Maybe a few numbers might help in this debate as knowing the capacity of a Lang hive and a TBH provides another dimension on the issues being argued.
Lang Deep 11.1 gal 42 liters
Lang Medium 7.7 gal 29 liters
If you assume two deeps or three mediums for brood and four supers for honey, the total hive capacity is 53-54 gallons and 200/203 liters.
The TBH size which Scot McPherson promotes in Wikipedia is 13.8 gal/52 liters. The Crowder TBH is 16.4 gallons/62 liters.
The TBH sizes Dennis (BWrangler) uses are 35.7/125 to 41.6/157 liters. He has written that his experience suggests the largest is too big in his area and that the midsize of 37/140 TBHs is most suitable.
The 'natural/ideal' size of a hive is influenced by climate, flow intensity, flow periods, rural/city, pasture/trees, crops/natural etc.
Conclusions:
- Langstroths minimize labor. Supers can be added during flows to keep bees producing, and the task of extraction can be concentrated in short periods using casual labor to handle the workload. Mechanization boosts productivity and reduces labor costs.
- TBHs need consistent attention to remove honey during flows to prevent becoming honey bound and subsequent swarming. Extraction/Crushing is a near-continuous operation which requires no additional labor and little/no justification for mechanization.
Honey no longer appears to be a source of significant profit to many commercial beekeepers in the United States, and the complaint is that the price received is too low because of the cheap honey being imported from overseas.
In this regard beekeeping is no different to the latest highest tech product you have in your house, it too was made in China, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc. All this does is prove the points that Adam Smith made in 1776 when "The Wealth of Nations" was published.
- The Lang lends itself to a high overhead operation in terms of both capital and working capital, in the hopes (and reality) of higher productivity per unit. For several months of the year there are storage requirements to protect the assets of supers and fully drawn comb, during which the risk is run of predators (wax moths) destroying the value of these assets.
- The TBH lends itself to a low overhead operation in terms of both capital and working capital.
Storage/loss costs are virtually non-existent because the assets are being protected by the inhabitants. Increased production can be achieved by adding more TBHs or taking a hybrid approach and use supers by assuming the risks of asset storage/loss during winter.
There should be no argument here, as these are economic facts of life.
On a more philosophical note:
- Langs involve the same issues of overcrowding as occur with cattle (feedlots) and people (cities). There is more stress, more medication, more.... but most of us choose to live in cities where we trade off those things for what we perceive as a 'better' life.
- TBHs reduce the overcrowding aspect because a hive does not have as many bees, and the comb is constantly being renewed. Since TBHers tend to replace brood comb on a regular basis, the queen is laying in fresh comb and that appears to be a factor contributing to hive health.
It is hard for beekeepers to draw straight lines in the sand because any factor that one considers an absolute can be disproved by another beek somewhere else who is dealing with a different climate, different breed of bee, different flows, etc. For example, it makes good sense for cold-weather beeks to like breeds that have small clusters over winter which can survive on smaller stores whereas warm weather beeks could care less.
On a personal note:
- As a Lang keeper I dreaded extraction and happily bought more supers as needed in order to avoid doing it more than once a year.
- As a TBH keeper I don't care any more, it is easy to walk around with a bucket, cut off the combs and let the honey drain courtesy of gravity rather than extraction.
Both methods work, simply a different way of achieving the same end.
Background:
My experience is strictly backyard in an area where the winters are mild and bees can gather nectar/pollen from trees/gardens at least half the time.
- Langs are no longer being used for honey production, but are used for splits, swarms and nucs.
- Two sizes of TBH are used and both are rectangular because I see no advantage to the sloping sides. The bottoms are open, screened with #8 cloth and stand high on legs (the frames are at desk height to avoid having to bend over).
- Narrow TBHs are 12Wx10Dx32L long with a capacity of 16 gallons. These are pleasant to work with and easier to relocate. If the frames/bars are to be used in a Lang/Compatible for splitting or some other purpose, a 3/8"x19" ply strip is screwed on.
- Compatible TBHs are 19Wx10Dx32L with a capacity of 23 gallons, and the top bars can be exchanged with Lang frames.
Strong, concentrated flows do not occur in this area and my observations of comb production will likely conflict with those who live in areas that have strong flows.
- Full foundation is rarely fully drawn, the bees chew holes in the corners and often along most of the the bottom bar.
- 1/2" starter strips encourage comb to be started along most of the top bar.
- On 1/8" center rails the bees start near center and radiate out in a semi circular pattern. They tend to begin on the next top bar rather than fill out the full width of the bar.
Fully drawn comb appears to be produced in less time on starter strips and rails than on full foundation but I have no statistics to confirm this. BTW, this has nothing to do with TBH or Lang, it is true of both.
JP