# More Warre Discussion



## curiousgeorge

Hello everyone. I know there are some other threads on Warre beekeeping in this forum, but I'd like to keep the conversation going. I've been reading "Beekeeping For All" several times and researching on the net for anything I can find. A lot of the Warre system clicks with me, it seems to make a lot of simple, logical sense. 

However, there's a few alarm bells starting to ring in my head, as I think ahead to one day running a small commercial Warre operation. I'm hoping to hear others opinions and experiences on these matters:

1) I understand the reasoning behind fixed combs. Can't help but wonder though, wouldn't there come many situations where it would be very frustrating to not be able to go in and inspect? Ideally, sure, leave them alone. But what if your hive DOES have major problems?
What about raising queens? Not being able to extract? (I like the idea of crush and strain, but crushing and straining a few hundred hives? How is that done?)

2) I really like the square box, makes sense to me. But in the end, is it worth it as compared to the availability of Langstroth equipment? 

3) How would it affect your ability to for example, sell queens, make & sell nucs, etc. when all your equipment is different from, in reality, most of your customers? Would beekeepers running standard Langs with foundation want to buy natural-cell, regressed queens? bees? I guess the main question is, would you be up against a wall not because you don't have a good system, but that all your equipment is not transferable to the majority of other beekeepers?

I guess that's it for now. I'm a bit Warre-fanatical, I will admit. I would be sad if it turned out to not be a feasible system in this day and age. But also have no Warre experience, so just trying to sort out ahead of time the realities. Thanks a lot for the discussion.


----------



## Oldtimer

Warré Hives are a great idea and the bees do enjoy them.

If you want to go "natural" they are more "natural" than a top bar hive.

However I could NOT recommend this to someone wanting to go commercial. All the concerns you raised are valid, but there's much more also. There are next to zero commercial Warré operations and there is a reason for that.

If you do find a commercial Warré operation, it will be about selling Warrés to other people, hive rental, running courses etc, honey not so much.

So if you want to go commercial, before committing a lot of money to a Warré set up you would need to see if there is a niche available you could fill, and could you derive an income from it. This might not gel with everybody but my advise if going commercial would be to go Langstroth. They are not that bad - Really!


----------



## curiousgeorge

Thanks Oldtimer,

Yeah, I keep poking around looking for commercial Warre operations, and the only 2 I've found are in France (don't have the websites right here but it's Ruche Warre and Mr. Gatineau I believe). And they both use movable frames. There must be a reason for that...

And like you said, are Langs really that bad? I'm used to them and I've seen healthy colonies in them, so...

Another thing I forgot to mention is... when it gets to heavy flow time, won't you have a skyscraper on your hands? With the quilt and the roof, and possibly all raised up to look underneath, isn't it gonna get TALL? I'm curious if Warres tend to blow over in the wind?
The boxes are smaller so handling them would be easier, but if you've got boxes full of honey way up over your head... another concern.

Another question: especially with leaving the bees honey for winter stores, is honey production down in Warre hives? I know Warre himself said you can produce profitable amounts of honey, but how much?


----------



## Ueli Hoffmann

I built and worked Warré hives for several years. I learned much from my Warré beekeeping experience. The hive has its merits but it also has its limits.

After having both Warré and Langstroth hives I find the Langstroth to be better adapted my methods and expanding needs. However, I still keep a couple of Warré hives as novelties.

My best advice to you is to try a couple of Warré hives, a couple of Langstroth hives and maybe even a couple of top-bar hives for a couple of seasons and then make you own decision.

If you still want exact answers to the questions you pose, then



curiousgeorge said:


> Can't help but wonder though, wouldn't there come many situations where it would be very frustrating to not be able to go in and inspect?


Yes.



curiousgeorge said:


> But what if your hive DOES have major problems?


Then YOU have major problems.



curiousgeorge said:


> What about raising queens?


Expecting to rear queens with Warré methods is not practical.



curiousgeorge said:


> Not being able to extract?


Doable but increasingly more difficult on a larger scale.



curiousgeorge said:


> I like the idea of crush and strain, but crushing and straining a few hundred hives? How is that done?


Find a video of an early skep beekeeping crush and strain and take good notes.



curiousgeorge said:


> I really like the square box, makes sense to me. But in the end, is it worth it as compared to the availability of Langstroth equipment?


On a larger scale, no. But I am certain those who sell Warré hives will tell you otherwise.



curiousgeorge said:


> How would it affect your ability to for example, sell queens, make & sell nucs, etc. when all your equipment is different from, in reality, most of your customers?


Negatively.



curiousgeorge said:


> Would beekeepers running standard Langs with foundation want to buy natural-cell, regressed queens? bees?


Yes, but not necessarily from you.



curiousgeorge said:


> I guess the main question is, would you be up against a wall not because you don't have a good system, but that all your equipment is not transferable to the majority of other beekeepers?


Yes, a very tall brick wall on both accounts.

opcorn:


----------



## bigbearomaha

You've read "The People's Hive" so you already know what Warre says. I won't repeat that.

Oldtimer gave you good advice. Find a niche and fill it.

Hive types and management methods are almost as much about the beekeeper as they are about the bees. if it's "you" then you will make it work because it's what you want to make work.

you say you want to be commercial. Commercial what? breeder? honey producer? pollinator? equipment manufacturer/retailer? a combination of those? what?

methods and practices for a large scale pollinator are not necessarily the same as those of a stationary honey producer.

one still very good, but very old, book I would suggest you read is "Advanced Bee Culture" by W.Z. Hutchinson (5th edition, circa 1918) you can get a free pdf download on google or here

One thing I have learned about the original Warre hive design is that it is based on materials available in his part of the world quite some time ago. Building materials have changed since then. I have gone to a "modified" Warre hive using modern resources and available materials and it has worked out well for me.

When you use equipment and methods that are considered "alternative" you will have to expect to be a bit more self reliant than for those who enjoy common, mass produced , pre-cut and assembled parts. That's part of what I said earlier in regard to "making it work".

You have to ask yourself what do you get out of using this equipment and methodology? personal satisfaction? unique product and marketing? lower long term production and labor costs? less wear and tear on your body?

It's a more complicated decision when going from a hobbyist to a commercial venture. It sometimes requires you to follow practicality over some personal idealistic ways.


----------



## curiousgeorge

Thank you for your replies, greatly appreciated. Omaha, I'm not sure yet what I mean by "commercial". Truth is, I'm pretty green- I've not yet owned my own hive, and just have a few years working for commercial operations. Maybe a good question to ask then, is what would be a SMART OPERATION using Warre? I know comb/section honey is one thing, selling high quality wax another. Sometimes if you don't fit the mold, you just gotta make a new one. Although, and this is what I'm trying to figure out long in advance, is sometimes the mold is there because it works.


----------



## WPG

The langstroth of today is*not* the same as the one Langstroth developed, so no reason that the warre of today has to be exactly the same as Warre' developed.

Modify to fit todays laws and pest control requirements.
Adopt some of Warre's management techniques that may help with the health of the hive, such as rotating boxes from 'cold' way to 'warm' way. Only works with a square box and a square lang is *big*.

Supering from the bottom matches the natural activity in the wild.
And his recommendation of removing the wax every year or some the second year fits with todays concern about chemicals building up in the brood nest.

Goodluck


----------



## beez2010

George,

The concerns you have raised are exactly why we offer the products that we do at our site. Between Standard Warres, Modified Warres and the Hybrid Hive (uses 8 frame mediums), we work around these concerns by selling the hive that matches the want or need of the customer, while still maintaining the basic Warre design.

It has occurred to me though, that if you've read beekeeping for all several times, then surely you know that Warre did indeed use an extractor by placing the top bars and combs into perforated metal cages. And also that he did occasionally remove combs for inspection by inverting the hive body, cutting the comb loose from the walls and then removing the top bar(s) and comb(s). In his opinion, this was no more difficult than dealing with heavily propolized frames. There are procedure for locating queens, doing splits, etc. You can find all this information on our site, too. I think the real issue with alot of this confusion is that people don't read enough.

All of that being said, not even _I _would try to run a large scale, commercial operation using Warres, simply because of the almost exclusive use of the Langstroth design in this country. Our business has been built by serving hobbyist beekeepers.

Chris Harvey--Teakwood Organics

www.thewarrestore.com


----------



## Ueli Hoffmann

Here are a few links to my own design for a horizontal Warré style hive. The hive is based on Johann Thür’s writings of the ideal colony nest dimensions. I call it the “Frankenhive”. WARNING: It's a monster!

http://www.warrebeek.com/fhhive.html

The Frankenhive can contain up to three separate colonies. Each colony can be managed separately as a simple horizontal top-bar hive, nadir occupied Warré hive boxes or supered with empty Warré hive boxes or 8-frame Langstroth supers with frames. The Frankenhive can be used for a range of hobbyist activities such as splitting and raising queens.

Since it is a horizontal top-bar hive it is well suited to the hobbyist beekeeper who wants to spend a little more time inside the hive observing, inspecting and working the bees. There are numerous management strategies for the Frankenhive.

http://www.warrebeek.com/fhhive2tier.html

This hive has been my best preforming Warré style hive.

"Smallholders and farmers capable of keeping bees should be enabled to keep bees successfully with this simple hive that they can easily make themselves, without significant outlay on materials, without specialist knowledge, money or labour, without machines or gadgets, without using sugar or foundation, and in a purely natural manner." - Johann Thür


----------



## Oldtimer

The Frankenhive! I like it!

Nice series of pictures on your link too, Ueli.

I won't be getting one myself and certainly wouldn't recommend it commercially, but it does combine the best features of both top bar and Warré, while at the same time eliminating some of the worst features. So for example, a drawback with standard top bar hives is that they are not normally superable, but the Frankenhive can be.

I think it would be a great novelty project for a small hobbyist, or even perhaps the hobby bee club I go to.


----------



## Box

hi 
Have seen this video by a japanese who uses a ..warre like hive
and the way he gets the comb out looks quite easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9aBEmz59hk


----------



## bigbearomaha

valleyman, most people see no supers on a tbh as a plus. it's often one of the primary reasons for using it.

there are a few experimental people who want to play with it's purpose and design, because they are that type of person that likes to tweak and change things.

I personally wouldn't consider horizontal tbh's for commercial honey production myself.


----------



## Ueli Hoffmann

French bee breeder Bernard Nicolle no longer sells bees for Warré hives. Here is a link to his website where he explains the reasons for his decision.

http://www.abeille-et-nature.com/ruche-warre.htm

:scratch: For those who do not read French I am also providing a translated link:

http://translate.google.com/transla...p://www.abeille-et-nature.com/ruche-warre.htm


----------



## Ueli Hoffmann

bigbearomaha said:


> there are a few experimental people who want to play with it's purpose and design, because they are that type of person that likes to tweak and change things.


...thankfully, otherwise all bees would still be kept in clay urns! 



bigbearomaha said:


> I personally wouldn't consider horizontal tbh's for commercial honey production myself.


Nor would I.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm... Well I read your link Ueli, slightly hard to read the translation but I guess the main meaning comes through.

This is the issue I have, new and less knowledgeable beekeepers get swept along with these alternative hive designs because they are presented in persuasive books, often accompanied by a lot of langstroth bashing, leaving the reader thinking the langstroth is the source of all evils. These books make the author look very knowledgeable, or even a bit smarter then everybody else. But when I've checked out a few of these authors I've nearly always found that their own hives are getting below average results.

I'm not including Abbé Ēmile Warré in that though because I have not read his book.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Oldtimer said:


> ...This is the issue I have, new and less knowledgeable beekeepers get swept along with these alternative hive designs because they are presented in persuasive books, often accompanied by a lot of langstroth bashing, leaving the reader thinking the langstroth is the source of all evils...


I agree. And I think that is a big mistake for the whole arena of beekeeping. We shouldn't be so oppositional as we discuss the different hive designs. They're all just human inventions, trying to do a good job of what we need them to do. The recent decline of the honeybee has been caused by a lot of things - and we haven't yet come to fully understand them. But to point to the Langstroth itself as the culprit? I don't buy it.

I have moved to trying top bar hives because it is fun to design and build things, and because doing so allowed me to get into keeping bees right away - without having to buy a lot of equipment. I do not believe that it is any more "natural" or "good-for-the-bees" than keeping bees in a Langstroth. Those issues come down to management in my estimation.

I think a lot of what Warre hives have to offer is interesting, but I'm thinking that a combination of Lang and warre might work better for me.


Adam


----------



## curiousgeorge

Thanks for all your input so far. I am also finding that in trying to get information about Warre hives (pros & cons) that most of the info (most, not all) comes from people (like myself) with limited experience, or who are keeping a very small number of hives. A lot of ideas and ideals. I suppose it's up to each person to get their own active experience (research) & decide from there. There's many mixed messages, with beekeeping in general, I'm finding. Which is fascinating but also frustrating, when one thing works amazing for some and others say it's a bad idea. I guess so much depends on locale, the year, the weather, the beekeeper, luck...

I'm still very interested in Warre, both the hive and the methods, but I can see the drawbacks too. How important do you folks see the warm-way/cold-way aspect of it? And the quilt/vented roof? Because I have experience and access to Langs, I'm thinking the wisest thing to do is run both (Warre & Lang) in a small, slow buildup and let the facts and experience decide which is the better method for me. 

It's funny- it is very easy to jump on a new fad and trash the conventional ways; it's also very easy to stick to the conventional ways because "that's how it's done".


----------



## Oldtimer

curiousgeorge said:


> How important do you folks see the warm-way/cold-way aspect of it? And the quilt/vented roof?


In a Langstroth? Not very important. But Ēmile thought it was important so in his climate, with his hives, condensation must have been an issue and he was able to solve it in that way.

Which brings up "natural". Neither a Langstroth nor a Warré is "natural" because a natural hive is in a tree or similar and does not get opened, cared for, or harvested.

But it could be argued that a Warré is more "natural" because the bees build their own comb, the hive is smaller than a Langstroth, and as I understand, it's not meant to get opened or manipulated much.

But truly natural is not what we are after as beekeepers. Most of us want to harvest honey and that is a departure from what is natural as a hive in a tree is not harvested.

So a Langstroth is bigger than a natural hive. I have never seen a wild hive as big as a 5 super Langstroth. In fact the great majority of wild hives I've seen would fit in one Langstroth super. So a Langstroth is unnaturally large. And the reason for that is at the end of the day, we want a honey crop and the more the better.

So because of the large size of a Langstroth, they tend to overcome moisture issues even without a Warré style absorbant roof. Not that a Langstroth never has condensation issues, they can, but it is less pronounced of a problem. In my climate we have mild winters and brood rearing continues through, there will never be condensation visible in a hive. In a colder part of my country where I first started keeping bees, moisture in winter could build up and we would occasionally see mouldy combs etc outside the winter cluster. But it was not enough of a problem to be worth making any special equipment to deal with it. I think some guys perhaps in Canada or real cold places may find moisture a problem in a Langstroth and may take measures to deal with it. It's probably location dependant.


----------



## sjj

Let's accept the fact that the “observability” of the beehive determinates the beekeeper's ability to control it.
Consequently, he can optimize his operation.
Prior to this, he has to formulate his optimization criterion.
We have “observability”. We have “controllability”. We have “optimization”.



curiousgeorge said:


> ...Maybe a good question to ask then, is what would be a SMART OPERATION using Warre? ...


Kind regards.
Johann


----------



## bigbearomaha

air flow is considered important to the Warre hive, as well as most other hives. Even to a "wild" bee nest in a tree, there is air flow that is obviously tended to by the bees to control temperature and moisture in the nest.

I expect Warre arranged for the capability to change the airflow directions as a physical control aspect of the hive to facilitate the work of the bees inside depending on the season.

I think people are being disingenuous and picky about how they try to define "natural" beekeeping".

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the term "naturalistic". In that the person is trying to base their management methods and techniques based on the information known about actual "natural" colonies. 

They base their decisions on observed "natural" bee biology and behaviors. Instead of "dictating" the conditions of the colony, they prefer to "facilitate" the known and observed strengths of a bee colony. Largely based on letting the bees "tell" the person when and if there is an issue in the nest/hive that is detrimental and might require attention if the colony is to survive.

Everyone knows that a hive is a man made structure designed to contain a bees nest they build inside of it, just as they might build a nest in a wall or roofline or other "non-tree" voids they will find and choose in a feral situation.

Bees have survived and evolved in the "wild" for over 170 million years. They have adapted to parasites, predators, pathogens and poisonous plants. To suggest that bees "need" man to survive is perhaps the height of vanity.

With all the chemicals, mechanical devices, hive designs, manipulation methodologies and more that humans have exposed bees to over the last 3000 or so years, Some would argue that bees are not any better off for the "care" beekeepers inflict on them.

With all these great modern technological advances, bee populations are still being recorded as declining. Given that, there is no reason that people seeking non-"modern", and "natural" as opposed to synthetic ways to work with bees is any worse for them. 

Yet again, I regret letting myself post. Yet, once again, I will close this by asking that people be more open-minded and tolerant of the myriad of ways bee folk around the world find to work with bees.

for the record. I am not anti-"modern" methods, personally, I really don;t care what the beekeeper down the road does with the bees. No law requires that I have to do the same as they and similarly, they need not worry about what I do with bees as that no universal law extends to them as well.

If you don't agree with it, don't do it. leave those who do alone, just as you would ask them to not antagonize you for your choices.


----------



## Oldtimer

bigbearomaha said:


> I think people are being disingenuous and picky about how they try to define "natural" beekeeping".
> 
> Perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the term "naturalistic".


Yes good point. Sadly I don't think this will actually take on.

But there is a certain smugness within the various groups of people who describe their beekeeping as "natural", which implies all other beekeepers are "unnatural". The people who describe themselves as "natural" come from several different philosophies and hive designs, comb sizes etc.

As keeping a totally natural hive is actually illegal, natural beekeeping comes in degrees. So "naturalistic" would be a more accurate term, and hopefully lead away from some of the pompousness and us and them mentality.


----------



## bigbearomaha

> As keeping a totally natural hive is actually illegal


maybe in your state, but that may not be the case in all places.

there are some folks who do get a bit "over-bearing" and holier than thou in the "natural" camp, I agree, but that also certainly pertains to the antagonists in the "modern" beekeeping camp as well.

and I don't think that applies to or reflects all the people who are making those efforts, one way or the other, in general. As usual, it only takes a few, loudmouth apples, to blow the whole discussion into ridiculous proportions.

This is one reason I am on my own soapbox so often about definitions and terminology. people want to define things for themselves or bend meanings to make themselves feel better or look better, but it is those definitions that allow for practical and relevant discussion among a large number of people.

terms like "natural" "chemical-free" "modern" "traditional" really are so vague as to be unhelpful to these discussions. Not only can they be mis leading by those wanting to "sell" their story to others on the 'pro' side, they are also easy to distort and be so vague as to make hings misleading or deceptively argumentative on the 'anti' side.

Anyways, I think we, you and I, are essentially on the same page but to bring this all back around to the Warre discussion, From my experience and reading of Warre's book, he was as much about working with bees in a 'naturalistic' system as he was about trying to use bees natural biology and behaviors of building comb and storing surplus honey to a persons advantage.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, as stated, the Warré, in it's pure form as designed by Ēmile, is the most "natural" of the three main available hive designs.

However this has to be weighed up against how we may want to be using the bees and what WE want from them, and the management has to be considered in the light of the world as it is now, with a lot more challenges for bees.


----------



## bigbearomaha

> However this has to be weighed up against how we may want to be using the bees and what WE want from them


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Well, here's a question then:

Why NOT a warre? I mean, for those of you who have used one, what are the detractors? And for those of you who have considered one, why haven't you put them into practice; what's your hesitation?

For me, it's three things:

1 - I worry about boxes full of fused comb, that I can't easily get into for inspection.

2 - I worry that the boxes are too small, so the combs are too small, and that the division into these tiny boxes isn't really efficient. I also worry that you're going to get an unnecessarily tall pile of little boxes to accommodate a bumper year with a good colony.

3 - If I want the "pile-of-boxes" approach to creating a bee-friendly cavity, why wouldn't I just go with a Lang, and get the added benefits of the larger pool of support and shared experience, and available tools? If I want "top bar simplicity" - then I feel like I should just go with the ktbh.


Adam


----------



## curiousgeorge

I think that is perhaps THE question, Adam: Why NOT a Warre? 

With the "fused comb" issue, I agree- even inspecting from the underside of the box, how much can you really see?

And the skyscraper of boxes you could get when the flow is on... not only nadiring and taking off honey, but what about wind? Anyone with experience on this? I can just picture coming to a beeyard after a summer thunderstorm and seeing all your hives toppled over. Ouch. 

My purpose for starting this thread wasn't to debate the meaning of "natural" beekeeping, or even opinions and ideals of the Warre method, but to take a very objective, practical, hard look at the advantages and disadvantages of Warre. To me, there's a reason why it is becoming more and more popular and of interest to beekeepers, it must have merit that people sense. For something to stand, it should be able to withstand unbiased testing, don't ya think?


----------



## beez2010

Ok, you guys are moving into the realm of nonsensical discussion, now.

How are boxes that are the same volume as 8 frame mediums and _larger_ than 10 frame shallows _tiny_?

We have awesome flows here in northern Michigan and I have only ever used five boxes at once. Plenty manageable for me. (I am 5'6" 150 lbs., 39 years old and in good health). A lang with two deeps and 5 shallow supers isn't much different...only slightly shorter and the boxes _aren't_ more manageable.

Wind is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Remember that wind system that moved through the mid-west at the end of last summer? We had sustained winds of 50 mph and gusts of 75mph for about 3 days. None of my (unsecured) hives went anywhere. If you're worried about it, use hive staples.

As far as inspections go, that's part of the point of using these things, guys. If you want to be able to pick your bees' home apart...don't use one. You can monitor and treat for varroa without going in. 99% of the time, the bees are better off if you stay out.

The main reason for using Warres _is_ and _always has been _better wintering on fewer stores (I think you guys are not taking this into consideration). If you think you can overwinter your bees in a lang on 25 lbs. or less of honey, I dare you to try it.

I still run one lang that I overwinter on two deeps. They consume over 100 lbs. of honey and I have to start feeding them fondant in March to keep them from starving. It's getting pretty old.

Chris.


----------



## curiousgeorge

Chris, umm... "nonsensical discussion"... why so cranky? I do agree that often these forums end up going around in circles until they dry up, but I think people are really trying to think things through and look at all the angles, no need for insults. 

You have experience and information, thanks for sharing your info. That's what people need to hear- real, proven field-experience on Warres, I appreciate it.


----------



## bigbearomaha

another thing to consider about Warres is that many people consider the wax to be a product of the hive as well. It is used to make soaps, candles, skin creams, lip balms and so much more. It has retail value that can be appreciable.

The "fused comb" will get crushed and melted down in a warre hive typically. leaving boxes with top bars ready for newly drawn wax comb that is not potentially "polluted" with residual buildup of pesticides, etc over a long period of time.

in a business that uses warre hives, you must consider using all that is available from the hive at extraction time.

Most often, extraction from Warre hives involves crush and strain methods that leave the wax comb in no condition to be re-used in the hive bodies. Using it to make other retail or wholesale products improves the income potential of that business.

In this day and age, one might consider adding pollen traps to the hives to collect and sell that as well in a business operation. collected clean propolis from propolis traps can add to that income potential, just as they can in other types of hives.

you say you have read his book, he discussed much of what I mention in there. 

One of his primary purposes of writing the book was to help poor people in his region become self sufficient and find ways to generate income with beekeeping. That's practically what the book is about.


----------



## beez2010

I'm not being cranky _or_ insulting. I just thought that the references to "skyscrapers" made from "tiny" boxes were a little silly, that's all.

Chris


----------



## bigbearomaha

Chris, would we call that the "leaning tower of beesa"?


----------



## WPG

> As keeping a totally natural hive is actually illegal.





bigbearomaha said:


> maybe in your state, but that may not be the case in all places.


*Really?*

BigBear you are well informed, experienced, wise and knowledgable.

So what state or states in these U.S. of A. do *not* require comb that can be inspected without destruction?


*Chris,* I don't think you're cranky or insulting, he's just trying to poke ya and see how high you jump.:lookout:


----------



## bigbearomaha

> BigBear you are well informed, experienced, wise and knowledgable


.

I don't know about all that.

Nebraska for one. The states beekeeping laws were repealed only a few years ago.

It is then up to each locality to determine whether to allow beekeeping within city/county limits, most of those rules based on space on property and having water sources ,etc.. available.


----------



## waynesgarden

I don't know of any states where it isn't illegal, but there are states that simply do not bother inspecting home aparies unless asked, focusing instead, and when they wish, on commercial operations. I noticed this again yesterday when I was looking up Georgia's regulations on their state website.

Wayne


----------



## Beethinking

Oregon as far as I'm aware doesn't have a "frame" or "inspectable" comb law.

Cheers,
Matt


----------



## Oldtimer

Well that's interesting. Yesterday I heard it said on the basis of a guys experience, that not inspecting hives has never been shown to increase disease or problems.

Then Today I read your link Bear, about deregulation on Nebraska.

I quote direct from your link -

'LB 835—Change Provisions of the Nebraska Apiary Act (Kremer)
LB 835 deregulates Nebraska’s beekeeping industry. The bill
amends the Nebraska Apiary Act, eliminating the requirement that
bee colonies be registered and inspected by the Nebraska Department
of Agriculture. The bill also provides that beekeepers no
longer need to obtain a permit to bring bees into the state.
This reduced regulation reflects the decline of beekeeping in Nebraska.
The number of registered apiaries fell by more than half in
the last decade and because there was a corresponding decline in
inspections, it became difficult for the department to maintain its
inspection program.LB 835 passed 39-0 and was approved by the Governor on
End quote

Clearly there is good reason for hives to be regularly inspected.

I'll post this in the other thread also.


----------



## bigbearomaha

as I mentioned there, I'll repeat for you here.

There law repeal had nothing to do with how hives are managed or due to particular management methods.

take your bias elsewhere please.


----------



## beez2010

Michigan repealed it's movable frames law (enacted in 1913) in 1993. It is perfectly legal to keep bees in a skep or anything else we want. We are finding from our customers, also, that there are many states who's inspectors are not enforcing movable frame laws when it comes to hobby beekeeping.

Bigbear, don't let the old man get you down. He can't help it....he's upside down! The blood's rushing to his head! 

Relax, OT. I'm just joking, but honestly, you have a very bad habit of taking the wrong meanings from what you read. You _totally_ misconstrued the meaning of what you have outlined in red and have twisted it (probably unintentionally) into what you _think_ it says. You have done this so many times in the past that I have lost count.

Chris


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

beez2010 said:


> I'm not being cranky _or_ insulting. I just thought that the references to "skyscrapers" made from "tiny" boxes were a little silly, that's all.
> 
> Chris


Silly or not depends largely on one's perspective. Mine is presently from the perspective of the uninitiated, when it comes to the warre. Bear with me.

The boxes seem "tiny" to me in terms of footprint. 12"x 12" seems tiny compared to 13"x 19" or larger. (I guess you're accounting for the frames when you say that the warre box and medium 8 lang are the same - fair enough.) And I guess when the bees have glued things together and there is some weight in the boxes, they are not so likely to topple over, but I have seen a number of images where people have belted their Warre's to their stands, so I'm not the only one to read them as potentially precarious in their appearance. I'm glad to hear of your experience with them in the wind, as this could mean that the fear is unfounded.

Truthfully, I am trying to do my best to discover the best all-around way to keep bees, from a hive design standpoint. I can build or obtain each major hive type and try it, and very likely will. But here in February, when I've just shoveled my car out for the second time today, online discussion of the merits and detractors of hive designs seems like the perfect bee-related thing to do, as I decide what to try this season. 

I would actually LOVE to discover that the warre or modified warre was the perfect hive. It's pretty easy to build, and is said to winter well. So whatever people have to offer that supports it is interesting to me.


Adam


----------



## beez2010

Actually, OT, if _I_ was to read what you have in red up there and try to make an argument about inspections, _I_ would say that it appears to indicate that Nebraska's inspection program _caused_ apiaries to decline by 50% in the state! 

Chris Harvey--Teakwood Organics

www.thewarrestore.com


----------



## Oldtimer

beez2010 said:


> Bigbear, don't let the old man get you down. He can't help it....he's upside down! The blood's rushing to his head!
> 
> Relax, OT. I'm just joking, Chris


No worries about your joke. I know a couple of good ones too

Upside down or whatever, I get the last laugh when I find out how well the bees did. Not wanting to be too mean or anything, but here's laughing at you two.


----------



## beez2010

:scratch: Uhhhh....the bees are doing just fine, OT. Just like last year...and the year before that. They're humming away and have lots of stores. From what I can tell with my octagon hives (this _is_ the first winter that I've used those), _those_ bees are going to make it through with significant stores left over! And _no_, varroa are _not_ going to kill them.

Chris


----------



## curiousgeorge

I'm relatively new to Beesource here, and I greatly appreciate the knowledge, experience, and tips you all give on these forums. I'm here to learn all I can about beekeeping, and definitely not to make enemies... can't help but ask, though: why do so many of these discussions end up sounding like the henhouse?!


----------



## beez2010

That's why I only come around here from time to time, George. I can only take it for a short while. If you stick around, you'll notice that I'll leave for weeks or months at a time (unlike _some_ people who are _always_ here). Honestly, if you want to learn as much as possible about beekeeping and bees (in general), go read the million pages of information that Michael Bush has made available at his website. He doesn't do Warres, but then again he's never tried, nor has he ever really put them down. What he _has_ done is spent about a million hours writing, and if you study that, you'll know enough about bees to apply that knowledge to any aspect of beekeeping that you decide to do. That's what I did. The man's a genius.

Learning...around here? It's not so easy because of the debating. Can you imagine studying philosophy at the university and being placed in a lecture hall with 25 profs? How well do you think that would work?

BTW, I have some good stuff at my site, too. Good luck to you.

Chris


----------



## beez2010

Ya know, Warre wrote that framed hives, which allowed for significant intervention by the beekeeper, were the biggest contributor to the spread of AFB.

Didn't _you_ have an AFB problem this year, OT? Seems that I recall some pics of you torching some bees and equipment. If I recall _correctly_, you weren't laughing _that_ day. 

Chris


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes I had AFB this year, in the end I had to burn 4 hives & still not sure I'm done with it.

The first hive I found it in had just a few cells showing the disease, but more hives showed up with it over the next few months, they all got caught with only 2 or 3 cells of AFB, because I was watching them like a hawk.

As I'm an inspector I was able to check around hives in the area to attempt to find the source, but could not. There could be unregistered hives around, but the most likely possibility would be feral hives in the bush, which there is a lot of within range of my bees.

However I'm happy with the procedures that have been followed, couldn't really have done any more to protect both myself and other beekeepers. The apiary is still in quaranteen just to be safe.


----------



## Delta Bay

I have one Warre' going into its third year. I have no problems inspecting individual combs when needed. For easy inspections you must make sure that the bees follow the guides that you place on the bars. If you use foundation strips about 3/4" deep they will consistently build along them. Clamping the strip between a split bar with screws or nails will hold the strip firmly in place. If you were in an area where honey yields are high a Warre' I don't think would be the best hive choice. We are not in a high honey production area so I don't think a Warre' is going to get too tall around here. As far as I know it is pollination contracts that most of the true commercial outfits are doing to pay the bills in our area, honey being a byproduct. To move hives around and for grading purposes the Lang is the way to go. Not to say that you couldn't develop a niche market with all the new hobbyists that are interested to have bees by selling hives and bees along with local honey and other hive products to the public.


----------



## curiousgeorge

Thanks for that point, Delta Bay. Does anyone know what kind of nectar flow conditions Warre was working in (France)? 

Also, I recall mention about harvesting honey as it's ready. I'm wondering, for someone maybe small enough (the operation not the guy!) or with the time, could you just make more frequent rounds, taking off boxes as they're ready? That would be way more labor-intensive I guess, more nadiring constantly... but might that be a way of harvesting Warres in a heavy-flow area?


----------



## Oldtimer

I think that would be the way to go.

Chris said the highest his hives have ever been is 5 boxes. So to get a reasonable crop that would be commercially viable with those little boxes I think you would have to take off and replace several times a season. 

How much honey do you get out of a typical Warré super?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Chris suggests that the warre super has an internal volume of roughly that of the Langstroth 8 frame medium. So the honey capacity should be close to the same.

Adam


----------



## curiousgeorge

it's interesting to think of honey harvest in a different way. When I think in terms of what I'm used to (commercial Lang operation) doing frequent multiple rounds seems incredibly impractical. But in a different situation, like a smaller Warre operation, it starts to make some sense:

Since you'd probably be doing section/comb honey, crush and strain, and more beeswax rendering... you could probably get into a pretty smooth system. Lots of work, but having a steady, smaller influx of honey supers, rather than one or two major hauls, may suit the whole system better. Say, take off supers (and nadir) in the morning, processing the rest of the day, something like that. Any thoughts, experience, opinions on that?

Another question: Can someone explain the Warre method of uniting to me? I read it, and what I recall is picking your 2 strongest brood boxes (1 from each hive to be united), and then placing the remaining boxes individually on these 2 and smoking the bees down into them. I think I'm missing something. I know the usual newspaper method of uniting colonies. I don't remember him saying what about the queens? Obviously, if one hive is already queenless, putting them all together unseparated would work. But what about if it's just 2 weak colonies still with queens? Do you kill the weaker one and wait a bit? It seems like a really simple way to unite, but I feel like I'm missing some detail there. Thanks!


----------



## WPG

I seem to remember a commecial guy talking about pulling 2-3 supers each, sticking a couple empties in below a partial and coming back and doing it again in a month.
It kept the crew in the shop busy.

If a beek was bottling and selling his own then having variatal honey is a good seller.
They'd want to keep it seperate. And wouldn't need quite as much equipment.


I think Warre' liked to squeese all hives down to two boxes for winter.

If he was combining two weak ones he just did it and let the stronger queen win.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

I know that with ktbh's you have to harvest more than once to keep space available. But I was under the impression that Warre keepers only harvest once, in accordance with the warre philosophy of minimum disturbance to the hive.

True?

Adam


----------



## Oldtimer

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Chris suggests that the warre super has an internal volume of roughly that of the Langstroth 8 frame medium. So the honey capacity should be close to the same.
> 
> Adam


Yes I saw that but I think he would be incorrect.

To me anyway, a Warré box would not only be narrower than a Lang, but also not as long. Could also be shorter? Don't know I'd look it up and measure one but I'm running late.

Any Warré folks could tell us how much honey in a Warré box?


----------



## Oldtimer

Ok well I just took the time & googled it. According to what I found the metric internal measurements for a Warré are .300 x's .300 x's .210 = .189 cubic metre. A Lang is .470 x's .370 x's .240 = .417 cubic metre.

So a Warré beekeeper would have to produce 2 boxes of honey and still not be equal to one lang box.

But incase I'm wrong, can a Warré guy tell us how much honey you'd get out of a box?


----------



## Buz Green

I usually get just under 30 lbs. out of a completely filled box.


----------



## Beethinking

I get about the same as Buz Green -- 30lbs per box or so. My tallest hives each season are generally 5 boxes as well. Most getting up to 4 boxes here in Portland, Oregon. I harvest once a year around September.

Cheers,
Matt


----------



## curiousgeorge

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I know that with ktbh's you have to harvest more than once to keep space available. But I was under the impression that Warre keepers only harvest once, in accordance with the warre philosophy of minimum disturbance to the hive.
> 
> True?
> 
> Adam


Yes, that is true. But I also (vaguely) recall, either in Warre's book or somewhere else Warre-related (don't quote me on this), mention of doing multiple, smaller honey rounds. As noted above, you can do this to bottle and sell different strains of honey (though Warre recommended mixed honey for best nutritional quality).

I think also, when Warre talked about only doing 1 or 2 checks (spring and honey harvest), he was talking about more thorough inspections? Because he does outline interventions such as splitting, uniting, finding/replacing the queen, pioneering, etc. Are we confused here? To me, doing multiple harvest rounds would still stick to the minimum disturbance (of the BROOD NEST) rule, because you wouldn't be going into the nest, just taking off supers and nadiring. 

But by late summer, you're wanting to get your hive down to two boxes anyway, right? So do you just take off the supers and not nadir at harvest time?


----------



## beez2010

I give up on this thread. George, every answer that you want to know about Warres is on our site. "People" here are gonna say I'm wrong when "they" don't even know the dimensions of a Warre box? (By the way, OT, you gave the dimensions for a 10 frame Lang deep. The same ol' thing from you....read something and totally get it wrong. I have come to the conclusion that you DO NOT know how to read english. Do you know what an 8 frame medium is? And you have to subtract from _those_ inside dimensions to account for _frames_....that Warre hives do not have!) I have lots of management tips on getting maximum honey production from a Warre on my site, but don't read that...I mean, what would _I_ know about it? UNCLE!!

Chris Harvey--Teakwood Organics

www.thewarrestore.com


----------



## curiousgeorge

To everyone on this thread, I apologize if I have been asking ignorant and redundant questions, and making frequent and silly comments. It's winter and I'm not around bees, so I may very well be guilty of talking in circles and wasting everyone's time. 

From now on, I will consult the Warre Store Gospel for any and every question I may have. I confess I have only consulted it 5-10 times. Apparently no one else knows anything about anything.


----------



## beez2010

The distance between the side bars of a Lang frame is 43cm. The distance between the top and bottom bars of a _medium_ Lang frame is 13.5cm and the _8 frame medium_ box is 32cm wide. _My_ math says that those measurements make for a volume of 19,156.5cc, with a Warre box equalling 18,900cc, a difference of 256.5cc. The difference in honey from the two boxes _might_ be 1 lb.

Not bad for what was originally a guestimate. Stuff that in your smokers.

Chris


----------



## beez2010

curiousgeorge said:


> To everyone on this thread, I apologize if I have been asking ignorant and redundant questions, and making frequent and silly comments. It's winter and I'm not around bees, so I may very well be guilty of talking in circles and wasting everyone's time.
> 
> From now on, I will consult the Warre Store Gospel for any and every question I may have. I confess I have only consulted it 5-10 times. Apparently no one else knows anything about anything.


George,

I have a very good analytics program and I know for a _fact_ that _if_ you have _ever_ logged onto my site, you haven't been on more than 1 time for 9 minutes. You haven't read 1/10th of what is available there, just like you haven't read BFA "several times" as you had stated. I don't like people who lie. :no:

Chris


----------



## Buz Green

George, keep asking questions on this forum. You and anyone else who reads them will benefit from the answers as long as you (and they) keep one caveat in mind.
"Don't believe anything you hear (or read) and only half of what you see"


----------



## curiousgeorge

Thanks, Buz Green. It's funny, the Warre system is taking me a while to wrap my head around, but the more I read (and I am studying it- unfortunately, only in theory and not in practice right now) the more logical and simple it seems. A lot of it is just a, well, different, approach than what I've been taught and am (slightly, minimally) experienced in (commercial Lang operation). A lot of the interventions and the "philosophy" behind them have to be revisited over & over again to really get the hang of it. I think working with BOXES instead of FRAMES is something that is a big mental adjustment for me, but makes really.good.sense. I'm used to equalizing hives, making splits by taking frames from here & there. Treating a colony box by box is starting to make more & more sense. 

The first couple times I went over the system for making splits, I kept shaking my head. But when it all finally clicked... putting the new split on the original spot to take in all the foragers returning and the new foragers returning, it was like a "Eureka!!!" moment. And the whole bees-moving-down-in-summer-moving-up-in-winter thing, and the replacing of comb... I think it is a great shift in thinking. And by this I do not mean to slam the current conventional beekeeping methods. Hell, without that I wouldn't have even realized beekeeping was so awesome, never mind got any experience or knowledge about bees. I'm just excited for the day I can try this all out!


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Nice looking hives, Buz. Well done.

Adam


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

beez2010 said:


> The distance between the side bars of a Lang frame is 43cm. The distance between the top and bottom bars of a _medium_ Lang frame is 13.5cm and the _8 frame medium_ box is 32cm wide. _My_ math says that those measurements make for a volume of 19,156.5cc, with a Warre box equalling 18,900cc, a difference of 256.5cc. The difference in honey from the two boxes _might_ be 1 lb.
> 
> Not bad for what was originally a guestimate. Stuff that in your smokers.
> 
> Chris


Michael Bush estimates a medium 8 lang full of honey to weigh 48 pounds. I'm not sure what the hive and frames weigh, but estimates here of 30lbs per warre hive box I assume are just honey weights. If that is correct, then the two do have a very similar honey capacity. Great. So there's a point of interest. 

Is that on your site already somewhere, Chris? 

It's good that this little thread could get you to do the calculations to get you past the "guesstimate" to some harder numbers. 

As a side note, you do have plenty of good information on your site, but you can't blame a person for asking questions here instead of just looking to yours for the education. Most people are more likely to look to a site as a credible source of information if it's primary purpose does not appear to be commercial. You'll find that most informational sites quoted here and held up as examples of great info (you pointed out Michael Bush's), tend to be sites whose primary purpose is to share information.

Not that a commercial site with lots of info is a bad thing - your site seems great. I've been to it several times. Each thing I read, I put into the mix of information I am accumulating on the subject from a variety of sources.

But people are going to come to a discussion forum like this one and ask their "silly questions", and take their answers from a consensus of shared perspectives. I don't think a person should be given a hard time for that here. 

Its nice to get a guy like you into a discussion here, and see how he communicates and shares his ideas - away from the marketing... before one spends their money on his products.

Adam


----------



## beez2010

Everyone,

If you go back and read my posts, you should realize that I was trying to help George and was only _irritated_ because _somebody_ said that_ I _was wrong about the weight similarity when he didn't even know what size Warre boxes were! Then he comes back with the math, comparing Warre boxes to 10 frame deeps....and _nobody_ called him on it. This same person is _constantly_ misconstruing what he reads and then giving poor information.

The bottom line about maximizing production in a Warre hive is that you _have_ to super it during heavy flows. The brood nest will only move downward so fast and you can't just go arbitrarily removing the top box every now and again during the season because there _will be_ brood in there until _late_ in the season.

I provide good information based on _experience_ with Warre hives because I have an interest in seeing people have success with them. Does that seem illogical? I _do not _want people who have _never run _Warres giving poor advice to _anyone;_ on this forum or elsewhere; whether they are buying their equipment from me or not.

What business does a guy have, who _doesn't even know _the box dimensions of one of these hives, giving advice on how to manage them? _None._

Read "Supering a Warre" on my site and find out how to maximize honey production from one of these hives. _No other method _will work (at all) if you want to get more honey than from working the hive the way Warre did. Period.

George came back all mad at me with his comments when all I was trying to do was stop the onslaught of bad information that was occurring here.

Chris Harvey--Teakwood Organics

www.thewarrestore.com


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes sorry Beez, didn't mean to get you all upset or anything.

I'm actually not that bad of a guy - truly!

I just quoted the standard lang dimensions because that's what I and most people use. I did think a standard Warré box would have around 30 lbs, so thanks for those who confirmed that.

Reason I asked was I'm trying to get a rough idea what a Warré hive could produce, Cacklewack mentions 5 boxes. Just didn't get if that was the crop, or the height of the hive? If it was the crop it would be around 150 lbs?


----------



## beez2010

BTW, I'm nearly certain that MB is _over_ on his estimate of 8 frame weight. Maybe we can get him to chime in as to whether or not he stands by that number of 48. There's no way that the boxes/frames weigh anywhere near 18 lbs., and you can't stuff 40 lbs of anything into a 30 lb. container.

Chris


----------



## beez2010

If you _super during heavy flows_, you can get just as much honey as from a Lang. If you only _nadir_ when needed, it is _highly unlikely_ that you will get more than 90 lbs. 

_But be forewarned_...if you super _too much _the brood nest will not move down and you'll have your bees living on filthy combs...._just like in a Lang!_

All that being said, 99.9% of folks using these hives are hobbyists who couldn't care less. Most don't feel the need for the 90 lbs.

Chris


----------



## beez2010

Oldtimer said:


> Reason I asked was I'm trying to get a rough idea what a Warré hive could produce, Cacklewack mentions 5 boxes. Just didn't get if that was the crop, or the height of the hive? If it was the crop it would be around 150 lbs?


No OT...it's 90 lbs. You can't take _all five_. Where would the bees live? You can take 3 of 5, _if_ there is no brood in any of the top three. The first time you find brood when you are removing boxes you put that one back and just take the ones above it. If there is just emptiness or empty comb in the bottom box(es), you remove them before winter if necessary, to get reduced down to just two boxes. However, if the bees winter on three, or even more, it's not the end of the world because there will be no empty or unused space above them...ever.

Chris


----------



## Buz Green

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Nice looking hives, Buz. Well done.
> 
> Adam



Thank you, Adam.
I do enjoy working with these creatures and I think they like me too.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK Beez so 90 lbs would be a pretty good crop for a Warré?

And if all the other things you said happen it could be even less?


----------



## beez2010

Oldtimer said:


> And if all the other things you said happen it could be even less?


Of course it could be less. Do you get the same harvest from your Langs every year?

I should clarify that earlier I said that I have never had a hive more than five boxes high. That is because _when_ I super, I do not stack supers on top of each other. A good colony can fill _and cap _one , during the star thistle flow, in about 12 days (give or take...mostly depending on weather). I remove the capped super, harvest it, and then put it back on _if_ I think they can fill it again without preventing the brood nest from moving down by the end of the season, the way it needs to.

Chris


----------



## Oldtimer

OK well what i'm STILL trying to get at is what is a reasonable crop for a Warré?

What is your (or anybody elses) average?


----------



## curiousgeorge

I feel kinda dirty bringing this up when this great forum has moved on, but my ego says so! Chris, it wasn't me who brought up weights or measurements or anything, I don't know any specifics about that.

I think this has been mentioned before... if anything is worth anything it should withstand opposition & prove the opposition wrong. I'm trying to find all the "bad things" about Warre beekeeping because, in truth, I want to BELIEVE that Warre beekeeping is the way to go!
I want as much information on it as possible, and to be aware of its drawbacks (if any) before I get into it hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## beez2010

Oldtimer said:


> OK well what i'm STILL trying to get at is what is a reasonable crop for a Warré?
> 
> What is your (or anybody elses) average?


I'm thinking that you didn't read my entire post when I said that if you super you can get just as much as from a Lang. But then, not reading is your thing.

_If_ you mean how much is average if you do not super, and only run the hive exactly as Warre did....then I would say two boxes would be "average" (60 lbs).

Keeping in mind, of course, that I make that statement as a person who has knowledge of beekeeping in the upper mid-western United States--not Zimbabwe.

Chris


----------



## Oldtimer

George. The only silly question is the one that is not asked.

We all start somewhere, ask away.

Crop numbers.... Anybody?


----------



## Oldtimer

OK so we're getting there slowly. To clarify, a Warré owner in an average location, who is knowledgeable (like you are), could expect up to around 60 lbs surplus per annum.

Correct?


----------



## beez2010

_IF_ he or she does not super...60 lbs...on average...yes...correct.

Chris


----------



## curiousgeorge

That's the thing about beekeeping isn't it? It's what makes these forums so interesting & so frustrating.... 100 or 1000 miles away, it's completely different.

I have one further question, tagging along with what Oldtimer asked:

How would you run Warre hives in a very short, but very heavy, nectar flow?

Another question I've asked before, and I'll ask again, because this is apparently very important in the locale that I'll be beekeeping:

How do you deal with very-granulating honey in the method of leaving hives enough winter stores? (Where I'll be is the Canadian prairies, where fall flow- predominantly canola- is prone to immediate granulation- which means bees will starve or poop like crazy).

This is my (and I realize only mine) predominant concern with the Warre/natural system.


----------



## Oldtimer

beez2010 said:


> I'm thinking that you didn't read my entire post when I said that if you super you can get just as much as from a Lang. But then, not reading is your thing.Chris


Beez why do you always have to be so offensive. You wonder why all your threads seem to go the same way.

Yes I can read. But "just as much as a lang" means nothing. If we take what my langs produce it is far removed from 60 lbs, and I can't really see how with small Warré boxes and waiting for brood to vacate downwards, a Warré could possibly produce anywhere near as much as my langs. 

Hence I asked the question wanting a number, surely you have a rough idea in lb's what your honey production is.

And please don't get all worked up. I'm not saying one hive is better than another, I'm just asking a simple question.

When you say "if i don't super" what does that mean and what effect would it have? Would it produce more than 60 lbs?


----------



## Oldtimer

Is actual results, a touchy subject for you?

I'll ignore your ongoing insults and put this as simply as possible.

What is your average honey production, wether you super, nadir, or do whatever it is you do? Straight up.


----------



## beez2010

2,000 lbs.....from each hive.

I have a headache. Time to call it a day.

Sheeez!


----------



## Oldtimer

OK well Beez suddenly has a headache.

Would anybody else like to tell me what your average crop would be from a Warré?

I know there will be regional differences etc, just say what you normally get.


----------



## beez2010

curiousgeorge said:


> That's the thing about beekeeping isn't it? It's what makes these forums so interesting & so frustrating.... 100 or 1000 miles away, it's completely different.
> 
> I have one further question, tagging along with what Oldtimer asked:
> 
> How would you run Warre hives in a very short, but very heavy, nectar flow?
> 
> Another question I've asked before, and I'll ask again, because this is apparently very important in the locale that I'll be beekeeping:
> 
> How do you deal with very-granulating honey in the method of leaving hives enough winter stores? (Where I'll be is the Canadian prairies, where fall flow- predominantly canola- is prone to immediate granulation- which means bees will starve or poop like crazy).
> 
> This is my (and I realize only mine) predominant concern with the Warre/natural system.


I _will_ answer this question for you before I call it a day, George.

The reason hives end up so full of that junk honey is because humans take all of the bees' good honey and then the bees become desperate. Since you will be leaving any boxes that contain brood, there will also be significant summertime honey being left for them. They will forage the canola very little.

Same goes for the golden rod here in the midwest. People are always commenting about how bad the honey smells and that it granulates fast. My bees rarely, if ever, even touch goldenrod. Your bees will be fine.

As far as the short flow goes, just run your hive using the conventional Warre methods (_nadir_ only) for the first year and then maybe if that goes well you can get at least one _super_ (an _additional _box from the _TOP_) of honey during a good year.

Chris


----------



## Buz Green

Oldtimer said:


> Would anybody else like to tell me what your average crop would be from a Warré?
> 
> I know there will be regional differences etc, just say what you normally get.


The five hives (started the previous year) that went through last years season averaged a harvest of two full boxes or 60 lbs. each. I am hoping to get the same yield this year from the additional 12 hives I started last year.
We don't have a very long season at my location but the girls make a very tasty wildflower honey and since I crush and strain it has lots of pollen in it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Buz, it's good to know that.

BTW I had a look at your site and very much enjoyed it!

Interesting, informative, and honest.


----------



## Buz Green

Thank you, Oldtimer.

I have read some of your posts and am encouraged by your appreciation of my efforts.


----------



## WPG

beez2010 said:


> OT,
> 
> You _must_ be messing with my head. You have to be, because nobody, but nobody could be so stupid as you are pretending to be. A "super" goes on top!! DUH!!


"_Super_" a box added to a hive for storage of excess honey.
Honey that the hive does not need for winter survival-it's extra.

"_Super_" Short for superfluous or overflowing.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary definition: 1. _In excess of what is sufficient, necessary, normal, or desirable; superabundant; surplus._

*Old Timer*, _and George_ it is embarrassing to read this _businessman's_ and fellow American's posts. I apologize.
Perhaps if you lived within one tank of fuel as I do, instead of the other side of the world, he wouldn't be so obnoxious.

I think the extra box or boxes can be stuck wherever you like.
He can stick his wherever he likes.

I know how to do alot of things with a board, _one_ of which is to make my own square boxes.
I just might need to start making *lots* of them.

I have enjoyed reading about beekeeping 'downunder', keep it up.


P.S. I know some metrics but usually work in feet & inches.

Warre' insides-300mm x 300mm x 210mm = 18,900 cubic centimeters or 1,153.35 cubic inches

Lang 8-frame med. insides-12.25in x 18.375in x 6.625 = 1,491.25 cubic inches 

337.9 cubic inches more than the Warre', a 29.3% increase

doesn't seem that close to me


----------



## Ueli Hoffmann

WPG said:


> I know some metrics but usually work in feet & inches.


I keep a meter stick (mm and cm on one side with inches on the other) stashed within arm’s reach behind my easy chair. It’s amazing how fast one learns to make the conversions once you put your mind to it. Before you know it, it becomes second nature.


----------



## beez2010

WPG said:


> "_Super_" a box added to a hive for storage of excess honey.
> Honey that the hive does not need for winter survival-it's extra.
> 
> "_Super_" Short for superfluous or overflowing.
> 
> Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary definition: 1. _In excess of what is sufficient, necessary, normal, or desirable; superabundant; surplus._
> 
> I think the extra box or boxes can be stuck wherever you like.


I apologize for my confusion. I had been under the impression, for some time now, that "supering" a hive meant adding a box for surplus honey to the _top_ of the hive and that "nadiring" was when a box was added to the _bottom_ of the hive. I thought that this was common terminology and knowledge among beekeepers and I made the assumption that someone who has been keeping bees for probably longer than I have been alive would have the same view. So I thank you, WPG, for having straightened this issue out for me. I now know that "supering" and "nadiring" are the exact same thing, and that when someone uses the term "supering", I shall have to ask if they "super" by adding to the top of the hive or to the bottom. I don't know what I was thinking. :doh:



WPG said:


> P.S. I know some metrics but usually work in feet & inches.
> 
> Warre' insides-300mm x 300mm x 210mm = 18,900 cubic centimeters or 1,153.35 cubic inches
> 
> Lang 8-frame med. insides-12.25in x 18.375in x 6.625 = 1,491.25 cubic inches
> 
> 337.9 cubic inches more than the Warre', a 29.3% increase
> 
> doesn't seem that close to me


Again, accounting for frames--The distance between the side bars of a Lang frame= 17". The distance between the top and bottom bars of a medium Lang frame= 5.25". The width of the 8 frame medium box (your measurement slightly narrower than mine of 32cm)= 12.25".

17x12.25x5.25= 1093.31 cubic inches, or about 60 ci _smaller_ than a Warre box (about a 5% _decrease_-using _your_ width measurement). _Does_ seem pretty close to _me_.

I can't figure out why frames reducing the amount of comb in a box is such a difficult concept to grasp. Or is it _me_ who needs straightened out again? Would you care to enlighten me as to why boxes can have the same volume of comb regardless of whether or not frames are used? Seriously...help me out here, _please_. :scratch:

Chris


----------



## bigbearomaha

He's talking about "supering" the verb. to super or 'supering'- beekeeping terminology describing placing hive boxes _above_ the brood nest in order for bees to store make and store honey. From that has emerged a 'slang' term referring to above placed boxes as 'supers' ie.. the "Illinois super". 

"technically" the bees only "need" up to 2 or 3 boxes as a complete nest for their own, un-managed needs. Extra boxes or "supers" are added on top of the brood nest to facilitate encouraging the bees to build above the brood nest and produce surplus honey in non-previously brood comb.

as opposed to: 'nadiring' or to nadir - beekeeping terminology describing placing hive boxes _below_ the brood nest.

According to the study by Tom Seeley and Roger Morse, the volume in an 'average' feral nest in a tree void was determined to be between 30 and 60 litres :

30 liters=1830.712 c.i.=1.059 cubic feet
60 liters = 3661.425 c.i. = 2.119 cubic feet

lang deep box = 2300 c.i = 1.331 cubic feet
2 deep = 2.662 cubic feet

warre box = 1153.384c.i = .667 cubic feet
2 warre boxes = 1.335 cubic feet

Lang 5 fr Nuc box = 1308.398 c.i. = 0.757 cubic feet
2 5frame lang nuc = 1.514 cubic feet

Lang 8-frame med. insides-12.25in x 18.375in x 6.625 = 1,491.25 cubic inches or 0.862991 cu ft
2- 8 frame med = 1.725 c ft

It is possible to get the same volume in various sized boxes such as a taller, square box as opposed to a shallower rectangular box. 

The difference in Warre case is he was making the effort to keep a more compact box that contained the heat immediately around the the core of the brood nest as opposed to radiating out to the corners away from the core of the brood nest.

the shallower, wider box does not retain heat at the core of the brood nest as well as the deeper, taller box Warre used in his opinion as expressed in his book.


----------



## Oldtimer

beez2010 said:


> I apologize for my confusion. I had been under the impression, for some time now, that "supering" a hive meant adding a box for surplus honey to the _top_ of the hive and that "nadiring" was when a box was added to the _bottom_ of the hive. I thought that this was common terminology and knowledge among beekeepers and I made the assumption that someone who has been keeping bees for probably longer than I have been alive would have the same view.


Don't worry, we are always learning.

To clarify, nadiring is a term used by people using the Warré method. It is not common terminology.

To everybody else, adding a super is called supering, adding a super, putting on a box, or similar. When a hive has a big honey crop of say 3 or more supers but needs more, we'll sometimes add the new super under the existing honey supers so the bees don't have to haul the new honey all the way up. That is still adding a super, so is called supering.

End of the day though, it's just words. Not really worthy of getting too hung up over. Many beginners can think that the little they know is it, the only truth. As you learn more, and your horizons expand, hopefully you will mellow.


----------



## WPG

beez2010 said:


> I apologize for my confusion....


That's ok, we're here to help.



beez2010 said:


> I can't figure out why frames reducing the amount of comb in a box is such a difficult concept to grasp...
> Chris


I had noticed that you *didn't* subtract the volume the top bars take up from your total volume in the Warre'. _It *must* be a really difficult concept._

Bees don't attach comb to the side walls top to bottom in any space they are in. So the space at the ends and bottoms of frames is available for their use and *is* used by them.

So I compare total volume to total volume. Really a rather simple concept, for us simpletons out here.


----------



## curiousgeorge

Hello all, thanks for the ongoing discussion. Hope things are cooling down a bit. I have several more questions. If you think they should be separate threads, please let me know.

1) Chris, thank you for answering my question about heavy-granulating honey (ie. canola) as it relates to Warre beekeeping & leaving bees their own honey for winter stores. Does anyone else have experience with this? If bees really will not touch these kind of fall honeys if they are left an amount of lighter summer honey... that is a BIG deal for me, as this was one major concern of mine whether the Warre method would work in the locale I'll be in. Anyone else out there who can second this? I'd hate to think I was doing the bees a favor by leaving them honey, only to find they starved on unusable, cement-honey over winter.

2) Concerning the sacking that goes between the top bars and the quilt. Usually it is dipped in the paste before putting it on. I've read, and also considered myself, that somehow you could use this sacking as propolis collection. My questions are: (1) How would this adversely affect the bees? They will propolize it as their means of controlling the airflow through the hive. By removing it to collect the propolis, I know they could re-propolize it in short order, but would this set them back, and how much? And:
(2) What would be the ideal material for a propolis trap like this? Just the simple burlap and then flushing it out, or would something else be better? Any thoughts or experience on this?

3) Pollen Collection. Because the Warre method seems best suited for branching-out (ie. not solely honey production, but honey, section honey, beeswax, etc.), I've thought pollen collection could be another good source of revenue. However, I have a few qualms about pollen-collection. (1) How does squeezing through the mesh repeatedly harm or wear out the bees? (2) Does collecting pollen (and I know every approach says to never over-collect) stress or set back a colony, and how much? I guess I'm asking, what are your thoughts on the ETHICS of pollen traps? And, (3) Any ideas on designing a Warre bottom that could incorporate a pollen trap, along with screened bottom, varroa sticky board, etc.? 

Thank you!


----------



## curiousgeorge

One more idea I had this morning...

I know there are several designs for a knife for separating the comb from the sides of the box. Would it not work well to have a wide and long "blade" (sheet of thin, sharp metal) the width and height of the internal dimensions of the box, that you could use by leaning the box on end, and pushing this wide blade along the box wall, from the bottom up to the top bars, removing one entire side of combs at a time? Seems if it was sharp enough, it would make a nice cut. Then you could (if need be) have access to the combs in that box, after which the bees could easily re-attach.

Thoughts?


----------



## Buz Green

curiousgeorge said:


> One more idea I had this morning...
> 
> I know there are several designs for a knife for separating the comb from the sides of the box. Would it not work well to have a wide and long "blade" (sheet of thin, sharp metal) the width and height of the internal dimensions of the box, that you could use by leaning the box on end, and pushing this wide blade along the box wall, from the bottom up to the top bars, removing one entire side of combs at a time? Seems if it was sharp enough, it would make a nice cut. Then you could (if need be) have access to the combs in that box, after which the bees could easily re-attach.
> 
> Thoughts?


If you go to my website and click on "Our Story" on the menu and scroll down to the second to last pair of photos you will see a box of honey ready to be harvested and the bars of honey after the box has been sleeved off. I set the box on a table bars side down and slice through the comb where it is attached to the sides of the box with a long slender bladed knife. Cut slowly and carefully using a sawing motion and then lift the box off and you can easily reinstall these bars and comb into another box to use for helping a colony get started or supporting a colony in need of reinforcement.
I'm sure you can imagine the benefits of this method for a myriad of other uses.


----------



## Buz Green

curiousgeorge said:


> 2) Concerning the sacking that goes between the top bars and the quilt. Usually it is dipped in the paste before putting it on. I've read, and also considered myself, that somehow you could use this sacking as propolis collection. My questions are: (1) How would this adversely affect the bees? They will propolize it as their means of controlling the airflow through the hive. By removing it to collect the propolis, I know they could re-propolize it in short order, but would this set them back, and how much? And:
> (2) What would be the ideal material for a propolis trap like this? Just the simple burlap and then flushing it out, or would something else be better? Any thoughts or experience on this?
> Thank you!


I have a couple of comments on this question.
The first is to read Ueli's comments on the " Using a Warre quilt" thread in this section.
The second is that when I make the sacking for the under quilt pad, I lay a length of burlap on a flat table and smear the paste (using Warre's recipe) over it and after it has dried I cut it to size.
I have found that in some of my hives the bees not only remove some of the propolis that they have installed but also chew through the burlap to create the ventilation they need.
I can't think of an efficient method to remove propolis from a rye paste impregnated piece of sacking. I have, however, dissolved propolis, scraped of of hive boxes, in lacquer thinner and found it to be a good candidate for a hardwood stain/finish.


----------



## curiousgeorge

Thanks for directing me to your website photos, Buz. I checked it out the other day but obviously not thorough enough!


----------



## DocBB

Ueli Hoffmann said:


> Here are a few links to my own design for a horizontal Warré style hive. The hive is based on Johann Thür’s writings of the ideal colony nest dimensions. I call it the “Frankenhive”. WARNING: It's a monster!
> 
> http://www.warrebeek.com/fhhive.html
> 
> The Frankenhive can contain up to three separate colonies. Each colony can be managed separately as a simple horizontal top-bar hive, nadir occupied Warré hive boxes or supered with empty Warré hive boxes or 8-frame Langstroth supers with frames. The Frankenhive can be used for a range of hobbyist activities such as splitting and raising queens.
> 
> Since it is a horizontal top-bar hive it is well suited to the hobbyist beekeeper who wants to spend a little more time inside the hive observing, inspecting and working the bees. There are numerous management strategies for the Frankenhive.
> 
> http://www.warrebeek.com/fhhive2tier.html
> 
> This hive has been my best preforming Warré style hive.
> 
> "Smallholders and farmers capable of keeping bees should be enabled to keep bees successfully with this simple hive that they can easily make themselves, without significant outlay on materials, without specialist knowledge, money or labour, without machines or gadgets, without using sugar or foundation, and in a purely natural manner." - Johann Thür


a skecthup design


----------

