Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Has the modern TBH actually become the cutting edge of beekeeping innovation?

20K views 103 replies 27 participants last post by  Adam Foster Collins 
#1 ·
I apologize for the long post, but I've been thinking hard on this, and I'd like to share these ideas and hear what you have to say about them.

In another forum, a person made a comment that suggested that using a top bar hive was akin to trading in an automobile for a horse and buggy. He was suggesting that using a top bar hive was odd, because it meant using old technology over what innovation and invention had replaced. Michael Bush made a very interesting response, some of which I'd like to quote here for the purpose of further discussion:

"I'd have to say that Europeans and Americans never had top bar hives until very recently. The Greeks had them hundreds if not thousands of years ago and still do today, but Americans were not looking for an improvement over a top bar hive as they had never seen or heard of one at the time the Langstroth came out. They were looking for an improvement over a log gum (in the US) and the skep (in Europe). And a top bar hive is a huge step above either... The Langstroth did not displace the top bar hive. The Langstroth has never been in any competition for acceptance with the top bar hive until quite recently. And so far the Langstroth is losing ground."

His remarks really got me to thinking.

In that light, the top bar hive and the langstroth are two separate design solutions for housing bees in a way which suits both human and bee needs. One design did not succeed the other. Each hive type was developed in different parts of the world, at different times. And for most of us in North America and Europe, the top bar hive is a "new discovery"; being considered, used and experimented with for the first time.

If you look at it this way, the tbh is a "modern" solution, and a viable, inexpensive, highly efficient and functional solution in the true spirit of modernity. And very much in line with a lot of the current values and interests of a lot of people in our society today.

The fact that the core concept has been around for thousands of years, doesn't change the fact that the top bar hives in use by a lot of people today are benefiting from all of the experience, discovery and advancement in beekeeping, the understanding of bee behavior, chemistry, physiology, nutrition etc etc - centuries of advancement in a great variety of areas that now can come to bear on how each of us builds and manages our top hives.

Many detractors see the top bar hive as a "throw-back", like driving an antique car. They see them as a way to enjoy "a simpler time" by keeping history alive. And there are likely some tbh enthusiasts who do see it that way. But I don't.

It might be more accurate to see the tbh in a similar light as one might look at the use of wool. Sheeps wool, merino, alpaca, etc. For years, people moved away from these traditional fibers in favor of "new technology" in synthetic fibers, but over time, with more experience and the trial of more technology, we're seeing even high-tech sporting wear companies returning to the use of wool in their products. The reason? After decades of experimentation with other solutions, we just have to admit - wool works pretty darned well.

It doesn't matter that people have used wool for thousands of years - the use of wool today is modern, and technologically current. Wool is now being experimented with in new ways and new fabrics are being developed to further exploit its natural properties. There are likely many similar examples out there that we can think of - old becomes new again as our education throws new light, and our new perspectives revise our value systems. And with those revisions, we place new value on old ideas. But those ideas are not just repeated; they are rediscovered and made new by the fact that this world is not the same today as it was yesterday.

I'm seeing that while the core ideas behind the top bar hive are ancient, the top bar hive of today is very much a new technology in beekeeping for the industrialized areas of the world that are beginning to use them. The top bar hive of today is not the one found in ancient times. And if you take a short look at the vast array of designs and experiments out there among modern tbh beekeepers on the internet today, you might see (as I do) that - at this grass roots level - the top bar hive is on the cutting edge of innovation in modern beekeeping.

I'm not saying that the same spirit of innovation and advancement is not going on with the langstroth hive (and others), for it definitely is and long has been. But what I am suggesting is that looking at the top bar hive as some fanciful trip down memory lane for the sake of nostalgia is for most of us - way off. I think that what's driving most of the top bar hive interest is just the opposite.

We're using it because it's a great basic design to start from, and it offers a lot of room for experimentation and innovation. And all of those weird concoctions and contraptions, the boxes, "coffins", and "bird houses from hell" that are sprouting up and filled with bees in yards and fields and on rooftops all over the world are actually a rapidly growing hotbed of beekeeping innovation and experimentation.

And because they are not the norm; not what the catalogs are selling. Because they are not easily found in most books in the library, and because most of the established beekeepers in the world have little or no experience in their use, I'd argue that puts them even more into the "experimental" realm. And I propose that the top bar hive's position on the outskirts of "normal beekeeping", combined with its rapid growth in popularity puts it on the cutting edge.

It's the latest thing.

But this latest thing is not just a re-use of an antiquated design. It is alive and moving with bright ideas, trial and error, elbow grease and passion. And it's just getting started.

What are your thoughts? Has the top bar hive actually become the cutting edge of beekeeping innovation?


Adam
 
See less See more
#84 ·
The hive type will necessarily cause the beek to accommodate any weaknesses. The Lang is an approach which requires lifting. The fact that lifting is possible with a lang means that other operations where made possible - like migratory beekeeping and lending out hives for pollination.

Top bar hives (at least as the modern ktbh is presently designed) are more or less a stationary object once they are placed.

Adam
 
#87 ·
The hive type will necessarily cause the beek to accommodate any weaknesses. Adam
I know any 80 year old guy who runs about 80 colonies in Langstroth equipment, all deeps. He runs three deeps for the brood, so he doesn't have to lean over to check that bottom box. He pulls frames of capped brood up above an excluder to produce large crops of honey. He lifts hives and deep supers mechanically w/ an apparatus he built himself, since he works alone. We can't all be as ingenious as he.

He rebuilt my 60 frame Dadant extractor after it went thru a fire. He built his own version of a Dakota Guiness Chain uncapper using rollers. He's clever. He's quite the mechanic.
 
#89 ·
This has been an interesting discussion.

Some points of interest:

The Kenya TBH was developed in the 1960s, partially by the Peace Corps, for several reasons. In an area where bees are naturally aggressive, a top bar hive is always mostly closed if one bar at a time is lifted. The bars are usually spaced close enough together (and they can actually touch) so that the bees aren't exposed much. A good thing when they are quite mean. The slanted sides "help" the bees make sturdy comb with less tendency to attach it to the sides and bottom of the hive, although they will. No precision bits, so they are easy to make from scrap lumber or something like that, and roughsawn is fine.

The TBH as we know it now was a response to a specific need -- low cost/low precision beekeeping in Africa. Honey flow is more or less constant except in areas with strictly seasonal rainfall, although even there, no winter cold is fournd.

There are several things that make them problematic in the US, particularly the north. All long hives suffer from cluster movement difficulties -- once the bees move to one end in the winter, they will NOT move to the other. Split clusters will probably die, so the hive has to move one way or the other, and unless the beekeeper has moved all the honey and pollen to one end, this is going to be a problem for winter suvival. In a Lang, the bees will fill from the top down and move up or sidway a little, but have access to all the stores in most cases. I've noticed in some posts, pictures, and videos concerning cut--outs that typical feral lives in "long hive" configuration (ceilings, etc) that the hive is uni-directional, with brood near the entrance and honey on the far end.

In vertical cavities, the bees will make fairly tall combs (several feet, maybe more if there is support for them) and move up and down. I suspect this is natural behavior for the EHB, since they have a distinct preference for hollow trees when available. I'm sure this is the inspiration for Warre and Langstroth hives, with the addition of removable "supers" making honey removal non-destructive.

Most of the people I know around here who have tried top bar hives have had problems with die-outs over the winter. All of them were new beekeepers, so I'm sure there is an effect there, too, but the bees are still going to need the same 80 lbs or so of honey to make it through to the spring flow, and in a top bar hive that means either moving all the honey and pollen to one end, putting the entrance on one end and controlling the hive to make the honey and pollen end up on the other end, or saving 160 lbs of honey so they can access it in the three or four months of wet, cold weather.

The Langstroth hive (and the major European designs, which differ mainly in size, not function) are a response to the need for hive inspection and manipulation using removable frames. Box size was calculated to mimic natural hive sizes and further to make it easy to work them (shallows rather than 90 lb deeps, for instance). Precision machine tooling was and is quite common, and the expense is minimal once one gets some hives set up.

I'd never discourage anyone from keeping bees, whatever hive they want to use, however. I'd not attempt a commerical operation with top bar hives -- the hassle of crushing and straining several hunderd gallons of honey just isn't an option vs extraction or comb honey, the combs are fragile for a few years, and genearl management isn't as easy (no way to carry a box of frames around a yard without some extra work and broken comb).

As to which is better, that is entirely determined by one's purpose. I'm sticking with Langstroth since I intend to actually produce honey and all the equipment I need is readily available, but I may try a top bar just for fun. A top bar hive as a hobby hive is probably easier for many people, so long as they understand that beekeeping is NOT management free unless you want to start new bees many years when a neglected hive starves out. Had too many people tell me "well, they look sorta weak so I'll just see what happens", lose a hive two years in a row because they wanted it "all natural" in a terrible drought, and quit beekeeping because it's not very rewarding.

For more than a couple hives, I'd suspect that Langs are much easier in the long run. Not only that, if you keep the boxes and covers in good shape (paint or otherwise protect the wood from water) the hives will last decades. Costs go way down after a proper supply of parts is built up with re-use.

Peter
 
#90 ·
There are several things that make them problematic in the US, particularly the north. All long hives suffer from cluster movement difficulties...
I know plenty of horizontal top bar beekeepers in the north without the difficulties you're referring to. I, for one, have only experienced the problem you mention when I started colonies in the center of the hive and moved follower boards out as the colony expanded. Inevitably, the colony put honey stores on each side and brood in the middle. If left in this configuration they will almost certainly eat through their stores toward one end and starve, leaving the rest of the honey uneaten at the other end.

I do not, however, start my colonies in the center of the hive, nor do I recommend it. Today I start all of my colonies at one end and expand in one direction. In my experience this always leads to brood at one end and surplus stores at the other. I've not had any issues with starvation in this configuration. I believe Michael Bush and others manage their hives in a similar way in quite cold climates without an issue.

Best,
Matt
 
#91 ·
My point exactly. All the designs I've seen so far put the entrance in the middle, which is pretty much going to cause trouble. Run the hive uni-directional and it should work well, but the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance....

As far as the center of innovation, no. Center of experimentation and getting people interested in beekeeping, sure!

Peter
 
#92 ·
psfred said:
...All the designs I've seen so far put the entrance in the middle...the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance....
As far as the center of innovation, no...
/QUOTE]

Peter,

I'm glad that you're in the conversation, and I respect your opinion, but I do want to point out that if you've only seen top bar hives with the entrances in the middle, then you're can't really paying that much attention to current top bar beekeeping.

Not that you should, and I mean you no disrespect by pointing this out, but if you more closely at their current development, you might find more innovation than you think is out there.

You seem to be well aware of some of its history, but you make some statements like "the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance...." which don't hold together if you're paying attention to beekeeping in top bars. If you type "kenya top bar hive" into google and hit "images" you'll get all kinds of designs. Lots with end entrances, and some with side. But there's even hives in Uganda with end entrances.

You point out that "vertical space is more natural", and I just don't see that as being true. Bees have made nests in all kinds of cavities, vertical and horizontal and diagonal for millions of years - because even the hollows of trees are not only vertical. And bees can move between combs just fine. The fact is that to bees - all spaces are vertical. It's just the comb height and number that varies.

Phil Chandler's design, which he published on line and made free to all is where I see the root of the design with the entrance in the side. I'm not sure if he was the first to do it, but his plans and his book "The Barefoot Beekeeper" has propagated that style of hive far and wide. But it's not the only one out there - not by a long shot. Given that Phil lives in the UK, I don't think harsh winters were at the center of his thinking. But that design works well for many people in many parts of the world. Phil is a contributing member of this forum and others.

On the other hand, Michael Bush has to be one of the most prominent beeks on this forum who has a lot of experience with tbh's in the US, and in harsher winter climates. He has been talking about end entrances for a long time. So ideas and opinions about middle entrances, end entrances and others have been discussed here, and in other forums many times. They're easy to find if you're interested in them.

Adam
 
#93 ·
'As far as the center of innovation, no...'

How about we just call it a 'paradigm shift'?

Why are we stuck on the KTBH as 'the' design?

Some say that the sloping sides aren't necessary.

Frankly, I think that TBH design is open to interpretation and whatever resources are available.

I've even tried a 19" top bar in a Lang. The bees ignored it, and I replaced the bar with a frame.
 
#94 ·
Note that I said "designs that I have seen". I make no claim to be an expert on top bar hives.

I believe the sloping sides are there to make the comb relatively stronger and much safer to more around. The bees are less likely to attach it to the sides of the hive as well, or at least that is the claim. New comb without a frame isn't very strong, all you have to do is tip a bar over sideways and the comb will fall off, making a mess. A few years of use as brood comb and it won't matter so much.

As far as innovation goes, what's really new? Moveable frames or bars are not, long hives are not, maybe putting it up on a stand is, but people kept skeps on tables several hundred years ago. I've even seen pictures of people making hoop frames for top bar hives, recreating the Langstroth innovation! One is also limited in the amount of honey one can produce, unless one wants to be continuously harvesting or have a very long hive. Not a problem for a hobby hive, per se, but when you get a couple going it can be a problem. Langstroth hives you can just leave the supers on until it's convenient to pull them and extract, and if the bees fill them up you can add more until you cannot reach them.

As Kipling put it, "your glazing is new and your plumbing is strange, but otherwise I perceive no change".

The only other failing I see has nothing to do with hive design, but the notion that top bar hives are "natural" and all one has to do to get honey every year is dump the bees in and stand back! Lots of disappointed newbies 'round here since top bar hives have small hive beetles, varroa mites, wax moths, nectar and pollen dearths, ants, and all the other problems one has with Langstroth hives. Bad information, not a bad design.

I may make one just for the fun of it, but don't plan to wander far from my standard hives -- so far they work just fine, I can make everything but the frames myself for little more than a TBH would cost (especially when one makes a proper cover), so I don't see much of an advantage. We have access to an extractor. plenty of boxes now, and so forth, no reason to change, and I do not want to crush and strain three or four hive's worth of honey!

Peter
 
#95 ·
The KTBH just seems to be quite common at this point. I don't think it's "The" design, but it's probably the most common one here in North America. The Tanzanian top bar hive and the Warré are other popular top bar hive designs as well.

A lot of people on this thread have posted the many virtues of the Langstroth over the ktbh, but I'm not disputing that at all. The fact that there are a lot of people experimenting with different hive designs isn't rooted in any design flaw in the Langstroth. It has to do with shifting interests of beekeepers and different reasons for keeping bees.

It's that paradigm shift that you mention, WLC. The desires of beekeepers are shifting, and a new type of beekeeper is becoming a major group - the beekeeper whose main interest is the bees themselves.

And this is a different identity, and it is taking shape through experimentation with different hives. And I suppose that Peter, you and others are right in saying that not much is actually "new" - so perhaps there is not so much innovation in the strictest sense of the word. But there is a great deal of experimentation going on as these "bee-focused" beekeepers try to find what suits their needs best.

Adam
 
#96 ·
>All long hives suffer from cluster movement difficulties -- once the bees move to one end in the winter, they will NOT move to the other.

As in any vertical hive once they go up they will NOT move back down. In either vertical or horizontal you would ideally start the winter at one end (in the case of vertical it matters which end) and end up at the other end.

>Split clusters will probably die

I haven't seen one...

>unless the beekeeper has moved all the honey and pollen to one end, this is going to be a problem for winter suvival.

I recommend that, but mine ARE at one end without having to move them.

>In a Lang, the bees will fill from the top down and move up or sidway a little, but have access to all the stores in most cases.

That is not my experience. At least not until I went to eight frame boxes.

>I've noticed in some posts, pictures, and videos concerning cut--outs that typical feral lives in "long hive" configuration (ceilings, etc) that the hive is uni-directional, with brood near the entrance and honey on the far end.

Exactly.

>putting the entrance on one end and controlling the hive to make the honey and pollen end up on the other end, or saving 160 lbs of honey so they can access it in the three or four months of wet, cold weather.

If you put the entrance on one end the stores will already be on one end.

>I'd never discourage anyone from keeping bees, whatever hive they want to use, however. I'd not attempt a commerical operation with top bar hives -- the hassle of crushing and straining several hunderd gallons of honey just isn't an option vs extraction or comb honey, the combs are fragile for a few years, and genearl management isn't as easy (no way to carry a box of frames around a yard without some extra work and broken comb).

A system of beekeeping always takes everything into account. If you were to use them commercially (and I'm not recommending anyone do as it's much easier to manage space in an outyard with Langstroths) you could easily make some smaller boxes for handling and harvesting.

As far as "hassle of crushing and straining". I think crush and strain is exactly the same amount of work and mess as extracting and I've done plenty of both. And it frees you up to not buy an extractor and it frees you up to not have to worry about guarding empty comb from the wax moths.

But of course comb honey is a nice product as well.

Also, if you work to where you have some old tough brood comb throughout the hive you could extract these in most extractors with minimum modifications.

>beekeeping is NOT management free

And top bar hives are even less so.

>My point exactly. All the designs I've seen so far put the entrance in the middle

I have seen some that do put it in the middle but I would not say that is typical. I don't recommend it and have never recommended it. Here's mine:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beestopbarhives.htm

I've been recommending not putting ANY holes in it.

> which is pretty much going to cause trouble.

Agreed. But that is just a design choice. One I wish people understood the ramifications of...

>the Kenya TBH is always presented with a center entrance....

This has been my KTBH entrance for the last six years or more:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/TBHEntrance1.JPG
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/TBHEntrance2.JPG

So I think "always" is an overstatement.
 
#98 ·
">In a Lang, the bees will fill from the top down and move up or sidway a little, but have access to all the stores in most cases.

That is not my experience. At least not until I went to eight frame boxes."

Im a little confused. What was not your experience? Im guessng access to all the stores until you went to 8 frames.
 
#99 ·
>Im a little confused. What was not your experience? Im guessng access to all the stores until you went to 8 frames.

Sorry, that is correct. With an eight frame they don't have to move sideways, just up and they don't leave stores behind. But with a ten frame lang they often do leave stores behind and later starve.
 
#102 · (Edited)
WOW!!! Just today I was taking my rough cut lumber (have a huge pile sitting in field) and making 8 frame square hives, to the dimension of the lumber I had. Kinda copying bait hives I made that Sam Comfort showed me. I'm doing 1 1/4" spacing for the 6 center "top bars" and 1 1/2" spacing for the outer 2 "bars" plus extra 1/8" on sides (small cell, so gonna try 1 1/4 versus 1 3/8 this time) . There are simple strips stapled 3/8" down from top which the "top bars" rest on. The 1" true board is 8" wide, so my boxes are 8" high. The only cut is all 4 sides are 12" long, I use snips for the "top bar" to 11" long (Sam used unused frame wedges I had free strips of wood.) the boards are just screwed to the next side in a spiral (so all sides the same.) The boards are from an abandoned project, screws laying around the barn. Total cost $0 for 4 hives of 5 boxes each. thinking over wintering in 5 boxes, just grab a box or 3 a year from the top warre stylish. My Langs with slatted racks, screened bottom, hoffman frames cost me a lot more than $0 each. But with my Langs I guess I'll have the pleasure of working them completely 6 times/year and maybe another 10 simple openings, while these $0 boxes will only get looked at 3 times a year once I start them next spring. If they can't compete honey wise per hive against my Langstroth hives, then I bet they will per time spent on them, and its a guarantee they will per dollar invested.
 
#101 ·
snl:

I'm not quite sure what you mean?

1 3/8" x 8, plus 3/8" for bee space would give you a square box with the inner dimensions of 11 3/8" x 11 3/8".

Did you have some particular lumber in mind so that boxes and top bars hives could be made most economically 'off the shelf''?
 
#103 ·
You're right on with the math WLC, but I think whats great about simple top bars is precision cuts are no longer necessary. An inner dimension between 10.5" and 12" would still work (combs vary, bees vary.) And one could just eyeball 8 strips evenly spaced. I'm too picky and measure twice, but it seems there is a lot of leeway to what the bees figure out, and actually a big variability in to how they thrive. Basically I'm saying a unattended 9 year old child could build a highly functioning hive if given scrap wood and told make a box of any height about a foot wide and lay 8 strips across. Its the pesky interchangeable frames that lead to needing precision.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top