Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

21 - 40 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,870 Posts
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

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
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.
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,870 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
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.


I love my 11 1/4 jumbo frames and I’ll never go back
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
I love my 11 1/4 jumbo frames and I’ll never go back
Hey, bkcrrtnps, how do you run these exactly in your configuration?
I snatched a full box of these (60+ frames).
On one had, I want to keep them as-is and just use so (they are just too nice and brand new).
On the other hand, I want to cut them to a shorter top bar and so to have near perfect Gallup-style frames (13" by 11 1/4").
Agonizing... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I love my 11 1/4 jumbo frames and I’ll never go back
Hey, bkcrrtnps, how do you run these exactly in your configuration?
I snatched a full box of these (60+ frames).
On one had, I want to keep them as-is and just use so (they are just too nice and brand new).
On the other hand, I want to cut them to a shorter top bar and so to have near perfect Gallup-style frames (13" by 11 1/4").
Agonizing...
I run them a few different ways. I have some traditional Dadant size hives that hold 12 of them, I have double nucs that have 5 on a side with divider and then I have my horizontals that I built that I use dividers in. What more would you like to know? I’ll never go back to a langstroth style hive again!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
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.
LongHive01.jpg
LongHive02.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
Greg - that book looks interesting - is it available on-line for download ?
LJ
The book is, unfortunately, a scanned PDF (meaning - you can not auto-translate it).
Can try this link (probably useless for you):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...hov_1990.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2vceMisbRl6FjZmkqdUvXg

However, I was able to find a simple website with these exact pictures:
http://paseka.su/books/item/f00/s00/z0000049/st007.shtml

The page is talking about a well-known Eastern European beekeeper and book author - Vitvitskiy (unsure of the spelling) (Николай Михайлович Витвицкий (1764—1853)).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
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.
 
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Top