I would like to see the Warre community begin to pay closer attention to is the spacing between bars / frames that DOES make a difference on how large a hive has potential to grow to.


Now you got my attention. Please expand on that spacing issue. I do not see at all what you are up to. Thanks.

Bernhard


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

I'm not really quite sure what exactly it is that I said that touched you off, but please allow me to explain a couple of things; I'm not the best of communicators:

By hybrid, I'm referring to an attempt at being somewhere in between a Warre and a Langstroth, not attempting to tweak and/or innovate the Warre design. They are two totally different hive styles, and the closer you get to one, the easier (cost, management, etc) that it tends to be to simply adopt that one. "Fruitless" was not meant by any means to be an insult, but to hopefully save someone the trouble that I (and most tinkerers) have gone through. The question was from a newcomer, and the whole thing is overwhelming. If anything, I was trying to be open-minded about all styles of hives, and to simply discuss my own pitfalls.

Just because I was showing some deference to Warre's purpose does not make me a puritan; a puritan would claim there is no other way. He thoroughly explained what he was trying to accomplish; if someone is trying to accomplish something different, why use Warre's hive? I think it was quite clear that I have tried other ways. Those trials came with a cost; in a way, innovation was my hobby, not beekeeping.

As for the windows, again, I'm not sure exactly why you are getting so out of sorts about whether I'm a puritan or not. Langstroths don't come with windows, so my use of them has nothing to do with hybridizing the hive. Making windows adds about 100% to the cost of building a hive; they're not for everyone, and if I were building 200 hives for myself, I wouldn't use them.

Regarding the octagon: It's not a departure from the style. As I'm sure you've read Warre's book, you'll recall his mentioning of the ideal shape; you'll also recall his reason for not pursuing it: cost and complications. When I build stuff for fun, I pay little attention to cost. The octagon is more of an art piece than a practical hive. Sure, the bees have overwintered in it better than in my square ones, and sure, it looks cool. However, the decreasing bar length getting closer to the sides makes it difficult to manage, if desired. And, it is quite a pain to build; it takes about twice as long as a square one, and I've had to build 5 jigs for the various cuts that have to be made. In no way was I suggesting that the octagon makes more sense. Rather, I was saying that it was one of my innovations. It is, for many, a fruitless innovation because the cost will far outweigh the benefits; but it is much closer to a natural bee habitat, if that's one's goal.

It seems that you are projecting on me you frustration with naysayers and puritans you've encountered in the past. I'm not quite sure why, but I'd appreciate it if you would not consider me an enemy. Your name calling, and psychoanalysis is a bit less than constructive. If I was "bi-polar" to the point of causing problems, my apologies. However, my bi-polarism, as you've diagnosed it, should suggest that I'm saying it is NOT black and white. There are many shades here. You get people on this forum who says, "I've done langstroth for 40 years, and I just converted all my hives to Warre, but I hate them, because they aren't easy to manage like Langstroths." Well, that's because they are two very different hives, with what I consider different objectives.

Despite my best efforts, I may have come off as an arse. If that's the case, my apologies. I side with the bees and those beekeepers who make honest efforts to improve the living conditions of the bees.


----------



## TBHKeeper

Hi again guys

First, to Bernhard (because he replied first)...

Regarding "bee space" as an issue... seems to stray some measure off topic for this thread... so what I should really do is launch a new thread about that as a separate series.

Since there is much on my plate right now (new job) it may take a bit to finish composing some detailed stuff. I'll try very hard to keep it sanely short... but will in the next few days try to launch that thread as time allows. Your patience would be greatly appreciated. I regard it as a vital "elephant in the living room" topic that truly needs major attention by us as "Warre / Warre style proponents.

To wagnerwoodworks

We may be running too far off topic to reply / respond to much of this here. I don't wish to sabotage Raist's thread by garbling it up with personality discussions. Having said that, at least a little really must be said here... but it does concern me that we are running too far afield.

Suffice it to say that I'm not angry as you perceived. Nor was there intent to try to inflame, be argumentative, name call, or suggest "diagnoses" that is not mine to even suggest in the way you took it.

Making a "bi-polar" statement does not constitute making someone bi-polar. Big diff. Please hear that clearly. That was never even close to being meant as how you apparently took it... I.O.W. ... NEVER an attack at you.

Finding my way back onto at least the edge of the topic...

Raist is the initiator of this thread. My biggest concern is about seeing him have a perspective of NOT throwing out some viable "baby with it's own bath water" by *any* globalized kinds of statements that try to pigeon hole him into someone's pet opinion... not even my own.

*** Not even my own.***

I like my hybrid design, but that does not mean he will. I have solved a major issue with it... but that does not mean it would serve him appropriately for *his* context.

We need people in this world who think for ourselves. That is my biggest advocacy here... that Raist has that chance to do exactly that.

Yes that means I might happily rip apart any kind of "pied piper / follow me" kinds of things if it even looks like someone might be doing so for agenda driven reasons that don't serve the man's own independent best interests.

Much as I have not directly spoken to him here on this message, I still regard it as being of prime importance to insure that his chance to gather good info... not be compromised, or tainted by agenda driven motives. Hopefully the indirect nature of this reply method DOES serve his best interests.

Ok... better quit before those nice men in the clean white coats come to take me away... again! Sense of humor intact. Not enemies.


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

TBHKeeper,

Thanks for the response and explanation; my apologies for misinterpreting. I'm here to learn and share experience. 

I'm very interested in your experiences with comb spacing, because that's the one thing that I don't think Warre sufficiently addressed. So, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on that, either in this thread or a new.

Cheers,
Jake


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

wagnerwoodworks said:


> I'm very interested in your experiences with comb spacing, because that's the one thing that I don't think Warre sufficiently addressed.


???

I completely miss what you two are talking about... :scratch:

Spacing of combs in a Warré is perfectly right.


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to imply he was wrong. What I meant was that in his writing, he so thoroughly explained his reasoning for almost everything, but I don't really remember him discussing the comb spacing at length. Most of my hives are at the standard ~1.41" spacing (~36mm), some are a bit tighter. I've seen suggestions by some to go down as far as 1.25", but I think that was more for brood. I was just interested in a discussion on experience with that spacing, to see if people have had the most success with the original Warre spacing. Because the Warre hive is still, sadly, somewhat rare in the US, there isn't much information beyond Beekeeping for All.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

wagnerwoodworks said:


> I've seen suggestions by some to go down as far as 1.25",


I've also seen a many suggestions and most of them were plain ridiculous. That's the same hype as the small cell thing. 

Bottom line of my experience: original spacing works perfectly well. Now something to think about.

This is a longitudinal section of a three story Warré hive:










What you find is, the combs build by bees are narrow. Brood gets laid into those combs. Brood hatches. More comb is drawn, down into the next box. The upper combs are widened, the width/broadness of the combs increases, especially when they start filling it with honey. 

Here you can see the different stages of comb building:









From top down. The upper picture shows the final honey comb. It has the biggest width and the passageways in between the honey combs are very narrow. (Helps preserving the heat, too.) Only one bee fits into the passageway.

The picture in the middle shows broodcomb with brood in it. The combs are less broad, passageways are about two bees of size. So bees can walk on the combs on each side, on the left and right side of the passageway without disturbing each other. Also more air is allowed to enter the brood area. (brood needs a lot of air. Which is why the broodnest orientates towards the entrance.)

The bottom picture shows the buffer comb in the bottom box of a Warré hive. This is freshly drawn comb, drawn in summer. It is called a buffer comb, because it only has some brood in it. Most of this comb is empty. The purpose is to buffer incoming nectar and pollen. (3 quarts of nectar are dried down to 1 quart of honey - the nectar has to be stored somewhere in between the process.)

The freshly build combs are very narrow leaving a lot of space in the passageways. Next Spring the bees move down into the buffer zone (first with drone combs/cells), and while they enter this bottom box, they widen the cells. 

Now you see, why topbar spacing in a Warré hive (and in most other hives, too) is perfectly right. The bees do make their own spacing according to their needs anyway.

Since all cells right below the topbar sooner or later get honey into it, you choose the honeycomb spacing which is 36 mm. That way you get better stability of the comb anyway.

I know of some of me friends who stuffed 9 combs in one Warré box "successfully". But can't see the point in doing so, because you limit the usage of that box to brood comb only and there is no real advantage in taking all the trouble (they do start more burr comb if you space the topbars too close to each other.)

Bernhard


----------



## Fergus

I also built Warre' hives and began with the castellation style spacing. The issue that I faced was the weakness of the ears. I build my hives out of cedar and once the hive gets established and propolized these ears will be easily broken when pulling frames etc. It is likely that pine wouldn't be an issue. Better yet a hardwood insert would be the best. Good luck!


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

Bernhard,

That's all great information; thanks for the thorough thoughts. I guess what you're saying is that 1.25" could possibly work with some hives, but with the Warre style, it could eventually create too much congestion for the boxes that are ready to be harvested (i.e. filled with honey)?

Most of my hives started off with Warre's 36mm spacing. When I starting bringing in my octagonal design, it took a lot of time to calculate all of the dimensions. My first version had too much volume, perhaps 15% more than the square, and my bar spacing was closer to 39mm and i just wasn't happy with the space. When I finally got good with Sketchup, I rebuilt the design from the ground up, and I was able to get more accurate with measurements. Now my Octagonal's volume is almost exactly the same as the square, and it takes 9 bars at 36mm spacing. If I go with 10 bars, it ends up being about 33 or 34.

Anyway, thanks again!

Cheers,
Jake


----------



## wagnerwoodworks

Fergus,
I'm not familiar with the castellation spacing. I agree with you that cedar is a bit weak. That's pretty much the case with all the cedars, including Eastern Red (Juniper). The juniper is heavier than Western Red and Northern White, and it can be stronger, but I feel that the fibers split more easily down the grain (e.g. ears pop off easily). I've now found a source for some Leyland Cypress too, and I've gotta say, I really love that wood. It's a bit harder to cut, but it's strong, pretty (a light butter color), and should last almost as long as the cedars. It should make for an ideal top bar wood. I'm also using Sassafras for top bars this year. Usually though I try to save my oak scraps throughout the year and use those for top bars.


----------



## Fergus

Cypress would be great, here in Northern WI, Cedar is the weed which is readily available. I chose it mainly for its insulating ability and resilience. I use 5/4 stock and it insulates well. I have had pine in the past and it worked well, but in my opinion the cedar looks nice.


----------

