New to beekeeping looking for cedar hives

[jenkinsbrynmair]

The Hoffman frames are also constructed with the bevelled side on the side bars on the 'opposite' side to others so when mixed with UK frames, you get two flat surfaces meeting each other.

A common initial mistake by a beginner when building their frames?

In the case of Chinese frames no, I was gifted some a few years back, put them together correctly (It's easy with SN4's because the grooves in the side bars give you a hint) and it took me a while to realise what the issue was. The association had bought a pile so I went and checked and yes, they were all the same.

 

[ericbeaumont]

Cedar is not native to the UK. By buying hives made from UK cedar you are encouraging the planting of a foreign species (possibly in place of native forest) with consequences for native wildlife.
Probably best to source timber from where it’s native. In the case of Western Red Cedar that’s North America.

Some argue that Apis mellifera is a non-native species, but that's also a cul-de-sac discussion: we are where we are and we may as well use what we've got.

It would be useful to compare the environmental footprint of hives produced from Canadian cedar and Welsh cedar; to include not only the damage caused by the marine diesel necessary to travel the extra 5,800km, but also the social value of giving employment to British trades, particularly in Wales, which had the steepest rise in GB unemployment between August and October and a 22k rise in unemployment in December.

That WRC is still used for hives has more to do with perceived perfection at the point of sale than efficiency of production and reduction of environmental waste. It's the last that ought to gain our attention because our permanent agenda is the urgent need to reduce the global impact of consumption.

 

[Firefly]

" UK plantation-grown cedar bears little resemblance to Western Red Cedar from the British Columbia coastal regions, and it differs in performance too. Canadian cedar is rated ‘Class 2 (durable)’ according to the EN 113 standard. By comparison, the UK grown Western Red Cedar is rated class 3 (moderately durable). " It's on the internet, so it must be true. The source is Silva Timber, who are selling Canadian cedar, of course

The Woodland Trust say " Though less useful than our native trees, it provides food and shelter for wildlife ", and I've never seen a hive made of Rowan (though I'd be prepared to give it a go). They also say " Western red cedar may be susceptible to attacks by scale insects and conifer aphids that suck the sap from the tree ", so it's not all bad news for wildlife

 

[BeeGiner]

Some argue that Apis mellifera is a non-native species, but that's also a cul-de-sac discussion: we are where we are and we may as well use what we've got.

It would be useful to compare the environmental footprint of hives produced from Canadian cedar and Welsh cedar; to include not only the damage caused by the marine diesel necessary to travel the extra 5,800km, but also the social value of giving employment to British trades, particularly in Wales, which had the steepest rise in GB unemployment between August and October and a 22k rise in unemployment in December.

That WRC is still used for hives has more to do with perceived perfection at the point of sale than efficiency of production and reduction of environmental waste. It's the last that ought to gain our attention because our permanent agenda is the urgent need to reduce the global impact of consumption.

Have you done the maths?
Ship transport is far less polluting than land transport. You may well find that British produced cedar has a larger environmental footprint than Canadian produced cedar.
All we can be certain of is that planting non native trees, particularly as a monoculture, is bad for native wildlife.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Have you done the maths?
Ship transport is far less polluting than land transport.

Have you?
How do you think the timber gets from The docks in the UK to the sawmill?let alone the hundreds of miles the timber has to travel from the remote forestry regions, right across the country to the Eastern ports.
So at best, yours is a non argument and the one load of road transport cancels out the other, although my betting is, there's a heck of a lot more fuel burnt shifting the timber out of the woodlands to the roadside than is burnt in total with UK forestry.
Then we have the fuel burnt by the ship, having worked with shipping most of my adult life it ain't as pollution neutral as you make out. they belch out tons of carbon dioxide, amongst a myriad of other pollutants.

 

[BeeGiner]

" UK plantation-grown cedar bears little resemblance to Western Red Cedar from the British Columbia coastal regions, and it differs in performance too. Canadian cedar is rated ‘Class 2 (durable)’ according to the EN 113 standard. By comparison, the UK grown Western Red Cedar is rated class 3 (moderately durable). " It's on the internet, so it must be true. The source is Silva Timber, who are selling Canadian cedar, of course

The Woodland Trust say " Though less useful than our native trees, it provides food and shelter for wildlife ", and I've never seen a hive made of Rowan (though I'd be prepared to give it a go). They also say " Western red cedar may be susceptible to attacks by scale insects and conifer aphids that suck the sap from the tree ", so it's not all bad news for wildlife

Interesting.
So it’s probably best to stick to discussing quality and price. I suspect that’s what claudigannon really wants to know

 

[BeeGiner]

Have you?
How do you think the timber gets from The docks in the UK to the sawmill?let alone the hundreds of miles the timber has to travel from the remote forestry regions, right across the country to the Eastern ports.
So at best, yours is a non argument and the one load of road transport cancels out the other, although my betting is, there's a heck of a lot more fuel burnt shifting the timber out of the woodlands to the roadside than is burnt in total with UK forestry.
Then we have the fuel burnt by the ship, having worked with shipping most of my adult life it ain't as pollution neutral as you make out. they belch out tons of carbon dioxide, amongst a myriad of other pollutants.

Many factors to take account of including tree size, volumes being processed etc. So, I suspect it’s too complicated.
Incidentally, having worked on ships that transport timber, the cedar will, almost certainly, be transported as bundled sawn planks not logs.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

the cedar will, almost certainly, be transported as bundled sawn planks not logs.

Then has to be sawn/worked at a 'sawmill' to produce hive parts.

 

[Firefly]

All we can be certain of is that planting non native trees, particularly as a monoculture, is bad for native wildlife.

But possibly better than sheep, or forage maize, or plastic hives (yes, I have some polynucs - very useful)

 

[ericbeaumont]

Have you done the maths?

No, but a quick search produced a doc which researched marine fuel efficiency; the intro gives an overview of the environmental impact of marine transport:

Shipping, which is a relatively energy-efficient, environment-friendly and sustainable mode of mass transport of cargo [1], is the dominant and will remain the most important transport mode for world trade [2].

However, the shipping industry consumes more fuel in comparison with other transport modes [3] and shipping-related emissions contribute significantly to the global air pollution and long-term global warming [4,5].

Correlated with fuel consumption, shipping is responsible for approximately 3.1% of annual global CO2 and approximately 2.8% of annual GHGs (greenhouse gases) on a CO2e (CO2 equivalent) basis [6].

Approximately 15% and 13% of global human-made NOx and SOx emissions come from the shipping industry. It is projected that maritime CO2 emissions will increase significantly by 50% to 250% in the period up to 2050 [6].

Moreover, as fuel cost accounts for approximately 50% to 60% of the total operational cost of a ship [7], a significant fuel consumption reduction will contribute to a considerable save of a ship’s operational cost.

Deep in the document is the fact that big ships burn 4-5 tons of fuel per mile so even on the back of an envelope, those 5,800 miles from the East coast of Canada to the UK compare poorly in environmental terms to the 240 miles from Wales to Thorne HQ in Rand, Lincolnshire.

 

[ericbeaumont]

quality and price. I suspect that’s what claudigannon really wants to know

But does Claudia consider only those two factors when making her decision? Perhaps she also checks her carbon footprint? Maybe Claudia represents a different way of thinking, one which doesn't look only at the pocket price but at the whole-life cost of buying an item.

For example, supermarkets have trained us to think like Pavlov's dogs and so we respond dutifully to the pocket price, but cheap bargain food is nothing of the sort if distant production of it ruins land and air, and if consumption of it degrades human health that increases NHS expenditure.

Beekeepers are supposed to think on the same lines - pay least, pay least! - but this unethical Pavlovian thinking is outdated. Anyway, it often leads to tears - buy cheap, buy twice! - especially from beginners, and we should encourage beekeepers to think more widely than of yore.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

No, but a quick search produced a doc which researched marine fuel efficiency; the intro gives an overview of the environmental impact of marine transport:

Shipping, which is a relatively energy-efficient, environment-friendly and sustainable mode of mass transport of cargo [1], is the dominant and will remain the most important transport mode for world trade [2].

However, the shipping industry consumes more fuel in comparison with other transport modes [3] and shipping-related emissions contribute significantly to the global air pollution and long-term global warming [4,5].

Correlated with fuel consumption, shipping is responsible for approximately 3.1% of annual global CO2 and approximately 2.8% of annual GHGs (greenhouse gases) on a CO2e (CO2 equivalent) basis [6].

Approximately 15% and 13% of global human-made NOx and SOx emissions come from the shipping industry. It is projected that maritime CO2 emissions will increase significantly by 50% to 250% in the period up to 2050 [6].

Moreover, as fuel cost accounts for approximately 50% to 60% of the total operational cost of a ship [7], a significant fuel consumption reduction will contribute to a considerable save of a ship’s operational cost.

Deep in the document is the fact that big ships burn 4-5 tons of fuel per mile so even on the back of an envelope, those 5,800 miles from the East coast of Canada to the UK compare poorly in environmental terms to the 240 miles from Wales to Thorne HQ in Rand, Lincolnshire.

Having spent quite abit of time furtleing around in Ships funnels and smoke boxes I can assure you that one thing it isn't is.....clean

 

[BeeGiner]

Ok try this: grams of Co2 per tonne per km.
Planes (assuming fully loaded 747) 435.
Lorries (assuming 40 tonnes or more per load, not likely to achieve this in the UK) 80.
Ships between 3 and 8.
Source: Carbon Emissions | World Shipping Council

 

[Boston Bees]

Ok try this: grams of Co2 per tonne per km.
Planes (assuming fully loaded 747) 435.
Lorries (assuming 40 tonnes or more per load, not likely to achieve this in the UK) 80.
Ships between 3 and 8.
Source: Carbon Emissions | World Shipping Council

Coming to this discussion fresh, but are you really arguing that it's more environmentally friendly to use cedar from North America rather than cedar from the UK?

Surely we aren't saying that only native trees should be planted in this country? I mean, I'm all for biasing our planting towards native trees (and have planted rather a lot of them) but we don't need to be completely purist about it do we?

 

[ericbeaumont]

Canada to UK by ship @ average 5g/t/km x 5800 = 29,000 g of CO2.
Wales to Lincolnshire @ 80g/t/km x 240 = 19,200 g of CO2.

Nearly forgot the obvious: WRC grows predominantly on the North-West coast of Canada, 5,500km from East coast ports.

Better add on 80g/t/km x 5,500 = 440,000g of CO2 (unless they float the logs down rivers all the way).

To get an idea of comparative transport CO2 per hive depends on the % of timber on board both means of transport. Best guess, anyone?

 

[philkhor]

Not all Red Cedar is equal. I'm afraid I've poor experience with home grown cedar.... Different climate, different growing rate, different grain, very different properties to Western Red Cedar..

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Canada to UK by ship @ average 5g/t/km x 5800 = 29,000 g of CO2.
Wales to Lincolnshire @ 80g/t/km x 240 = 19,200 g of CO2.

Nearly forgot the obvious: WRC grows predominantly on the North-West coast of Canada, 5,500km from East coast ports.

Better add on 80g/t/km x 5,500 = 440,000g of CO2 (unless they float the logs down rivers all the way).

To get an idea of comparative transport CO2 per hive depends on the % of timber on board both means of transport. Best guess, anyone?

even canadian cedar sellers admit that UK cedar has a much smaller carbon footprint
if you ship from a canadian E coast port, it's about three and a half thousand miles by road to, let's say Halifax, Nova Scotia and about the same by sea
If you ship it from Vancouver it has to be road freighted from the lumber camp to the port, probably the equivalent of transporting British cedar from Fort William to Lands end, then you have an 11,450 Nautical mile sea passage before it is then road freighted to the hive producers

 

[BeeGiner]

Coming to this discussion fresh, but are you really arguing that it's more environmentally friendly to use cedar from North America rather than cedar from the UK?

Surely we aren't saying that only native trees should be planted in this country? I mean, I'm all for biasing our planting towards native trees (and have planted rather a lot of them) but we don't need to be completely purist about it do we?

To play “devils advocate”. I would answer your three questions yes and yes, oh and yes.

 

[ericbeaumont]

To play “devils advocate”. I would answer your three questions yes and yes, oh and yes.

Well, you'll have a hard row to plough.

British cedar is described as naturalised and is among 32 tree listed by the Woodland Trust as non-native but naturalised, including the apple, the elm, and both horse and sweet chestnut.

 

[ericbeaumont]

very different properties to Western Red Cedar

Yes, the tree grows faster, the grain is coarse and at a guess the thermal efficiency is not that of WRC, but since when have the majority of beekeepers cared about thermal efficiency? If they did, pine and ply would be off the menu for sure, and we'd all be running poly hives.