# The 'Gallup' Long Hive.



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

> Gallup frames, 11.25" x 11.25".


You know, LJ, 
I was thinking how to best utilize a full box of free Jumbo frames I scored recently (and bragged about it too).

The frames already being 11.25'' tall (very conveniently), I just need to shorten the top/bottom bars in some smart way and go for it - these will make close approximations of the Gallup frames.
These frames could be used interchangeably in compact, ergo-verticals or long-hives - the same frame.
I don't really care using them as-is (being too long at 435mm - my entire operation is based on ~300mm/13" frames anyway across all boxes - be it nucs or long hives or the ergo-verticals)

These, I mean:


----------



## trishbookworm (Jun 25, 2016)

Hmmm... this suggests that to get maximal honey production for a horizontal hive, little honey should be left in the hive for long stretches. So expecting the bees to draw out the equivalent of a super is the opposite management to use... rather take the honey as it is capped? 

An 11x11ish" frame is about 121 in2 in surface area... I calculated that a Kenyan top bar hive frame is equivalent to a 14.5" wide by 12" tall rectangle (assuming 17" wide comb at top, 12" deep, and 12" at the base). It's a trapezoid, geometry, ya know. Anyways, the Kenyan is about 168 in2, so 30% bigger. And those are not usually managed by harvesting so often...

My guess is that those hives had brood nests that were less often blocked with nectar compared to a double deep brood nest. 

I'm going to have to try that out this year with my top bars that are the width/depth of a Lang - except I will use shallow frames rather than bars at this point. Time to take advantage of extraction!


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

trishbookworm said:


> Hmmm... this suggests that to get maximal honey production for a horizontal hive, little honey should be left in the hive for long stretches. So expecting the bees to draw out the equivalent of a super is the opposite management to use... rather take the honey as it is capped?


Hi Trish - I think that's a fair summary. However, after checking 'Gleanings' for the following 3 years I was very surprised to learn that no-one had seized upon the potential of this procedure. I was also curious about Doolittle's own lack of enthusiasm for it:


> "... thus showing that I had *only* 166 lbs. more honey as a result for double the brood reared."


I've since learned that Doolittle's article was in fact the final salvo in an argument which had started the previous year, with Doolittle initially expressing a very negative opinion of Long Hives in general (which I'm sad to say demonstrates that even Doolittle was guilty of both ignorance and prejudice - more on that in another post) but even so, in regard to this particular issue all is not quite as rosy as might first appear.

I think it's fair to assume that the removal of honey causes brood-rearing to be stimulated due to the colony recognising (somehow) that the existing number of bees is insufficient to provide enough stores for winter survival - and so more bees are duly generated. Which is great news for a bee-farmer, and dispells the myth that you can't produce both honey AND bees at the same time. BUT - think about the season ...

Honey is being removed during the flow (obviously), and the bees' response to this is to then generate more brood to create roughly double the number of bees - but this enlarged number of bees will result towards the end, or even after the flow. So, you've then got double the number of mouths to feed, with most of them sitting around idle, as at that time there will be nothing much in the way of nectar coming into the hive. Bags of bees - but at the wrong time of the season (unless you happen to be a bee-farmer).

This of course is a recipe for swarming, which Doolittle completely fails to mention in the above source - but - in a much earlier tirade against the 'Long-idea' beehive (which was quickly countered by those with more experience and expertise with them than Doolittle) he cites both excessive swarming and the hive's inability to over-winter as being core features of horizontal hives.

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Now that Horizontal Hives (in general) have a suitable home for discussion, I think it might be useful to examine the early experiences of the Long-idea Hive in America, contrasting these with those of the broadly similar hive styles of Eastern Europe.
I'm currently delving into American Long Hive history as revealed in 'Gleanings' 1873 onwards, and will post relevant articles as they emerge. I'm hoping that Greg will be able to supply the Eastern European perspective. 
LJ


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

LJ; Look for a Mr. O.O. Poppleton, he used the Long-Idea hive commercially in Florida. His obituary is in the December 1917 issue of the American Bee Journal.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Yes, many thanks - he's a new name to me, but seems he was a frequent writer, 'earlier on' ...

This is how he ends his own rebuttal to Doolittle in 1898 (who by this time is getting his wrists well and truly slapped  ) :


> I have answered Mr. Heise's questions briefly; but if he or any one else should decide on testing the use of these hives, I would suggest that he will find the subject gone into much more fully in an article, or, rather, articles, published in Gleanings some 12 or 15 years ago, under the head of "How to Use Single-story Hives." O. O. Poppleton.


So - will now be digging much further back in the archives ...

Thanks for the heads-up,
LJ


----------



## r2t2 (Apr 20, 2016)

LJ
I'm looking eagerly to what you find out. Sounds like a lot of info has been "lost" over time.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

r2t2 said:


> LJ
> I'm looking eagerly to what you find out. Sounds like a lot of info has been "lost" over time.


A lot of this stuff is, of course, opinion and argument (heated debates within the beekeeping community being nothing new !) regarding hive types and frame sizes - but I've already found one nugget of indisputable value.

Doolittle is being questioned about methods used within his book 'Scientific Queen Rearing' some nine years after that book was published - in particular, querying whether Doolittle himself is continuing to use those methods.

Doolittle replies that he does indeed continue to use those methods - unchanged - but has been puzzled to learn that so many others have not succeeded like himself. He makes the point that he's had nothing whatsoever to do with the book since it was sent (apparently free of charge) to the publishers - and so for the readership's benefit then proceeds to describe in far more detail than in the book his exact procedure, right from the selection and preparation of the hive/colony to be used for queen-rearing - well before the actual procedure commences - right through to releasing the finished queens into colonies and the subsequent feeding (or not) of them.

That particular article runs to well over 2000 words, with other articles being double that length - so I need to find some suitable method of passing-on this info without creating excessively long posts. Will be tackling this tonight. 
LJ


----------



## mischief (Jan 21, 2017)

We really need a like button.This is interesting.

I got a long hive simply because my back wont let me use a 'normal' one.
I think all newbies should have one like mine- got a window, screened bottom with sliding solid boards, 30 standard frames wide, 2 follower boards....just need a beek that hurries up with her learning curve.


----------



## trishbookworm (Jun 25, 2016)

As far as honey production goes, in my neck of the woods, I am wondering if I have half-hearted honey flows.  I keep getting combs like this one - ignore the tiny patch of capped brood -






- where the bees cap half and then leave the rest uncapped... for the rest of the summer.

And to solve that, I was already going to use shallow frames so I could extract and then give them back the frames and not require wax to be drawn to get stored honey.

I also get beautiful capped full combs, but not always from the biggest colonies. I will be selecting from those queens this year - assuming they make it! So far, they ain't dead yet...

I will definitely say that in 2017 my colonies were not big enough - the bees covered about 14 of the equivalent of 25 total bars, that are the size of a Lang deep. This year they filled the whole space - but refused to draw new bars or shallow frames during the honey flow. Unless it was to make drone brood. Gah!!!

I have definitely absorbed a different perspective on how bees... live... by being a top bar beek. For example, when bees are drawing out comb just after a virgin queen comes back mated, they draw small celled comb - as in, the size on foundation or brood comb. If the queen don't make it back, they draw honey sized or drone sized. Something about an impending need for cells for eggs triggers brood sized cells to be made by the bees. Dadant documented this too - in his book, http://www.nwpabeekeepers.com/uploads/1/6/4/8/16484234/dadant_system_of_beekeeping_1920.pdf , large file, warning - he claimed the bees drew out the larger, honey-sized cell as a default, and only drew the smaller, brood sized if the queen was harassing them for space.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

trishbookworm said:


> As far as honey production goes, in my neck of the woods, I am wondering if* I have half-hearted honey flows.*  I keep getting combs like this one - ignore the tiny patch of capped brood -
> View attachment 45913
> - where the bees cap half and then leave the rest uncapped... for the rest of the summer.
> 
> And to solve that, I was already going to use shallow frames so I could extract and then give them back the frames and not require wax to be drawn to get stored honey..


So this is an inherent problem of a horizontal hive - somehow getting the small incremental crops out.
My hives are OK for harvesting crop in the end of the season (in fall really, like a good peasant would - that is exactly how peasant hives work by design). But they are not so great at harvesting any honey mid-summer or early summer - this is because most all frames contain intermix if brood and honey. Those early crops end up as honey bands above the brood - good for the bees - not so good for the keeper mid-year honey-tax collections.

Solution to this is simple - stop being a hard-line horizontal hive keeper. 
Look into integrating mini-supers with mini-frames into the hives - yep, right into the horizontal hives above the main nest.
Yes, this will require pass-through top bars and some space above the bars.
This is exactly what I am going to try this new season.

I am evolving away from being a hard-liner horizontal keeper and would rather be able to collect my taxes as I see fit. 
One example why:
- more than once now I caught swarms that will eat through the honey stores before I can get any share of it (because of intermixed brood and honey I can not easily get them off the large frames);
- using mini-frames (think 1/2 Gallup size) in mini-supers above the nest (say 5-6 frames like in Dartington hive) I think one could isolate and then harvest small incremental crops as they come along;
- with mini-frames and mini-supers, this is still good ergonomics for the keeper;


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

FWIW - I came across one 'Natural Beekeeping' (there *has *to be a better term to use than that ?) site recently, and although I tend to wince/ roll my eyes at sites which describe themselves as such, I was pleasantly surprised to read the following introduction which I thought was a particularly fair and balanced summary of the current 'state of play':



> *Introduction*
> It is only in the last 150 years that we have such strong standardization of the beehive. The ubiquitous white boxes we associate with beehives are called 'Langstroth Hives' and lend themselves particularly well to industrial scale beekeeping. Before this and during the end of the 19th and early 20th century there was much discourse about different types of hive and hive systems ... which were best for the bees and which would produce the most honey.
> 
> We are now at a moment when many are interested in the de-industrialization of beekeeping and the pursuit of honeybees for their health and well-being as much as for the products of their hives. To this end beekeepers and innovators are looking at how to support bees, letting them build and live their lives as they would with little human intervention. To this goal beekeepers are coming back to some old ideas that worked well to begin with.
> *http://beerepair.com/index.php/alternative-hive-systems/*


But - having suggested that there were numerous hives and systems under discussion in 'the early days', the writer then unfortunately succumbs to the 'old trap' of comparing just Top Bar, Warre, and Langstroth hives - almost as if these are the only three options available. (Which was also mirrored in this forum's structure until the last few days.)
I'm not without sympathy for this perspective however, as people cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of those things which have - for all intents-and-purposes - disappeared off the radar during the last century or so.

I think it's worthwhile bearing in mind that beekeeping systems (box and frame sizes etc) in the immediate post-Langstroth era were promoted by hive manufacturers with profit in mind: how to achieve maximum revenue from minimal manufacturing and material costs - with the most aggressive marketing winning the day. And of course, once the 'opposition' has been effectively destroyed - that's that - it's highly unlikely to get a second bite at the cherry against an existing and well-established customer-base.

A straw poll was held in 'Gleanings', Jan, 1890 regarding the frame sizes preferred by prominent beekeepers of the day. This is what the Editor (A.I. Root - the principle manufacturer of Langstroth equipment) concluded:



> The general preference seems to be for the Langstroth frame, and we had no doubt that it would ; and the fact that it is in so general use, if for no other reason, should induce not only those just commencing, but those who can think of making a change, to get as quickly as possible into line. From the above, the Gallup frame seems to come next in the way of preference. Very likely, however, the American frame would answer almost every purpose, unless it is that it is a little too deep. There are some very good reasons for having a frame still larger than the Langstroth, such as the suspended Quinby, used by the Dadants ; but I think that he who uses something different from the common run will sooner or later suffer by it. Our friend Dr. C. C. Miller has something almost like the L., but not quite. During years past he has raised only comb honey, and has therefore got along very well ; but should he undertake selling bees and queens, as I think he has some idea of doing, he will find himself in an embarrassing situation. Nobody wants to buy bees in a frame that is almost but not quite an L. A great deal depends upon what one is accustomed to ; and I feel quite certain that those who have expressed a preference for something different from the L. could, with very little loss, when they really got at it, manage to accomplish every thing with the L. that they accomplish with the other frames. In our manufacturing business, every year that passes brings us larger orders for the L. frame, and smaller ones for all other kinds. A few days ago a man sent in an order for a single Gallup hive. Now, although we have illustrated and given the dimensions of the Gallup frame for 12 or 15 years, we have not had a single order for a Gallup hive in two or three years. Not one of our hands, not even the oldest ones, knew how to go to work to make one, without instruction ; and this is the case while we have shipments of hives holding the L. frame, going out by the carload almost constantly.


Standardisation within the commercial sector may well be highly desirable, but I find it difficult not to be a tad cynical about such highly influential marketing pressure from someone who was both an editor AND manufacturer.

LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

I recently came across one maverick beekeeper in Wisconsin who used Langstroth hives for comb honey, but much preferred his "shot-tower hives" for extracting - these had two boxes, each containing nine frames 21" tall by 13" wide, which he said wintered better and swarmed less.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> I recently came across one maverick beekeeper* in Wisconsin* who used Langstroth hives for comb honey, but much preferred his "shot-tower hives" for extracting - these had two boxes, each containing nine frames 21" tall by 13" wide, which he said wintered better and swarmed less.
> LJ


Ask him for a picture or something?
I am all eyes!
He could be near and I did now know.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> > I think it's worthwhile bearing in mind that beekeeping systems (box and frame sizes etc) in the immediate post-Langstroth era were promoted by hive manufacturers with profit in mind: how to achieve maximum revenue from minimal manufacturing and material costs - with the most aggressive marketing winning the day. And of course, once the 'opposition' has been effectively destroyed - that's that - it's highly unlikely to get a second bite at the cherry against an existing and well-established customer-base.
> 
> 
> LJ


LJ, let me add a bit..

Not only big *private *business pushed for their preferred frame (and box around it).

The *state-driven* business did exactly the same - the mega-farm, communisitic approach in former Soviet Union did the same - eliminated anything and everything in the name of universal standardization and even made alternative hive models virtually illegal (one prominent Ukrainian beekeeper was made into an example and sent to Siberian camps). 

Who won? 
Dadant.
Well, they (the Dadants) did not see any profits from the universal adoption of their standards by a communist state, obviously... 

But you can see how similar are state-driven and privately driven monopolies. Beekeeping is a perfect example.

I have some interesting translation to do just about this happening in early 20th century in the young Soviet Union.
When I get to it.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Apologises for the delay in getting some of the 'Gleanings' posts into a form suitable for download. I've just compiled 2 for now - the Doolittle Queen-Rearing post I mentioned earlier - and the Gallup/ Long Hive thread which is a monster at some 6000 words.
Rather than display these as .html pages - which I might do later - I thought I'd just upload them as .txt files for now. They can be downloaded from : http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/beekxx.htm - or via my website 'front page'.

Hope somebody finds these of interest - any problems with those files, give me shout. 
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> Ask him for a picture or something?
> I am all eyes!
> He could be near and I did now know.


Oh - sorry mate - I meant "came across" in Gleanings, 1880-ish ...
No pics, just a passing mention - from a subscriber to the magazine.

It must have been quite a hive - I'd have loved to have seen that !
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Oh - sorry mate - I meant "came across" in Gleanings, 1880-ish ...
> No pics, just a passing mention - from a subscriber to the magazine.
> 
> It must have been quite a hive - I'd have loved to have seen that !
> LJ


Oh, gee, man!
I thought for a minute there you found one of those old back-wood folks who just quietly keep the bees and don't give a hoot about the Internet. I was getting ready to drive there somewhere!
1880-ish.. shucks.


----------



## Knisely (Oct 26, 2013)

watching


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Apologises for the delay in getting some of the 'Gleanings' posts into a form suitable for download. I've just compiled 2 for now - the Doolittle Queen-Rearing post I mentioned earlier - and the Gallup/ Long Hive thread which is a monster at some 6000 words.
> Rather than display these as .html pages - which I might do later - I thought I'd just upload them as .txt files for now. They can be downloaded from : http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/beekxx.htm - or via my website 'front page'.
> 
> Hope somebody finds these of interest - any problems with those files, give me shout.
> ...


Thanks LJ.
Downloaded just fine.
A simple text file is about the best, the most efficient, and the most reliable media - it just works for those willing to read it (no IFs or BUTs).


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

Gm Doolittle was ignorant and prejudice? A bold statement 100 years into future. We sit here blowing smoke and Doolittle, without the internet mind you, comes up with modern queen grafting and HE is prejudice because he doesn't like the hives you want him too. I love different beehives but there is no way I would want a few hundred of those things to manage in my outyards. Guess that makes me ignorant and prejudice.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Could there be just a hint of persecution complex behind thinking we are saddled with a sub standard hive system?

I can envision some possible benefits of a narrower frame with greater depth being more efficient in my colder climate. It generally takes into the second season for comb to be fully drawn and utilized out towards the ends of a 19" frame. Honey deposited there almost never gets used and sits there crystallized. Wasted space unless a person actively creates the situation where the bees will use it up. The clusters are never large enough for the bees to use it unless they happen to wind up on one side of the box and then cannot cover the distance to the honey at the other end of the frames.

That said, I am not willing to give up the benefits of standardization on the Lang frame. I am going to do an experiment next season with the Dadant 11 1/4" frame depth though.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Tennessee's Bees LLC said:


> Gm Doolittle was ignorant and prejudice? A bold statement 100 years into future. We sit here blowing smoke and Doolittle, without the internet mind you, comes up with modern queen grafting and HE is prejudice because he doesn't like the hives you want him too. I love different beehives but there is no way I would want a few hundred of those things to manage in my outyards. Guess that makes me ignorant and prejudice.


For goodness sake - take the emotion out of what you read. "Ignorant" is NOT a term of abuse - I use the term purely in the sense that Doolittle did not have the knowledge that (say) Poppleton did. Experience with two hives compared with hundreds, and over a much longer period.
"Prejudice" ? Again, NOT a term of abuse. We ALL have prejudices of one kind or another - Doolittle had a prejudice in favour of Gallup frames, at a time when most people had swung over to Langstroth - what's wrong with that ? And like you, he had a negative prejudice against Long Hives - so what ? - it's a prejudice, that's all - it ain't a hanging offence.

It sounds as if you may be putting Doolittle on a pedestal because of his brilliant work rearing queens - but that doesn't make him infallible with regard to other beekeeping issues. If you bother to read the text files I've uploaded, you'll read that several of his contemporaries justifiably criticise several of his sweeping generalisations. 
Doolittle was described by one of them as being a facile writer - again, NOT a term of abuse - but simply meaning a person who tends to ignore the deeper complexities of an issue. That Doolittle eventually realised that there was a need to expand upon the method he described in Scientific Queen Rearing is but one small example of this.

Doolittle was a skilled and persuasive writer. That's good, and that's bad. It's good because he had the gift of communicating effectively and so pass on his valuable experiences. It's bad because the ability to seductively 'carry readers along' by the power of the written word can reduce critical faculties, such that "Doolittle being such a nice guy" can then lead onward to a belief that "therefore Doolittle must be right".

Doolittle had ongoing arguments with many of the BIG names of the day - he had to fight his corner on many fronts. Was he infallible ? Of course not. He was a valuable voice, but he was one voice amongst many.
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

crofter said:


> Could there be just a hint of persecution complex behind thinking we are saddled with a sub standard hive system?.


Maybe. But I sometimes wonder how would people react if the one-size-fits-all approach were to be imposed on us in other areas of life ? All living in the same shape/style/size of house; all driving the same cars (automobiles); all eating exactly the same food; all wearing the same clothes; all doing the same job (as if...), but you get the idea ...

Is standardisation a good or bad thing ? Seems to me that all depends ...
If I were a manufacturer, or a commercial beekeeper, then "unequivocally, yes". But I'm neither.

Is it not a case of 'horses for courses' ? Who in their right mind would purchase a 40-ton artic (trailer and unit) for doing the weekly shop ? Or go off-roading in a Ferrari ? 
LJ


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

No, an imposed standardization that demands its usage even for the most ludicrous extremes would not be a good thing. The Lang frame and hive certainly was none of that. I dont think it is fair to assume todays instant communication was available hundreds of years ago, when someone saw the advantages of such standardization. I sure dont think it was any nefarious conspiracy.

Todays mass media sure does capitalize on the ability to encourage wasteful consumption by overglorifying the notion of rabid individualism, though we certainly have lots of opportunity to fine tune what we occupy ourselves with.

I agree that there are lots of special circumstances where alternate design might be more appropriate but I think it is 90% beekeeper skill or lack of it that is the cause of failure, rather than the box and frame design.
_

Some ships go East and some go West, by the selfsame winds that blow; 
Tis the set of the sail and not the gale, that governs the way we go!_


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

I don't know if Doolittle was even a nice guy. Never met him. I am not so "ignorant" to think that he was the only authority on beekeeping during that time. I do like your posts on different hives, beekeepers and management. 

To me though "ignorant and prejudice" makes it sound pretty hardnosed on a guy who was cutting edge for his time. Likely it was not as useful for what he wanted to accomplish. 

Lack of abuse in those words? 

If I was to say that in regards to Langstroth or (any equipment or management style) that you are ignorant and prejudice you would be cool with that? 

I don't think so. Neither would I. 

Another good example of how the internet (or mailed letters) is no replacement for face to face talking. It can be hard to ascertain the true meaning. Not to mention information from a century ago.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

The reason Doolittle appeared to be "prejudiced" toward Gallup's style of frames was because Elisha Gallup had been a mentor to Doolittle when Doolittle first began keeping and writing about honey bees. Doolittle never forgot or failed to support Gallup, even when an aging Gallup made statements in print about aspects of beekeeping that leads me to believe his mental abilities had started to fail him.

Doolittle appeared to have a bit of ego, but that is common in beekeepers. We all seem to think our way is the best, most efficient method of managing honey bees. With Doolittle, he proved that his methods worked by making a good living with his bees, and the observations he made of the honey bee's life cycle and activities within the hive have proved very accurate.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

I've just added a text file in which Poppleton writes about how he uses Single-Story Hives and his Nucleus Method of Increase.
LJ


----------



## bkcrrtnps (Mar 30, 2018)

crofter said:


> Could there be just a hint of persecution complex behind thinking we are saddled with a sub standard hive system?
> 
> I can envision some possible benefits of a narrower frame with greater depth being more efficient in my colder climate. It generally takes into the second season for comb to be fully drawn and utilized out towards the ends of a 19" frame. Honey deposited there almost never gets used and sits there crystallized. Wasted space unless a person actively creates the situation where the bees will use it up. The clusters are never large enough for the bees to use it unless they happen to wind up on one side of the box and then cannot cover the distance to the honey at the other end of the frames.
> 
> That said, I am not willing to give up the benefits of standardization on the Lang frame. I am going to do an experiment next season with the Dadant 11 1/4" frame depth though.




I love my 11 1/4 jumbo frames and I’ll never go back


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

bkcrrtnps said:


> I love my 11 1/4 jumbo frames and I’ll never go back


Hey, bkcrrtnps, how do you run these exactly in your configuration?
I snatched a full box of these (60+ frames).
On one had, I want to keep them as-is and just use so (they are just too nice and brand new).
On the other hand, I want to cut them to a shorter top bar and so to have near perfect Gallup-style frames (13" by 11 1/4").
Agonizing...


----------



## bkcrrtnps (Mar 30, 2018)

GregV said:


> bkcrrtnps said:
> 
> 
> > I love my 11 1/4 jumbo frames and I’ll never go back
> ...


I run them a few different ways. I have some traditional Dadant size hives that hold 12 of them, I have double nucs that have 5 on a side with divider and then I have my horizontals that I built that I use dividers in. What more would you like to know? I’ll never go back to a langstroth style hive again!


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

moved to: https://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?352013-Horizontal-Dadant&p=1696939#post1696939

bkcrrtnps, 
Please go there (the "Horizontal Dadant" topic); I got questions for you. Thanks!

LJ: sorry for the topic pollution..


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

A couple of pic from a book printed in 1989 (scanned PDF).
Of interest - two long hives with the frames proportionally very similar to the "Gallup frame".
I was not able to find in the book more exact descriptions of what these are.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> LJ: sorry for the topic pollution..


LOL - no worries... 



> A couple of pic from a book printed in 1989 (scanned PDF).
> Of interest - two long hives with the frames proportionally very similar to the "Gallup frame".
> I was not able to find in the book more exact descriptions of what these are.


Greg - that book looks interesting - is it available on-line for download ?
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Greg - that book looks interesting - is it available on-line for download ?
> LJ


The book is, unfortunately, a scanned PDF (meaning - you can not auto-translate it).
Can try this link (probably useless for you):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...hov_1990.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2vceMisbRl6FjZmkqdUvXg

However, I was able to find a simple website with these exact pictures:
http://paseka.su/books/item/f00/s00/z0000049/st007.shtml

The page is talking about a well-known Eastern European beekeeper and book author - Vitvitskiy (unsure of the spelling) (Николай Михайлович Витвицкий (1764—1853)).


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Greg - useful links, thanks.

As you rightly predicted the .pdf link was of little use 'text-wise' - but does contain some interesting pictures.

The website link was far more useful as Google 'Translate' does a very fine job in rendering Russian into English, both in regard of Vitvitsky's write-up, and Prokopovich's (and others) ...

This hive would be well-worth knowing more about, if by good fortune you're able to identify the maker or some other source:



I've been considering the idea of a one-piece (fixed-volume) Warre for some time now, which would dispense with the tortuous idea of nadiring boxes (when was the last time anyone saw a tree leap into the air in order to insert a fresh section of tree-trunk ?) - my idea being to never disturb the position the bees have adopted in the cavity, but rather to control the hive's volume around them by means of horizontal dividers. The above hive might just be doing something similar ?

Again, thanks for the links.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> This hive would be well-worth knowing more about, if by good fortune you're able to identify the maker or some other source:
> 
> 
> LJ


LJ, I was able to find the meta-data page for the book where the photo seems to originate:

http://paseka.su/books/item/f00/s00/z0000049/st000.shtml

Шабаршов Иван Андреевич - 'Русское пчеловодство'
ISBN 5—10—001139—4
1990.

So this meta-data page states - "Photographs by Author".
Unfortunately, the Author neglected to identify what exactly is pictured (outside of mostly generic titles).

However, the picture you point to, is surprisingly similar to the very original hive by Prokopovich from the early 1800s:
http://paseka.su/books/item/f00/s00/z0000049/st008.shtml


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

LJ, 
I found a very good resource.
Here is a one page from it:
https://helpiks.org/3-85057.html

For example, I now know what one of the hives pictured above is (a horizontal with small frames) - it is #5 on the page - "5 – Долиновского".

In fact - Google books is listing under "Catalogue of the Russian Section, World's Columbian Exposition, 1893, Chicago":
....The hives at the apiary are of the Berlepsh's and *Dolinovsky *frame systems.............

So - this is *1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago USA* we are talking about.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

LJ, 
I found a very good resource.
Here is a one page from it:
https://helpiks.org/3-85057.html

For example, I now know what one of the hives pictured above is (see that horizontal hive with small frames) - it is #5 on the page - "5 – Долиновского".

In fact - Google books is listing under "Catalogue of the Russian Section, World's Columbian Exposition, 1893, Chicago":
....The hives at the apiary are of the Berlepsh's and *Dolinovsky *frame systems.............

So - this is *1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago USA* we are talking about.
Dolinovsky horizontal hive.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Greg - an excellent find - nice one !
LJ


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> Hi Trish - I think that's a fair summary. However, after checking 'Gleanings' for the following 3 years I was very surprised to learn that no-one had seized upon the potential of this procedure. I was also curious about Doolittle's own lack of enthusiasm for it:
> I've since learned that Doolittle's article was in fact the final salvo in an argument which had started the previous year, with Doolittle initially expressing a very negative opinion of Long Hives in general (which I'm sad to say demonstrates that even Doolittle was guilty of both ignorance and prejudice - more on that in another post) but even so, in regard to this particular issue all is not quite as rosy as might first appear.
> 
> I think it's fair to assume that the removal of honey causes brood-rearing to be stimulated due to the colony recognising (somehow) that the existing number of bees is insufficient to provide enough stores for winter survival - and so more bees are duly generated. Which is great news for a bee-farmer, and dispells the myth that you can't produce both honey AND bees at the same time. BUT - think about the season ...
> ...


So Correct me If I am reading this incorrect. The large harvest was due to taking honey more often. So this suggests the bees work toward a "perceived" need and then "may slack off raise less brood etc. By Taking some early they perceive they need to up the effort and raise more brood to get to the perceived stores threshold.. Would this not work for any hive system? I do not think the hive shape would change the way the bees operate. Would taking honey 3 times a year get you to a larger harvest for the year? I ask for several reasons but primary less supers is less work and less storage. Splitting the harvest would make 2 smaller jobs instead of 1 big one. And I can beat the rest of the Beeks to market with fresh honey. Add wet supers back during flow not dearth. this may be something to ponder..
GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> The *large harvest was due to taking honey more often*. So this suggests the bees work toward a "perceived" need and then "may slack off raise less brood etc. ...GG


Just a couple of days ago I found an interesting blog that confirms the same finding.
Hives with the biggest frames (500mmx500mm) configured horizontally and the least managed - produced the least honey (vs. other setups).
The observation was that the bees were just way TOO comfortable and were lacking some urgency in honey harvest (but instead were more prolific - and consumed more so to make more bees).
I will post something later.

However, also consider 
1)how much overall time/effort was spent per the unit of honey by the keeper (every time you open a hive - that is time spent), 
2)does the keeper intend to sell or not (one can only consume so much - no need to produce way too much), 
3)is the keeper available at all to do any work around the bees over the summer (some live far away; others have much life outside of the bees)... 
Some of these points could be the actual defining factors.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

GregV said:


> Just a couple of days ago I found an interesting blog that confirms the same finding.
> Hives with the biggest frames (500mmx500mm) configured horizontally and the least managed - produced the least honey (vs. other setups).
> 
> However, also consider
> ...


Greg, Thanks for engaging. i'll offer comment by the number of the question.
1) in late June when I add super 3 and 4 I could easily trap out the full frames from the first 2 supers and if using all the same frames maybe 3 or 4 from the edge of the brood nest. not a huge add for work. The big ones get checked for Q cells anyway
2) yes I sell to defray the cost of Frames, foundation, gas queens, paint etc. Last year I ended up with about $1000 If I can get to 1500 that works for me. That would be Dato blades and a router 
3) well the answer here is it varies 1 Apiary in in the back yard and the farthest is 4 hours away. So I "could" extract the back yard, take the wets up to the far apiary, pull the first super there, add the wets, bring back the full supers, and extract then put the wets back on the backyard Apiary. Again for 50% more honey I would find a way. I drive up to super and check , coming back with 8 supers of honey in the back of the truck would not be a huge issue.

Yes I know the danger of moving honey from hive to hive. Whatever. I see big stacks of wets in front of commercials all the time , bees thick, it happens. Also who removes the honey in the tree dead outs. They are all splits of each other any way. so feel free to criticize but I am already aware.

So for me this is good news, last year the extract was a bit much, took a day off work did it in 3 day weekend, splitting it into 2 different weekends and eventually 3 would also help.
Also I ran out of supers last year. I made 20 more this winter but a mid year extract would be helpful in my case.

BTW I use Langs and am moving toward all Mediums.

GG


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Gray Goose said:


> [...] The large harvest was due to taking honey more often. So this suggests the bees work toward a "perceived" need and then "may slack off raise less brood etc. By Taking some early they perceive they need to up the effort and raise more brood to get to the perceived stores threshold.


Perception of existing levels of stored honey _viz-a-viz_ brood numbers is certainly one possibility. The other could be that it's a _sequela_ - in the sense of a predictable sequence or automatic consequence of an action.

If we consider the situation when humans aren't involved, then there are no such entities in the natural honeybee nest as 'brood combs' or 'honey combs' ... there are just 'combs' - with those combs being used for different purposes at different times during the season.

If we examine the sequence in late Winter, then honey will have been progressively removed during that dormant period. Depending upon local conditions, some small amounts of brood may indeed have been reared during winter within cells which had previously held honey, but for many colonies circumstances are such that brood-rearing only commences once the natural world wakes-up and fresh pollen begins to come into the hive. Assuming that space has become available by honey removal, this brood-rearing will initially take place near the top of the comb where the conditions are warmest. As the season begins to unfold, brood-rearing progressively moves down the comb, and former brood cells - now empty - will begin to be back-filled with nectar.

This then can be considered as a natural sequence: former honey cells becoming brood cells, and former brood cells in turn becoming honey cells.

Now if we were to take a snapshot of such a comb, we might indeed conclude that "bees store honey over brood", which is of course absolutely true as a stand-alone observational statement - and underpins the logic of placing supers with their purpose-made honey-combs (to which the queen is invariably denied access) above brood boxes. But it would also be just as true to say that "bees store honey in cells which previously held brood" - and - "bees raise brood in cells which previously held honey", and that the axiom of "honey is always stored over brood" - although true - is the result of making an observation during only one part of the cycle, and concluding that this is an inherent feature of the species, without questioning exactly 'why' this positioning is being made.

I think Doolittle's observation that every single comb in those 32-frame Long Hives held brood gives an important clue as to the dynamics which occur whenever the queen is allowed free reign to lay wherever she wishes.

LJ


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

LJ I may try a couple hives this year where I extract a box and then place it under the stack. Now they have 6 inches less honey overhead and 6 more inches of comb under the brood nest. For your, long hive perhaps take a frame or 2 of honey, filled as they move back toward the entrance. Extract it and place empty s behind them. Somewhat walking up the down escalator. If you cannot extract and have combs, one could remove the honey shift the bees and place empty comb behind them. It may be the % of empty cells in the nest that drives brood production. As you say later in the year empty cells are scarcer. If we slowly remove full and add empty cells, we may trigger a longer build up and slower decline. Ergo a higher population for a fraction of the flow. for the long hive you could split late some of the larger population and give 3 or 4 frames of stores, allowing a longer splitting season. Lots of ways to play it, once you understand the drive behind it.
GG


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Gray Goose said:


> Lots of ways to play it, once you understand the drive behind it.


Yeah - but that's the elusive bit ...

I guess what I was trying to say before was that it could be a) the bees making a decision based on observation/awareness, or b) them making a 'knee-jerk' reaction, over which they have little say. 32 frames - all with brood in 'em - makes very little sense, when 10-12 would be more than sufficient.

Easy enough to test (I think ...) - take a freshly extracted honey-comb (worker cell size) and place it into the brood nest of a colony which already has ample amounts of brood. I'd bet money that comb would be jumped-on and laid-up within 24 hrs. Then repeat to check.
LJ


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> Yeah - but that's the elusive bit ...
> 
> I guess what I was trying to say before was that it could be a) the bees making a decision based on observation/awareness, or b) them making a 'knee-jerk' reaction, over which they have little say. 32 frames - all with brood in 'em - makes very little sense, when 10-12 would be more than sufficient.
> 
> ...


ex-actually and if you say had 10 long hives and pulled 1 or 2 frames of honey, extracted it and placed it back in the brood nest. You would simultaneously remove stores and provide empty cells in the brood nest. Simple twist, use drone comb for either the best breeding hives for mating readiness or the remove and freeze program for IPM. could even move drone comb from your breeder to a non breeder to have them raise the drones you wish to have. So once this impulse is understood it can be used to reach several different goals. For me out of the box I would use it for OTBN and production increase. then Late split for increase.
GG


----------



## DocBB (Aug 26, 2010)

Abbé Rueher's modified Congolese (long horizontal) beehive (Almost a Gallup frame)

found here *Bees in French Equatorial Africa: their habits, their culture*

 

_We note a distance between frames of 35mm (1920 we had not yet understood that for *African bees it is between 31 and 32 mm*) and that he then calls the Top bars "comb holder"_.

"The primitive Congolese, which dates from 1920, was modified in August 1926. The innovations made to the latter model (fig. 16) concern only the roof and the bottom. The body of the hive does not change in any way: it is placed on the tray where it is held by means of four trunnions."
"The roof is flat, made of assembled boards 15 mm. thick and covered with a sheet of zinc or sheet metal. It protrudes from the body by 2 cm. ½ on each side, which are taken up by a 2 cm. high frame. This way the tent fits over the hive, preventing access to spiders and moths."
"The bottom, instead of being flat, has the shape of an upside-down triangle, with an inner height of 12 cm., one third of the base. It increases the volume of the hive by about 12 liters. The tray, being tilted, is at the same time made self-cleaning, but remains mobile or removable."
"1° The hive always stays clean, since the flared and sloping bottom allows waste and condensation to drain away automatically."
" 2° For the bees: more space and more air. Instead of cluttering up the tray and the flight board, during rest, the workers remain in the hive and hang below the frames."
" 3° Given this particularity, an inspection or an operation is easy to do: there are, so to speak, no bees left on the combs."
" 4° The entrance, made along the whole length of the hive, gives a wide ventilation with the rear ventilation openings. Moreover, it is protected from the sun and guaranteed from the rain."
" 5° Finally, thanks to the vacuum or air chamber under the frames, the workers, - especially those of a large swarm, - form the cluster there for the elaboration of the wax intended for the construction of the combs. We have seen this, and this in itself is a very great advantage."

Excerpt from: Rueher, J.B. "The Bees of French Equatorial Africa. Their habits, their culture. Practical and easy instructions and methods for rational and modern beekeeping (1929).*» 


we find a new modification for the Metropolitan adaptation in *L'Apiculteur 1932 -02*

Or *here in PDF* and again a description in *L'apiculteur 1931* about the colonial exhibition.



> .../...Then it's the technical drawings of my new hive:
> "France-Congo" model 1931 - possibly the "Congolese 1925" transformed for the climate of Europe.
> At the bottom, - on its pedestal, rests the hive with its frames. A large board indicates its main characteristics,
> as follows: Illuminated horizontal hive -
> ...


the top bars he calls them * "impropolisable "R" closing frame system"*!


  


The Beehive " France Congo "

On the whole it is our "Congolese 1925", somewhat modified for the climate of Europe. 
.../on the advice of beekeepers
our tropical 30x31 frame inside, which seems too small,
Our primitive frame (1920)
and when we modified it, we were unaware of the existence of the Voirnot 33x33 cm frame.
By substituting the latter for ours...

The hive body has an internal volume of 75 x 37 1/2 x 37 1/2 c/m, i.e. a capacity of 105 litres.
The front board is 80 x 20 (17 at the inner corners) x 2 1/2) c/m, notched below 10 m/m over a length of
75 c/m, which is the distance between the two short sides: this is 'the actual flight hole'. 

The 80x45x2 1/2 c/m bottom thus assembled forms a vacuum or air chamber, under the frames, which, being square, do not descend into it. This chamber has a capacity of seventeen and a half litres. It ensures the bees of laplace, of the pure air unceasingly renewed, it avoids the swarming and the beard".


For "France-Congo" we'll use 36mm wide closing frames.


----------



## DocBB (Aug 26, 2010)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg - useful links, thanks.
> 
> I've been considering the idea of a one-piece (fixed-volume) Warre for some time now, which would dispense with the tortuous idea of nadiring boxes (when was the last time anyone saw a tree leap into the air in order to insert a fresh section of tree-trunk ?) - my idea being to never disturb the position the bees have adopted in the cavity, but rather to control the hive's volume around them by means of horizontal dividers. The above hive might just be doing something similar ?
> 
> ...


a new hive based on the concept of the Melifera bees "favourite volumeé according to T. Seeley. 




_To answer these and other questions, our qualified beekeeper and carpenter, Johannes Poeplau, built several hives with a *45-litre brood chamber* during the winter months.*
_
_These consist of four centimetre thick solid wood walls and offer space for *8 "einraumbeute" frames.**_
_At the bottom there is a floor ("crawl space" like einrambeute) of about 10 litres.*_
_At the top, the hive is covered with a wax cloth and insulated with a 40 millimetre thick flexible insulation wool. "With thicker insulation, food consumption in winter is much lower," explains Norbert Poeplau.*_
_There is also a honey super of*around*14 litres. (~1/3 rd Warré volume)_

Given that the dimensions are those of the Warrés the Warrés supers(s) or half supers could be used and we could managed*like pastorals 'dadants' that could be a bit funny,

or make *"Monocadres AT"*


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Interesting idea LJ
with regards to :
control the hive's volume around them by means of horizontal dividers.

If we move the divider to a bigger size will the honey barrier at the edge be moved by the bees to enlarge the nest or do you split it open leaving the wall combs on the wall?

Ideally if you used 2 dividers and centered the nest one could take 1 comb of honey from each side, to shrink it, then C&S for the honey.
Is this also being considered or do we have 1 side expansion only.

If 1 side expansion only do we have a long hive in a shot box then?

GG


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

I think Greg is better placed than myself to answer such a question, as divider-pairs are seen in several Russian/Ukrainian beehive designs. But - I'll have a go, bearing in mind that I'm on a learning curve here myself.

As I understand it - the dividers are not so much used to regulate the hive volume - that stays fixed - it's to control the size of the brood nest within it. You need to bear in mind that the frames used in these hives are DEEP, and so each one of them will contain some honey stores which are then available for immediate brood-rearing use. Therefore the presence of a honey barrier no longer exists, as it does in a shallow Long Hive. Surplus honey - that is, over and above immediate needs - is stored on the other side of the partition boards (to which there is free access for all the bees except the Queen, for those boards act as a Queen Excluder.

The Gallup Hive which Doolittle used - which he called his "six-frame hive" - had six frames between the partition boards over the winter period, with insulating chaff etc filling the cavities on either side. As the season got under way, he would expand the brood nest to nine frames by means of the partition boards. The three-frame spaces left at either end of the hive would then be used to house section racks. If extracted honey was wanted, both he and Elisha Gallup used to 'super' their hives, sometimes with one, sometimes with two boxes.

As I don't intend to ever produce section honey, I've enlarged the cavities which will exist to either side of the brood nest over winter - but exactly how these will be used during the season is still something to be decided. I've also made provision for supering the hive, although I seriously doubt this facility will ever be needed. It will of course hold substantial amounts of insulation, and may be used as a feeder shell ... if needed.

Photos to follow ...
LJ


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> I think Greg is better placed than myself to answer such a question, as divider-pairs are seen in several Russian/Ukrainian beehive designs. But - I'll have a go, bearing in mind that I'm on a learning curve here myself.
> 
> As I understand it - the dividers are not so much used to regulate the hive volume - that stays fixed - it's to control the size of the brood nest within it. You need to bear in mind that the frames used in these hives are DEEP, and so each one of them will contain some honey stores which are then available for immediate brood-rearing use. Therefore the presence of a honey barrier no longer exists, as it does in a shallow Long Hive. Surplus honey - that is, over and above immediate needs - is stored on the other side of the partition boards (to which there is free access for all the bees except the Queen, for those boards act as a Queen Excluder.
> 
> ...


Sweet, sounds like a fun project.

I Am looking at the Buckeye with a Gallop bottom.

I have a lang investment and I like the stack OKish.

I can then use the 5 framer and 8 framers for growth/NUCS and slowly put the production Hives into insulated boxes.
I want a couple proto types by sept to try this year.

i'll try to get picks as I do them

GG


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Ok - this is the basic brood box, identical upper and lower entrances at both ends. Shown with the division boards much as Doolittle would have used them during winter. Grab handles at either end. Made from 1 1/4" recycled pallet wood.











This shows the 3-piece Crown Board I'll initially be trialing - any problems and I'll swap to using some form of breathable fabric (will need the roof venting then, of course). I've cracked the boards open a little, so they're more obvious - otherwise the mating edges are invisible. The reason for the 3-piece is that the central section will not be disturbed during winter.











Feeder Shell, doubling as a super which I doubt will ever be used as such. Handy for holding insulation though. Be daft not to make one whilst the box in in the workshop.











Telescopic roof, covered in a PVC supermarket 'Special Offer' banner. Easy and quick to make - ideal for experimental hives - I have 4 National-Warre(*) hives with these roofs, and they're all holding-up well. Should be good for 6-7 years.











I'm now just waiting for the paint to de-odourise before installing a colony.
LJ

(*)Warre hives dimensioned to fit 8 x 14" long British-National frames, rather than Warre's 8 x 12". Can also be used to house 10 x Gallup frames, across the box.


----------



## farmer9989 (Feb 18, 2014)

studying up on the gallup hives just have to make one thanks every one for in put


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> I think Greg is better placed than myself to answer such a question, as divider-pairs are seen in several Russian/Ukrainian beehive designs. But - I'll have a go, bearing in mind that I'm on a learning curve here myself.......
> LJ


Am not sure understood the question so refrain from much commenting.

My long hives operate on asymmetric configuration and typically I only use a single divider board (to cut the tail off, so to speak).

In fact, right now two of my hives have divider board in place so to cut off the brood nest from the rest of the frames.
Based on the observation, I will want to do the same for all long hives - yes, meaning right now (in the middle of the summer).

My current observation - my long hives "suffer" from over-ventilation and humidity levels in the brood nests are too low to my liking.
Somehow these hives are very well ventilated; too much for the brood nest (the test long hive is running consistently drier than than the control nuc that I keep double-boxed and under blankets in summer).

A divider board in place increase the humidity readings in the long hive brood nest by about 5-10%.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Update re: the 2ft Gallup-Framed Long Hive ...

I've just done the first 100% inspection of the hive since installing the bees. I needed to lift the box onto it's permanent stand, so pulled every last frame in order to lighten it.

Positives: 
# frames spaced at 32mm have ALL (as far as I can tell, as some are capped honey) been drawn with worker comb. No problems at all in that area.
# the colony has been powering away, is strong, healthy and beekeeper-friendly. Although I'd taken the precaution of having a working smoker handy in view of the anticipated disruption - it wasn't needed - not even once.
# although a 100% anthropomorphic observation: it would appear that the colony is happy with both the Gallup Frame size, and the hive dimensions which - if vertical - would be the same as that of the Warre Hive and the early American Box Hive (when supered).

Negatives:
# the bottom of the hive was wet - I've opened-up the rear bottom entrance with a view to increasing the airflow through the hive, and have added temporary insulation above the Crown Boards (inner covers). More permanent insulation (a 3" slab of polystyrene) is currently being glued-up in the workshop. If these steps doesn't cure the problem, then I'll fit vents in the hive floor.

Although the original plan was that a protected bottom entrance would be provided at one end of the hive, with an upper vent located at the other end to provide cross-flow ventilation - due to the simplified method of colony transfer, the upper vent above the hive entrance (which would normally be closed) was kept open, and the vast majority of bees have adopted this vent hole as their principle entrance. As this hole was only intended as a vent hole rather than an entrance, it wasn't fitted with any form of anti-robbing protection, nor is retro-fitting such protection straightforward. I'll need to keep my eye on this - but so far, so good.

All in all - very happy with progress - except for the wet floor.

LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Update re: the 2ft Gallup-Framed Long Hive ...
> ..........
> All in all - very happy with progress - except for the wet floor.
> 
> LJ


Thanks for the update.
Boy, you do have it wet.
Wet floor is a possibility during cool/cold season here and usually a sign of a faulty hive, but never in summer (the water will evaporate).

Will you quickly remind the frame dimensions?


> colony is happy with both the Gallup Frame size,


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Greg - sure - 11 & 1/4" x 11 & 1/4" outside dimensions. 

This size was chosen by Elisha Gallup as it would have fitted the American Box Hive (12" x 12" x 12" inside measure), a size which had developed a proven track record as a fixed-comb brood box prior to Langstroth's invention.

I looked in on that hive again earlier today, and it looks a lot drier - but - I'll keep monitoring this. 
'best
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg - sure - 11 & 1/4" x 11 & 1/4" outside dimensions.
> ......
> LJ


Thanks LJ.
11 & 1/4 - will remember now.
This is the depth dimension for the Lang Jumbo frame (which I have a full box of un-assembled - still unsure what to do with them).


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

This morning I checked on one of my National-Warre's which was displaying reduced traffic compared with others, only to find it had turned drone-layer - yet another one !

But - it had a cracking Gallup frame of pollen, and so I swifted that over to the Gallup Long Hive. I took the opportunity of checking it's floor, which is now nice and dry. 
Seems ventilation combined with top insulation is a good remedy in this part of the world.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> ...... a cracking Gallup frame of pollen......LJ


Do post a pic or two of your production Gallup frames.
Am interested to see the live Gallup combs and how the bees structure it.

Now that I am almost finished with my experimental 300x300 CVH (Compact Vertical Hive), hoping to plug a live colony into it very soon. 
This CVH should take either a full Ukrainian frame OR experimental 1/3 Ukrainian frame OR experimental 2/3 Ukrainian frame (which is ~ Gallup frame). 
These said frames should span either 3 boxes OR 2 boxes OR 1 box each - to be evaluated.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Greg

A few pics - but I'm not sure how useful they're going to be ...

None of the full-sized frames are yet fully drawn-out - so what follows are 2/3rds depth frames (a depth which fits into National-Warre boxes - across those boxes) and which are nothing exceptional. None of them were drawn at 32mm spacing, so there's at least one showing a few drone cells.
These pics were taken yesterday - the day was cold, wet and blustery - so I couldn't bring myself to shake-off the bees. They were very tolerant in allowing me to pull frames on such a day - only one stung a glove (worn because I anticipated annoyance) - which is the very first time a bee from that colony has stung me. However, here they are (for what they're worth):



























As you may be able to make out, with this depth of frame the brood-combs also contain significant amount of stores - if in the future they behave like the colonies I have on 14x12 frames, then they'll use each comb for an entirely different purpose. But will have to wait and see to confirm next year.

This colony was a nuc started this spring, and transferred into the Gallup Long Hive at the beginning of August - in frames which had already been drawn-out and used - so that their current usage will undoubtedly have been influenced by that.
Although by our standards the colony is now near-enough 'full-size', by North American standards it's still just a good-sized nuc. 
'best
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg
> 
> A few pics - but I'm not sure how useful they're going to be ...
> 
> ...


LJ, thanks for taking the time and the pics. Nice.

With my CVs, I too want to have a frame size (hence my new "standard" to be) where the frame is ~fully dedicated to a single use.
Per my youtube watchings that's how the CVs should generally work.
Which in turn makes it really easy to isolate and harvest most any select honey at any time - one of my end goals with the CVs.

What is both beauty AND the hassle of the large frame long hives - most frames are multi-functional at once.
Just the nature of the beast.
This makes it difficult to isolate different honeys across the season.


----------



## oldsap (May 1, 2016)

I know this is an old post but if anyone is interested in Gallup hives or others all old Gleanings in Bee Culture and American Bee Journal and many old books are available online for free. Google books has many and they can be read online or download as pdf. Cornell University has lots of books available online. I don't have a direct link to them (on mobile) but if needed I can find one. I have read books from 1830's and newer. Strangely the same issues and opinions as today's beekeepers but great reading. LL Langstroth, Miller, Dadant, Doolittle and more. Learn from the best at no cost. You will find everything old is new again and again over time. They did not have mites and small hive beetles but most everything else is the same.


----------

