# Historical Comparison of Vertical vs. Horizontal



## Akademee (Apr 5, 2020)

This was really interesting. Though I do wonder what his rationale is for saying that having a bunch of empty extra space is really bad in a vertical hive, but apparently is not a problem at all in a horizontal hive.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Akademee said:


> This was really interesting. Though I do wonder what his rationale is for saying that having a bunch of empty extra space is really bad in a vertical hive, but apparently is not a problem at all in a horizontal hive.


Because empty space in a vertical hive is usually *above *(where then all the warm air from the brood nest escapes to).
In horizonal hive empty space is to the side behind some combs - thus warmth escape from the brood nest is not that big an issue

Though, this "shortcoming" of a vertical hive is easily solved by a layer of paper (which bees will remove on their own) OR a layer of plastic (to be removed by a person).
Clearly, the common plastic film was not known or available 100-150 years ago.
It also appears that the paper usage was not common either (as a temporary separator).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> In summary, to be well managed supered hives require a lot of work and beekeeping experience. It is therefore the horizontal hive which should be adopted by the greater mass of bee owners. ........
> 
> Georges de Layens, 1893.


The supered hives - somewhat disagree - based on the availability of modern designs (compact hives to be exact) and materials (plastics/paper - to clarify) and "thinking out of the box".

The horizontal hives - agree with the clarification that because of the mass propaganda towards TBH design as the "only" horizontal hive - this entire original horizontal hive idea was largely sabotaged and misunderstood.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregB said:


> The supered hives - somewhat disagree - based on the availability of modern designs (compact hives to be exact) and materials (plastics/paper - to clarify) and "thinking out of the box".
> 
> The horizontal hives - agree with the clarification that because of the mass propaganda towards TBH design as the "only" horizontal hive - this entire original horizontal hive idea was largely sabotaged and misunderstood.


@GregB 
I would think when the book was Written, the plastic, the materials, and the modern design, also the mass propaganda did not exist. So in the time and context the book was written, it is hard to disagree.
today many years to his future, certainly things have changed.
discussing today in a yester year text is funny.

GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> @GregB
> I would think when the book was Written, the plastic, the materials, and the modern design, also the mass propaganda did not exist. So in the time and context the book was written, it is hard to disagree.
> today many years to his future, certainly things have changed.
> discussing today in a yester year text is funny.
> ...


Of course - goes without saying.
BUT - we are still reading this book, don't we?
Why even do it?
Well, this means that book is STILL useful, BUT with the adjustments done to reflect the modern context.

All beekeeping is local but also *all beekeeping belongs to its proper time in history.*
Indeed, some people attempt to copy methods and equipment of 19th century - because some book told them so.
Where is common sense? 

Of course, the comment I made was meant to reflect my opinion about the vertical/horizontal hives status as of "7/20/2022 10:06AM CST".
Surely, the original author (had he known what we know now) - would have adjusted his conclusions appropriately for the current conditions.

I was clear about that:


> The supered hives - somewhat disagree - *based on the availability of modern designs* (compact hives to be exact) and *materials *(plastics/paper - to clarify) and "thinking out of the box".................


----------



## jtgoral (Mar 24, 2018)

Long hives like Layens, Einraumbeute, Ukrainian Hive, Polish Ul Warszawski have one thing in common I really like: the frame is narrow-toll unlike Langstroth wide-low frame. This makes enough space above the broodnest to store honey for winter so the bees can move up when consuming it.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Yes - all good comments ...

One other thing which is perhaps relevant, is that Layens adopted a very common '*either/or*' perspective when making his analysis - that is: *either* a hive is horizontal (or vertical), *or* it isn't.

Now although this is remains a very common way of viewing the world, this kind of logic doesn't allow for 'shades of grey' to exist. It may work well enough in some situations - a woman is either pregnant or she's not, for example - but doesn't always work well when defining catagories. Take the definition of mammals for example: only insects. reptiles and birds lay eggs - mammals don't. Hmmm - tell that to the platypus ... 

What classification should be given, for example, to a 2ft 16 extra-deep-frame brood box with a pair of nuc boxes placed in a single layer above it ? It certainly ain't a true Long Hive, nor is it a Vertical Hive in the same sense as a tall Langstroth or Warre stack. Compact Hives fall into another grey area ...

But - on balance I thought Layens analysis was worth sharing. It's certainly dated, but some of his concerns remain relevant - especially regarding the employment of different height frames within areas of poor honey returns.
Luckily, these days we have several ways of dealing with such problems.

Ease of access and of expansion/contraction, as well as building simplicity remain it's major 'selling points' - imo, of course. 
LJ


----------



## jtgoral (Mar 24, 2018)

little_john said:


> Yes - all good comments ...
> 
> ...
> What classification should be given, for example, to a 2ft 16 extra-deep-frame brood box with a pair of nuc boxes placed in a single layer above it ? It certainly ain't a true Long Hive, nor is it a Vertical Hive in the same sense as a tall Langstroth or Warre stack. Compact Hives fall into another grey area ...
> ...


Dartington Hive and Ul Warszawski are examples of horizontal broodnest hives and a honey suppers layer above it during the flow. Those suppers are small and cannot be heavy when full.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Now although this is remains a very common way of viewing the world, this kind of logic doesn't allow for 'shades of grey' to exist. It may work well enough in some situations - a woman is either pregnant or she's not, for example - but doesn't always work well when defining catagories. Take the definition of mammals for example: only insects. reptiles and birds lay eggs - mammals don't. Hmmm - tell that to the platypus ...


Why, there are generally *three *groups of hives - horizontal, vertical, and combined (or is it "combination hives"?).
The classification has been long documented.

Here is at least on example - from "Overview of beekeeping", 1997, Minsk, Belarus.
This is an N'th edition of an older book (unsure which).

The schematics:
a - classic Warsaw horizontal - horizontal hive group
b,c - Warsaw expanded and Dadant classic - combination hives group
d - Polish vertical - vertical hive group


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Here is even more expanded version of the hive model selections from the same book (there is a whole, big chapter on the topic).

Not gonna bother writing it out, but there is a legend below the pic.
(the above models are also included here).
Generally - represented are several Polish hive models (horizontal, vertical, and combinations), Dadant, Langstroth, as well as German and Czech verticals.

Only pasted for a demo purposes here - at least the current North American view at the hive designs is very limited.
(thus, the bicycle gets reinvented over and over due to the limited knowledge - good Youtube material at that).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Coming from the modern prospective (hopefully, more informed) - the true driver for the hive modeling should be coming from the study of the bee colony energy dynamics and ergonomics - which then should allow to meet variety of specific use cases.

100-150 years ago people did not give it much thought and/or did not have the tools, information and alternative materials - to arrive to more intelligent decisions.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregB said:


> All beekeeping is local but also *all beekeeping belongs to its proper time in history.*


Indeed - I've been mulling over this Vertical vs Horizontal stuff overnight ... and I think we may be missing an important factor - the *historical context* during which it was written.

During the 19th Century there was a wave of immigration into North America, one consequence of which was the growing of crops such as Buckwheat, which together with clover and a formidable array of nectar-producing plants and trees resulted in the potential for huge honey harvests - only the beehives at that time were constrained by their relatively small size. Guys like John Weeks of Vermont came up with innovative solutions - his being to install three honey-boxes rather than the customary one on top of the brood box - by fitting an additional box to either side as well.

In the late 1840's Langstroth began a series of experiments. His sole objective was to find an improved method of increasing honey yield - his approach was to enlarge the footprint of conventional brood boxes from 12x12 inches to 18x18, and then place more honey boxes on top - a technique which worked well. It was only as an indirect consequence of this that he invented the moveable hanging-frame for which he is primarily remembered.

Multiple honey-boxes gave way to glass jars, which in turn gave way to upper boxes of frames and section-cages which became known as 'supers'. The honey yields around that time were phenomenal, a period which has been called 'The Golden Age of Beekeeping'.
These dramatic events caused a nationwide, followed by a world-wide promotion of this particular system of beekeeping, despite conditions in some countries being very different from the highly melliferous areas of New York State and surrounding regions.

The sales campaigns of Root, and of Dadant in particular, must have been formidable. Allow me to repeat two quotations from Layens I've already made:

"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. Moreover, *this hive has already been proven* in the hands of many beekeepers."

And, from the Sixth Lesson:
"Before describing the hive I have adopted, which will be the subject of my next lesson, let me tell you that I am not an inventor of hives, for there are already too many; I have simply adopted *a model that has been proven for many years.*"

So - I see Layens' argument - not so much as Vertical vs Horizontal, although certainly those are the classifications he employs for comparison - but rather as a reaction to what must have seemed at the time like an unstoppable tidal wave of innovation, originating from a vastly different foreign land, sweeping away well-proven beehive designs before it.

There's another factor: both Layens and Gaston Bonnier were first and foremost Naturalists, specifically Botanists, who took up beekeeping as an adjunct to their primary interests, who would have held less exploitative attitudes than some towards the maximising of honey yields by what they saw as being less than satisfactory methods.

LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> There's another factor: both *Layens and Gaston Bonnier were first and foremost Naturalists, specifically Botanists, who took up beekeeping as an adjunct to their primary interests*, who would have held less exploitative attitudes than some towards the maximising of honey yields by what they saw as being less than satisfactory methods.


Which basically confirms the idea that current small scale beekeepers (who have primary employment/income/interest/time investment elsewhere) - will still benefit from relatively low management hive models - which still are large horizontal hives with expansion feature (i. e. a combination hive) - this I confirm.

Here is one such hive.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

little_john said:


> [...] both Layens and Gaston Bonnier were first and foremost Naturalists, specifically Botanists, who took up beekeeping as an adjunct to their primary interests, who would have held *less exploitative attitudes than some towards the maximising of honey yields* by what they saw as being less than satisfactory methods.


Thought I'd post some numbers to demonstrate that ...
In the following quote from his 2nd Ed. book, Layens is discussing how honey harvests in his region can fluctuate wildly from one year to the next, and shows a graph of a neighbouring beekeeper's harvests over 50 years (which was up and down like a veritable yo-yo).

He then writes: "*My own apiary, which is made up of an average of thirty colonies, is located in a region that is fairly favourable for beekeeping. My product in 1877 was more than 200 kg.; in 1878, 250 kg.; in l879, nil.; in 1880, 400 kg.; in 1881, 225 kg.; and in 1882, 550 kg.
My colonies were never fed, neither in the spring nor in the fall, even in the year 1879, when three-quarters of the colonies in France died of hunger*."

Now 250kg is 550lbs - spread over 30 hives - that's 18lbs surplus per hive - hardly a basis on which to engage in commercial beekeeping by American standards - but - by keeping his colonies alive during the disastrous year of 1879, he was able to pull almost 30lbs surplus per hive during 1880, during which year most other beekeepers would have spent the entire season building up their apiaries again from scratch.

Add to yields for each hive another 15kg (33lbs) of honey which Layens left on each hive for Winter stores.

A completely different approach when compared with modern-day commercial operations.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

@little_john - do you know how large Layens' hives were in terms of # of the frames?
20-25-30?
Entirely possible that his hives under-produced during the very good times - simply due to hitting the wall of high space needs for the nectar drying (with the care taker being away).
Even being entirely not-commercial, I can see value in periodic visitation of my long hives. 
The hive pictured in the above post really needs to be harvested - I suspect I am loosing its potential as we speak (but just can not get around to it - hence those ad-hoc standing frames were added).


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Greg - in poor areas he recommends 14 frames, but in his area - which he considers to be good, he uses 20. 
BTW - he judges a full stores comb to contain 4kg of honey.
LJ


----------



## jtgoral (Mar 24, 2018)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg - in poor areas he recommends 14 frames, but in his area - which he considers to be good, he uses 20.
> BTW - he judges a full stores comb to contain 4kg of honey.
> LJ


You mean 4kg honey per 1 Layens frame?


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Yes, that's right - or at least that's what Layens said ... 

His words were:
Actuellement, nous laissons autant que possible, environ 15 kilos. Avec un peu d'labitude on serend facilement compte du miel contenu dans le rayons, par les poids, ou par la surface qu'occupe le miel opercule.
Un rayon plein de miel pese environ 4 kilos; mais on ne doit pas oublier qu'un rayon neuf contient plus de miel qu'un vieux.

... and translated:
Currently (Actually ?) we leave as much as possible, about 15 kilos. With a little practice one can easily realise (assess) the honey contained within the combs, by the weights, or by the surface occupied (covered) by the honey cappings.
A comb full of honey weighs about 4 kg.; but we must not forget that a new comb contains more honey than an old one.

Hope this helps,
LJ


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

little_john said:


> A comb full of honey weighs about 4 kg.; but we must not forget that a new comb contains more honey than an old one.


That seems about right. My frames are a little longer than layens simply because I use two langs turned 90 degrees. Last year I weighed them in the fall to gauge stores and they ranged from 10 to 12 lbs. or 4.5 -5.4kg.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg - in poor areas he recommends 14 frames, but in his area - which he considers to be good, he uses 20.
> BTW - he judges a full stores comb to contain 4kg of honey.
> LJ


Yes, 14F would too small for my area.
20F is about right.
16F is a good compromise.
All of these - considering I can install an additional row of honey frames over the main frames (thus expanding the entire volume by about 1/3).


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

It seems that Mr. Layens was motivated to show bias toward the horizontal hive, and that he biased his advice to benefit the negligent beekeeper.

Moses Quinby enjoyed great success with fairly large hives. Charles and Camille Pierre Dadant took the idea and added Langstroth's frames, but enlarged the frames for the brood nest to 11-1/4 inches tall, not the honey frames, which they placed above the brood nest.

Brother Adam used the Modified Jumbo Dadant ( slightly reduced to standard 19- inch frame top bars) and further modified it square, so that the honey boxes can be placed with frames 90 degrees to the brood frames - A REALLY BIG ADVANTAGE. Bees can easily get to any honey frame from any brood frame.

Brother Adam and the Dadants routinely reported 50% to 60% more honey, and at times as much as 300% more honey than standard brood box hives with standard-depth frames.

Admittedly, the 300% more honey usually comes with running 2-queen systems in the large boxes on the very best years, but with astute attention given to the bees' needs on a routine basis, yields approaching 300% can be had on almost all but the worst years, especially if you move your bees on to current nectar flows.

There are numerous other advantages to the Brother Adam beehive and other large-volume hives. Knowing when to expand horizontally and when to expand vertically will greatly improve your beekeeping.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

kilocharlie said:


> It seems that Mr. Layens was motivated to show bias toward the horizontal hive, and that he biased his advice to benefit the negligent beekeeper.


So you've read his books then ... ?

I actually think we're talking past each other ...
From Layens' Evelage Des Abeilles, 1879:
_In your last letter you asked me this question:* what is the best hive* ? How many times have I received the same request. Here is what I have always answered: the most perfected hive in the hands of those who do not know how to manage their bees is less good than* the primitive skep hive *of the countryside; but this same hive in the hands of one who knows how to govern his bees allows a more considerable harvest, because it is possible with these hives to lead the bees by methods which produce the most.
But before talking to you about methods and hives, it seems useful to me to prove to you, by a few palpable facts, that *the new methods produce more than the old;* and that's what we're going to examine._

That's the bit you're missing - he was attempting to convince beekeepers with primitive skep and other fixed-comb hives to adopt moveable-frame hives, in part to improve honey yields, but not necessarily to maximise them at all costs, for unlike Brother Adam and the Dadants, Layens was an academic not a commercial beekeeper, and was not primarily seeking to influence the commercial honey-farmer. 

You mention large hives - but Layens hives are *not* primarily about volume, they're about using frames with a substantially increased depth(*). You talk of bias, but there must be some reason why hundreds of thousands of Layens hives are still used to this day in Spain, where beekeepers continue to resist their government's ongoing pressure to change over to Root-Langstroth systems. And then there are very similar hives being used, again in large numbers, within the Ukraine and surrounding regions. Are we then to conclude that all these people are really stupid, and haven't yet seen the light ? 

For some reason there persists a myth that some kind of hive exists with magical properties which will somehow return huge quantities of honey - but honey yields are dictated by nectar availability, and have far less to do with hive design. "My hive returns more honey than your hive" is nothing more than a variation of "my willie is bigger than yours", and even for those obsessed with honey yields, the yield per apiary is a far better barometer of local nectar availability than the yield per individual hive.
'best,
LJ

(*)Emile Warre, from the same country and after extensive comparative testing, also concluded that the most suitable comb size and shape was similar to that of Layens, Warre's being 400mm (16 inches) deep, and 300mm (12 inches) wide. He only later halved this depth for beekeeper convenience. Of course Warre hives are vertical, with an extremely small footprint which may not suit everybody, likewise the need for box-lifting which is common to all vertical beehives.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> For some reason there persists *a myth that some kind of hive exists with magical properties which will somehow return huge quantities of honey *- but honey yields are dictated by nectar availability, and have far less to do with hive design. "My hive returns more honey than your hive" is nothing more than a variation of "my willie is bigger than yours", and even for those obsessed with honey yields, the yield per apiary is a far better barometer of local nectar availability than the yield per individual hive.
> 'best,
> LJ


It is, however, the question of harvestability of the honey.
Vertical hives with smaller frames facilitate the honey/brood separation better (EVEN without the QX).
Horizontal hives with larger frames tend to create situations where the honey is "splattered" across various frames (including brood frames) - this makes harvesting them more difficult.

And so while the total amount of the harvest in the hive could be about the same - the amounts of honey removed could differ.
As well - the fixed volume often comes at disadvantage with compared to the variable volume.


----------



## jtgoral (Mar 24, 2018)

GregB said:


> It is, however, the question of harvestability of the honey.
> Vertical hives with smaller frames facilitate the honey/brood separation better (EVEN without the QX).
> Horizontal hives with larger frames tend to create situations where the honey is "splattered" across various frames (including brood frames) - this makes harvesting them more difficult.
> 
> ...


Horizontal hives like Dartington Hive and Ul Warszawski have small suppers for honey on the top. Those supers are not heavy and fill up quickly, so that they are great for early spring small flows in colder climates.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregB said:


> It is, however, the question of harvestability of the honey.
> [...]
> Horizontal hives with larger frames tend to create situations where the honey is "splattered" across various frames (including brood frames) - this makes harvesting them more difficult.


In my Long Hives with 14x12 frames, I've consistently found that each frame is 'dedicated' to a single purpose: brood OR pollen OR honey. It's quite a curious sight and I haven't a clue why they do that. A frame 12 inches deep and 14 long, with a huge slab of brood-comb from side-bar to side-bar, with only two tiny stamp-sized triangles of honey in the top corners is one of those sights, once seen, never forgotten.
I'd rather hoped to see something similar with my Layens/Ukrainian frames, but don't have enough experience with them yet to judge.

The same bees in a regular landscape-shaped frame will produce the classic oval-shaped brood, with a crescent of pollen over, and a inch or more of honey over that - so size and shape do very clearly affect how bees use the frames we impose on them

My 14x12 Long Hives have the advantage of using one of our standard frame sizes, and overall work extremely well, although it;s noticeable that bees do take more readily to the narrower 11.25" frames. 

But, generally speaking, I wouldn't disagree with what you're saying - for a commercial honey-farmer who extracts, then it must be a major issue. Less so if you're a hobbyist and/or C&S. That's why I've adopted multiple horizontal skewers in my Layens/Ukrainian frames, so that upper sections can be readily cut-out for C&S without affecting the remaining comb. 

Presumably this was the issue which motivated Jean Hurpin to 'Modernise' the Layens Hive. Incidentally, if anyone has a copy of 'La ruche de Layens modernisée', which in 1946 had 69 pages - modern reprints are 80 pages - I'd be most interested to learn if a pdf copy exists anywhere on the Internet. The early editions will be out of copyright by 2037 - but I very much doubt I'll still be around then ... 
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

jtgoral said:


> Horizontal hives like Dartington Hive and Ul Warszawski have small suppers for honey on the top. Those supers are not heavy and fill up quickly, so that they are great for early spring small flows in colder climates.


Fwiw: contrary to popular belief, Dartington Hives are pretty-much 'whatever you want them to be': frame number can range from 11 to 27, and can be of any depth. The number of supers can vary, and again be of any depth. Here are two (admittedly extreme) examples from Robin Dartington's 'Construction Information for Dartington Hives', 2011.








Posted in a friendly spirit ... 
LJ


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

so this is an interesting thread.

the Length x height x width is a fixed value, from a math point of view.
if the smaller hive Warre for example at 12x12 then the height needs to be larger, as well the Langstroth hive at 16 x 20 will have a shorter stack.

LJ the wall to wall 1 use per frame comes into play when the cluster size is close to or slightly less than the hive body size. The bees tend to put pollen on the edge and honey overhead, if given a tall/tree type cavity, so at some place n the stack/tree it is all brood and or all honey.

I started with Lang and do have interest in another hive type BUT there is the investment I already have , AND if I sell NUCs then I need match the broadest space in the market. Not to mention the extractor (lang based).

BTW I did notice in my extra insulated hive (double deep lang, 4 inch wall) frames of brood wall to wall and top to bottom, so IMO the brood nest is a function of the space the bees can keep warm, IE perceived nest.

I think a narrow frame, deep like the 12 ish wide and 18-20 deep would allow a good to great brood nest, this can be 20 -32 inches wide. then a way to place 8 or 10 frame Langs boxes over an excluder on top.
Pros:
extractor works
all the supers work
can use the deeps to build out NUC frames
supers are smaller as they would be heavy in deep frames.
continuous, narrow comb in the nest area
with divider one can have from 14 to 22 ish frames for the nest queens needs dependent.
one can use 2 to 5 supers flow dependent.

So I see value using an "all of the above mind set, narrow deep ,lang, extractable, moveable, Nuc able etc.

So in essence BEST is matching your needs as the keeper, and the locale, flow and temperature metrics.
then add in market availability of pieces parts and each may arrive at their own prefect hive.

different zones, races of bees and use cases, will "Never" settle on 1 hive and maybe should not.
feels communistic to be 1 hive mentality, then the state or the most of a type would force the rest down the same trail.

GG


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> Fwiw: contrary to popular belief, Dartington Hives are pretty-much 'whatever you want them to be': frame number can range from 11 to 27, and can be of any depth. The number of supers can vary, and again be of any depth. Here are two (admittedly extreme) examples from Robin Dartington's 'Construction Information for Dartington Hives', 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ha we had a similar brain thread at the same time.

GG


----------



## jtgoral (Mar 24, 2018)

Gray Goose said:


> so this is an interesting thread.
> ...
> 
> I think a narrow frame, deep like the 12 ish wide and 18-20 deep would allow a good to great brood nest, this can be 20 -32 inches wide. then a way to place 8 or 10 frame Langs boxes over an excluder on top.
> ...


This is Dadant-Blatt frame rotated 90deg. There is already design like that. See Die Mellifera-Einraumbeute or a British version One-box Hive. I think 21 frames. Ul Warszawski Poszerzany (Warsaw Widened Hive) uses the same frame.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

jtgoral said:


> This is Dadant-Blatt frame rotated 90deg. There is already design like that. See [...] British version One-box Hive.


Indeed - and if people read that hive's progress diary, they'll see that the yield was broadly similar to those reported by Layens. I also noticed that David Heaf left adequate honey on the hive for over-wintering. (But also gave sugar syrup on another occasion - a flexible approach, rather than religiously rigid)
'best,
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Gray Goose said:


> So I see value using an "all of the above mind set, narrow deep ,lang, extractable, moveable, Nuc able etc.
> 
> So in essence BEST is matching your needs as the keeper, and the locale, flow and temperature metrics.
> then add in market availability of pieces parts and each may arrive at their own prefect hive.
> ...


You raise an important point - there does indeed seem to be a trend in today's beekeeping towards influencing people such that they all sing from the same hymn-sheet.

This can be seen with: Treating vs. Non-Treating; Foundation vs. Foundationless; Vertical vs. Horizontal (of course ... ); Frames vs. Top Bar; Native Bees vs. Imports, and so on. Just about 'everything beekeeping' has become polarised in this way.

Even the attitudes adopted towards beekeeping itself have become polarised into what could be described as Hobbyist vs. Commercial: such that beekeepers either run their apiaries along business lines, or they don't. In my specific meaning of this contrast, attitude is everything - size of the operation is irrelevant - such that even a person with 2 beehives who's primary motive is to make a profit from them, could be described as 'Commercial' - in the tiniest of ways, of course.
Take Honey Yields for example - the 'commercial' approach is to maximise financial returns, even to the extent of removing* almost all* the honey and then feeding sugar syrup as a substitute. This practice has become so widespread, that the idea of leaving even a modest proportion of the bees' own honey in place for Winter use is considered verboten. But why ? For someone who keeps honey bees in a few hives in an otherwise casual way - why has it become so important that a profit (even a tiny profit) be made from them ?

Perhaps this touches on cultural differences. During my study of historical beekeeping within America, I noticed that each new invention or improvement was invariably seen as an entrepreneurial opportunity (the thousands of Beehive Patents, most of which never came to anything, bear witness to this observation). This contrasts significantly with attitudes within England and the Continent of Europe, where a more 'intellectual' rather than financial approach was adopted.
Perhaps one of the better examples of this was Doolittle's work with queen-rearing - no sooner had he developed a workable technique than it was put to work raising many thousands of queens. I very much doubt that would have happened on this side of the Atlantic.

To give a more up-to-date example of what I'm talking about - checkout Michael Palmer's classic 2013 Honey Show talk, in which he starts off by asking the audience a question: "*What does success in the Apiary mean to you ? Does it mean you're going to make a living from your bees ? Probably not*."
He then surmises that the audience is probably made up mainly of backyard beekeepers, and so suggests: "*Maybe all you really care about is that your bees are alive in the Spring ?*"

In starting off his talk in this way, MP has nailed it exactly. For most hobbyist beekeepers in Britain, keeping bees alive from one year to the next is their primary focus. If the bees can provide a jar or three of honey in the process, all well and good - but they ain't keeping bees as a business, so why on earth use commercial beehives and adopt commercial beekeeping attitudes and methods ?

This is exactly where hives such as the Layens, the Warre, and even the Kenyan Top Bar Hive come into play - there's no pretence of the hobbyist being a commercial beekeeper in miniature - it's a different mind-set completely.

One possible explanation for why some people become profit-oriented is that they incur a financial debt when starting beekeeping by buying ready-made commercial equipment, and thus seek to get their hobby 'to pay for itself'. But - if they were to also pay themselve a wage for the countless hours spent working those hives, they'd soon see that the honey from a backyard operation costs many times more to produce than it can realistically be sold for. This, combined with the initial outlay, renders backyard beekeeping for the majority of people non-viable as a true profit-making venture. There's a sound reason why hobbyist beekeeping is largely a province of the retired.

Much better, in my opinion, is to make your own equipment from scrap or easily obtainable materials, and then adopt a more relaxed and 'fun' attitude towards backyard beekeeping. Then, if you can make a few pounds/dollars in the process, that becomes a bonus. Beekeeping *can be*, but doesn't *have to b*e an income-generating activity.
'best,
LJ


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

If a person were to take the approach as in your last paragraph beekeeping and personal honey could certainly be done with virtually no cash outlay and minimal tools. The usual method on this continent requires a lot of equipment and storage space for conventional Langstroth equipment. No doubt it is profit oriented and encouraged by the beekeeping industry.

There is some simplification coming soon in my methods. Deep stationary hives, Layens style with year around insulation. Big enough to hold the honey in the main box but set up so supering would be optional.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

crofter said:


> There is some simplification coming soon in my methods. Deep stationary hives, Layens style with year around insulation. Big enough to hold the honey in the main box but set up so supering would be optional.


Hi Frank - that sounds good - looking forward to reading about those.

Writing the above post triggered the memory of a conversation I once had with one of the few commercial beekeepers in this country. He operates in the same area as Brother Adam did, and churns out honey by the ton. During the course of our conversation he mentioned how he unloads that volume of honey by selling it in buckets to an outfit which bottles and then distributes staggering quantities of the stuff, and he also mentioned the price he got for it - the low price of which came as a surprise to me, and I said so. He went on to explain that he had tried farmer's markets - which he found none-cost-effective in terms of time spent for so few sales. He then tried various high street outlets, but these were not much better, bearing in mind the quantities they would take (and when), and the bottling and labelling involved beforehand. So he finally settled for unloading a bulk quantity in one go, albeit at a low price compared with retail.

So, although a lot of people on this forum are focused on high honey yields, this memory has caused me to question, "How much honey is too much ?" Now this is never going to be a problem for myself within the nectar impoverished area in which I live - but - if things were different, and I started to produce (say) 100 or 200 lbs of honey each year ... what exactly would I do with it ?

A few tens of pounds of honey is not a problem, I can consume some, and give away the remainder to friends and neighbours - but as I have no passing trade, even farm-gate sales are a non-starter.

I'm curious as to what others do. There may be big differences in the various potentials between countries, and so the answer may indeed be obvious ... but not to me right now .
'best,
LJ


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Merchandising can become an issue. The farmers market can be a way for some people to socialize and while away some time. In some areas anything other than farm gate sales gets you into bottling and labeling compliance issues. Covid concerns put an end to a lot of that manner of selling. Bulk selling like you say is low margin price. Go big or go home efficiency rule applies. In my climate and forage opportunities I certainly am not about to achieve any efficiency.

My son had near forty colonies at peak but for the reasons mentioned above and a real peak of disease in his bee crowded area the last 3 years it started to be too demanding of his labor to be fun any more. Beekeeping is on hold till he retires perhaps.

I think I am just going to take 6 Langstroth colonies into winter and then put some into the hybrid deep Layens style hive next spring. General arthritis and hands especially is bringing an end to dealing with stacked Langstroth beekeeping. I think I have a couple of years seniority over you!


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> I'm curious as to what others do. There may be big differences in the various potentials between countries, and so the answer may indeed be obvious ... but not to me right now .
> 'best,


I get somewhere between 25 and 45 supers of honey, I have a couple places that allow me to set out 4 to 6 jars and the sales fund, foundation, queens, screws, gas, and other related expenses. I am close to break even with 20 -30 hives, as my norm. I am at 50 ish right now so a few combines and a couple shake outs before winter should be utilized.
I am not really profit motivated, however the expense funds need come from some place.



crofter said:


> There is some simplification coming soon in my methods. Deep stationary hives, Layens style with year around insulation. Big enough to hold the honey in the main box but set up so supering would be optional.


I am in the same groove. I like the idea of narrow, deep , frames, in an insulated base box, with standard supers , set cross ways on top.
As I am leaning toward 8F medium supers, a 20 frame box, with frames the width of the 8F super make some sense as a starting point. as I recall my 8F ends are 11 3/4 so a 11 inch frame would be workable.
using the 10F boxes would have the frame be 13 5/8 or so. IMO gets a bit big.

does it make sense to have a "new" standard. there will be folks that want to follow the trail, but lake the wood working equipment or space, or time, to make their own hives.

GG


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Gray Goose said:


> I am in the same groove. I like the idea of narrow, deep , frames, in an insulated base box, with standard supers , set cross ways on top.
> As I am leaning toward 8F medium supers, a 20 frame box, with frames the width of the 8F super make some sense as a starting point. as I recall my 8F ends are 11 3/4 so a 11 inch frame would be workable.
> using the 10F boxes would have the frame be 13 5/8 or so. IMO gets a bit big.
> 
> ...


My base box is 40 inches long with removeable center partition. Being 13 3/4" across inside for layens frames makes the outside dimensions right to set on either standard 8 or 10 frame supers or pairs of 4 frame nuc boxes that could be deeps and still reasonable weight to handle and use standard frames. With the divider it can be 2 queen units if desired. Using standard lang frames in supers takes care of the extractor compatibility.

I have inherited my sons 18 frame radial and eyeballing its basket tells me I can quite easily make 3 adaptors from queen excluder that will allow 3 Layens width frames to be extracted tangentially. That will allow using the siamesed pairs of medium lang frames to be extracted without uncoupling them. 

Quite a bit in common with Dartington hive ideas but the ability to use either standard lang equipment flat or rotated deep way. Layens width frames anywhere up to 19" deep also fit. The Layens frame is dead simple construction compared to commercial Langstroth frames for anyone rolling their own.

If you really want more honey in extracting frames I dont think you need go as deep with the frames in the main box. Still meditating on that issue.


----------



## jtgoral (Mar 24, 2018)

crofter said:


> Merchandising can become an issue. The farmers market can be a way for some people to socialize and while away some time. In some areas anything other than farm gate sales gets you into bottling and labeling compliance issues. Covid concerns put an end to a lot of that manner of selling. Bulk selling like you say is low margin price. Go big or go home efficiency rule applies. In my climate and forage opportunities I certainly am not about to achieve any efficiency.
> 
> My son had near forty colonies at peak but for the reasons mentioned above and a real peak of disease in his bee crowded area the last 3 years it started to be too demanding of his labor to be fun any more. Beekeeping is on hold till he retires perhaps.
> 
> I think I am just going to take 6 Langstroth colonies into winter and then put some into the hybrid deep Layens style hive next spring. General arthritis and hands especially is bringing an end to dealing with stacked Langstroth beekeeping. I think I have a couple of years seniority over you!


This winter I started and ended with 12x 6FR/6FR and 1 10FR BeeMAX. It was to much for my backyard and my new neighbor. I combined 6 colonies into 2x 21FR long Langs, 2 colonies into a new BeeMAX and left 1 6FR/6FR as a resource hive. I sold 4x 6FR colonies. So I will be back with 5 colonies into the next winter. This should be enough for my backyard and my age. I will see what is going be better for me: long Langs Dartington style or Poly vertical hives.....


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

crofter said:


> My base box is 40 inches long with removeable center partition. Being 13 3/4" across inside for layens frames makes the outside dimensions right to set on either standard 8 or 10 frame supers or pairs of 4 frame nuc boxes that could be deeps and still reasonable weight to handle and use standard frames. With the divider it can be 2 queen units if desired. Using standard lang frames in supers takes care of the extractor compatibility.
> 
> I have inherited my sons 18 frame radial and eyeballing its basket tells me I can quite easily make 3 adaptors from queen excluder that will allow 3 Layens width frames to be extracted tangentially. That will allow using the siamesed pairs of medium lang frames to be extracted without uncoupling them.
> 
> ...


I could go wider to use the standard layen frames 13 3/4. then make a custom fit super with insulated walls, to alow the 90 Degree super frame placement , so all the medium frames I have will work as supering honey frames.
the top of the first custom super would fit all the rest, the custome on could also be left on as winter feed, and hopefully a quilt type box.

many irons in the fire this month, so maybe in the winter.

GG


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Gray Goose said:


> I could go wider to use the standard layen frames 13 3/4. then make a custom fit super with insulated walls, to alow the 90 Degree super frame placement , so all the medium frames I have will work as supering honey frames.
> the top of the first custom super would fit all the rest, the custome on could also be left on as winter feed, and hopefully a quilt type box.
> 
> many irons in the fire this month, so maybe in the winter.
> ...


I dont see the adaptor necessity; if you make main hive body from 1 1/2 stock the Layens inside dimention yields an outside width of Approx. 17 12 inches. The outside width of the 10 frame box is 16 3/8. The super frames, standard lang will run lengthwise to the hive. Easy fit inside a lid with lots of room for insulation or whatever when the supers are off. 

Why are you set on putting them crosswise? If you make your box long enough (40+ inches) you can put two 10 frame supers on top, end to end.


----------

