# 5 frame deep Nuc to Warré the easy? way



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

Getting a 5-frame nuc this spring to use in a Warre hive. Idea is to do a transfer down into the Warre, rather than cutting the combs. So I am building a transfer box, with the plan of removing the transfer box as quickly as possible, maybe by mid summer and harvesting the honey.

Question is: I was thinking of just building a wooden transfer box to hold the EZ-Nuc container. So it would be exactly the right size to fit the nuc. When I get the nuc, I will put it in this box then put it on top of the Warré. Then I could cut out the bottom of the Nuc with a razor, so that the nuc would open exactly into the Warre. Thats it. Other than having plywood coverings on the open parts of the top warré box.

The idea is to minimize any disturbance to the bees. The nuc frames would not be removed, they would just be able to build down into the Warré.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

I don't know what sort of wooden-ware you have access to - but I found the easiest method of transferring bees from standard frames onto Warre Top Bars (or frames) was to tie-wrap the Warre Top Bar underneath a plain Top Bar dimensioned to fit a standard box, then chequer-board (IOIOIO etc) those bars between the regular frames until drawn-out and occupied, then progressively move the unwanted frames to the outside of the array to clear them of brood, before finally xfering the Warre combs across to their intended home. If what's left of the standard box is then placed near the Warre hive entrance, the remaining bees will join their sisters in due course.

I've found out the hard way that getting bees to move up or down into another box only works as and when (and *if*) the bees themselves want to do this.
LJ


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

little_john said:


> I don't know what sort of wooden-ware you have access to - but I found the easiest method of transferring bees from standard frames onto Warre Top Bars (or frames) was to tie-wrap the Warre Top Bar underneath a plain Top Bar dimensioned to fit a standard box, then chequer-board (IOIOIO etc) those bars between the regular frames until drawn-out and occupied, then progressively move the unwanted frames to the outside of the array to clear them of brood, before finally xfering the Warre combs across to their intended home. If what's left of the standard box is then placed near the Warre hive entrance, the remaining bees will join their sisters in due course.
> 
> I've found out the hard way that getting bees to move up or down into another box only works as and when (and *if*) the bees themselves want to do this.
> LJ


I will consider this. Any idea how long it might take to complete the transfer to the Warré?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> Getting a 5-frame nuc this spring to use in a Warre hive. Idea is to do a transfer down into the Warre, rather than cutting the combs. So I am building a transfer box, with the plan of removing the transfer box as quickly as possible, maybe by mid summer and harvesting the honey.
> 
> Question is: I was thinking of just building a wooden transfer box to hold the EZ-Nuc container. So it would be exactly the right size to fit the nuc. When I get the nuc, I will put it in this box then put it on top of the Warré. Then I could cut out the bottom of the Nuc with a razor, so that the nuc would open exactly into the Warre. Thats it. Other than having plywood coverings on the open parts of the top warré box.
> 
> *The idea is to minimize any disturbance to the bees. The nuc frames would not be removed, they would just be able to build down into the Warré*.


I assume the transfer of 5-frame deep Lang nuc into some Warre format where the 9 1/8 inch tall Lang frame will fit inside.
This is really a trivial transfer.

I would not even bother with building anything custom.
I would not bother with cutting combs either.
No need to hope bees will somehow move the way you want them either (no guaranty of that).

You got your Warre boxes - use them as-is immediately and in place.
Maybe need to double-stuck the boxes to accommodate Lang frames (as they are long - about 18 inch long). 

Method one - best to have a helper, but not necessary.
Produces a long-term setup at once since you attach proper top bars and remove original Lang frame ears.

1)prep appropriate top bars before-hand; 
pre-drill holes; 
set in screws; 
if don't have already - get large garden loppers (those that cut through 1-2 inch branch easily)

2)mod nuc frames one-by-one and transfer them like so:
*turn the frame 90 degrees*; 
using the garden loppers, *carefully *bite off the protruding ear (the one looking up); this will not shake any bees off - best to have the helper at this stage (but I have done without)
screw in the prepared top bar (use a proper driver - goes without saying);
drop the converted frame into your Warre box;
done;
next....

You will have something like this (this is a deep Lang frame repurposed for swarm trap usage; I have several hex vertical traps similar to Warre's in format; using Lang frames in them):








Method two - no need to have a helper.
Produces fine short-term setup (or a long-term setup IF you are not a perfectionista).
Stupidly easy.
Everything needed is in this short, under 5 min video.
It is non-English, but just watch; it is all laid out in front of you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48GrA6vk6tk&t=7s


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

GregV said:


> I assume the transfer of 5-frame deep Lang nuc into some Warre format where the 9 1/8 inch tall Lang frame will fit inside.
> This is really a trivial transfer.
> 
> I would not even bother with building anything custom.
> ...


I don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand. 

My Warré bars are 11 ½ in (12 ½ with rebate) where the ones from the nuc will be 19 ½. So there is a 7 inch difference some of which will be filled with comb. Are you saying to lop off each nuc bar so it will fit and cut and toss the comb that is lost?


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

Oh wait, I didn't see the picture. Hm, that is interesting. Do you think the bees mind being turned 90 degrees?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> Oh wait, I didn't see the picture. Hm, that is interesting. Do you think the bees mind being turned 90 degrees?


They don't care enough to worry about it.
Just do it.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> I don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand.
> 
> My Warré bars are 11 ½ in (12 ½ with rebate) where the ones from the nuc will be 19 ½. So there is a 7 inch difference some of which will be filled with comb. Are you saying to lop off each nuc bar so it will fit and cut and toss the comb that is lost?


Again - turn the frame 90 degrees within the same plane.
Done.
Absolutely nothing is lost.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

You basically implement this idea (just in the Warre situation, not a long hive situation):
http://horizontalhive.com/how-to-build/convert-langstroth-layens.shtml


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

As a 49 year Langstroth framed hive user and a 10 year Warre user my sage advice is.....throw away the Warre hive and use that nuc in a Langstroth hive. Warres are even harder to manage than a topbar hive. Are you using a horse and buggy for transportation? are you using Western Union for telegraph communication? No and no. You are probably using a late model car or truck and a computer and smartphone. So why are you using thousands of year old beehive technology? Warres are something promoted by inexperienced beekeepers who started since the recent beekeeping fad started in 2006 who have no framed hive experience. Don't get sucked in.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

odfrank said:


> ..*throw away the Warre hive and use that nuc in a Langstroth hive*.....


Disagree.
It is just one needs to ditch the established ideas of what Warre is.
Forget the conventional Warre - it is not set in stone (unless you are a principled purist).
Modern "Warre" is just a *vertical, ergonomic, small-format hive* that can serve both a hobbyist and a commercial guy well.
That what it is.


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

odfrank said:


> As a 49 year Langstroth framed hive user and a 10 year Warre user my sage advice is.....throw away the Warre hive and use that nuc in a Langstroth hive. Warres are even harder to manage than a topbar hive. Are you using a horse and buggy for transportation? are you using Western Union for telegraph communication? No and no. You are probably using a late model car or truck and a computer and smartphone. So why are you using thousands of year old beehive technology? Warres are something promoted by inexperienced beekeepers who started since the recent beekeeping fad started in 2006 who have no framed hive experience. Don't get sucked in.


I appreciate, and respect your depth of knowledge. Curious how it went when you tried the Warre, the difference in yields, problems with mites, etc.


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

GregV said:


> Disagree.
> It is just one needs to ditch the established ideas of what Warre is.
> Forget the conventional Warre - it is not set in stone (unless you are a principled purist).
> Modern "Warre" is just a *vertical, ergonomic, small-format hive* that can serve both a hobbyist and a commercial guy well.
> That what it is.


Oh, and you are right, I have the latest iPhone and a VW e-Golf. I am always open to new ways of doing things.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Here is one modern implementation of "Warre".
He is a well known commercial keeper and the hive designer (again - *commercial*).
The PDF is translatable into English for those curious:
https://stasovapasika.com/books/pchelovozhdenie-v-ule-udav.pdf


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

GregV said:


> You basically implement this idea (just in the Warre situation, not a long hive situation):
> http://horizontalhive.com/how-to-build/convert-langstroth-layens.shtml


Thanks, seems like a great way to go. I am going to try this. The nuc frames may still be longer then the depth of two of my warré boxes. But I can always make a couple inch height extension the bottom box. Cool, vertical bees!


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

GregV said:


> Here is one modern implementation of "Warre".
> He is a well known commercial keeper and the hive designer (again - *commercial*).
> The PDF is translatable into English for those curious:
> https://stasovapasika.com/books/pchelovozhdenie-v-ule-udav.pdf


Where did you find the translation? Google translate gives me a too large to translate error


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> Thanks, seems like a great way to go. I am going to try this. The nuc frames may still be longer then the depth of two of my warré boxes. But I can always make a couple inch height extension the bottom box. Cool, vertical bees!


You can also clip off the low-facing Lang frame ears.
All you have to accommodate - ~18 inch + top bar thickness.

Warre box height ~ 1/2 of Lang frame length is a very good design.
As well, box height ~ 1/3 of Lang frame is also good.

This is because such designs allow you to intake Lang frames with very minor modifications.
Important details as about everyone has nucs for sale in Lang format.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> Where did you find the translation? Google translate gives me a too large to translate error


Just do it in fragments.
OR.... highlight text/copy/paste into a text editor/save as a text file/batch translate... something along this line.

There are ways to get it done if want.

FYI: do notice the PDF talks of a design and management based on a mini-frame - important detail (as this may or may not fit your goals and ideas)


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

dshanabrook said:


> I appreciate, and respect your depth of knowledge. Curious how it went when you tried the Warre, the difference in yields, problems with mites, etc.


The frame is a brilliant invention. When I go to harvest my warres brood is sometimes up and down thru all the boxes. The combs are attached to the sides and topbar down below. It is a sticky bee killing mess in the middle of robbing season. A modified Warre with frames is better, but why go with something uncompatible with the other millions of beekeepers in the country. Already without even starting yet you have crashed into the WALL of this huge problem, incompatibly. Warres are smaller, more swarm prone,expensive if you are buying them, AND DON'T HAVE FRAMES!!!! The octagon Warre is the stupidest of all. The only advantage with a Warre is that they are cute. Well my first wife was cute also but I was lucky to get out of that marriage. An adapter board as shown in this picture might be your solution.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

odfrank said:


> The frame is a brilliant invention........ AND DON'T HAVE FRAMES!!!! ......


So again, why follow the frame-less principle? Who said one must not use frames? 
You have my permission to use frames! 
Haha...

If do use frames, why use incompatible frames with the rest of the community? 
Go ahead and be compatible. 
I give permission to be compatible with Langs.

Why not use excluder? Well, heck, use them.

Hex/octa hives make nice traps, they setup directly on the ground, bees like them (my hex logs are my best traps, unsure why but they perform)
Unless built stupidly they take Lang frames very well by this same method (90-degree turn) so to make swarm re-hiving easy, like so:















It is plain silly to follow some 150-year old Waree dogma as if nothing changed since then.
As well is counter-productive to keep kicking the 150-year old dogma (again as if things stay static).


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

GregV said:


> So again, why follow the frame-less principle? Who said one must not use frames?
> You have my permission to use frames!
> Haha...
> 
> ...


Confused. What has changed since Warré? Are you saying when Warré was around his hives might have been better, but today things are different? Confused.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> It is plain silly to follow some 150-year old Waree dogma as if nothing changed since then.
> As well is counter-productive to keep kicking the 150-year old dogma (again as if things stay static).


Where did 150 come from ? Emile Warre wrote the 12th Edition (the most commonly available edition) of 'Beekeeping for All' in 1948 - which makes his 'frameless dogma' a tad over 70 years. (He favoured the use of frames in earlier editions)

A thought. The Warre 'formula' revolves around 8 combs more-or-less the same depth as a deep (but shorter at 300mm, sure) - so why not simply run a stack of 8-frame deeps to approximate a stack of Warre boxes ? 

I'm currently running 2 colonies in exactly this way, but using shorter British National deep frames rather than Langs, and with open bottom mesh ventilation rather than Warre's quilt idea which, like Roger Delon - I've never liked the idea of (and neither do the bees, who'll tear it up unless thwarted somehow from doing so).
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

dshanabrook said:


> Confused. What has changed since Warré?


Three major changes: mass-produced wooden-ware, agricultural practices, and Varroa.

Warre's main selling-point (he *was* selling, after all) was to enable French peasants to make a simple, largely unattended back-garden beehive for as little money as possible. But - just as with the Kenyan Top Bar Hive which was solely intended for poverty-stricken Third-World countries where tools and materials were at a premium - both of these hive designs have been adopted by a beekeeping sub-culture, often-times claiming them to have some kind of 'Natural' pedigree which in turn has made them attractive to those who are entering beekeeping for ideological reasons.

Changes in agricultural practices since WWII have made the rural countryside (the residents of which were Warre's main target) far less suitable for beekeeping than, say, the urban environment.

The advent of Varroa (and perhaps SHB too, depending on your locality), were unknown in Warre's day. I'm not saying that this, or changes within the countryside have any bearing on the suitability or otherwise of Warre Hives - but you asked about changes since Warre's day ... 
LJ


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

There is another factor which is very curious in the saga of the Warre Beehive. In the 12th Edition of his book 'Beekeeping for All', Emile Warre describes how he undertook a large-scale field-comparison of numerous other beehive types before deciding upon those features which were desirable within his own 'revolutionary' beehive design.

At first sight this looks to be a most impressive piece of work, the outcome of which produced an expandable vertical hive-type, which was in marked contrast to the large capacity fixed-volume hive designs which had been field-tested - that is - until one considers which hive-types were NOT included, of which there were two. 
The first was the British National (an expandable vertical beehive design (essentially a Langstroth variant) from just across the water from Warre's apiaries in Northern France) - but to be fair, it WAS a fairly 'new kid on the block'. But not so the American Root-Langstroth design which, even in Warre's day had already achieved a largely pre-eminent status amongst beehive designs world-wide.

So why didn't Warre include the very popular Root-Langstroth design amongst his Voirnots, Dadant-Blatts, Layens and similar chest-hive designs for comparison ?

What - and risk losing his USP (Unique Selling Point) by doing so ...

Warre may have been a priest, but he was also a salesman.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> Confused. What has changed since Warré? Are you saying when Warré was around his hives might have been better, but today things are different? Confused.


LJ already did a plenty good write-up.
Of course, things are different.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Where did 150 come from ......which makes his 'frameless dogma' a tad over 70 years. (He favoured the use of frames in earlier editions)
> 
> A thought. The Warre 'formula' revolves around 8 combs more-or-less the same depth as a deep (but shorter at 300mm, sure) - so why not simply run a stack of 8-frame deeps to approximate a stack of Warre boxes ? ...LJ


150.... 70...
In short - old enough to review.

The "stack of Warre boxes" can be implemented in many ways.
I do it in long hives just as well (frame 300mm x 435mm plus end boards - here you go - a base Warre stack right there ).


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

little_john said:


> Three major changes: mass-produced wooden-ware, agricultural practices, and Varroa.
> 
> Warre's main selling-point (he *was* selling, after all) was to enable French peasants to make a simple, largely unattended back-garden beehive for as little money as possible. But - just as with the Kenyan Top Bar Hive which was solely intended for poverty-stricken Third-World countries where tools and materials were at a premium - both of these hive designs have been adopted by a beekeeping sub-culture, often-times claiming them to have some kind of 'Natural' pedigree which in turn has made them attractive to those who are entering beekeeping for ideological reasons.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I am much like that French peasant. The ruralish countryside where I live hasn't changed much in 100 years, I am making my own hives so mass-production isn't relevant, and using Russian bees, so hopefully Varroa will not be a problem. A couple of hives, Warré should be fine for me and the bees.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> Perhaps I am much like that French peasant. The ruralish countryside where I live hasn't changed much in 100 years, I am making my own hives so mass-production isn't relevant, and using Russian bees, so hopefully Varroa will not be a problem. *A couple of hives, Warré should be fine for me and the bees*.


I am a peasant too, Eastern Euro rather... 
But.

You see, right there where things will break down for you.
Now days you can not just sit on two hives (be it Warre) and hope things are set.
Your bees will die rather sooner then later (even if you treat will probably die).

So, welcome to 21st century beekeeping.
Have to split; have to run resource hives; have to run nucs; have to treat (if you choose to treat) or somehow non-treat; on and on.
Have to manage your bees in fluid ways and need to have equipment to support the fluidity.
Classic Warre talk of a "couple of hives" will not work too well. 
That changed.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

GregV said:


> Now days you can not just sit on two hives (be it Warre) and hope things are set.
> Your bees will die rather sooner then later (even if you treat will probably die).
> 
> So, welcome to 21st century beekeeping.
> Have to split; have to run resource hives; have to run nucs; [...]


Just want to add ... that's exactly right in this neck of the woods - it's only by making nucs that I'm still up and running. Only last season I had two huge colonies in particular which I'd judged to be pretty-much bullet-proof by virtue of size and how dynamic they always seemed to be - foragers first out in the morning, last back at night etc - but which failed to supersede on their own successfully. And this is becoming an all too familiar story. Both hives were discovered to have impressive stores of both honey and pollen ... but no queen. Without replacement queens from nucs made earlier in the season those colonies would inevitably have started that long drawn-out journey to annihilation.

That's just one example of why the 'leave-alone' two-interventions-a-year Warre philosophy just wouldn't work here, in this apiary. If you find that regime works for you, in your location - that's fantastic, really great - but don't make the mistake of assuming that it will automatically work as in Warre's day by simply housing your bees within a Warre beehive.

In his book, having conducted numerous comparative experiments, Warre then proceeds to tell the reader NOT to conduct similar experiments of their own (well he would, wouldn't he ?) - but I'd say quite the opposite.
If you're the kind of person who likes to try alternative methods, then by all means try different beehives: say - a KTBH, a Warre, a large capacity hive such as the Layens or Dadant ... and a Langstroth (or similar), and see which of these alternatives 'floats your boat'. But if you need to start-off with just one design to cut your teeth on - then choose whichever of these is the most common in your area, which will invariably mean a Langstroth - in order to benefit from the potential support of other beekeepers which almost always requires some interchangeability of hardware.
LJ


----------



## viesest (Jul 13, 2016)

dshanabrook said:


> What has changed since Warré?


Honey extractors are now more available and less expensive.



dshanabrook said:


> I am making my own hives


Pictures of my Warré-LR (DB) 'hybrid' hive:
https://viesest.imgur.com

Dimensions: 
inner width = LR inner width
height of box/frame = 155/145 mm (height of DB honey super)


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> ... *interchangeability of hardware*... LJ


+1 right there.

The interchangeability is a no-brainer now days.
See the original post....
Taking in a Lang nuc must a routine, simple thing no matter what you run (be it "Warre" for you; be it a long hive for me).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

viesest said:


> Honey extractors are now more available and less expensive.
> 
> 
> Pictures of my Warré-LR (DB) 'hybrid' hive:
> ...


Nice!
Yep, this is the kind of a hybrid I am thinking about.

Want to combine large and tall brood frames (good for brood/winter) with really small honey frames (good for small, incremental honey harvest).
I am not pleased with the current Lang medium frames - too commercial in sizing and designed for large, incremental crops by large colonies.
Small incremental crops produced by smaller colonies are not being addressed - a small honey frame is needed.
Some people on BS demonstrated good results in honey production just by the nuc-level colonies.
So, again, I think that "small cluster" beekeeping is totally fine for peasant-type keepers (but requires redundancy and fluidity, not static "two-hive" old school approach).


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> .....the 'leave-alone' two-interventions-a-year Warre philosophy just wouldn't work here, in this apiary. ......LJ


I got lots of excellent information from https://www.horizontalhive.com/
Though I was also misled into this idea of implementing "two-interventions-a-year" practice by the site author.
In my particular locale and with my particular bees, this static "two-interventions" idea is turning into an old-school tale.
Not working too well. 
It takes many more interventions for me than just two.
Things changed.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

BTW, found this good demo of commercial apiary running completely on the "alpines" (a modern design of a Warre type).
As usually with me - a non-Engish video.
Posted April 2018. They are doing early splits.
Just watch and ignore the audio - pretty cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-1vQnhsLlE


----------



## dshanabrook (Dec 28, 2018)

Thanks, and yes cool. Wondering about those small strips he places about the bars. Any idea?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

dshanabrook said:


> Thanks, and yes cool. Wondering about those small strips he places about the bars. Any idea?


Mite treatment strips (he did say).
Likely some amitraz version (they are pretty common in that region).


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Hard to call those "Warre type". Wire frame, plastic foundation. Only the box size might get credit.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

odfrank said:


> Hard to call those "Warre type". Wire frame, plastic foundation. Only the box size might get credit.


Well, as I already proposed, the classic "Warre" (as well as the classic design) should be just forgotten altogether.
Beeks should just move on on this one.
Maybe Warre should be just called dead.

Modern implementations are a plenty and they work better.
For sure, you can move them around by design (my requirement).
Who cares how they are called - what is important - they imitate a tree hollow by the box configuration, they are vertical, ergonomic, and have lots of flexibility.
Maybe they should be just called "tree hollow box" hives - generic and pretty accurate in the idea.

Here is another cool one.
Jump to 3:25 and watch a cool way to get rid of the bees from that mini-honey super.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdT5XkNVEZ0


----------



## viesest (Jul 13, 2016)

GregV said:


> Maybe Warre should be just called dead.


IMO it shouldn't.

Essentially:

LR = productivity by high production
Warre = productivity by low expenses


----------

