# Is the Bee-Space necessary ?



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

This question is perhaps the ultimate act of beekeeping heresy. The 'Bee-Space' was 'invented' around 1850 by Langstroth, Dzierzon, and Baron August von Berlepsch, although it's usually Langstroth who's credited with the invention as a result of mentioning this spacing (although not claiming it) within his 1852 Patent.

Did the Bee-Space exist before 1850 ? Well, actually no. But that's not to say that the bees hadn't been creating such a spacing between their combs for several million years before then, it's just that the Bee-Space _per se_ didn't exist until someone observed, measured and thus defined it.
In exactly the same way, 'Gravity' didn't exist before Isaac Newton. Sure, apples used to fall to the ground well before humans had ever existed, but they didn't fall to the ground as a result of Gravity before 'The Law of Gravity' (as an idea/concept) had been invented around 1680.

There are two kinds of bee-space: that which only humans create - between a frame top bar and whatever is above it, and between the frame sides and the side-walls of a beehive. The space below the frame bottom-bar is of less importance, unless that bottom bar is directly above another frame.

The other kind of bee-space is that which the bees themselves create, between adjacent combs and between a comb and other structures - so the spacing of removable frames in particular then becomes important, so that the bees are able to maintain a desirable spacing between framed combs, just as if they had chosen that comb spacing themselves from the outset.

Ever since 1850, beekeepers have been indoctrinated into believing that the Bee-Space is an essential component of a well-managed beehive. But is it ? It would appear that the answer is a resounding "YES" for certain styles of beehive, and an equally resounding "NO" for others.

For Langstroth and Langstroth-style beehives (such as the British National), any failure to respect the Bee-Space will result in 'misbehaviour' by the bees. But not so in other styles of framed-comb hive. This became clear to me this morning whilst pulling a few graphics from de Layens' "Elevage Des Abeilles (12th Ed.)" for another thread.

Take a look at this graphic (*DON'T CLICK ON IT - unless you like adverts*):

 
*Layens Frame*

Where are the Bee-Spaces ? Over an inch of space exists at the sides of the frame, and similar spacing above and below. The only Bee-Spaces in that hive will be those created by the bees themselves between the combs which, as already stated, partly results from appropriate frame spacing by humans - but the precise spacing between those combs will always be bee-determined.

Here's another one (*DON'T CLICK ON THIS ONE EITHER ...*):


*Polish PoW 'Sentry Box' Beehive*

It's exactly the same story again: an inch or more of space at the sides of the frames, perhaps the same above (?) - difficult to tell from that picture - and a whacking great void below those enormous frames - there's not a single man-made Bee-Space in sight !

So - why have I started a thread about this - is this observation of any real importance ? Well, perhaps it is - because - what is considered to be arguably the most important and fundamental design consideration in modern beehive design turns out on further examination not to be essential at all - it would appear that it only has relevance for specific hive designs, albeit those which have become the most popular.

But what exactly does a man-made (as opposed to the inter-comb bee-determined) Bee-Space actually *do* ? Quite simply it thwarts the bees from doing what they would choose to do 'naturally', that is, what they would do if that spacing wasn't present. So, does this imply that such human trickery adversely affects the bees in any significant way ? Well, it's impossible to say for sure - as there appears to be no evidence for this - but it has occurred to me that thwarting an organism from exercising it's natural behaviour is little different from how slaves used to be shackled during transportation to the colonies, and insodoing thwarted from escaping. I can't believe that honeybees are as seriously affected by bee-spaced frames as that however, as some 'Natural Beekeepers' are suggesting, for if they were, then they'd simply abscond. But nevertheless I'm left wondering if their lives would be improved - if only a little perhaps - by adopting a style of frame, and by implication a design of hive, where 'The Bee-Space' has been shown to be completely unnecessary.

Food for thought ?
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Not heresy at all.
(...deleted unnecessary rants...)

Will think about it and respond later, but..

This bee-space thing - I don't give a lot of hoot about it.
Does not matter much to me.
And will demonstrate some facts of my own production.

One thing, bees behave differently in shallow hives (picture a "fruit tray" used by Langstroth himself) vs. classic deep hives of the Old Euro (deep, single-level hives are where the bee ergonomic requirements are satisfied). Langstroth did not know about or did not care enough of the Old World beekeeping ways (as not commercially convenient enough maybe).

The most important thing is - where in the existing volume the bees demarcate their own nest boundaries?
The bees spaces are of use for inside the bee nest.
Does not matter a bit for anything outside of the bee nest (outside of the nest <> outside of the physical hive/bee-tree).
Bees then treat differently the spaces *inside *the nest and *outside *the nest.

Well, if you are the mainstream follower and are on Lang/Dadant dimensions (especially, multi-tier - bee space matters).
If you go rouge, very well may just ignore the bee space. 
Mostly irrelevant to me; I do what works and call it done.

The bee space may matter when I will build some multi-tier, vertical hives - different subject.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Bee space is pretty handy to keep combs where you want them and not where you don't want them. But, of course, the bees don't care...


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Michael Bush said:


> Bee space is pretty handy to keep combs where you want them and not where you don't want them. But, of course, the bees don't care...


Unless you don't do multi-body hives (e.g. conventional Langs).
Now and then a quick slice of a bread knife does the trick - which is expected anyway once you run 100% natural comb and allow the bees a degree of freedom.
Rather an occasional issue.

I got these 40 liter multi-purpose hives (initially just swarm traps; until I realized much wider usage context - and liked it).







All are constructed this way (about 2 inches of free space along the vertical sides of the frames):








Looking back now, I would have probably made them similar to the LJ's hives.
But ultimately I will keep them as is - because it does not matter that much and my time is now spent elsewhere.
The talks of mandatory bees space are overblown as they only apply to certain squat & multi-body equipment designs (shallow frames and tight tolerances).
Not changing anything - not a significant deal at all to me.

The entire premise of the Lang/Dadant conventions (and associated problems) is not set in stone to be followed.
Partially why I am very reluctant to do multi-body hives.
This season I ran a testing round around conventional Lang dimensions - not excited.
Following 100+ year old Root designs/dimensions in todays day and age ... i don't know what it is outside inflexible thinking.

Here is just one internet seller outside of the US right now (click the GB flag for English version):
https://www.rusuley.ru/
Take a look and you will see how some of the designs depend on the bee space, while the others are indifferent to it.
Now, this is 21st century beekeeping I can understand (not the Walmart approach).


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

little_john said:


> Food for thought ?
> LJ


Neat post, LJ. I enjoyed the read and the follow-up comments. Thought-provoking questions...


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Litsinger said:


> Neat post, LJ. I enjoyed the read and the follow-up comments. Thought-provoking questions...


I'm glad to hear that ... thanks.

I've looked at that graphic of a Layen's frame what - maybe fifty times or more over the years, but I only noticed the absence of 'Bee-Spaces' around it for the first time yesterday. And then I remembered about the Polish PoW hive, which was similar - hence this thread. I'm not entirely sure where any of this may lead - maybe nowhere - but I thought it might be worth at least discussing.

Several people - Greg in particular - have noticed that, providing the frame is large enough, and specifically *deep *enough - then there can be several inches of space below that frame in which the bees don't draw comb - quite simply because they have no need to.
A large number of people have taken to using 'soft materials' for a Crown Board (Inner Cover), such as feed sacks, plastic sheets and the like - and so by doing this they've removed any need for a 'Bee-Space' above the frame.

That leaves only the inter-comb space - which the bees will dynamically adjust themselves, providing the frame spacing is within a few millimetres of what they require - and of course the frame side-spacing.

I've built many different kinds of bee-boxes over the years, and sometimes I've made the side-spacing a little tight, and at other times I've been over-generous - but on not one single occasion have I ever seen the bees be 'creative' there. Until now I'd assumed that they had some tolerance for that particular space and that I'd simply 'got away with poor workmanship'. But I've never deliberately created a whacking great space, such as around 30mm as De Layens appears to have done. So that needs to be tested next ... 
LJ


----------



## Robert Holcombe (Oct 10, 2019)

Somehow I think you are missing some requirements. A third dimension? Parallel planes? Forces? Mass is a cubic function and area is a squared function so the Jolly Green Giants legs will fail because of "gravity" - a function of time and space, so they say. Will not mention creep failures. 

I sure would hate to spin the Pov frame or carry it. Love 9 frame "pitch" spacing in a 10 frame super. Like large area brood frames. I think Langstroth was controlling removable, parallel surfaces. After spacing size matters but to whom?

I have yet to see a foundation-less frame between two drawn frames drawn out in orthogonal directions. 

It would be interesting to study a free form hive produced in a cavity. Contours for ??? Direction changes for??? 

Just what are those bees thinking when they free form in 3D space? What tools do they use?


----------



## trishbookworm (Jun 25, 2016)

I really want to give the bees foundationless frames in a super (I do box hives now) just for the very purpose of letting bees do what they want - draw comb.

But that raised an interesting question - in a foundationless frame, why do the bees attach comb at the wood representing the _edge_ of the frame, rather than go past it to the wall of the hive? We are tricking them into behaving like _combs_ extend to within 3/8" of the wall, but when it is a foundationless frame, they still pretty much cooperate and use the edges of the frame as though those were the edges of the box.

For which I am eternally thankful. Dealing with wonky comb is a danger to the bees and to my enjoyment of beekeeping!


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

trishbookworm said:


> ........... in a foundationless frame, why do the bees attach comb at the wood representing the _edge_ of the frame, rather than go past it to the wall of the hive?........


Like I have been theorizing - precisely because to them the _edge_ of the frame de-marks the *nest boundary.*
Granted, they have enough space to construct a natural comb to their liking - they are satisfied.

I propose - once you meet the bees ergonomic requirements, they simply have no urge to expand further in any dimension (rendering bee space issue irrelevant).

Very roughly, a cube with the internal side of ~300mm (~12") does this when using standard materials (it fits nicely an ideal cluster of bees with the diameter of ~300mm without compressing it from any direction).
The diameter of ~300mm of a perfect bee cluster has been discussed and documented multiple times by persons much higher qualified than myself - so I omit the discussion.
This is pretty predictable and pre-set due to well know colony size limitations (subject to some variation, "person by person", but still the colony max size never exceeds X - the fact, similar to the fact of a human never growing to the size of a horse).

Any time this ideal bee cluster is deformed from the perfect sphere approximation - this causes the bees to try to compensate in the best possible way they can - here come "bee space", "cleaning the floors", etc, etc....
For example, a shallow, squat hive compresses the idealized bee sphere sort like pictured here (resulting in "floor cleaning" which I personally do not observe at all - on the DEEP frames):








I have plenty of documented observations by now to show how the bees show none of these behaviors when their ergonomic requirements are met.

Yes - I know, bees only cluster during the cold season.
Meanwhile, bees build only during the warm season.
Disagreement? I don't know.
I only theorize and observe, while not having time/means to conduct some "proper science".

PS: I did not forget, I wanted to post some latest observations relevant to this - just the time....


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

All the bees ever want to do is draw their combs with as few complications as possible. If they find starter-strips which suggest a good place to start, then they'll commence drawing from those. But if those strips are either in an unsuitable position, or are spaced inappropriately, then they'll simply ignore them and resort to building how they would 'in the wild'.

There are three kinds of comb-building: the first is invoked when there is a good-sized space below the chosen starting point. They then proceed to form chains and begin building comb from that top position downwards, initially in the form of an ellipse, which is widened-out to the woodenware later. It is the inability to form these chains within a restricted space which is the secret behind the success of the bee-space.

The second kind of comb-building is comb-repair, where chains are not formed when dealing with minor repairs, but rather the bees stand on the already existing comb to work - but repairs which require extensive work such as large holes in comb, are often left 'open', as again chain-formation would have been required to build from the mid-rib outwards, but it's impossible to form such chains within such a confined space.

There is a third kind of comb-building which is relatively rare, and can be seen when the bees build new comb either from the bottom upwards, or from the sides inwards (as would be required if (say) building a nest within an open chimney, where attachment to a top surface is then impossible). An example of this is shown at: http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/beek15a.htm (4th and 5th graphics from the top).

So - theoretically, the bees could use this last method to overcome the presence of bee-spaces at the sides of frames - but as Greg has already commented - if they are already satisfied with an ample-sized comb then they simply will have no urge to get involved in a mode of comb-building which is probably fairly awkward for them when compared with their usual technique of drawing comb - which I would suggest is precisely why top-down comb-building via the use of chains *IS* their preferred method. 

We think we control bees behaviour, but we really don't - if our frame spacing fits-in with what the bees want, then they'll proceed to use that spacing. In a sense, they tolerate such spacing and any slight 'less than ideal' deviation from it. But - if we get it badly wrong: too wide, or too narrow - then watch out - 'cause they'll very readily revert to 'doing their own thing'.

LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Robert Holcombe said:


> .....Just what are those bees thinking when they free form in 3D space? What tools do they use?


They are not thinking much.

Just like apple is not thinking when falling down (not UP).
Just like bubble is not thinking when forming into a perfect sphere (not a cube).

Elementary physics.
Gravitation.
Surface tension.
Surface to volume ratio (and related energy efficiency).
If everyone in the crowd tries to get to the center so to get warm (because the outer most edges of the crowd are the coldest) - the shape of the crowd will be approaching a circle (a sphere, in the 3D).
Here you go - the bee-think.
Most things are simpler than presented.


----------



## Litsinger (Jun 14, 2018)

Great discussion. Thanks for the reply, LJ.

FWIW, this reminds me of Mr. George Imirie's musings of his ubiquitous shim. He full-well understood that it violated the rules of 'bee-space' so its proper use (as defined by Mr. Imirie) involved several caveats, one of which was assuring adequate volume to meet the colony's current needs before introducing it in the supers (never in the brood area).

While using upper entrances that double as feeding shims I have sometimes observed that comb being drawn in the shim can serve as a cue that more space is needed below.

I've also anecdotally noted that some colonies are much quicker to utilize this 'head room' for comb building than others. Makes me wonder if there might be a genetic component to this equation as well?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

To me, the best way when building a hive to understand a bee space, is not in terms of some magic number that is measured in fractions of an inch. But in a space that is convenient for a bee to fit through, to get from one part of a hive to another. Anything too small for a bee to fit through is no use to the bees so they propolise it, and anything much bigger might be of use to put comb in so they will do that.

So we try to force the bees to have a frame filled with comb with no holes in it, if we are successful the only way for a bee to get from one side to the other is around the edge of the end bar, so if we have a just right sized gap where the bees find they need it, they will leave it undisturbed.

But bees may not *have* to have a bee space, example shown in Little John's photo of the sentry hive. Towards the bottom of the combs a square corner will not be conducive to clustering and keeping the correct temperature, so the bees forget about building the comb to the edge and haveing "correct" bee space and have a much bigger gap, for different reasons. In other situations they may close a bee gap, if it is somewhere they just don't need it.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Oldtimer said:


> So we try to force the bees to have a frame filled with comb with no holes in it, if we are successful the only way for a bee to get from one side to the other is around the edge of the end bar, .


But if you don't force a bee to live on comb without any holes (which is only natural - the natural combs are full of holes) - none of the "going around the edge" is needed.
God forbid - plastic foundation or plastic frames - that is where the actual animal abuse is, If you ask me.
Bees go around and through the combs as the see fit.
No "going around the edges". 
Bees don't go around the edges when they live in trees and in the walls.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

OK, finally posted the pics.
Good demo of how the natural nest does work.
https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...ay-to-keep-(have-)-bees&p=1768243#post1768243

I will also post a page from my TS's book copy with excellent demo of how Langstroth came up with his "bee space" and what really caused it for him and why he noticed the phenomenon (my speculation).
I just recently read that section; very relevant to this exact discussion.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Greg - so you've been working too ? I've decided to translate my copy of Layen's 12th Edition, as it's now impossible to get a free copy anywhere on the Internet. I originally sourced my copy from 'apiculture-populaire' which now links to a sex-site, so the Internet Archive is currently blocking related searches. Sign of the times ...
It's only 122 pages, but it'll take me a while to do as my French is seriously rusty. A page or two a day will make it my Winter project. 

I've just finished the preface, in which De Layens writes:
"Not being an inventor of new beehives, we have simply chosen, among the best models, that which seemed to us the easiest to manage, and the most in harmony with the natural instincts of the bees. This hive has, moreover, been proven in the hands of many beekeepers."

So - is he just being modest, or did somebody else nail the first box together ? Not that it really matters much - just a tid-bit for interest.

Also, I may have figured out why De Layens used V-closures rather than touching Top Bars - but I'll wait to see if his text supports my theory before bragging about it.
'best
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg - so you've been working too ? I've decided to translate my copy of Layen's 12th Edition, .......
> LJ


Good deal LJ.
I wish I was working.... 
Fixing client database issues here.

I really foresee myself selectively translating some historic Russian language materials into English.
There is so much information researched and tested and published 100-150 ago - it is a terrible shame almost none of these are available to a general English-speaking audience.
Were it available - many questions/issues would be marked as "general public knowledge" and the mistakes not repeated.
Of course, the equipment is a huge area of discussion.

One of the best books that I occasionally and cursorily scan - "Shimanovski, Methods of Beekeeping, 1923" (I got the PDF).
A comprehensive overview of the current beekeeping of that time.
He includes most all Russian and European practical methods of most well known beekeepers (including their custom equipment) up to and current with the author.
He does discuss the Layens methods in detail as well.
In fact, he discusses Dadant/Langtroth methods too - just among, I say, about 20-30 other notable and deserving methods.

A must read (BUT in Russian only that I found).

Lots of work to be done LJ!


----------



## AnVil (May 17, 2018)

GregV said:


> One of the best books that I occasionally and cursorily scan - "Shimanovski, Methods of Beekeeping, 1923" (I got the PDF).


Greg, could you point where to get this one to read?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

AnVil said:


> Greg, could you point where to get this one to read?


Posted here:
https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...ay-to-keep-(have-)-bees&p=1768627#post1768627


----------



## jnqpblk (Apr 7, 2015)

"The 'Bee-Space' was 'invented' around 1850"
Bull crap. It was observed and utilized.
"Bee space" has always been the space left by bees between bottom butted twin cell comb sections that are right at 1 inch through and through that comb.
Bee space was simply an observation of man, who simply realized "Hey, what if we limit what we allow the bees to build on to a basic 1 3/8" layout, ie. 1" comb, 3/8" space, 1" comb, 3/8" space, ..."
Do a few cutouts, or hive removals. the spacing is the same in every one of them, regardless whether the comb is straight or curves. It is comb, space, comb, space, ... And where that spacing doesn't fit, some random generally useless comb is placed to fill the void leaving comb, space, come, space, ...


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

LJ was quick to point that out in the second paragraph of his original post.



> Did the Bee-Space exist before 1850 ? Well, actually no. But that's not to say that the bees hadn't been creating such a spacing between their combs for several million years before then, it's just that the Bee-Space per se didn't exist until someone observed, measured and thus defined it.


Of course it existed, but Langstroth is credited for recognizing its importance and defining it. Prior to that, the term did not exist, even though the space always has.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Thanks JWP - you're much quicker on the keyboard than me  As I'd already written this, I'll let it stand ...

You're obviously 'not getting it'. 'It' being the distinction between a particular activity and a concept based on that activity. The 'Bee-Space' is a term used by humans. It is a concept which has involved the coining of a term. Therefore the term bee-space and the concept of bee-space cannot possibly have existed until there were humans in existence to 'invent' the term.
Perhaps it might help if I include a short extract from an award-winning academic paper I once wrote ? In this part I quote extensively from Robert Pirsig, an Americam academic you may have heard of ? He's talking about Gravity rather than the Bee-Space, but the argument is pretty-much the same. The reason that Gravity and the Bee-Space are both inventions and not discoveries is that they required *conception* in order to exist as concepts. Conception is of course a process of creation, and not discovery.

Pirog writes:

"Modern man has his ghosts and spirits too .. the laws of physics and of logic ... the number system ... the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real."

"... it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Isacc Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity."

"What I'm driving at ... is the notion that before the beginning of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed." 

"Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was no space either, not anywhere - this law of gravity still existed ?" 

"If that law of gravity existed ... I honestly don't know what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that the law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence there is. ... And yet it is still 'common sense' to believe that it existed." 

"If you think about it long enough ... you finally reach only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense. And what that means ... is that the law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It's a ghost! 
We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people's ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our own." (111)

I then write:

Pirsig is not suggesting of course that apples didn't fall to the ground before Newton, they certainly did - it's just that it wasn't 'gravity' causing them to fall. They fell because that's what apples did. They only fell as a result of 'gravity' after gravity had been conceived of, and described by Newton.
When asked "why does 'everybody' believe in the law of gravity then?", Pirsig's answer touches upon an important and sensitive issue; "Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as 'education'." (112)

By 'mass hypnosis' Pirsig is referring to the process which I have described in this paper as being that of indoctrination. Pirsig then proceeds to summarise earlier points made regarding hypostatised metaphysical abstractions;

... and so on.

Of course, you may think the above is also "Bull crap" - but then I can't do very much about that, as people see what people see. 
LJ


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I don't think the bees arr at all interested in the parsing of the concept or who put a name to it, but I know how predictably they will deal with it in anything similar to common Langstroth equipment. 

Now it might be of interest to know that if they occupy garbage can or outhouse sized boxes that some of those relationships are not so applicable. I guess I will just have to deal with those deviations when or if that situation presents itself.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

The bees understand the concept of bee space without knowing the term for it. Now if I could just teach them the concept of straight comb. I found out earlier this year that given a box of foundationless frames, the bees will totally ignore the nice straight starter strips I provided and build comb in everything but a straight line, cross combing an entire deep. Of course, all these combs were 3/8" apart and the bees managed to completely fill the box.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Yes they seem to like to throw in a few curves. I have pondered putting starter tabs out near the endbars and leave the center bare. That might make them start centered at the ends first and then head in a straight line for the center. I can get nice foundationless drone drawn though. I may visit the foundationless idea a bit more in the future as the price of foundation has really taken a jump for us in Canada with the dollar exchange and now gettting hit with Michigan sales tax. For just producing bees it does not matter too much what the frames look like. You want them decent looking though if you are selling nucs.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

I've never had that much of a problem with the girls drawing-out comb *below* the top-bar - my problem used to be what happens *above* the top bar.

For a while I tried 'soft' Crown Boards (Inner Covers), but unlike the Russian videos which Greg often links to, where the bees appear to ignore the loose plastic sheet and stay well down on their combs, my ladies always wanted to move around above the top bars, and thus directly underneath the plastic sheet - forcing it upwards a 'bee-space' in some parts, effectively creating a maze of wax-walled tunnels across the width of the hive.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> I've never had that much of a problem with the girls drawing-out comb *below* the top-bar - my problem used to be what happens *above* the top bar.
> 
> For a while I tried 'soft' Crown Boards (Inner Covers), but unlike the Russian videos which Greg often links to, where the bees appear to ignore the loose plastic sheet and stay well down on their combs, my ladies always wanted to move around above the top bars, and thus directly underneath the plastic sheet - forcing it upwards a 'bee-space' in some parts, effectively creating a maze of wax-walled tunnels across the width of the hive.
> LJ


It does happen, LJ, on the "russian videos" too - "my ladies always wanted to move around above the top bars, and thus directly underneath the plastic sheet".

Basically, the key is to keep the soft inner cover pinned tight to the top bars (if using plastic, it is best to use heavy plastic; also good to press it down with some insulation/burlap).
However, passing bees under the soft inner cover is beneficial in cold winter - allows the bees passage over the frame (often times - critical).
People in winter even insert sticks between the soft inner cover and the top bars to created the passages.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

With regard to the Layens Beehive, what follows here are a couple of 'clarifiers' of errors, revealed just as soon as I discovered them, as I wouldn't want to continue misleading anybody ...

It was while searching around the Worldcat Library for any extra info on DeLayens, that I noticed the edition list for his book 'Elevage Des Abeilles':

1874-1875 1st edition
1879-1883 2nd edition
1893 3rd edition
(1897 Layens died)
1900 5th edition

Eh - what about the 12th Edition ? *It has never existed. *

I'd always accepted the 'apiculture-populaire' info that the .pdf copy downloadable from them was the 12th Edition - so how on earth did such a mistake occur ?
Although guesswork, I think the answer lies in the heading of the Preface, which reads: "Preface de la *Seconde* Edition." Now I've often seen later editions of a book contain a Preface or Forward from earlier editions, presumably in order to illustrate what improvements have been made in the meanwhile (and justify the cost of a new edition !). 
And so perhaps this had also been assumed by the api-populaire bod - for De Layens could just have easily have written 'Preface' without mentioning the edition number.

Anyway, that's my guess - and so when the api-populaire bod looked at the Frontispiece (the inside cover), he/she appears to have mis-read '*Deuxième* Edition' (second edition), as '*Douzième* Edition' (twelfth edition), as those words do look somewhat similar at a quick glance, and this would have been an easy mistake to make if in a hurry, and especially as the word 'Seconde' had been used elsewhere. Anyway, that's my best guess as to how this screw-up might have occured - but yes, I should have checked. So, some egg on my face on that one ...

In contrast, this second screw-up is completely down to me. At the head of this thread is a diagram showing a Layens frame in what appears to be a beehive - only it's not. Following translation, it's now become clear that the 'hive' in question is in fact a 'carry box' designed to hold spare or loose frames, and/or for use as a swarm-carrying box - hence the total disregard for any 'Bee-Spaces'.

However, I'm still keen to test the idea which that diagram had suggested, and which the Polish PoW appears to confirm - so this might just turn out to be an accidental discovery - or perhaps will result in even more egg on the face. Who knows ?
LJ


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> The bees understand the concept of bee space without knowing the term for it. Now if I could just teach them the concept of straight comb. I found out earlier this year that given a box of foundationless frames, the bees will totally ignore the nice straight starter strips I provided and build comb in everything but a straight line, cross combing an entire deep. Of course, all these combs were 3/8" apart and the bees managed to completely fill the box.


JWPalmer. Hi try next year to recall the "cross comb" direction. rotate that hive so your frames are parallel to the way the combs were built. Then try to again add some foundation less frames. I'll bet you 2 bee stings that the bees will build the same way , but you now have your wooden ware the way they prefer.
IMO this has to do with energy lines and flow in the earths crust, another discussion for another day. bottom line set the hive the way the bees prefer to draw comb and likely they will then "cooperate" with your perceived comb drawing desires. Another way one can do this is to put 2 drawn extracted combs in the center of the hive then flank them with the empty's, the start sometimes will flow out to the empty's. Could be wind direction, could be power lines , could be water flow under your place, who knows. if they prefer a direction, I simply rotate the hive to be parallel with that direction and move on to other projects. 
The Concept of straight Comb , is to not place your hive at an angle to what the bees prefer. 
GG
P.S. easy way to determine this "direction" place an empty super on a hive with no frames, use a top inner cover. come back in 2 weeks and see what way they started to build. rotate hive, add frames, scrape the inner cover and done. BTW from one side of your yard to the other it may or may not be the same.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Here are pictures of some of the comb after I cut out five of the frames in one big chunk.















Normally I get the foundationless drawn out straight because I intermingle it with already drawn comb.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

JWPalmer said:


> Here are pictures of some of the comb after I cut out five of the frames in one big chunk.
> 
> View attachment 52717
> View attachment 52719
> ...


It appears as a very strong urge to build in THAT direction, not THIS direction.
I am with GG.

I am sure some will scoff at impact of magnetic, electric, "whatever" fields on the bee behaviors.
And yet I have this PDF right on front of me - Es'kov, Microclimate of a beehive and regulating it, 1978.
They have done lots of experimentation.

One specific observation/proposal about late summer boosting the brood production in hives - periodic running of a well specified electric field in the hive.
- 10 minutes every day for 2-3 weeks
- frequency 100-800Hz
- voltage 100V/cm
The observation - amount of the brood 10x in the treatment hives vs. the control hives.
I don't understand the significance of the numbers, but there is a difference.

So the bees know of things and feel things that we have no idea about.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> Here are pictures of some of the comb after I cut out five of the frames in one big chunk.
> 
> View attachment 52717
> View attachment 52719
> ...


Nice Pics JWPalmer. I would try the line the 4 combs make that trend right as you go back into the combs from the side view pic. Did you also place 9 in a 10 frame box? Spacing seems a bit wide.
First draw I have better luck with 10, do the hard de capping then go for 9 the second use. Have fun
GG


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

This was 10 frames in a 10 frame box, standard dimensions. I do not scoff at the idea that bees prefer to build comb in certain directions, although I think it may have more to do with how the sun hits the hive. The three hives on this stand are facing south and are under a pair of dogwood trees. Where I am we are 10° W magnetic deviation in case that makes a difference. The hives aligned east/west and in full sun do appear to draw better and faster, but there may be a bit of bias in that observation.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> This was 10 frames in a 10 frame box, standard dimensions. I do not scoff at the idea that bees prefer to build comb in certain directions, although I think it may have more to do with how the sun hits the hive. The three hives on this stand are facing south and are under a pair of dogwood trees. Where I am we are 10° W magnetic deviation in case that makes a difference. The hives aligned east/west and in full sun do appear to draw better and faster, but there may be a bit of bias in that observation.


I do not completely understand it but if they like to draw it in a certain way I have found turning the hive to be easier than fixing the comb.
I even had a year where one hive carried very good and one drew comb very good, So I put the super on the draw hive when 6 frames had 3 inches of comb moved it to the other hive, once started the second hive would complete it fine, but they could never start their own. I moved that hive 20 feet over and the problem disappeared.


----------



## FavRoman (Dec 13, 2020)

GregV said:


> Good deal LJ.
> I wish I was working....
> Fixing client database issues here.
> 
> ...


I am glad to welcome you again from overseas! I want to advise you on the online versions of Russian books, Google translates pretty well. I read so myself Методы пчеловождения, В. Шимановский, 1923 год | Пчеловодство выходного дня


----------



## FavRoman (Dec 13, 2020)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg - so you've been working too ? I've decided to translate my copy of Layen's 12th Edition, as it's now impossible to get a free copy anywhere on the Internet. I originally sourced my copy from 'apiculture-populaire' which now links to a sex-site, so the Internet Archive is currently blocking related searches. Sign of the times ...
> It's only 122 pages, but it'll take me a while to do as my French is seriously rusty. A page or two a day will make it my Winter project.
> 
> I've just finished the preface, in which De Layens writes:
> ...


hello, I just want to share a link to Lyance's books in free access, and what is important, both pdf and txt, (google translator will do a lot of work for you)) may it help you!
luck!
Votre recherche - "Layens Georges de" : 13 résultats - Gallica
Cours complet d'apiculture : (culture des abeilles) / par MM. Georges de Layens,... et Gaston Bonnier,... | Gallica
Construction économique des ruches à cadres, par Georges de Layens,... | Gallica


----------



## jnqpblk (Apr 7, 2015)

"Bee" space likely existed since the inception of honey bees from the beginning, however long ago that was.
But man never realized the significance of it, and just how easy it would be for man to utilize that layout in their hives, until around the time Langstroth "patented" the removable frame. He didn't invent the idea nor was he the originator.There were others around that time that were noticing the significant repetition of comb, space, comb, space, comb, ...
And ain't it interesting that honey bees, though extinct in the U S, have chosen the U S standard of measurement for their comb layout of +-1" comb, 3/8" space, 1" comb, 3/8" space, and so on and so forth for as much as they need.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

jnqpblk said:


> "Bee" space likely existed since the inception of honey bees from the beginning, however long ago that was.
> But man never realized the significance of it, and just how easy it would be for man to utilize that layout in their hives, until around the time Langstroth "patented" the removable frame. He didn't invent the idea nor was he the originator.There were others around that time that were noticing the significant repetition of comb, space, comb, space, comb, ...
> And* ain't it interesting that honey bees, though extinct in the U S, have chosen the U S standard of measurement for their comb layout* of +-1" comb, 3/8" space, 1" comb, 3/8" space, and so on and so forth for as much as they need.


Chosen the U.S. Standard ? I'm not sure how to break this news to you - but inches are part of the Imperial Standard of Measurement which has it's origins in the 17th Century British Empire. Apparently the US adopted it in 1776 following Independence as the founding fathers had an urgent need for uniform measurements across the continent. 
The UK changed to metric in 1965 - but I still think in terms of inches, feet and miles. For measurements smaller than one inch though, I turn to metric. And - of course - 25mm/ 9mm/ 25mm/ 9mm - that MUST be proof that bees aren't metric-minded ... LOL

Question: do unicorns exist ? Yes they do ... as a concept. You'd be pretty pushed to find one on planet Earth though, no matter how hard you looked. But I'll claim that many thousands if not millions of people could describe or even draw a unicorn if asked to do so. So how is this possible ? Because they've been _told_ about unicorns. The unicorn (as a concept) came into existence on the very first day that somebody described/invented it. Much like the bee-space.

It might be helpful if you could make a distinction between a concept and a measurement. The measurements you've described may well have existed long before 1852, but the concept itself didn't.
If a person was so minded, the distance between London and Paris could be measured in so many 3/8's of an inch - but would that measurement then be in terms of so many 'bee-spaces' ? The answer must be "no" - because there's no beehive woodwork involved ... and that's a critical factor.

I don't know who it was who first coined the term 'bee-space', but it wasn't Langstroth. Although he mentions in passing the need for such spacing in his first (1852) Patent, he goes into much greater detail in his second 1863 Patent in which he clarifies at some length the clearances which become necessary whenever moveable frames are installed within a beehive.

The clearance which later became known as 'the bee-space' refers specifically to woodwork: he specified that *a clearance of 3/8 of an inch should be maintained around moveable frames and whatever woodwork surrounds them*, thusly: 

"The sides 'c c' are kept away from 'd', the front and rear walls of the case, and the bottom 'b' from 'e', the bottom of the case, about three-eighths of an inch, or far enough to give a free bee passage, so that the bees will not cement with propolis these parts of the frame to the case, [...]."

However, he is less concerned about the bottom frame spacing (bearing in mind that at that time, these would have been frames of a single-story brood chamber), commenting:

"As bees do not ordinarily attach the bottom of their combs to the bottom of the hive, the bottom strip, 'b' [...] may, when desired, be placed higher up." 

With regard to the spacing *above* the frames, Langstroth is more generous with this when compared with our current thinking: 

"*Shallow air-chamber or air-space above the frames or bars.*
The bees, before they pass into the surplus-honey receptacles, enter an air-space about half an inch deep, or just shallow enough to prevent them from occupying it with large combs."

So - the above descriptions cover the clearance requirements surrounding the frames, leaving just the clearance between the top-bars of neighbouring frames to be considered:

"Any desired number of such frames may be suspended upon rabbets made in the front and rear walls of the hive, so as to be kept about half an inch apart from each other."

The above descriptions thus describe* a need for clearances to exist whenever moveable-frames are installed* within a beehive. So - did Langstroth actually* 'discover'* what nowadays we term 'the Bee-Space' ? Well - much depends on what is meant by 'discover' ...

Langstroth didn't 'discover' that spacing in the same way that Crick and Watson discovered the Double-Helix of DNA, for example - for that helical structure pre-existed prior to their discovery of it. In contrast, the need for the fixed-distance clearances which Langstroth describes only become necessary when moveable-frames are installed within a beehive - it is a* consequence* of doing this. So - if you don't install moveable-frames of Langstroth's design - then the need for those clearances simply ceases to exist.

I can already hear your protest: "But what about the inter-comb spacing ?".
Well, Langstroth is very specific with regard to this, and does NOT include it within his clearance requirements - indeed, he maintains that this spacing ought to be beekeeper-adjustable "at will", precisely in order to accommodate those combs which are less than perfectly straight or otherwise uniform:

"As any device which keeps the frames at the same invariable distances apart from each other increases the difficulty of removing them from and returning them to the case, and gives no facilities *when the bees build their combs waving or thicker in some parts than others* for regulating at will the distances between the combs, so as to alter their relative position in the hive, or to make necessary interchanges of combs between different hives, I very much prefer that the tops of the frames, as they rest upon the rabbets, (see Fig.1) should have a lateral motion, so as* to enable the apiarian to regulate at will the distances between the combs*."

I hope at least some of the above is of interest to anyone reading this. However, when considering 'The Bee-Space' versus Langstroth's description of the need for 'clearances', I don't think we really need to get too bogged-down in the minutiae of his legacy - which for me remains the creation of an eminently practical top-loading moveable-frame design - and that he achieved this whilst suffering from a most cruel and debilitating mental illness is greatly to his credit.

And so to answer the question, "Is the bee-space necessary ?" - I can say most emphatically that it is NOT, and if you run either Fixed-Comb or Top Bar hives with touching bars, simply ensure that your starter-strips are spaced appropriately ... and then you can forget all about those 'Bee-Space clearances'. 
'best,
LJ


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

little_john said:


> Chosen the U.S. Standard ? I'm not sure how to break this news to you - but inches are part of the Imperial Standard of Measurement which has it's origins in the 17th Century British Empire. Apparently the US adopted it in 1776 following Independence as the founding fathers had an urgent need for uniform measurements across the continent.
> The UK changed to metric in 1965 - but I still think in terms of inches, feet and miles. For measurements smaller than one inch though, I turn to metric. And - of course - 25mm/ 9mm/ 25mm/ 9mm - that MUST be proof that bees aren't metric-minded ... LOL
> 
> Question: do unicorns exist ? Yes they do ... as a concept. You'd be pretty pushed to find one on planet Earth though, no matter how hard you looked. But I'll claim that many thousands if not millions of people could describe or even draw a unicorn if asked to do so. So how is this possible ? Because they've been _told_ about unicorns. The unicorn (as a concept) came into existence on the very first day that somebody described/invented it. Much like the bee-space.
> ...


Hey LJ all this bee space stuff is confusing me, first of all I do not want to save the bees, I want to enslave the bees. And the most important space for me is the space for frames in my extractor. It would be quite a job to get one of those Polish sentry boxes into my extractor. So I will just continue to be a bee slum landlord and charge them as much honey as I can for the rent of the hives that I supply and let the space fall where it may.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Bee space is very simple and I do not think of it in terms of any man made measurement system.

A bee space is simply a space the right size for a bee to fit through, they need those gaps around the hive to allow travel from one place to another. Spaces smaller than that are no use andf could harbour undesireables like beetles so are propolised, and spaces larger than that are waste space so have something built in them.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

LJ has captured the true essence of Langstroth's "bee space". It is simply the amount of space necessary to keep the bees from attaching the comb to the sides of the hive body. That was the primary difference between his design and that of Dzierzon, a contemporary in Germany that was pursuing a similar line of hive development, and was essential to the creation of removable frames.


----------

