# Vettical TBH...comb get stuck to the walls?



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

This discussion - or variations of it - has taken place here several times. 

My experience suggests that the narrower the box, the more likely they are to attach, but the wider the box, the heavier the comb and the greater the chance of breakages.

Others will disagree, but I vote for sloped sides every time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Vettical TBHs? Do you mean veRtical TBHs?

Are TBH users really supering their hives vertically? Why? If so, what's the point of using TBH technology instead of traditional Langstroth style equipment?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

sqkcrk said:


> Vettical TBHs? Do you mean veRtical TBHs?


I assumed he meant TBHs with vertical sides, i.e. Tanzanian style, although I believe some people do super TBHs. Never saw the point myself...


----------



## MrGreenThumb (Apr 22, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> Vettical TBHs? Do you mean veRtical TBHs?
> 
> Are TBH users really supering their hives vertically? Why? If so, what's the point of using TBH technology instead of traditional Langstroth style equipment?



*I was talking about vertical sides...*


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

There are always a few attachments whichever angle the sides are. They are easy to cut and seldom rebuilt.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

MrGreenThumb said:


> *I was talking about vertical sides...*


Gotcha, thanks.


----------



## Tomas (Jun 10, 2005)

I have tbh hives with both types of walls. I have seen comb getting stuck at times to the sides in both. I don't see it being worse in one or the other. The bigger problem is with comb curving and being attached to more than one bar.

I make my verticle-sided tbhs big enough to accomodate a "top-bar frame" that basically has the same dimensions as a frame for a deep lang box. I wanted the close system you get with top bars (to control the africanized bees a bit more) but still maybe use an extractor. Because of this longer bar I have a lot more problems with curved comb. It can get kind of messy if for some reason I couldn't check on them regularly and take measures to control it. 

If I use just a top bar (no side or bottom pieces) I need to be real careful when handling a comb heavy with honey. I get more breakage this way. In this regards the sloped sided tbh is much better.

In the end it all depends on what you want to do and what works for you.

----------
Tom


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

> Is there a way to prevent.....comb getting stuck to the
> walls of the hive?
> Like sticking a few dowl rods in the top bar and let them
> extend down and close to the wall of the hive?

Yes, check out http://www.beeware.za.net/JHH_logbook.htm

There are members of this group running either full frame top bars or doweled side top bars for the same reasons you want to. If you run Langs as well as TBHs then you can interchange between the two (bees in Langs don't need access to the supers above between every frame). Combs from the TBHs can be used in an extractor alongside frames from the Langs.

See also
http://www.rupertshoney.co.za/rh/
http://free.financialmail.co.za/innovations/06/0203/finn.htm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

IMO the Langstroth hive is the wrong shape for beekeeping. It is wide and shallow - exactly the opposite to the way bees like to build comb.

The Rev. Langstroth designed his hive around an old wine case, not a bee tree or any other natural bee hive shape. It is a typical example of a 19th C inventor trying to control nature.

If you want to design a new hive, start with first principles, not an outmoded idea of how things 'should' be. 

IMO putting frames in a TBH simply complicates what is essentially as simple idea.


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

Although a Lang box is wide and shallow, a Lang hive isn't.

In round numbers, a 2-deep/3-super Lang hive has internal dimensions of 18" x 14" x 39"

The range for KTBHs (Crowder/McPherson/Hardison et al) is 15-18" x 7-10" x 32-38"

If you consider first principles to be a hollow in a living tree then a hive designed to emulate that would be incredibly hard to manage: the brood nest would be on top and honey storage on the bottom. The Lang's expansion is vertical and more like the tree, so first principles favor the 19th C inventor.

When it comes to comb handling in KTBH vs Lang you have different approaches to solving the same problem:

- KTBHs make handling combs easier because they weigh less (smaller area and triangular shape)
- Frames make handling combs easier because there is perimeter support to handle the higher weight of the larger area

When it comes to TBHs, KTBH over TTBH is a beek preference. If bees preferred 'triangular' combs they would build all the way back in a TTBH before starting to fill in the sides but they fill the combs sideways before expanding deeper. Basically, the shape is a no-care for the bees.

Two of the biggest advantages to TBHs (irrespective of shape) are 1) ease of handling because there are no boxes to lift and 2) easy inspections because the continuous sheet of wide top bars do not alert bees to the top being lifted. Mixing and matching advantages to compensate for the deficiencies of particular designs is up to the beekeeper.

- Beeks who use wide top frames in TBHs don't have to deal with attachments and are taking advantage of the prevailing standard in beekeeping.
- Beeks who use wide top frames in Langs by leaving a gap along one or both sides are taking advantage of the calmer reaction to lifting the lid and/or separating boxes.

Beekeeping is as much as what suits you as what suits the bees with one caveat: the bees tend to be more tolerant of the differences between designs than the beeks are.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JaiPea said:


> Although a Lang box is wide and shallow, a Lang hive isn't.
> In round numbers, a 2-deep/3-super Lang hive has internal dimensions of 18" x 14" x 39"


Sure, but that's not how they are in winter, when it matters.



JaiPea said:


> The range for KTBHs (Crowder/McPherson/Hardison et al) is 15-18" x 7-10" x 32-38"


For the record, mine are 15"x11"x48"



JaiPea said:


> If you consider first principles to be a hollow in a living tree then a hive designed to emulate that would be incredibly hard to manage: the brood nest would be on top and honey storage on the bottom.


Actually no: in winter, bees in trees cluster at the bottom of the comb and eat their way upwards over winter. They can do something similar in a TBH, which is to eat their way from one end to the other (if the beek arranges the stores this way).

I have almost no direct experience of Langs, but I have used WBCs, British Nationals and modified Dadants (at Buckfast Abbey) and I have seen colonies that have starved over winter with honey in their hive, because they were clustered to one side and could not reach the stores. This would not happen in a tree or in a well-ordered TBH.



JaiPea said:


> If bees preferred 'triangular' combs they would build all the way back in a TTBH before starting to fill in the sides but they fill the combs sideways before expanding deeper. Basically, the shape is a no-care for the bees.


In mine, they start in the middle (central entrance) and build outwards in both directions pretty evenly. They build catenary curves until they meet the sides, which they do in the brood area within about 10 days, then fill out the other combs as needed. Often, the end combs never fill the space completely.

While bees are versatile in their use of space, it does seem pretty clear that, given a free hand, they like to build as deep as the space allows. They also like clear space underneath them, which is not provided for in any framed hive I have seen or heard about.



JaiPea said:


> Beekeeping is as much as what suits you as what suits the bees with one caveat: the bees tend to be more tolerant of the differences between designs than the beeks are.


That's true enough!


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*hmm?*

Gee..........great thread.

Advantages/disadvantages..........

A TBH is so much easier to change in volume with a reducer (following board) to precisely to fit the colony, not so easy with a lang, Fitting the space to the size of the colony helps manage when feeding supplements, or thermoregulation.

And there is an advantage to having at least "some" frames in a tbh. Im not going to give the answer away so easily though.........hoping some of you will catch on. I know one who knows the answer.

Attachment isnt such a huge deal if you arre into minimal disturbance of your tbh, namely leaving the brood hive alone. So they attach, it is better support and honestly too many molest the brood hive prodding and poking. 

Work the back of the hive with the honey stores, they are the last to attach and if they get so large its a problem, you need to change your management.

The weight of a sloped walled comb to remove may only be 2/3s of a vertical walled comb of similar hive width.........less problems in handling and they seem easier to cut away if attached. 

The doweled tbh isnt really a classical tbh but if it works for them, sounds good. I just think that it defeats much of the management advantages of a true tbh. After all, we are all trying to reduce costs and replacement of parts. 

The great part of a tbh is all the management including honey gathering is in the field, no need to bring back frames and spend the money on an extractor.

Dowels, frames etc cost money and time to replace/repair as do extractors and all those frames.


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

>> In round numbers, a 2-deep/3-super Lang hive has internal dimensions 
>> of 18" x 14" x 39"
>
> Sure, but that's not how they are in winter

My example was of a winter hive. The beek I knew in New York ran hives with 5-6 supers and as many as 8 in summer. He never stored a comb which had been used for brood in order to reduce issues with wax moths.

Hives went into winter with three supers of honey and he used to rant about the 'idjits' who thought bees could get by on 60 pounds of honey and left only 60 pounds. He figured on a lot going uneaten if bees climbed one side and it never bothered him that the queen would start laying in supers. He just put them on the bottom and removed them later in the year when the brood nest moved above. 

>> a hive designed to emulate that [bee hollow] would be incredibly hard 
>> to manage: 
>
> Actually no: in winter....

There is no management in winter, only consequences. 

Management is spring/summer/fall and it is inconceivable to me that anyone would attempt to run an apiary with brood nests at the top. 

> ...in winter, bees in trees cluster at the bottom of the comb and eat 
> their way upwards over winter. 

Which just happens to be the way bees behave in Langs. 

> I have seen colonies that have starved over winter with honey in 
> their hive, because they were clustered to one side and could not reach 
> the stores. This would not happen in a tree or in a well-ordered TBH.

If the premise here is that a tree/TBH has combs less than 2/3 the width of a Lang frame therefore they are less likely to starve then we concur. The narrower width means they are more likely to consume all the reserves across a comb as they move up. 

However, there are wide TBHs and if bees favor one side over the other then what's to stop them eating their way along that side and starving a la the Lang?

You do realize that you just implied here that your middle-entrance TBHs are not well-ordered.....

> In mine, they start in the middle (central entrance) and build 
> outwards in both directions pretty evenly.

Having the broodnest in the middle suggests the bees could starve at one end even though the other end is full of honey. Has that been a problem for you?

Since my bees never filled out the 48" anyway, the hives were dropped back to 36/12 and the cover cut into two. The short end is used as a nuc. 

> bees...like to build as deep as the space allows. They also like clear 
> space underneath them, which is not provided for in any framed hive I 
> have seen or heard about.

We agree on the clear space but I don't understand the criticism as any kind of hive can have clear space below. 

A Search should turn up beeks who run a bottom screen (no board) of hardware cloth under their Langs. The screen even helps reduce predation because the smell of the hive through the wire is way stronger than at the entrance.

The NY beek's stands were tall and skirted because he had a thing about bees walking through detritus and blamed nosema on bottom boards. Although there was always an active population of ants under his hives they never seemed to be a problem. 

Charles Simon in Soquel is well known in beekeeping, and he advocates the bottomless hive at http://www.beesource.com/pov/simon/bottomless2.htm.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*bottomless hives*

Thank you for an interesting conversation. I think that going any deeper into details would be verging on pedantry, so I am happy to accept your observations and comments.

I am interested in Charles Simon's bottomless hives - in fact I made a bottomless hive (TBH) by accident (the mesh was kinda loose!) and it seems to be in pretty good condition, considering the appalling weather we had here throughout June, so I may leave it that way as an experiment. 

Is Charles still with us? I tried to contact him a year or so ago and got no response from phone calls or email.


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

> Thank you for an interesting conversation.

It was enjoyable. We could have a great evening over a beer or two (perhaps it should be mead).

As far as I know, Charles is still around, but he doesn't seem to have much interest in bees these days.

Sometime in the last year or two I saw mention of him promoting his health ideas at a local venue.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JaiPea said:


> > Thank you for an interesting conversation.
> 
> It was enjoyable. We could have a great evening over a beer or two (perhaps it should be mead).


Next time I'm in San Jose...


----------

