Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

The 'Gallup' Long Hive.

16K views 63 replies 14 participants last post by  oldsap 
#1 ·
I had great difficulty in deciding in which sub-forum to post the following - "Hive Design, which type ?" would perhaps have been the most appropriate, if it were not for the fact that particular sub-forum is intended for beginners - and what follows is certainly NOT a beginner's topic.

The principal focus of what follows is the Gallup Frame of 11.25" square, as used in a horizontal hive and, although not Top Bar, this seems the best place for it, in the absence of a more suitable home.

Afaik, there never was a 'Gallup Hive' as such - but rather that size frame was used within custom-made hives of all types and configurations.

One of the criticisms frequently made of Long Hives is that they are incapable of returning a reasonable honey crop. A second criticism one often hears is that the frequent opening of beehives is detrimental to the life of a colony, and that doing so will set them back considerably. In what follows you will read a rebuttal of both of these widely-held beliefs ...

As the first two paragraphs of what follows may at first appear confusing, perhaps I should explain that Doolittle called his favourite home-apiary hive a 'Six Frame Hive', as that was the number of brood frames he used for over-wintering, but in practice the hive could contain 15 frames. He modified this 15-frame box such that the space for 3 frames at either end became areas where sections were produced, thus leaving 9 brood frames within the central area, reducing this number to 6 or 7 during the season to suit colony size and/or behaviour.

This is then what Doolittle wrote in the January 1899 edition of 'Gleanings':
[...] up to the eighties, and for years, I used only six and seven Gallup frames to the hive, and a number of articles can be found in the American Bee Journal headed "Those Six-frame Hives," in which I showed how I succeeded in producing tons upon tons of comb honey by the use of from six to seven frames for brood.
Up to 1874 I had thought that 9 Gallup frames would entertain the best queen to her fullest capacity, no matter whether the colony was worked for extracted or comb honey ; for up to that time that was the greatest number allowed when working for either.
In the spring of 1874 I read upon the (Adair) Long Idea hive, and became infatuated with the same. I made two of them, working one for extracted honey and the other for comb, these hives being made to hold 32 Gallup frames when the whole number was in.
These then were experimental 4ft Long Hives, housing 32 Gallup frames, 11.25" x 11.25". Doolittle ran one for extracted honey, with extraction being conducted every 3rd or 4th day, with the other worked for comb honey on his well-established nine-frame "side and top box" plan.
Doolittle was to discover that something very odd happened within the extraction hive, in that brood rearing was significantly stimulated by this process of frequent extraction, such that he estimated that double the amount of brood resulted as a direct result of this activity. The subsequent results for honey-gathering were truly 'astronomical' (by my standards):

[...] the hive worked for extracted honey on the long-idea plan gave 566 lbs. surplus, while the one worked on the tiering-up plan gave about 400 lbs., thus showing that I had only 166 lbs. more honey as a result for double the brood reared. [...] The average from the whole apiary that year was 166.6 pounds from each old colony in the spring, all of which was comb honey, excepting that from the two colonies worked for extracted, the whole number in the apiary in the spring being 69.
So - an apiary average of 166 pounds, yet these two particular 'Gallup' Long Hives returned 566 and 400 lbs. And yet so often we hear that Long Hives cannot produce a useful honey crop ! And double the brood resulted at a time when the hive was being opened twice a week.

Perhaps the above report is worth investigating further ?
LJ
 
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: John Kempf
#2 ·
Gallup frames, 11.25" x 11.25".
You know, LJ,
I was thinking how to best utilize a full box of free Jumbo frames I scored recently (and bragged about it too).

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

These, I mean:
Product Wood Radiator Floor Plywood
 
#3 ·
Hmmm... this suggests that to get maximal honey production for a horizontal hive, little honey should be left in the hive for long stretches. So expecting the bees to draw out the equivalent of a super is the opposite management to use... rather take the honey as it is capped?

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

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

I'm going to have to try that out this year with my top bars that are the width/depth of a Lang - except I will use shallow frames rather than bars at this point. Time to take advantage of extraction!
 
#4 ·
Hmmm... this suggests that to get maximal honey production for a horizontal hive, little honey should be left in the hive for long stretches. So expecting the bees to draw out the equivalent of a super is the opposite management to use... rather take the honey as it is capped?
Hi Trish - I think that's a fair summary. However, after checking 'Gleanings' for the following 3 years I was very surprised to learn that no-one had seized upon the potential of this procedure. I was also curious about Doolittle's own lack of enthusiasm for it:
"... thus showing that I had only 166 lbs. more honey as a result for double the brood reared."
I've since learned that Doolittle's article was in fact the final salvo in an argument which had started the previous year, with Doolittle initially expressing a very negative opinion of Long Hives in general (which I'm sad to say demonstrates that even Doolittle was guilty of both ignorance and prejudice - more on that in another post) but even so, in regard to this particular issue all is not quite as rosy as might first appear.

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

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

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

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

Now that Horizontal Hives (in general) have a suitable home for discussion, I think it might be useful to examine the early experiences of the Long-idea Hive in America, contrasting these with those of the broadly similar hive styles of Eastern Europe.
I'm currently delving into American Long Hive history as revealed in 'Gleanings' 1873 onwards, and will post relevant articles as they emerge. I'm hoping that Greg will be able to supply the Eastern European perspective. :)
LJ
 
#6 ·
Yes, many thanks - he's a new name to me, but seems he was a frequent writer, 'earlier on' ...

This is how he ends his own rebuttal to Doolittle in 1898 (who by this time is getting his wrists well and truly slapped :) ) :
I have answered Mr. Heise's questions briefly; but if he or any one else should decide on testing the use of these hives, I would suggest that he will find the subject gone into much more fully in an article, or, rather, articles, published in Gleanings some 12 or 15 years ago, under the head of "How to Use Single-story Hives." O. O. Poppleton.
So - will now be digging much further back in the archives ...

Thanks for the heads-up,
LJ
 
#8 ·
A lot of this stuff is, of course, opinion and argument (heated debates within the beekeeping community being nothing new !) regarding hive types and frame sizes - but I've already found one nugget of indisputable value.

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

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

That particular article runs to well over 2000 words, with other articles being double that length - so I need to find some suitable method of passing-on this info without creating excessively long posts. Will be tackling this tonight. :)
LJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Kempf
#9 ·
We really need a like button.This is interesting.

I got a long hive simply because my back wont let me use a 'normal' one.
I think all newbies should have one like mine- got a window, screened bottom with sliding solid boards, 30 standard frames wide, 2 follower boards....just need a beek that hurries up with her learning curve.
 
#10 · (Edited)
As far as honey production goes, in my neck of the woods, I am wondering if I have half-hearted honey flows. ;) I keep getting combs like this one - ignore the tiny patch of capped brood - Beehive Bee Honeycomb Insect Membrane-winged insect
- where the bees cap half and then leave the rest uncapped... for the rest of the summer.

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

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

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

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

Attachments

#11 · (Edited)
As far as honey production goes, in my neck of the woods, I am wondering if I have half-hearted honey flows. ;) I keep getting combs like this one - ignore the tiny patch of capped brood - View attachment 45913 - where the bees cap half and then leave the rest uncapped... for the rest of the summer.

And to solve that, I was already going to use shallow frames so I could extract and then give them back the frames and not require wax to be drawn to get stored honey..
So this is an inherent problem of a horizontal hive - somehow getting the small incremental crops out.
My hives are OK for harvesting crop in the end of the season (in fall really, like a good peasant would - that is exactly how peasant hives work by design). But they are not so great at harvesting any honey mid-summer or early summer - this is because most all frames contain intermix if brood and honey. Those early crops end up as honey bands above the brood - good for the bees - not so good for the keeper mid-year honey-tax collections.

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

I am evolving away from being a hard-liner horizontal keeper and would rather be able to collect my taxes as I see fit. :)
One example why:
- more than once now I caught swarms that will eat through the honey stores before I can get any share of it (because of intermixed brood and honey I can not easily get them off the large frames);
- using mini-frames (think 1/2 Gallup size) in mini-supers above the nest (say 5-6 frames like in Dartington hive) I think one could isolate and then harvest small incremental crops as they come along;
- with mini-frames and mini-supers, this is still good ergonomics for the keeper;
 
#12 ·
FWIW - I came across one 'Natural Beekeeping' (there has to be a better term to use than that ?) site recently, and although I tend to wince/ roll my eyes at sites which describe themselves as such, I was pleasantly surprised to read the following introduction which I thought was a particularly fair and balanced summary of the current 'state of play':

Introduction
It is only in the last 150 years that we have such strong standardization of the beehive. The ubiquitous white boxes we associate with beehives are called 'Langstroth Hives' and lend themselves particularly well to industrial scale beekeeping. Before this and during the end of the 19th and early 20th century there was much discourse about different types of hive and hive systems ... which were best for the bees and which would produce the most honey.

We are now at a moment when many are interested in the de-industrialization of beekeeping and the pursuit of honeybees for their health and well-being as much as for the products of their hives. To this end beekeepers and innovators are looking at how to support bees, letting them build and live their lives as they would with little human intervention. To this goal beekeepers are coming back to some old ideas that worked well to begin with.
http://beerepair.com/index.php/alternative-hive-systems/
But - having suggested that there were numerous hives and systems under discussion in 'the early days', the writer then unfortunately succumbs to the 'old trap' of comparing just Top Bar, Warre, and Langstroth hives - almost as if these are the only three options available. (Which was also mirrored in this forum's structure until the last few days.)
I'm not without sympathy for this perspective however, as people cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of those things which have - for all intents-and-purposes - disappeared off the radar during the last century or so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have some interesting translation to do just about this happening in early 20th century in the young Soviet Union.
When I get to it.
 
#13 ·
I recently came across one maverick beekeeper in Wisconsin who used Langstroth hives for comb honey, but much preferred his "shot-tower hives" for extracting - these had two boxes, each containing nine frames 21" tall by 13" wide, which he said wintered better and swarmed less.
LJ
 
#14 ·
I recently came across one maverick beekeeper in Wisconsin who used Langstroth hives for comb honey, but much preferred his "shot-tower hives" for extracting - these had two boxes, each containing nine frames 21" tall by 13" wide, which he said wintered better and swarmed less.
LJ
Ask him for a picture or something?
I am all eyes!
He could be near and I did now know.
 
#16 ·
Apologises for the delay in getting some of the 'Gleanings' posts into a form suitable for download. I've just compiled 2 for now - the Doolittle Queen-Rearing post I mentioned earlier - and the Gallup/ Long Hive thread which is a monster at some 6000 words.
Rather than display these as .html pages - which I might do later - I thought I'd just upload them as .txt files for now. They can be downloaded from : http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/beekxx.htm - or via my website 'front page'.

Hope somebody finds these of interest - any problems with those files, give me shout. :)
LJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Kempf
#20 ·
Apologises for the delay in getting some of the 'Gleanings' posts into a form suitable for download. I've just compiled 2 for now - the Doolittle Queen-Rearing post I mentioned earlier - and the Gallup/ Long Hive thread which is a monster at some 6000 words.
Rather than display these as .html pages - which I might do later - I thought I'd just upload them as .txt files for now. They can be downloaded from : http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/beekxx.htm - or via my website 'front page'.

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

LJ
Thanks LJ.
Downloaded just fine.
A simple text file is about the best, the most efficient, and the most reliable media - it just works for those willing to read it (no IFs or BUTs).
 
#21 · (Edited by Moderator)
Gm Doolittle was ignorant and prejudice? A bold statement 100 years into future. We sit here blowing smoke and Doolittle, without the internet mind you, comes up with modern queen grafting and HE is prejudice because he doesn't like the hives you want him too. I love different beehives but there is no way I would want a few hundred of those things to manage in my outyards. Guess that makes me ignorant and prejudice.
 
#23 ·
For goodness sake - take the emotion out of what you read. "Ignorant" is NOT a term of abuse - I use the term purely in the sense that Doolittle did not have the knowledge that (say) Poppleton did. Experience with two hives compared with hundreds, and over a much longer period.
"Prejudice" ? Again, NOT a term of abuse. We ALL have prejudices of one kind or another - Doolittle had a prejudice in favour of Gallup frames, at a time when most people had swung over to Langstroth - what's wrong with that ? And like you, he had a negative prejudice against Long Hives - so what ? - it's a prejudice, that's all - it ain't a hanging offence.

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

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

Doolittle had ongoing arguments with many of the BIG names of the day - he had to fight his corner on many fronts. Was he infallible ? Of course not. He was a valuable voice, but he was one voice amongst many.
LJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Kempf
#22 ·
Could there be just a hint of persecution complex behind thinking we are saddled with a sub standard hive system?

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

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

Attachments

#24 ·
Could there be just a hint of persecution complex behind thinking we are saddled with a sub standard hive system?.
Maybe. But I sometimes wonder how would people react if the one-size-fits-all approach were to be imposed on us in other areas of life ? All living in the same shape/style/size of house; all driving the same cars (automobiles); all eating exactly the same food; all wearing the same clothes; all doing the same job (as if...), but you get the idea ...

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

Is it not a case of 'horses for courses' ? Who in their right mind would purchase a 40-ton artic (trailer and unit) for doing the weekly shop ? Or go off-roading in a Ferrari ? :)
LJ
 
#25 ·
No, an imposed standardization that demands its usage even for the most ludicrous extremes would not be a good thing. The Lang frame and hive certainly was none of that. I dont think it is fair to assume todays instant communication was available hundreds of years ago, when someone saw the advantages of such standardization. I sure dont think it was any nefarious conspiracy.

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

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


Some ships go East and some go West, by the selfsame winds that blow;
Tis the set of the sail and not the gale, that governs the way we go!
 
#26 ·
I don't know if Doolittle was even a nice guy. Never met him. I am not so "ignorant" to think that he was the only authority on beekeeping during that time. I do like your posts on different hives, beekeepers and management.

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

Lack of abuse in those words?

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

I don't think so. Neither would I.

Another good example of how the internet (or mailed letters) is no replacement for face to face talking. It can be hard to ascertain the true meaning. Not to mention information from a century ago.
 
#27 ·
The reason Doolittle appeared to be "prejudiced" toward Gallup's style of frames was because Elisha Gallup had been a mentor to Doolittle when Doolittle first began keeping and writing about honey bees. Doolittle never forgot or failed to support Gallup, even when an aging Gallup made statements in print about aspects of beekeeping that leads me to believe his mental abilities had started to fail him.

Doolittle appeared to have a bit of ego, but that is common in beekeepers. We all seem to think our way is the best, most efficient method of managing honey bees. With Doolittle, he proved that his methods worked by making a good living with his bees, and the observations he made of the honey bee's life cycle and activities within the hive have proved very accurate.
 
#28 ·
I've just added a text file in which Poppleton writes about how he uses Single-Story Hives and his Nucleus Method of Increase.
LJ
 
#33 ·
A couple of pic from a book printed in 1989 (scanned PDF).
Of interest - two long hives with the frames proportionally very similar to the "Gallup frame".
I was not able to find in the book more exact descriptions of what these are.
Beehive Bee Furniture Apiary Honeybee

Insect Bee Beehive Birdhouse Chicken coop
 
#34 ·
LJ: sorry for the topic pollution..
LOL - no worries... :)

A couple of pic from a book printed in 1989 (scanned PDF).
Of interest - two long hives with the frames proportionally very similar to the "Gallup frame".
I was not able to find in the book more exact descriptions of what these are.
Greg - that book looks interesting - is it available on-line for download ?
LJ
 
#36 ·
Hi Greg - useful links, thanks.

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

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

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



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

Again, thanks for the links.
LJ
 
#37 ·
This hive would be well-worth knowing more about, if by good fortune you're able to identify the maker or some other source:


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

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

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

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

However, the picture you point to, is surprisingly similar to the very original hive by Prokopovich from the early 1800s:
http://paseka.su/books/item/f00/s00/z0000049/st008.shtml
 
#38 ·
LJ,
I found a very good resource.
Here is a one page from it:
https://helpiks.org/3-85057.html

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

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

So - this is 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago USA we are talking about.
 
#39 ·
LJ,
I found a very good resource.
Here is a one page from it:
https://helpiks.org/3-85057.html

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

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

So - this is 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago USA we are talking about.
Dolinovsky horizontal hive.
 
#45 ·
LJ I may try a couple hives this year where I extract a box and then place it under the stack. Now they have 6 inches less honey overhead and 6 more inches of comb under the brood nest. For your, long hive perhaps take a frame or 2 of honey, filled as they move back toward the entrance. Extract it and place empty s behind them. Somewhat walking up the down escalator. If you cannot extract and have combs, one could remove the honey shift the bees and place empty comb behind them. It may be the % of empty cells in the nest that drives brood production. As you say later in the year empty cells are scarcer. If we slowly remove full and add empty cells, we may trigger a longer build up and slower decline. Ergo a higher population for a fraction of the flow. for the long hive you could split late some of the larger population and give 3 or 4 frames of stores, allowing a longer splitting season. Lots of ways to play it, once you understand the drive behind it.
GG
 
#46 ·
Lots of ways to play it, once you understand the drive behind it.
Yeah - but that's the elusive bit ...:)

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

Easy enough to test (I think ...) - take a freshly extracted honey-comb (worker cell size) and place it into the brood nest of a colony which already has ample amounts of brood. I'd bet money that comb would be jumped-on and laid-up within 24 hrs. Then repeat to check.
LJ
 
#48 ·
Abbé Rueher's modified Congolese (long horizontal) beehive (Almost a Gallup frame)

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



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

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

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


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

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

.../...Then it's the technical drawings of my new hive:
"France-Congo" model 1931 - possibly the "Congolese 1925" transformed for the climate of Europe.
At the bottom, - on its pedestal, rests the hive with its frames. A large board indicates its main characteristics,
as follows: Illuminated horizontal hive -
Mobile system with
1° One or two bodies.
2° Cold buildings for hot countries,
or
3° Warm buildings for cold countries.
Indeed, this hive can be converted instantly into either system.
4° Mobile frame divider in perforated zinc, dividing the body into honey and brood compartments.
5° Inner chamber for summer.
6° Movable bottom removing this
room for the winter.
7° Movable frame partition reducing
half the hive for the wintering.
8° Self-cleaning triangular bottom.
9° Frame-closing system "R" improvised.
10° Metal frame holder system.
These are many combinations! and yet nothing complicated, as one would be tempted to believe; on the contrary, everything is childishly simple. Already, despite a certain originality, my beehive and its systems are very noticed, especially by foreigners.
In spite of advantageous offers, which I refused, I want my invention, if any, to remain in the public domain. At the most, I wanted to preserve, out of patriotism, at least the name and origin of the beehive by registering the design.
J.-B. RUEHER,
Missionary in French Congo.
the top bars he calls them "impropolisable "R" closing frame system"!





The Beehive " France Congo "

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

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

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


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