It ain't over 'til it's over...

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Over the top.

Over the top .. and down the sides. On my 14x12 hives, the area of the sides is over two and a half times the area of the cover board. My maths is not up to calculating the heat losses from the sides because of the temperature gradient within the hive but I suspect I'd lose 1 to 2 times as much heat through the sides as through the roof, assuming the materials in the walls and cover board are similar. By insulating the roof only, it's possible for you to increase the internal vertical temperature gradient, thereby increasing heat losses through the uninsulated walls.

So I ask the question- why would you insulate the top and not the sides, especially if you have a weak colony from a late swarm?

CVB
 
Over the top.
He sticks to his guns
He take the road as it comes
It take the shine off his shoes
He says it's a shame
You know it may be a game
Ah but I won't play to lose

He sticks to his guns
He take the road as it comes
It take the shine off his shoes
He's too fast to stop
He take it over the top
He make a line in the news
 
I meant the current talk of insulation, not where to put it. There are other options regarding a late swarm/weak colony, uniting or a nuc box or on top of a strong colony. After that long, cold winter, I had a colony that could have been regarded as weak going into winter with less than five frames of bees. By mid summer they were on double brood and five supers, crammed to the rafters with bees and provided four nice nucs. They were over wintered in a paynes standard national poly brood chamber with just the flimsy sheet and old style 'too thin' roof.
My hives vary from wood to poly and from insulated to none. Those that are, have it above the crown board, the thinnest material. There again, how many times do we open up in spring to find some are on five or less frames? How did they manage to survive in a large space?
Don't get me wrong, if you want to go making shells for your hives, knock yourself out.
 
"They come over the top with a pip and a hop
Then your work is done
When they first show their face
Crump 'em with a mace
That's the game called Hunting the Hun!"
 
Two. I ain't ashamed o' prayers,
They're only wishes sent ter God
Bits o' plants from bloody sod
Trailing up His golden stairs.
Ninety seconds – Well, who cares!
One –
No fife, no blare, no drum –
Over the Top – to Kingdom Come!
 
So I ask the question- why would you insulate the top and not the sides, especially if you have a weak colony from a late swarm?

CVB

Of course that's not what he meant - but had he meant that - the logic behind insulating the top and not the sides is to allow excess moisture to condense out onto the hive walls so that the condensate can trickle down and exit the box via the OMF. At least that's what I do.

Heat loss via the walls is not all that important (except perhaps for a nuc), as the bees have their own dynamic form of insulation called 'clustering' - the tightness of which will vary as their needs change. Just ensure that the colony is big enough (which is why folks combine) and that they have enough carbohydrate available to enable them to do what they do so very well, perfectly naturally.

How countless thousands of honeybee colonies have managed to survive over the last couple of hundred years in wooden hives (shock, horror) and without copious amounts of expanded plastic remains something of a mystery ... :)

LJ
 
Just to say that I agree with myself ...

Echo ... Echo ...


LJ

Nunquam solo cum schizophreniae
(You're never alone with schizophrenia)
 
Last edited:
Of course that's not what he meant - but had he meant that - the logic behind insulating the top and not the sides is to allow excess moisture to condense out onto the hive walls so that the condensate can trickle down and exit the box via the OMF. At least that's what I do.

Heat loss via the walls is not all that important (except perhaps for a nuc), as the bees have their own dynamic form of insulation called 'clustering' - the tightness of which will vary as their needs change. Just ensure that the colony is big enough (which is why folks combine) and that they have enough carbohydrate available to enable them to do what they do so very well, perfectly naturally.

How countless thousands of honeybee colonies have managed to survive over the last couple of hundred years in wooden hives (shock, horror) and without copious amounts of expanded plastic remains something of a mystery ... :)

LJ

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:
Two. I ain't ashamed o' prayers,
They're only wishes sent ter God
Bits o' plants from bloody sod
Trailing up His golden stairs.
Ninety seconds – Well, who cares!
One –
No fife, no blare, no drum –
Over the Top – to Kingdom Come!

Nice to see a religious man amongst us
 
How countless thousands of honeybee colonies have managed to survive over the last couple of hundred years in wooden hives (shock, horror) and without copious amounts of expanded plastic remains something of a mystery ... :)

LJ

I've heard this 'argument' in support of people who still can't see the logic or wisdom of insulation so many times in the last few years .... the reality is that bees WILL (mostly) survive in cold draughty hives ... they will survive better in hives that have insulation on top of the colony ... it rather stands to reason that they will survive even better if you provide them with an environment where they have to expend the least amount of energy necessary to maintain the colony temperature that they would prefer.

It's not a difficult concept ? Would you prefer to sleep on a bed with no bedding in the middle of winter or snuggle up under a high Tog value duvet ?

I've heard the comment ... No ... but I'm not a bee .... that really doesn't wash with me.
 
It's not a difficult concept ? Would you prefer to sleep on a bed with no bedding in the middle of winter or snuggle up under a high Tog value duvet ?

Would that be on your own...or with thousands of naked woman clustering tightly all around you?
 
I've heard this 'argument' in support of people who still can't see the logic or wisdom of insulation so many times in the last few years .... the reality is that bees WILL (mostly) survive in cold draughty hives ... they will survive better in hives that have insulation on top of the colony ... it rather stands to reason that they will survive even better if you provide them with an environment where they have to expend the least amount of energy necessary to maintain the colony temperature that they would prefer.

It's not a difficult concept ? Would you prefer to sleep on a bed with no bedding in the middle of winter or snuggle up under a high Tog value duvet ?

I've heard the comment ... No ... but I'm not a bee .... that really doesn't wash with me.
Some years ago I was asked to 'give a hand' to a friend of mine's brother over in Ireland who had just started lambing 300 ewes, and was already in deep poo (quite literally).
When I arrived it was immediately clear what the problem was: he had nailed boards over the shed's vents to 'keep 'em warm'. So - 300 ewes in one shed, now nice and humid, and the bacteria had a field day. Half the flock were scouring badly, lambs were going down like nine-pins, and it looked like he was about to lose his whole crop of lambs.

The solution was obvious - to open-up the vents, and get as many ewes back out into the fields as possible which enabled us to then have a complete change of straw after flushing the floors down with Jeys Fluid. Only then did we bring the ewes back in.
Yes - it was bl##dy cold working with open vents and the doors wide open, but we managed to save the day.

Now - ok - those are mammals, as we are mammals, and you can argue that the situation with insects is different - that may possibly be true. But your argument that because a small amount of something is beneficial, therefore it logically follows that a large amount of it must be even better, is flawed.

A small amount of some deadly poisons (nicotine, strychnine etc) are actually stimulants, but a larger amount is frequently fatal.
The whole rationale behind LD50 calculations is to keep intake of medicines or other substances at a low, relatively safe level. 1 gram per box when sublimating OA is ideal for killing mites without harming the bees, but I have no doubt that 50 or 100 grams wouldn't do them any good whatsoever.

Treating biological organisms (including ourselves) with kindness and consideration is flawed - one only need look at how human genetics have been affected in the West. In rural India it is not unusual for a woman to stop work in the fields, give birth unaided, and then re-commence work later that day. Some die, sure, but it is nature's way of eliminating unsuitable genetics.

In the West we have adopted a policy of medically assisted childbirth for hundreds of years. In their well-meant enthusiasm to reduce the number of deaths, the medical profession has created a situation in which totally natural births (as in 100% medically unassisted) are nigh impossible, and so our species - at least in the West - has become dependant upon their presence at birth.

By not allowing weaker colonies to die during winter, you are unwittingly failing to select-out inferior genetics. Oh - you may not see the results of this for perhaps a hundred years - but a reliance upon copious amounts of artificial insulation will happen eventually, in a similar way to how childbirth has become reliant upon medical assistance.

There is a difference between 'cleverness' and 'wisdom': cleverness is about achieving short-term goals, at which many human activities excel; but wisdom is about having consideration for the long term effects of our actions, even if these should appear counter-productive in the short-term.

LJ
 
Some years ago I was asked to 'give a hand' to a friend of mine's brother over in Ireland who had just started lambing 300 ewes, and was already in deep poo (quite literally).
When I arrived it was immediately clear what the problem was: he had nailed boards over the shed's vents to 'keep 'em warm'. So - 300 ewes in one shed, now nice and humid, and the bacteria had a field day. Half the flock were scouring badly, lambs were going down like nine-pins, and it looked like he was about to lose his whole crop of lambs.

The solution was obvious - to open-up the vents, and get as many ewes back out into the fields as possible which enabled us to then have a complete change of straw after flushing the floors down with Jeys Fluid. Only then did we bring the ewes back in.
Yes - it was bl##dy cold working with open vents and the doors wide open, but we managed to save the day.

Now - ok - those are mammals, as we are mammals, and you can argue that the situation with insects is different - that may possibly be true. But your argument that because a small amount of something is beneficial, therefore it logically follows that a large amount of it must be even better, is flawed.

A small amount of some deadly poisons (nicotine, strychnine etc) are actually stimulants, but a larger amount is frequently fatal.
The whole rationale behind LD50 calculations is to keep intake of medicines or other substances at a low, relatively safe level. 1 gram per box when sublimating OA is ideal for killing mites without harming the bees, but I have no doubt that 50 or 100 grams wouldn't do them any good whatsoever.

Treating biological organisms (including ourselves) with kindness and consideration is flawed - one only need look at how human genetics have been affected in the West. In rural India it is not unusual for a woman to stop work in the fields, give birth unaided, and then re-commence work later that day. Some die, sure, but it is nature's way of eliminating unsuitable genetics.

In the West we have adopted a policy of medically assisted childbirth for hundreds of years. In their well-meant enthusiasm to reduce the number of deaths, the medical profession has created a situation in which totally natural births (as in 100% medically unassisted) are nigh impossible, and so our species - at least in the West - has become dependant upon their presence at birth.

By not allowing weaker colonies to die during winter, you are unwittingly failing to select-out inferior genetics. Oh - you may not see the results of this for perhaps a hundred years - but a reliance upon copious amounts of artificial insulation will happen eventually, in a similar way to how childbirth has become reliant upon medical assistance.

There is a difference between 'cleverness' and 'wisdom': cleverness is about achieving short-term goals, at which many human activities excel; but wisdom is about having consideration for the long term effects of our actions, even if these should appear counter-productive in the short-term.

LJ

On that basis we should destroy all feral colonies in trees, houses and roofs as "weakening the gene pool"..
 
How did natural selection work in naturally insulated trees nests work? Those nests are much more insulated than a hive with insulation in the roof. You comparison of an insulated hive and a sealed lambing shed is a little bit daft.
 

How countless thousands of honeybee colonies have managed to survive over the last couple of hundred years in wooden hives (shock, horror) and without copious amounts of expanded plastic remains something of a mystery ... :)

... But your argument that because a small amount of something is beneficial, therefore it logically follows that a large amount of it must be even better, is flawed.

... Some die, sure, but it is nature's way of eliminating unsuitable genetics.

I'm really mystified by why you might think that one ought to be selectively breeding insects on the basis of their ability to survive in wooden boxes.

The honeybee evolved in a hot climate, and over the millennia still hasn't evolved to work at a lower brood temperature.
I think you are being rather optimistic if you think you can achieve this with wooden boxes.

Recognising that the honeybee dies if it gets cold (+5C is fatal) and is only able to survive in our climate by the social adaptation of clustering and consuming stored carbohydrates, its a very small step to understanding that better insulation leads to less metabolic 'work' to achieve survival and thereby "stack the odds" better in favour of survival.


If you have any evidence whatsoever that colony winter survival outcomes or stores consumption (remember that the colony in question is under-provided) are worsened by provision of insulation, then now would be an ideal time to produce that evidence.
If you don't, then … maybe its Winter now.
 
In the old days nucs and swarms were relativey cheap and easy to come by. Not quite the same these days.

If a one colony owner, the loss of just one colony is tantamount to a disaster - the person is no longer a beekeeper! Stands to reason that everything that can be done economically, to ensure the colony survival, is worthwhile.

For the rest of us, saving a couple kg of winter stores should be enough of an incentive to pop a sheet of polystyrene above the crownboard. 15 x 2kg is 30kg of next harvest. Beekeepers have long used insulation over their colonies - why does anyone think otherwise when the crownboard was often a quilt?

Just simple common sense. Most heat is lost through the roof, particulary during the winter while there is loads of thermal insulation to the sides in the form of honey frames. Beats me that anyone believes the dinosaur beekeepers.

My roofs are somewhat deeper than the standard and an extra 50mm depth is offered by the suppliers such as big T. Those are a common sense option for those that can easily deal with the extra weight (my deeper roofs actually weigh less than a standard timber roof, btw) and will add extra insulation just below the crownboard level. More than doubling the side coverage of the hive, with the roof, is bound to reduce heat losses where it matters - at the top of the hive.

Dinosaurs will die out eventually; history has taught us that. It will just take time. More and more will realise that polystyrene hives have over-wintering advantages and will work out that the only difference is in the insulative properties of the material.

Nobody builds a house with single leaf walls these days;simply not allowed! Insulation in the roof has increased from little or nothing in the 1960s (my 1970s house had just 25mm!) to the present day standard of a minimum of 300mm(?) (mine has 400mm and some more). Double glazing is a standard feature of any new build or home improvement; triple glazing is an added bonus (many houses in Spain have triple glazing - and shutters as well - for temperature control).

IMO only dim beekeepers ignore all these things and continue in the ways of the dinosaurs - diminishing in numbers; and, additionally, those that try to add unsuspecting new beeks to their ranks are, frankly, a menace to beekeeping.

If saying it just like I think it is offends you, speak out ,by all, means, to defend yourselves. Lets know who to listen to and whose advice is likely to be about 64 million years out of date.
 
My roofs are somewhat deeper than the standard and an extra 50mm depth is offered by the suppliers such as big T. Those are a common sense option for those that can easily deal with the extra weight (my deeper roofs actually weigh less than a standard timber roof, btw) and will add extra insulation just below the crownboard level. More than doubling the side coverage of the hive, with the roof, is bound to reduce heat losses where it matters - at the top of the hive.

.


Exactly.

I build my (non TBH) roofs from insulation board and they are deeper like yours overlapping the box below by around 250mms. Not only does this give better insulation, it also reduces wetting of the brood box# -- damp walls lose more heat faster due to evaporation.. I also have 75mm of insulation in the roof.
# my roofs have a larger floor area than the hive to reduce the impact of rain.on the hive sides. . internally they are quite close fitting consistent with ease of removal.. As a result they are less likely to blow off... but they are strapped down anyway.

Hardly rocket science.. basic physics.. and not even O level standard...
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top