# Ukraine crossed frames



## lobottomee (May 3, 2015)

I was watching some videos made by Dr. Victor Fursov from Ukraine where he was touting the advantages of new frame design. In the videos, the brood nest and supers had frames that were 90 degrees to each other and had no space between the top of one frame and the bottom of the frame immediately above it. The claim was that because the two frames contacted each other at a 90 degree angle, the bees would build comb from one section to the other and be able to move directly from one colony section to another. Am curious if anyone has tried using that approach and with what results, or if anyone has any other information on Dr. Fursov. 

Here is a YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0liuI8fEs

Lobo


----------



## GSkip (Dec 28, 2014)

Sounds like what mine do in regular boxes. Don't see any benefit. But I haven't been at this long enough to know much.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

lobottomee said:


> . Am curious if anyone has tried using that approach and with what results, or if anyone has any other information on Dr. Fursov.
> 
> Here is a YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0liuI8fEs
> 
> Lobo


I watched some of their materials. 
Don't know of the benefit either way. 
I like their frames.

I do know that bees have no problem with frames crossed at 90 degrees and so if there is a need to do it - then do it.
There are many examples of this working fine, here is one: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gExG-W07Efw&t=7s

Thinking here to build a test hive that will use this crossed design too, just like in this video.


----------



## Eikel (Mar 12, 2014)

Sorry but I didn't find the 26 minutes really worth the time to watch the video. Personal opinion is the only positive point to the cross frames sitting on each other was the bees could move down during winter without crossing the vertical space between frames of standard lang configurations. However, my normal winter configuration has the bees in the lower box. Also, didn't find the claims of limiting swarms, impacting varroa, better health, efficiently of and increased harvest with any validity or merit.

Anytime I've had frames get too close vertically it was a pain to separate the boxes once the bees glued the frames together with wax and propolis. Lift the upper box and the lower box frames try to come with it; twisting to separate isn't exactly a picnic either. A second consideration is the cross frame configuration in modified langs or in the gentleman's hive would give a lot of nonstandard equipment logistically in the apiary or extracting.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

If you've ever had a box full of frames that were attached by comb or propolis to the frames in the box below it, you're going to not have fun. I didnt sit through 26 minutes of that guy, I skipped through it. Having frames 90 degrees to each other in differing boxes, to each their own. Bees probably wouldnt care. As far as that guy's wallpaper, wow


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

I would not watch the 26 mins; I did not.

I did watch their videos in Ukranian language; more interesting.


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

Just theorizing here from what I saw in the video posted by GregV, is that perhaps crossing the first box over the bottom brood box helps to keep the queen below the supers as she prefers continueous comb to lay in?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

RayMarler said:


> Just theorizing here from what I saw in the video posted by GregV, is that perhaps crossing the first box over the bottom brood box helps to keep the queen below the supers as she prefers continueous comb to lay in?


Donno.
I would say this - their hives are based on vertical and large Ukrainian frame and that's the real deal (large, vertical and contiguous space for the queen to work).
The Ukranian frame is what I am basing my own equipment on (the horizontal setup, not the vertical as they do).
Large contiguous combs in the nest, pretty much keep the queen there.


----------



## Richinbama (Jan 15, 2018)

I dont speak russian or ukrain. So i couldent bear it out.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Like the Ukrainians, I, too, am a fan of big frames with a large uninterrupted surface area for the queen to lay in. The fewer road blocks, such as air gaps and wood ridges to her movement in the brood chamber, the less time she spends wandering around unproductively looking for more space to lay in. I've got a handful of new Dadant Deeps, and it is too soon for me to tell whether these large frames do increase the queen's productivity, but they sure do make inspections easier!




That being said, the 90 degree/touching frame arrangement sounds to me like a solution looking for a problem. And, I bet it has been done many times in the 170-odd years that the basic Langstroth design has been in existence, and has been forgotten each time because there were no benefits.

JMHO




.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Well, I already posted and re-posted videos of people using cross-framing in commercial, migratory setups.
Works well for them and not looking for video link again.

The brood-nest is on conventional Ukranian frame and left to the bees (about 12-13 frames).
The supers are on conventional mediums for the convenient honey extraction are setup at 90 degrees to the brood-nest.
Here is the picture:








Basically, if you are working by a box, small frames/8 frame boxes make lots of sense... 
All medium frames in small boxes, with such setup, make lots of sense for human ergonomics (not for the bees though but they still do OK I guess).

If you are working by a frame already, it makes sense to just give the bees what they want (large frames - Dadant/Ukranian/Layens).

In this sense, Langstroth deep frame is neither there or her.
Too small to work by a single frame; too large to work by entire box. 
Just no ideal in any way.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I have not watched the video all of the way through, but the narrow length and long depth frame was somewhat popular in the U. S. after the start of the moveable frame hive began. I don't know of a frame manufactured in the U. S. that was greater in depth than 12 inches. The majority of the honey production for the market was comb honey in sections, and the producers favored a small brood nest when making comb honey.

Using a super that has the frames running 90 degrees to the ones in the broodnest was not uncommon when using a square box for brood and honey production. I saw no major benefit, but I always used an excluder above the brood.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Here is the video (looked up anyway): 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gExG-W07Efw

Reason for so much cross-comb between the brood-nest and the honey super is that the guy did not have time to build the proper deep Ukrainian frames and used standard Dadants for the time.
That created too much space between the boxes and then cross-comb.

This is what I want to try since I have to be mobile (don't have large property and so have to be able to hop around).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

My continuously sore back muscles and a fussy shoulder keep reminding of this thread (redoing my river-rock landscaping around the house; not beekeeping).
I think I will revisit the idea of the Dr. Fursov hive - from the ergonomic point.

10 full-Ukrainian frame *square *deep brood chamber + half-Ukrainian frame *square *supers.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

In the UK, the British National Beehive is square, and I often place one box on the other at 90 degrees - although the frames themselves never get to touch. Makes no difference - the bees don't care. 

Can't see a single advantage in frames touching - imo, that's just asking for trouble. If it's considered important to have deep contiguous combs, then use appropriately dimensioned frames in the first place. Problem is then solved at source.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> In the UK, the British National Beehive is square, and I often place one box on the other at 90 degrees - although the frames themselves never get to touch. Makes no difference - the bees don't care.
> 
> Can't see a single advantage in frames touching - imo, that's just asking for trouble. If it's considered important to have deep contiguous combs, then use appropriately dimensioned frames in the first place. Problem is then solved at source.
> LJ


I don't necessarily care of the frames touching/not-touching.
I also don't care to lose my sleep over 2-3 mm tolerances either.
If the frames touch then be it and maybe I want it, in fact.

The point of the narrow bars (10 mm (1/2") metal pipes in their case) is that at 90 degree position orientation, their touching surfaces are so negligible that it does not prevent any work.
The small comb fusions are breaking off *easily *when need to raise the hive body.
So, you get comb continuation AND manageability in one.
Good for the bees and good for the people both.
This is a all.

PS: now, fusion of the parallel frames along the bars - now talking real problems;


----------



## baybee (Jan 10, 2016)

little_john said:


> ...
> Can't see a single advantage in frames touching - imo, that's just asking for trouble.
> ...
> LJ


 Touching frames could take care of too many bees in the hive. Isn't the area of the touching woodwork about half of the footprint?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

baybee said:


> Touching frames could take care of too many bees in the hive. Isn't the area of the touching woodwork about half of the footprint?


Again, in the case of "Ukraine crossed frames" we are talking of *grid* of intersections of toching 1/2" bars.
Now - this is way, way less than a "half of the footprint".
See?


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> The point of the narrow bars (10 mm (1/2") metal pipes in their case) is that at 90 degree position orientation, their touching surfaces are so negligible that it does not prevent any work.
> The small comb fusions are breaking off *easily *when need to raise the hive body.


I *have* watched this guy's videos and fully understand the principles ...

Still not buying into this - there's no problem that I'm aware of which needs fixing by such an idea.
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

baybee said:


> Touching frames could take care of too many bees in the hive.


Not sure what you mean by "take care" - are you perhaps suggesting that touching frames could prevent swarming or something along those lines ? If so, I don't see how they're related ...
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> I *have* watched this guy's videos and fully understand the principles ...
> 
> Still not buying into this - there's no problem that I'm aware of which needs fixing by such an idea.
> LJ


Well, just one common problem Lang keeper in US discuss non-stop goes like - "how to get them to move up?", "how to get them to move down?", (and the variants of the same).

Those built-in gaps in industrial Lang (and Dadant) between the boxes are not really appealing to the bees, I figure.
Right on this forum talks of moving the boxes up and down, up and down, up and down, and in between, and reverse them, and........ are many.
So clearly, there are problems with industrial Lang/Dadant setups that need solving.

That's the Ukrainian videos are about - solving this multi-body, industrial hive gap issue.
The problem well described on this exact forum.
See:
"Evils of the Double Deep Bee Culture – November, 2003 by Walt Wright"

This is particular problem is claimed to be solved.
The "Ukrainian" hive is supposed to be an auto-pilot hive due to this exact design - deep brood chamber for the queen plus 1-2 half-size supers set at 90 degrees on narrow bar/pipes (per the original videos as you know).

Now, I like auto-pilot hives; I have some right now. 
I don't mind testing out yet another "auto-pilot" hive; conveniently - using the frame I already use.


----------



## baybee (Jan 10, 2016)

I always kill bees when replacing Langstroth boxes on populated hives. Even if I smoke the exposed boxes well, the time I need to prepare for and then perform the clean and jerk is long enough for the bees to boil over again. Touching Dadant frames (1-1/16" top bars, 3/4" bottom bars) would close 35% of the footprint; not to forget that bees themselves are 1/2" long. 1/2" bars would be much easier on the bees.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Not sure what you mean by "take care" - ........LJ


He means - "killing the bees".


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

baybee said:


> ...... 1/2" bars would be much easier on the bees.


Exactly.

1/2" bars - as a grid.
The "bee squashing" math is looking much better.

Add to this reduced needs to add/remove boxes to begin with.
No such thing as reversing a brood-chamber boxes (one example).
The brood-chamber box already IS a double-deep by its dimensions.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The concept might be useful for Warre' hives. They are square and if you used dowels for the top bars you would get less attachment between boxes with the 90 degree arrangement. It's an interesting idea.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Here is a good video; the actual usage; watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unRBPGo7a9M&t=117s

Here they show square hive 8x8 frames.
A little too tight to work as for me (but the boxes even less heavy).


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

If frames physically touch - without a bee-space clearance - how can that possibly avoid 'killing a few bees' during frame replacement?

I agree with Michael that there may be a possibility there for Warre beekeepers - except that there'll still be a need to make custom-made frames - and which *will need to be manufactured with precision* if each frame is to *just* touch the one below it (if using existing boxes). But - precision of manufacture runs contrary to the underlying concept underpinning Warre Hive philosophy. Indeed - the use of frames themselves is frowned upon by many advocates of that system.

There's a world of difference between an interesting idea and one which stands a reasonable chance of being taken-up by mainstream beekeepers - which really ought to be focused upon a little more by 'beehive inventors' (including myself) - for if an idea doesn't immediately seize the enthusiasm of other beekeepers there would appear little point of spending further time and energy in attempting to sell that idea to them. The Patent archives contain many hundreds, if not thousands, of beehive 'improvements', which have never been embraced.

A similar case to this one is the Mother-of-God Beehive, which originates from the same part of the world, and which has thus far received a poor reception.
I was particularly taken by a post on another forum, where the thread OP was highly enthusiastic about the M-O-G concept (essentially a bank of beehives connected together), and was crestfallen and somewhat confused as to why others on the forum weren't sharing his enthusiasm.

The reply reads: " It's not that these 'different' systems are not interesting ... I think that it's just that even the most hardened experimenters (and I'm one of them) eventually come to the conclusion that there are some things that are worth trying and some which just over-complicate. This idea comes into the latter category - beekeeping can be hard enough at times without making life more difficult."

You see, the bottom line is that it's really not important what YOU or I think about an idea - it's how that idea is received by the beekeeping community at large which will determine whether or not that idea has a future. In order to be attractive, an idea must confer an obvious advantage, be cost-effective, and - as far as practicable - fit within existing equipment.

I would have thought a much simpler solution would be to use frames without bottom bars. The bees will then (at least in theory) leave a single bee-space between each comb and the top bar below it - a distance they can traverse easily. No need then for anything new to be manufactured, and which will work with oblong or square hives. Any inter-frame adhesions which do occur could be sliced using a cheese wire.

LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> .... *will need to be manufactured with precision*..LJ


LJ, regardless of anything, this *single idea* is exactly why maybe I am not in a terrible rush to build one just yet. Haha!
With my three kids, a job, and a wife, I can only construct good enough precision in my head (FOR NOW!).

For now, my lovely and wonderfully un-precise and sloppy horizontal hives from wood waste get the job done really well.

Every time, I think "vertical" - the small construction tolerances and hive instability (sensitive to the level installation) spook me away.

To compare, in my horizontals I never even care of the top bar thickness - the problem does not exist. 
ANYTHING goes from 1/4 inch to ~1 inch - I just don't care as it saves tons of time for me.

So I do admit, it is hard to be any more automatic then a large horizontal hive - #1 for me.
No matter how hard they try, the bees just not able to put up an additional super on the top even with this cross-frame hive (which I still like very much and have theoretic plans).

PS: that bee killing thing - well, with vertical hives you can only minimize bee killing (not avoid it) - that 90-degree frame arrangement does exactly that - minimizes it; though, I don't lose sleep over squishing few bees by my own top bars; sh*t happens - too bad.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I was always put off by the idea in a Warre' that the combs would get attached to the bottom bar below. If you were to use dowels for the top bars and nothing for the bottom bars and put them at 90 degrees to each other in each box, then there would be a lot LESS attachments. You still might need a "cheese cutter" but there would be a lot less attachments because they would only be at the intersection. At least in theory. It would be an interesting experiment. I wish I had time to do it...


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Michael Bush said:


> I was always put off by the idea in a Warre' that the combs would get attached to the bottom bar below. If you were to use dowels for the top bars and nothing for the bottom bars and put them at 90 degrees to each other in each box, then there would be a lot LESS attachments. You still might need a "cheese cutter" but there would be a lot less attachments because they would only be at the intersection. At least in theory. It would be an interesting experiment. I wish I had time to do it...


Nothing for the bottom bar - unsure about this (due to possible comb breakage when pulling frames up).
Don't really care about the gymnastics with the "cheese wire".

BUT - a thick wire for a bottom bars works. 
I have seen videos of people doing exactly that.
I saved up several of wire stands after the last election... hehe.
Those politicians are doing poor job picking their signs - good for me though. 

Another idea - just a very thin bottom bar (looking at a wooden ruler on my desk right now - the same thickness as the table saw blade).
Just a single cut-in by a table saw; insert this wooden ruler into it (or any piece that fits the same); staple in - that's your bottom bar.

In short, when you cross a wire or a ruler with 1/2" top bar - how much intersected area you got? 
Very darn little!

Even better, the wire can be soft and bendable (or double/triple thinner, soft wires) - this should have enough play/bend in them to make the required precision less rigid. A good thing.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

I keep looking at this "single brood box" keeping:
https://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?349437-Single-Brood-Box-Keepers/page2

I keep thinking - that single deep for a brood box is too small.
OK, if you get all the time you want - sure, keep pulling those frames and make sure to do it weekly or more often.

I ain't gotten no time for that nonsense. 
Hives go 4-6 weeks unchecked with me routinely.

So, since I scored another bundle of dirt cheap Lang boxes and I am pressed for more equipment - went ahead and made two new hives similar to this pictures.
Here you go - the real single brood box keeping -







This one has 12-14 deep Ukrainian brood frames (deep Dadant size in area) and requires no constant attention.
On the top you can stack as many medium supers as you care to do.

Will post the real photos soon. 
The rigs are ready to be deployed this weekend as wintering homes for the nucs.
Wanna build 1-2 more to drop the nucs inside.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

Sounds more like you're building a swarm machine to me just my opinion.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> I keep looking at this "single brood box" keeping: https://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?349437-Single-Brood-Box-Keepers/page2
> 
> I keep thinking - that single deep for a brood box is too small.


I was very pleased to read in that thread that a few people have discovered that one advantage of the single brood box is the ease of inspections when compared with multi-box stacks.

Perhaps they'll now consider the merits of enlarging the volume of that single brood box, either by extending it to contain more combs, or making that brood box deeper - which of course then takes us into either Long Hive or Dadant territory.

I guess it was because of the very rare 'heatwave summer' we've just experienced, that one of my F1 Carnie colonies expanded into 3 brood boxes - that's 33 deep frames ! - and was still growing with enthusiasm when I decided to split it. Dunno how people cope with such huge vertical stacks.

That colony - and more particularly the Warre colonies I used to keep - never had a problem moving either up or down into empty boxes, especially when 'ladders' of drawn comb were provided.
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> Well, just one common problem Lang keeper in US discuss non-stop goes like - "how to get them to move up?", "how to get them to move down?", (and the variants of the same).
> 
> Those built-in gaps in industrial Lang (and Dadant) between the boxes are not really appealing to the bees, I figure.
> Right on this forum talks of moving the boxes up and down, up and down, up and down, and in between, and reverse them, and........ are many.
> *So clearly, there are problems with industrial Lang/Dadant setups that need solving.*


With respect, I think you're confusing poor technique with equipment deficiency - otherwise ALL beekeepers world-wide would be complaining about this.

Stop and consider for a moment how bees progress from the hive entrance to the first comb they encounter. Unless there are suitable comb adhesions to use, after entering the hive they must traverse a nominal 8-10mm gap from the box side-wall to the frame side-bar, or from the box front wall to the comb surface itself. Every bee that enters and leaves a hive will need to cross such a gap - every bee which crosses from one comb to another (horizontally) crosses such a gap - thus it would be fairly reasonable to assume that gaps of such dimensions do not in themselves pose significant obstacles to the honeybee.

Now I'd be the first to agree that bees much prefer to live on large, deep, contiguous combs (such formats being my own preference) - but that gaps between combs (or wax-covered woodwork) of that size are highly unlikely to form a barrier such that swarming takes place as a result of their presence.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> With respect, I think you're confusing poor technique with equipment deficiency - otherwise ALL beekeepers world-wide would be complaining about this.
> ....
> LJ


Well, very well you could be right, LJ.

There are lots of professional keepers (all they do - keep bees) and lots of retired hobbyist-keepers (all they do - keep bees).
I am neither.
Lots of folks are like me too - ain't no time to move those supers around.

I, indeed, have not looked inside some of my hives for about two months now.
No idea what is inside. 
All I know, these rigs are full of bees and looking for work.

I did add those optional supers just in case they fill them with honey too.
Talking about these two rigs:


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> ..........- but that gaps between combs (or wax-covered woodwork) of that size are highly unlikely to form a barrier such that swarming takes place as a result of their presence.
> LJ


Not the gaps.
The entire nest configuration.
Just search how often the box reversing is recommended to prevent early spring swarming.
Why is that? Why walk around and keep reversing the boxes? 
I got many soccer games and cross-country races to attend in spring to worry about bees yet.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Slow Drone said:


> Sounds more like you're building a swarm machine to me just my opinion.


Well, your brood-nest is not a dinky 40-liter, 10-Lang frame - but rather 12-14 Dadant deep frames with 2 inch under-frame buffer. 
Now that takes some work to fill with the brood.
That is what I am building. 
Don't you see that?

PS: granted, some bees will swarm regardless - that's genetic thing, not the nest size.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

My dinky 10 framers are filled wall to wall with brood, 10 frame deep honey supers. By the end of our short honey flow 4 deeps of honey no swarming. Mediums are a waste of time for me way to much work don't own even one. I'm not a hobbiest and have made a good living running singles so do a lot of other commercial operators. I fully undestand the mechanics of running single deep brood chambers some people have difficulty wrapping their head around that. Now I'm attempting to understand the mechanics of your system I'm not quite seeing it working the way you speculate I hope it does for you and also interested in how it works out for you.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Slow Drone said:


> My dinky 10 framers are filled wall to wall with brood, ............. I'm not a hobbiest and have made a good living running singles so do a lot of other commercial operators. ..........


Exactly my points. 
1. 40 liter single brood-nest box is a high maintenance operation as any good queen will quickly run out of space there.
It works and I do not argue - it should be wall-to-wall at all times.
But it is a high maintenance operation and requires attention at that.
2. It works for you as you are a commercial operator and dedicate your time to it.

Here is a video of exactly what I am trying to do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gExG-W07Efw
Added - the guy is a commercial keeper with a mobile apiary. 
The frames shown in the nest are Dadant deep frames used in ad-hoc fashion (and few proper deep Ukrainian frames - the new ones).

1. I will have 90 liter brood-nest (three 10-frame medium boxes) to allow unrestricted space for the queen. 
I don't have time to check on them often. 
It has been shown, the queen does not go outside of the large brood-nest based on large frames - no artificial restrictions are needed. 
2. Zero to many supers on the top, as needed.

Unless the queen is "swarmy" (entirely possible), no swarming pressure is present - speaking of swarming machine making.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Few pics of the actual implementation - three medium boxes (fused permanently together) make a really nice, deep brood chamber.
The chamber is compatible to a square Dadant deep by volume (just reconfigured for vertical frames).
Three nucs still sitting in swarm traps finally got decent winter quarters.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

More.
One other mod that I did, based on my observations of how bees use bottom vs. top entrances - I just did a row of round holes on different levels so let them decide what they like best.
Indeed, I observe the colony by colony preferences are different (the top vs. bottom entrance).
And so, they can use whatever the heck they want.
They are free to propolise shut whatever the heck they want as well (I may do some of that myself, for the weak colonies).


----------

