How useful is having a square hive REALLY?

[busybee53]

Now this is a good point about putting boxes alternate ways. I do read a lot of books and I remember one of them saying it is a good idea to put supers cross ways. I think it might have been in order to clear the boxes quicker, but perhaps it was for something else. It was a couple of years ago I read it and can't for the life of me think who wrote the book. Do remember thinking "I would have done that if only I had read the book two weeks earlier". Either way the boxes would need to be square.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Do remember thinking "I would have done that if only I had read the book two weeks earlier". Either way the boxes would need to be square.

Or round

 

[masterBK]

To some a square hive has the advantage that you can work it from the back (combs warm way) or from the side (combs cold way) without having to twist your back. Langstroths which are oblong have combs cold way (no choice really) and are usually worked from the side.

 

[mbc]

To some a square hive has the advantage that you can work it from the back (combs warm way) or from the side (combs cold way) without having to twist your back. Langstroths which are oblong have combs cold way (no choice really) and are usually worked from the side.

Of course.

 

[Madge]

... how useful is it REALLY for you to have a square box instead of a rectangular box? ...

I think a square box is closer in shape to that of the bee cluster, and that the volume of air that they have to heat is therefore less (particularly the square size of a Warré box) compared to an oblong or rectangular box.

 

[enrico]

Now this is a good point about putting boxes alternate ways. I do read a lot of books and I remember one of them saying it is a good idea to put supers cross ways. I think it might have been in order to clear the boxes quicker, but perhaps it was for something else. It was a couple of years ago I read it and can't for the life of me think who wrote the book. Do remember thinking "I would have done that if only I had read the book two weeks earlier". Either way the boxes would need to be square.

The main reason is to stop you lifting the frames of the lower box when lifting the frames in the upper box. This can happen when the frames happen to be directly in line with each other and the bees stick them together. If at right angles the bottom of the top box sits across the lugs on the frame below it so when you lift the top frame it stops the bottom frame being pulled up too. It makes life so easy, doesn't reduce my honey crop to any noticeable extent and the bees are fine with it.
Saves the bottom frame dropping off suddenly and causing angry bees, reduces the chance of killing queeny etc etc.
e

 

[Amari]

Do you practise this alternate method on all your hives Enrico? As I said in post 2, I am currently experimenting. I wonder how many beeks practise the alternate method?

 

[DulwichGnome]

The main reason is to stop you lifting the frames of the lower box when lifting the frames in the upper box.
e

It's worth remembering that national only have a lower rebate on the same side as the upper rebate. So turning the box means the bottom of the box will rest on the top of the frames and the bees will happily stick them together. However if there is the right bee spacing between top and bottom frame they should keep it clear.

Mike.

 

[mbc]

Do you practise this alternate method on all your hives Enrico? As I said in post 2, I am currently experimenting. I wonder how many beeks practise the alternate method?

It doesnt make much difference but the difference it does make is negative as boxes set perpendicularly interfere with ventilation.

 

[ugcheleuce]

It's worth remembering that national only have a lower rebate on the same side as the upper rebate.

Yes, on the standard National plan that I've seen, the side walls are 3/4" thick but front/rear walls are only 1/2" thick at the top and bottom, due to the rebate. For a truly turnable square box the box would have to be roughly 8 5/8" instead of 8 1/8", am I right?

Some larger square boxes don't have the rebate problem, e.g. many poly hives that are square have thicker walls anyway.

I think a square box is closer in shape to that of the bee cluster, and that the volume of air that they have to heat is therefore less (particularly the square size of a Warré box) compared to an oblong or rectangular box.

It is true that Warré's box is square due to that reason, but that is also why Warré's box is so small. If the box is wider than Warré's ideal brood nest size, then having a square box looses its naturalness, in terms of Warré's ideas.

Warre's "ideal" box is 30x30 cm. Based on what I've read in his book, a box of 30x50 cm or even 30x70 cm would be more consistent with his findings and principles than a box of 40x40 cm or 50x50 cm.

The main reason is to stop you lifting the frames of the lower box when lifting the frames in the upper box. This can happen when the frames happen to be directly in line with each other and the bees stick them together.

If the frames are in line, then up to 100% of each frame is stuck to the frame above it. But if the frames are placed perpendicular, then up to 70% of each frame can be stuck to the frames above it (and not just to one frame, but all of them). Am I right?

And, wouldn't cross-wise frame placing lead to more brace comb between the tops and bottoms of the frames, where the other frames pass over?

 

[enrico]

Do you practise this alternate method on all your hives Enrico? As I said in post 2, I am currently experimenting. I wonder how many beeks practise the alternate method?

Always on double brood, brood and a half, when demareeing, and sometimes when I know I will be moving them around shortly after an inspection, for example when just about to take honey off. I have no problems with ventilation and wonder where the proof comes from for that statement. If you look at honey comb in the wild it goes through all sorts of angles, as I would say, if it works for you then use it, if it doesn't then don't.
E

 

[ugcheleuce]

Always on double brood, brood and a half, when demareeing...

What is demareeing... do you have a nice URL or video for it?

 

[Madge]

...

It is true that Warré's box is square due to that reason, but that is also why Warré's box is so small. If the box is wider than Warré's ideal brood nest size, then having a square box looses its naturalness, in terms of Warré's ideas. ...

Yes, not as 'ideal' as a Warré, but still better than a Langstroth in terms of heating the volume of the box. I'm not saying anything about 'naturalness'.

 

[enrico]

What is demareeing... do you have a nice URL or video for it?

Google demaree method of swarm control, here is one example, picked at random..barnsleybeekeepers.co.uk/demaree.html..not sure if it will allow the link but here goes.....

 

[alanf]

If I recall... ITLD wrote about some experiments with aligning comb. Being one of the larger bee farmers, yield is top concern on the list. His trials showed there was a significant improvement in yield if the frames were aligned between boxes. Not just in the same direction but actually lined up above each other, same spacing and frame count per hive. No idea if that's the same anywhere else. The usual practice for most round here is 10 frames in a super, 11 or 12 in a brood underneath so while they are usually the same orientation, there's no attempt to line them up precisely.

 

[Amari]

If I recall... ITLD wrote about some experiments with aligning comb. Being one of the larger bee farmers, yield is top concern on the list. His trials showed there was a significant improvement in yield if the frames were aligned between boxes. Not just in the same direction but actually lined up above each other, same spacing and frame count per hive. No idea if that's the same anywhere else. The usual practice for most round here is 10 frames in a super, 11 or 12 in a brood underneath so while they are usually the same orientation, there's no attempt to line them up precisely.

Yes, that's what a regional bee inspector told me about 5 years ago when he saw my 10/11 configuration

 

[enrico]

If I recall... ITLD wrote about some experiments with aligning comb. Being one of the larger bee farmers, yield is top concern on the list. His trials showed there was a significant improvement in yield if the frames were aligned between boxes. Not just in the same direction but actually lined up above each other, same spacing and frame count per hive. No idea if that's the same anywhere else. The usual practice for most round here is 10 frames in a super, 11 or 12 in a brood underneath so while they are usually the same orientation, there's no attempt to line them up precisely.

One wonders why! Surely they are bringing in the same amount of nectar, does it make them lazy? Don't see why that would or could be the case! But...... Everyone to their own!
E

 

[REDWOOD]

If I recall... ITLD wrote about some experiments with aligning comb. Being one of the larger bee farmers, yield is top concern on the list. His trials showed there was a significant improvement in yield if the frames were aligned between boxes. Not just in the same direction but actually lined up above each other, same spacing and frame count per hive. No idea if that's the same anywhere else. The usual practice for most round here is 10 frames in a super, 11 or 12 in a brood underneath so while they are usually the same orientation, there's no attempt to line them up precisely.

Exactly what I do, seems more natural for bees to work directly above brood frames, I don't use 10 frame supers or castellations and see no obvious advantage except less expense per super which might be false economy if yield is less

 

[alanf]

One wonders why! Surely they are bringing in the same amount of nectar, does it make them lazy? Don't see why that would or could be the case!...

Searched for the original quote:

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=295711&postcount=13

Our 1980's trials showed quite definitively that the same spacing all the way up the hive, with the combs and spaces all lined up, gave more honey than any other configuration. More than Manley supers, more than wide spaced frames. We reckoned it was down to air circulation being more efficient when everything was lined up and thus ripening was quicker. Manleys, being spaced differently from the broodnest, do not offer that as the spacings over a large proportion on the box has the air flow through the space coming up against the bottom bars of the super frames. Only Hoffmans and correctly spaced simple frames allow this.

More effective ripening seems to be the suggestion. It would need some numbers of "side by side" trials to get reliable figures that aligning frames works better in all circumstances. As to the "why", that would need some very detailed work to confirm. Humidity levels between frames perhaps?

 

[enrico]

Thanks Alan, useful info
E