# "Let Alone" hive of Allen Latham



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

This is provided by little_john here:


http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/files/2/Latham%20Article%201912.txt



More generally:


http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/beekxx.htm



What I see here is - this is a typical one-tier long hive configured in a warm-way.
Nearly exactly the way peasants in Eastern Euro used their own long hive - once per a year harvest (twice per a year total opening - spring and fall).

Sort of like pictured here:





Улей Левицкого. Старый конь борозды не портит


Именно с таких украинских ульев-лежаков на узко-высокую рамку и началась моя пасека.




medovoeleto.ru





One novelty maybe - the vertical queen excluder.
The end.



"LET ALONE"ť hive of Allen Latham



> His Unique Hive.
> 
> The unique hive with which these seeming wonders are accomplished is well worth description. It is a box about three feet long by eighteen inches wide and deep. The bottom Is nailed on and the cover has a three-inch rim which fits over the body of the hive, making it rainproof. The whole hive is covered with one of the black asphalt roofing papers. The entrance extends across one end of the hive and is an inch high. It has a grill of nails to prevent the ingress of mice
> in winter, This entrance is left wide open the year around.
> ...


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

Greg, I cannot read the link, how many frames are in that hive? They look like they are a little longer than the layens but skinnier. Possibly the size of a lang. deep? Or is that the visual perception simply because they are so long?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

ursa_minor said:


> Greg, I cannot read the link, how many frames are in that hive? They look like they are a little longer than the layens but skinnier. Possibly the size of a lang. deep? Or is that the visual perception simply because they are so long?


The essentials are:

It is a box about three feet long by eighteen inches wide and deep. (GV: internal I presume)
Well insulated 
(GV: correction to this item - all the insulation amounts to the dead air space)
The lower corners of the frames touch a beveled strip extending along the lower corners of the hive, making an air chamber between frames and hive.


The frames are approximately seventeen and a half by fifteen inches, and the top and end bars when the frames are in place touch the whole length. (GV: thus creating dead air space - which acts at the double-wall insulation)
The frames hang parallel to the entrance....
... seven at the front being used for a brood nest. Back of these is placed a sheet of queen-excluding metal, and behind that are set fourteen or fifteen frames for the honey crop. (GV: 21-22 frames in total)
Of the modern variants, this is essentially a typical long Dadant/Layens configured in a warm-way and with ample under-frame buffer (~3 inch space).
Of significance, the Latham frame is a bit more square than the Dadant frame while having about the same area (closer to Layens frame in that) - a good thing.

A very good, low maintenance long hive configuration - though not unique by any means, but one of the good variants.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Greg - thanks for starting a thread re: Latham's hive.

As you've no doubt already figured out, Latham's hives were built from recycled wood of around 1/2" thickness. He 'insulated' these thin-wall hives by creating 'a box within a box' (similar to what D.L.Adair did with his 'New Idea' Hives) by using Huber-style sectional frames - except that unlike Huber and Adair, Latham's frames had no bottom-bar. The side-bars rested on horizontal battens, such that the bees were prevented from entering the space between side-bar and hive wall. A complex arrangement.

Personally, I can't see the attraction of such complexity. I started making a 'Latham Hive' earlier this year with every intention of copying his design religiously, but soon gave up on that style of frame, as it requires a level of woodworking precision above that which I'm capable of.

In the ABJ of 1908 (pages 311-312) Latham discusses some of his experiments testing the relationship between frame size and swarming - which indicated that *either* excessively large or excessively small frames tend to stimulate swarming, and he cautiously suggests *in 1908* that frames of 14 1/2 inches by 11 inches deep are probably an optimum size.
Whether there's anything definite to this is anyone's guess, but 14 1/2 by 11 is very close indeed to our standard extra-deep 14 x 12 frame, and so that's the frame size which I'll be using in my own version of the Latham Hive.

BTW - in another ABJ article (which I forgot to bookmark) Latham is adamant that 1 & 3/8 inch frame-spacing is largely responsible for stimulating swarming, and that 1 & 1/2" spacing is far preferable - so I'll be using that.

So there's an interesting 'time-line' regarding the ideal frame size: in 1908 Latham considers that 17x13 is too large (and suggests 14.5 x 11), but in the 1912 articles a frame even deeper than 17x13 is being used. So that needs to be reconciled. In Miller's 1919 'Twin Hives' article reference is made to the disease outbreak which knackered the whole project - so I'd like to establish in which year that occurred (just for completeness).

My plan is now to trawl through the ABJ/ Gleanings/ American Beekeeper archives for Latham articles within the period 1884 to 1919 - which is proving somewhat tedious at present, as my broadband connection keeps dropping-out - but if I should come across anything directly relevant, I'll post it in this thread.

BTW(2) - I've uploaded Latham's above mentioned swarming article to the usual link.

'best
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> Hi Greg - thanks for starting a thread re: Latham's hive.......


It is a worthwhile topic IMO (to you and me anyhow, LOL).

As you are well aware, I am testing out my "small frame" this season (pic) - which is compatible to my "large frame" as it is, essentially, 1/3rd section of it (pic).
I looking forward to do a 12-24 month trial to get a good feel for it and to decide what is next.

But also, I keep wondering though how the "intermediate frame" would work - equivalent to two "small frames" (the same as 2/3rd size of the "large frame").
This would be nominally 12x12 frame (more like ~12.5x12.5 technically)
One of the future research items for me.

Of note, from experience now I can state that the lowest 1/3rd of my large frames is where the bees work with the least enthusiasm.
Only during the warmest part of the season, these areas of the frames/combs are well used and built-out (IF the colonies are strong enough).
This large frame depicted here reminds me of a colony that preferred swarming away rather than finishing up building the lowest third of the frames (lazy bastards).

Overall the bees seem to prefer the upper 2/3rd of the large frames before they utilize the lowest 1/3rd (this is in the single-tier, long hive setting).
Hence this idea of the "intermediate frame" of squarish shape comes along (a variant of 12x12 square frame you already reported about).

People have already (re)introduced something similar to this square-ish "intermediate frame" and have been happy with the results.
This guy does it and I keep track of his reporting.
His deep-ish 300x300 boxes with ~12x12 frames could be somewhat on the heavy side though - an ergonomic consideration for vertical multi-box setups.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0lSNJN4iWsyNjSq1l8p9Ew/videos


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

ursa_minor said:


> Greg, I cannot read the link, how many frames are in that hive?


Ursa, you asked earlier about long hive setups for the winter.
Here is a good video just on the topic.
It is very visual; no need for the audio.
Long hive; Dadant; 7 frame set for the winter - about 20 kilos of honey estimated.
Starting 2:30-ishs.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I made up a set of frames to fit in a pair of stacked medium hive bodies, so somewhere around 12 3/4" deep, but did not get around to putting bees on them. The 11 1/4" frames got worked fully top to bottom but 10 frames of them were borderline too much earlier in the season. I should have used a follower board and 8 active frames. 

Is there any reluctance to start putting honey back in the rear frames; In autumn do they start backfilling the front brood frames to ensure transition to winter configuration in the front 7 frames of the leave alone hive?

The day of hefting upper story boxes is coming to an end soon for me. Denial works for a while!


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

GregV said:


> Ursa, you asked earlier about long hive setups for the winter.
> Here is a good video just on the topic.
> It is very visual; no need for the audio.
> Long hive; Dadant; 7 frame set for the winter - about 20 kilos of honey estimated.
> Starting 2:30-ishs.


Is this going into winter or coming out of it (in the video)?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Into the winter.
7 Dadant frames.
20 kilos (50 pounds).


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

GregV said:


> Into the winter.
> 7 Dadant frames.
> 20 kilos (50 pounds).


Are they still brooding up at the point of the video or trailing down? Or does he mention?
In short, is that roughly the number of bees that are going to be in there when the snow starts flying?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

crofter said:


> Is there any reluctance to start putting honey back in the rear frames; In autumn do they start backfilling the front brood frames to ensure transition to winter configuration in the front 7 frames of the leave alone hive?


Putting honey into the back frames is the default bee behavior.

The entrance position matters.
Depending on the central/long wall (cold way) OR corner/short wall (warm way) position of the entrance, your honey dome will be different (pictured).
Notice that the frame right next to the entrance will have the least honey (half a frame at best; quarter frame is typical; nearly empty frame is common).

The bees will NOT back-fill the nearly empty frame(s), not by they own choice.
You need to prompt them to back-fill those frames IF that matters for you.
With the asymmetric/warm-way entrance - does not matter much.
With symmetric cold-way entrance - does matter since the cluster splitting may occur and needs prevented.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

jwcarlson said:


> Are they still brooding up at the point of the video or trailing down? Or does he mention?
> In short, is that roughly the number of bees that are going to be in there when the snow starts flying?


They are still brooding - 3 or 4 of those frames still have some brood and even eggs (he evaluated each frame) - this is normal for late August (very fresh video).
What you observed were, in fact, the last summer bees raising the winter bees.
This will be an average cluster on about 5 Dadant frames going into winter - small by the US "standards".
There will be no feeding - he stated.
He is drying some frames outside of the dummy frame.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

And this is, essentially, a representation of the Latham hive.


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

Thanks for the video it is very helpful. I had a colony split into one very small cluster and a large cluster last winter. This spring when I rebuilt my long hives I moved the entrance and although it is not the warm way, instead of starting about 4 frames in it is situated 3 inches up and just between the first frame and second. I have multiple holes so the rest can be plugged for winter. I noticed the same honey configuration in my hives last week as your warm way shows. The first frame had brood 2/3 of the way up, and it went down from there.

ETA. I did not expect to find brood in the frame closest to the wall, all last year those 3 frames had honey and no brood.
After seeing your warm way, cool way, honey dome I now see that they are situating their brood based on where the entrance is.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I saw on another forum where little_john posted on a construction that uses the very deep frames for the brood section and a stepped up rear section as in in Layens greniere style that could use standard depth or medium frames for storage. It would be a similar concept to the "let alone" hive.

I really like the looks of the brood development on the Dadant depth frames. The even a bit deeper frames, say 7 or 8 should provide good wintering I think, but I have only one winter behind me on the single deep box.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Here is another implementation of the "let alone hive".
I am sure the beekeeper has no idea of Latham - but this is rather a pretty routine configuration and been around about forever.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

GregV said:


> Here is another implementation of the "let alone hive".
> I am sure the beekeeper has no idea of Latham - but this is rather a pretty routine configuration and been around about forever.


Can I be honest with you, Greg?

I NEVER expected to see a beekeeper SWEEP UP THE DEAD BEES in a "let alone hive". 

What time of year is this in the video? And a more general question... where in the world are the bees in these videos? There's just mostly empty hives. I understand that there's different phases of colony development and bees for that matter, but is there not a video of one of these during mid-summer, by chance?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

jwcarlson said:


> I NEVER expected to see a beekeeper SWEEP UP THE DEAD BEES in a "let alone hive".
> 
> What time of year is this in the video?


Why not?
What is on this video - this is an api-therapy cabin where people come and sleep on the bees.
You kinda do want it clean without a whiff of decomposing bees.
There is a reason to keep it clean and presentable.
But the hives presented are exactly of the same configuration as the said "let alone hive".

This is spring on the video - fyi.
You come in; cleanup the hive; expand it with the frames; place your OA media over the brood-nest (if choose to); close until whenever you get to it again.
If you prefer - don't clean the hive then.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

GregV said:


> This is spring on the video - fyi.


And this is fall - after the honey has been pulled.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

A quick update - I've now extracted several articles from beekeeping journal archives - which now need to be cleaned-up and either made into text files and/or the photographs posted separately - which I'll be doing in the coming days - so for now, a quick summary of what I've unearthed so far.

I was a little saddened to read in the 'part-time beekeeping' thread that jwcarlson "wasn't interested" in how the beehive 'standard' became established, because that's central to the Latham story. A quick recap then ...

Langstroth 'discovered' honey-bees in 1838, having finally accepted that his severe recurring mental illness prevented him from either working as a minister of religion, or as a schoolmaster. Being a competent academic, he began carefully studying works on beekeeping - initially those of Bevan and Huber.
Bevan's top-bar hive was 12"x 12" and, apparently working in 6-inch multiples, Langstroth enlarged a Bevan-style brood box to 18"x 18"x 6" deep. It was with this modified Bevan hive that he made his breakthrough, by essentially constructing a Huber-style frame underneath the Bevan top bar.
Langstroth duly patented his invention in the hope of achieving an income from it, having been deprived of an occupational income by his recurring illness.

Although Langstroth's 1852 patent was for a complete beehive, his invention had two principle components to it: the free-hanging frame, and the required clearances surrounding that frame. Several legal disputes followed, and Langstroth found it necessary to apply for a second patent in which he specified the precise style of his frame, and the clearances which surrounded it (later termed 'the bee-space').
Langstroth has become credited with 'discovering' the bee-space, which I personally consider to be a misuse of the word 'discover', as (imo) this space only becomes a *consequential necessity* when actually using Langstroth's free-hanging frames.

Langstroth's invention is generally considered to have been the most important development in the history of beekeeping - indeed, one author (Kritsky) considers this to have created "The Perfect Beehive" - but not everyone would agree.
There was a body of highly experienced beekeepers at around that time who considered Langstroth's invention to be seriously flawed: specifically in regard to the *spacing* which surrounds the frame which, although very cleverly preventing the bees from sealing those gaps with either comb or propolis, prevents the bees from exhibiting their natural urge to seal the cavity which surrounds their brood nest. Precisely *why* honey bees are motivated to do this need not concern us - but this particular beehive feature has effectively formed a division between 'Natural' and 'Conventional' beekeepers.

With regard to the Langstroth hive 'Standard', I've already indicated the origin of the 18" dimension, which was originally a width, then changed to a length following a suggestion by Moses Quinby. The 8-frame and 10-frame widths were originally lengths, a consequence of Langstroth enlarging his brood box during early experiments. All in all, the dimensions of the classic 'Langstroth' hive we see today resulted from early _ad hoc_ experimentation and only became 'The Standard' as the result of Amos Root grasping a commercial opportunity.
Langstroth later considered a complete change of hive dimensions, but by that time it was too late, as the die had already been cast.

Latham enters this story in 1884, and begins beekeeping with a couple of Langstroth (Root-Heddon) hives, but fairly quickly identified several flaws, and proceeded to tear-up the so-called 'rule book', and began to figure out for himself how a beehive ought to be constructed and configured. In one of his articles (which I'll make available shortly) he lists the features which a beehive ought to possess.
Latham had two different sizes of hive: large volume hives for the out-apiaries, and smaller, more conventional (?) hives for his home apiary - both having the same form of construction.

This construction involved Latham carefully sorting through used packing cases and selecting the best, which he then de-nailed in order to acquire planks from which to built his boxes. These would have been crudely made by today's woodworking standards, with layers of newspaper added (presumably to cover gaps and other imperfections), before covering the whole with 'Paroid' roofing paper. In Britain we call this 'roofing felt', as it is indeed a sheet of thin felt which has been immersed in bitumen, sold in rolls, and frequently used for the roofing of sheds and similar structures. In this way, Latham built hive boxes which were cheap, functional, 100% waterproof - and the building of which required little or no woodworking expertise.

Moving on to his frames - there's still some clarification required here. In his home apiary, he settled on using frames 10x12 deep, after experimenting with 10x11, 11x10 and so on. The size of the frames in his out apiary have yet to be finally established - he started off with 14 1/2"x 11", but some writers talk of 17"x 13" or even 15", so he may have enlarged these at some point - if so, dunno when (at least, not yet).
What has become clear - thanks to some photographs - is that his "closed ends, closed top" frames did indeed have a bottom bar, although some reports suggest otherwise. Indeed, this bar helps support a central spile which in turn gives support to the large combs which resulted. Although no details are given, I'd suggest that a one-inch bottom bar within an otherwise 1 1/2 inch frame would fit the bill nicely.

Greg is quite right when he says that this large volume 'Let-Alone' system is far from being unique, I have an article by a guy named Yates who was pursuing the same goal - his hive (illustrated) has a single layer of supers placed above a large volume Long Hive.

C.P Dadant also made a comment about his large volume hives functioning as non-swarmers - with only 25 hives swarming in an apiary with a total hive count of 525 - that's less than 5%.

I think that's probably about all of importance for now - oh yes, except to say it was European Foul Brood which knackered the project in 1916. Latham really ought to have been on the lookout for this, as he had commented previously that there had been a serious outbreak within the vicinity. He states that the EFB affected his out-apiaries because they contained black bees, rather than Italians which had a reputation for being resistant - but when he replaced those colonies with Italians they kept swarming. Other people at the time held the opposite view: that Italians swarm far less than Blacks (AMM).

Don't ask me for an opinion - I run Carnies and Buckfast ... 
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> He states that the EFB affected his out-apiaries because they contained black bees, rather than Italians which had a reputation for being resistant - but when he replaced those colonies with Italians they kept swarming. Other people at the time held the opposite view: that Italians swarm far less than Blacks (AMM).


I have recently read on some Ukrainian-based forum about the Italian bees maintained in long hives - the beekeepers were NOT pleased.
It was stated (AND re-confirmed as well) that the Italians did not perform well in the long hives (long Dadants specifically).

The issue was - apparently in the long hive configuration the Italians tend to convert most of the nectar into the brood AND produce very little harvest-able honey.
People were observing 10-20 frames of mostly brood across the entire hive (with some honey domes, of course - which are not harvest-able).

The general consensus was that the Italians seem to perform better in vertical multi-body hives with the queen excluder in place.
I will say that a vertical queen excluder is not commonly used or even considered at all.
Also, the warm-way entrance/frames configuration is not commonly used either in the modern long hives.
The cold-way/near central entrance is more common - which then contributes into the brood being splattered across most of the long hive.

Similar to the pictured:


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

I made a vertical queen excluder and used it last year. I went on the suggestion given by a few experts in the top bar/horizontal hive thread that a queen rarely goes around a follower board. I used the plastic excluder and cut it to fit my layens frame in width but it was extended down a few inches. I know she may choose to cross such a barrier but last fall she did not and the bees did build and fill the frames on the other side. They also, however, did build a little comb on the excluder itself but not enough to be concerning. This method might not always work but with my deep hives and the rough lumber they are built from, it is hard to get a tight fit.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Guys ...
I've just uploaded a few more files to the usual webpage, at: http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/beekxx.htm  

One file has 'details' of how to build the Latham Hive - but don't get excited - as you won't be able to do this, unless you have a degree in cryptography. But, there's another file there with details of how to build the Yates Hive - which does seem very 'do-able'.

I've also recently unearthed some articles by, and about, O.O.Poppleton, which I thought were well-worth passing on.

*NB.* There are two files there: "Latham DIY Hive - pics.jpg" and "Poppleton pics.jpg" which are NOT jpegs at all. These two files will need to be re-named with the file-type ".ZIP" and then unzipped to access the graphics. That's because .zip files are forbidden/ verbotten on the server I use. If this should cause anyone problems, then I'll just have to list each graphic file separately ...

BTW - in the Poppleton graphics pack there's a picture of a rather neat Long Hive design from Cuba ... enjoy. 
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> *NB.* There are two files there: "Latham DIY Hive - pics.jpg" and "Poppleton pics.jpg" which are NOT jpegs at all.


It works.
Save as....
Rename from .JPG to .ZIP
Open the ZIP file using your archiving tool (I used WinRAR).
Good pics.
Those square-ish frames of about 12x12 dimension are well depicted.


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

little_john said:


> One file has 'details' of how to build the Latham Hive - but don't get excited - as you won't be able to do this, unless you have a degree in cryptography.


That plus a nearby museum of packing crates you can burglarize 

Willing to bet that Paroid (roofing felt) was a better, more lasting product than anything we can buy today. Early 70's as a young teen I built a tiny 4' x 8' chicken house. Mostly scrounged materials but a roll of roofing felt was one of the few things I had to buy. Had a bunch left over... 20 years later was building the house we still live in. For financial reasons had to finish the down stairs and move in before the second story / roof was framed. Building the floor with 9 1/2" of temporary fall and covering it with felt was the plan. Left over 20+ year old felt held up just fine. New felt did not and had to be covered in expensive roll roofing which was ripped off and thrown away less than a year later. 

Summer we framed the upstairs was the wettest year ever in my lifetime...

Oh, thanks for finding and *sharing *this old stuff!


----------



## sparkyApis (Apr 9, 2021)

LJ, love your research. Personally, I found Poppleton's hive interesting as it is within a bull's roar of what I have ended up with, although vastly different in execution, and his comments about the ease of handling a hive of these dimensions seem to ring true to me. I have been doing some thinking about where I am going a few steps ahead and have been tossing up between more long hives or switching to the small square format with frames the same width but around half the depth of those I have built. ie Greg's interchangeability idea. Poppleton's comments may have changed the balance. I also think the long low format may be easier to adapt to some simple mechanical assistance. I guess that if I was going to get serious I would work all this into compatibility with pallet dimensions so that the whole thing could be mechanised on a large scale. 

I spent some time with the Latham material and I offer a few comments to the discussion. 

Looking at the pictures and the txt file dated 1906 bundled with them it seems to me that there is more than frame dimensions different between these and the hives described in the 1912 article. That is assuming that the DIY drawings are contemporary with the 1906 DIY txt. The text took a little sorting out but appears consistent with the drawings. On the other hand I find it very difficult to reconcile these drawings with the 1912 description. There are no dimensions anywhere on the 1906 hive so I have no idea of the frame size and the only possible clue I saw is "he will do better to buy frames and section-cases in the flat ready to nail" which seems to me to suggest dimensions to suit one of the then popular sizes. That quote may mean more to LJ.

The text description suggests frames arranged cold way, although it does have the qualifier 
"If cross-wise frames are used (a much better arrangement, by the way), the side-walls must be thus prepared instead of the ends". 
I can't figure out why he thinks warm way is better but bases his presentation on the opposite. The diagram labelled "longitudinal vertical section" clearly show frames arranged cold way and the rest of this image is consistent with the description, including the removable base. The 1912 hives are clearly warm way in both text and images.

The 1906 hive does not have the strips at the bottom of the frames in either drawings or text. That hive has a double wall structure with layers of bituminised paper and wood so maybe the touching side bars and bottom rest are an attempt to achieve the airgap another way. I'm not sure which is easier but I think the double wall would have been more effective because it is better sealed.

The 1906 plans do not have the "nailed on" bottom mentioned in the 1912 article.

I notice that even air circulation gets a mention. I find myself tending to agree with Latham in this overall geometry.

LJ talks about Latham having frames without bottom bars but I can't find that in the materials. Domestic blindness perhaps? The 1912 article talks about wired brood frames and vertical skewers in honey frames both of which imply bottom bars so there that rests.

Sel.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> He states that the EFB affected his out-apiaries because they contained black bees, rather than Italians which had a reputation for being resistant - but when he replaced those colonies with Italians they kept swarming. Other people at the time held the opposite view: that Italians swarm far less than Blacks (AMM).


Last night I completed my late summer round-about of my collection on hand (12 colonies).
Since I usually have a collection of various bees on hand and I can compare - I again found that the Italian-like bees are not a good fit for the long hives.
Somehow the long hive triggers them into mode of non-stop reproducing while making zero winter provisions.
Similar comments I found on other beekeeping forums.

Per yesterday's check - my mega-strong swarm in the backyard sits in a 16-frame long hive on 12 frames of brood and absolutely no honey for winter (this is after 2 months in the hive and a very good July flow and ongoing strong late flow).
This is making the entire idea of "let alone" unsustainable - IF the bees don't play along.
The bees do matter.

Added: I can see how adding an QX may be beneficial in promoting the honey storage with the Italians - at the expense of risking the undesired swarming, however.

PS: a strong colony of VSH mutts, to compare, also sits in a 16-frame long - this particular unit is fully provisioned for the winter and not help will be needed;
however, there is no honey to take away either - these bees stored away just enough for themselves, but not much extra.

PPS: from the Eastern Euro sources it sounds as the Grey Caucasians, Ukrainian/Carpathian/Carnica - are a better fit for long hives (and by extension for the "let alone" methodology).


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Hi Sel - most impressed that you've taken so much trouble in trying to make sense of this stuff.

A couple of clarifications. The first is about my initial (and false) assumption of bottomless frames. The Latham info I've unearthed came about in two tranches: the first contained a newspaper report which described a unique frame which had touching top and side bars - but no mention of any bottom bar, only the comment that bees could access the frames ony from below. In another article, this graphic was included:










(With hindsight, I don't understand how such a diagram can possibly fit into the Latham story ....)

So - put these two sources together, and there's a strong hint there of a bottomless frame. Hence my assumption.

In the second tranche of info, which came complete with a few photographs, this is plainly not the case - indeed, in one the bottom-bar can be seen supporting the central spile.


With regard to the apparent error in frame orientation - do bear in mind that Latham is describing two completely different hives, albeit having the same style of construction: the large-frame, large capacity, 'let-alone' hive of his out-apiaries, and the 'more conventional' (described as such, but with the term 'conventional' undefined) hives of his home yard which were used for queen-rearing and (working from memory now ...) the production of sections. His home hives were stackable, his 'Let-Alone' hives were single-story.

Latham had self-published a small booklet (priced at $1) with detailed plans and building instructions for his 'Let-Alone' hives, which perhaps goes some way to explain why comprehensive details are thin on the ground elsewhere. 

I will admit to losing some enthusiasm for this system having discovered that the bee-type (probably AMM) appears to play a major part in the hive's success. AMM ? No thank you. I very much agree with your last post Greg - the bee type *does* matter.
'best
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

little_john said:


> I will admit to losing some enthusiasm for this system having discovered that the bee-type (probably AMM) appears to play a major part in the hive's success. AMM ? No thank you. I very much agree with your last post Greg - the bee type *does* matter.


LJ,
Other "black bees" (e.g. Carni derivatives) may actually work fine.
These are much smarter (vs. the Italian derivatives) in autonomous self-limiting.
This guy is a prime example with his Carpathians:


https://www.youtube.com/user/savvasfly/videos


----------



## sparkyApis (Apr 9, 2021)

LJ, thanks, making sense of things is what I try to do and I have to say that this topic is much more enjoyable than the other one I'm working on just now.


little_john said:


> With regard to the apparent error in frame orientation - do bear in mind that Latham is describing two completely different hives,


I don't know that I would go so far as to call it an error, but I was curious as to why he described and drew one way then recommended the other. The fact that there were two different hives was not clear to me at the beginning and that's what started me digging.

Do you have any idea of the frame size in his '06 hives? I don't see any references except the comment I quoted earlier. 

And finally, I don't suppose you have a copy of Latham's booklet? (Says he hopefully  ).

Sel.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

sparkyApis said:


> Do you have any idea of the frame size in his '06 hives? I don't see any references except the comment I quoted earlier.
> And finally, I don't suppose you have a copy of Latham's booklet? (Says he hopefully  ).


Hi Sel

Regret can't help further - to be honest I'm finding the Latham story to be rather muddled. I had hoped to find one or more 'non-swarming principles' which could perhaps be applied to other hives, but it would now appear (assuming that such principles do in fact exist, of course) that such features were specific to Latham's operation - and are unlikely to directly transfer elsewhere ...
In contrast, Adair and Dadant talk in more general terms about non-swarming tendencies, and so perhaps are better sources to base experiments on.

Ok - back to Latham ...

The best I've come up with so far is just the the title of Latham's booklet/pamphlet: 
*The Latham let-alone-hive.* Published in1908.
Source: The Latham let-alone-hive. (Book, 1908) [WorldCat.org]
No further info - not even the number of pages, or the name of a publisher - so presumably self-published.

Latham wrote two further tomes:
*Bee management; helps for new beekeepers. 1946*
... and the book he's most famous for writing:
*Allen Latham's bee book. 1949*

There are dozens of copies of the 'Bee Book' spread throughout the US, but none in the British Library, and no online copies - and, although the WorldCat says there are - (two) - in practice they don't exist. There* is* a copy of Latham's Bee Book in NZ, in the National Library of New Zealand ([email protected]) - dunno whether they would xfer it over the water to your local library, or maybe photocopy it ?
But - I've no idea whether the Bee Book contains plans for the Let-Alone Hive. Maybe a friendly librarian could check this out ?

All for now.
LJ


----------



## sparkyApis (Apr 9, 2021)

LJ, thanks again. I'm a bit the same, I don't see any great principles here either. The hives worked for him and the method of construction is interesting although largely rendered obsolete by newer equipment and materials. I honestly don't think it worth going through a lot of gymnastics trying to locate his booklet. An entertaining digression, kept us amused for a day or two. 

Sel.


----------



## Mikro (9 mo ago)

GregB said:


> Here is another implementation of the "let alone hive".
> I am sure the beekeeper has no idea of Latham - but this is rather a pretty routine configuration and been around about forever.


How do you find all these videos? What do you search for?


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Mikro said:


> How do you find all these videos? What do you search for?


Well, knowledge of Russian/Ukrainian language helps.

But you can find links to many videos in Beesource - I posted dozens upon dozens.


----------



## Mikro (9 mo ago)

GregB said:


> Well, knowledge of Russian/Ukrainian language helps.
> 
> But you can find links to many videos in Beesource - I posted dozens upon dozens.


For some reason your account does not allow me to view your account. Would be great to see your account to see the videos you posted.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Mikro said:


> For some reason your account does not allow me to view your account. Would be great to see your account to see the videos you posted.


How about you search the "Top Bar & Horizontal Hive Forum" for "video" posted by GregB?


----------



## FriscoDad (Dec 7, 2020)

GregB said:


> How about you search the "Top Bar & Horizontal Hive Forum" for "video" posted by GregB?


Let me google that for you.









Search results for query: Video







www.beesource.com


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> BTW - in another ABJ article (which I forgot to bookmark) Latham is adamant that 1 & 3/8 inch frame-spacing is largely responsible for stimulating swarming, and that 1 & 1/2" spacing is far preferable - so I'll be using that.


LJ
this "spacing" and swarming IMO relates to early spring build up being faster with less space between the combs, with less space the same amount of bees cover more cells, and can raise more brood.

is the place he did his research north or south or the same as you.
the wider frame spacing can retard spring build up , IF your local benefits from it, as one would go north a different frame spacing could be better.
I guess my point is the frame spacing he used may have been coupled with his Locale, hence is your s the same or different.
copy works if your local is more or less exactly the same.

GG


----------



## AVoit (9 mo ago)

little_john said:


> A quick update - I've now extracted several articles from beekeeping journal archives - which now need to be cleaned-up and either made into text files and/or the photographs posted separately - which I'll be doing in the coming days - so for now, a quick summary of what I've unearthed so far.
> 
> I was a little saddened to read in the 'part-time beekeeping' thread that jwcarlson "wasn't interested" in how the beehive 'standard' became established, because that's central to the Latham story. A quick recap then ...
> 
> ...


May I add some details that are not directly related to your point, but more about historical facts surrounding Langstroth appellated inventions that are not well known, the following I uncovered from doing historical research of beekeeping of Eastern and Western Europe:

The invention of the movable-frame hive occurred in different part of the world. One of the earliest record is from Ukraine, attributed to the revolutionary beekeeper *Petro Prokopovych*. His hive design contained movable-frames separated from the rest of the hive by a wooden queen-excluder, which he also invented. These innovations were actualized by *1814*.

*Johann Dzierzon*, a Polish apiarist, in *1838* devised a movable-comb beehive, which was inspired by the successful movable frame hive of *Petro Prokopovych*. His design quickly gained popularity in Europe and North America; and was a major influence on *Lorenzo Lorraine Langstroth* hive design. Although many mistakenly attribute the invention of the movable-frame to *Lorenzo Langstroth*, his design derived from *Johann Dzierzon* movable-comb beehive. But *Johann Dzierzon* was not the original inventor of the movable-frame because his design was inspired by *Petro Prokopovych* design.
However *Petro Prokopovych* may of invented the movable-frame hive, but as such *he was not the only one*. During the significantly earlier period, *in the late 1700’s*, the Swiss entomologist *François Huber*, which could be attributed the invention of not only the first movable frame hive, but to simultaneously also invent the first glass observation-hive. The frames of his hive were bound together like the pages of a book, and it was called the Folio Hive (meaning Leaf-Hive). He invented this hive not as a tool for beekeeping, but to serve the purpose of scientifically study Apis Mellifera.

Also to be noted *François Huber*’s Folio Hive was a major influence on *Moses Quinby* hive design, an American beekeeper from the State of New York, who was then a major influence on beekeeping in America. He is considered the inventor of the bee smoker with bellows, which beekeepers worldwide now uses. The point here is that *Moses Quinby* was a good friend and colleague *Lorenzo Langstroth*.

Even the ‘bee-space’ was not an invention of *Langstroth*, but an adaptation of the* Jan Dzierżon *(the Polish apiarist mentioned above) movable-comb hives. *Jan Dzierżon* has discovered that by providing the right spacing between the exterior of the frames and the adjacent surfaces of the box it was possible to enclose the frames in a covered box, in a way that the bees would not cement the frames to the floor, walls and lid.

What* Langstroth* did, that *Petro Prokopovych*, *Johann Dzierzon, *and* Moses Quinby * did NOT do; is patented their movable frame hive.


----------



## Mikro (9 mo ago)

GregB said:


> How about you search the "Top Bar & Horizontal Hive Forum" for "video" posted by GregB?


Which video are you talking about? Have you posted a video that is in english? Like most people in the states, I cannot understand русский язык or украї́нська мо́ва. You have posted many videos. How would, I narrow done the video? None of the videos appear to have any plans or are in english.

Kinda of like telling a person to google the word bee hive. There are many results. Help in narrowing the results would be good. You have your profile blocked so people cannot do things the easy way to find the content you post here.


----------



## Mikro (9 mo ago)

little_john said:


> Hi Sel - most impressed that you've taken so much trouble in trying to make sense of this stuff.
> 
> A couple of clarifications. The first is about my initial (and false) assumption of bottomless frames. The Latham info I've unearthed came about in two tranches: the first contained a newspaper report which described a unique frame which had touching top and side bars - but no mention of any bottom bar, only the comment that bees could access the frames ony from below. In another article, this graphic was included:
> 
> ...


Please share the link you have to Latham self-published small book priced at $1.00


----------



## Mikro (9 mo ago)

GregB said:


> Well, knowledge of Russian/Ukrainian language helps.
> 
> But you can find links to many videos in Beesource - I posted dozens upon dozens.


How does a person narrow done the videos to a video that has plans to build hives? Do you post any videos that are in english? Why is your account locked from people seeing your profile?


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

You joined 16 hours ago - 23 posts already - are you taking amphetamines ? Just curious.


Mikro said:


> Please share the link you have to Latham self-published small book priced at $1.00


RBT *(Read the Bl##dy Thread*).
LJ


----------



## Mikro (9 mo ago)

FriscoDad said:


> Let me google that for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anyway to narrow down the results only to show videos in english? I do not have time to search through 76 results. It is not possible for me to use subtitles, besides many times the subtitles do not work. Anyway to narrow down the results to videos that are relavent. To busy to waste time videos that are not helpful.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

AVoit said:


> May I add some details that are not directly related to your point,



So why *are* you posting them here - trying to impress, perhaps ?



> but more about historical facts surrounding Langstroth appellated inventions *that are not well known*, the following I uncovered from doing historical research of beekeeping of Eastern and Western Europe:


I find it extremely embarrasing when someone starts a post off in such a pompous manner ("I'm a clever chap and know something that other people don't know"), only to then post perfectly well-known information, but *with numerous errors added*. 
Here's an example:
*"Jan Dzierzon has discovered that by providing the right spacing between the exterior of the frames and the adjacent surfaces of the box it was possible to enclose the frames in a covered box, in a way that the bees would not cement the frames to the floor, walls and lid." *

Another one:
*"{...} Johann Dzierzon [...] did NOT do; is patented their movable frame hive."*
Oh dear ...

Suggest you research far more carefully in future. Eva Crane is a good place to start, but nothing beats reading original texts. You're new here, and will soon discover that you can't get away with posting b/s on B/S.
LJ


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Mikro said:


> Which video are you talking about? Have you posted a video that is in english? Like most people in the states, I cannot understand русский язык or украї́нська мо́ва. You have posted many videos. How would, I narrow done the video? None of the videos appear to have any plans or are in english.
> 
> Kinda of like telling a person to google the word bee hive. There are many results. Help in narrowing the results would be good. You have your profile blocked so people cannot do things the easy way to find the content you post here.


OK, Mikro, you need to do some work on your own if truly interested in the subject.

We are not paid here to do others' research (let alone translate videos - which is some work).
The interested people are successfully using the English subtitles AND just simply observe (which is all you really need).

I also already pointed to the Horizontalhive.com for very good starter plans.

Yes - I have certain profile mods in place - these are for reasons I want them there.
My posted content will bring you exactly to this post - kindly done for you by someone (#37) - unsure what else exactly do you want from me.








"Let Alone" hive of Allen Latham


He states that the EFB affected his out-apiaries because they contained black bees, rather than Italians which had a reputation for being resistant - but when he replaced those colonies with Italians they kept swarming. Other people at the time held the opposite view: that Italians swarm far...




www.beesource.com


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Mikro said:


> Anyway to narrow down the results only to show videos in english? *I do not have time to search through 76 results.* It is not possible for me to use subtitles, besides many times the subtitles do not work. Anyway to narrow down the results to videos that are relavent. To busy to waste time videos that are not helpful.


If you have NO time to do your own research, then WHO should do it for you?
OK, this is getting strange now.
Was just trying to be helpful.

Moving along...
Enough.


----------



## AVoit (9 mo ago)

little_john said:


> So why *are* you posting them here - trying to impress, perhaps ?
> 
> 
> I find it extremely embarrasing when someone starts a post off in such a pompous manner ("I'm a clever chap and know something that other people don't know"), only to then post perfectly well-known information, but *with numerous errors added*.
> ...


Enlighten me: are you claiming that Johann Dzierzon had a US patent on a movable frame hive? And on what basis are you claiming that the statement _*"Jan Dzierzon has discovered that by providing the right spacing between the exterior of the frames and the adjacent surfaces of the box it was possible to enclose the frames in a covered box, in a way that the bees would not cement the frames to the floor, walls and lid."*_ is an error?!


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

Mikro said:


> Which video are you talking about? Have you posted a video that is in english? Like most people in the states, I cannot understand русский язык or украї́нська мо́ва. You have posted many videos. How would, I narrow done the video? None of the videos appear to have any plans or are in english.


A helpful note, once you link with the Russian video to youtube there are numerous side videos that come up. Hit any one of them and you are down a rabbit hole of information. Some will have the option of english closed captions and although they might be a little hard to follow, they give enough info. 

Second helpful note, take the time to go into the archives here on BS and read. Some of them are very long but when you are new they are valuable. It took me a year and I still had to go back and copy and paste some of the more memorable posts so I would not forget them.


----------

