Warré hives

[psafloyd]

Does anyone know if someone makes frames for a Warré hive?

I know they can be made – I have some that Dishmop gave me –-and I had planned to chop down some National top bars to make them up, but for many reasons have run out of time.

 

[Bee Bumble]

Yes, Thomas sell them but I think the boxes are slightly bigger to accommodate the frames. It would be best to check the box and frame sizes carefully to see if they would fit the hives you have Are yours Thornes? if so, perhaps you could order the frames through them.

http://www.thomas-apiculture.com/produits/cadre-et-accessoires/ruche-warre-cadre-warre-monte-file/

 

[pargyle]

Does anyone know if someone makes frames for a Warré hive?

I know they can be made – I have some that Dishmop gave me –-and I had planned to chop down some National top bars to make them up, but for many reasons have run out of time.

If it's a Warre hive with frames ... would you not be better off with national boxes ? Or am I missing something ? Cheaper boxes and cheaper frames .. you could still run it the same as Warre and with the quilt/roof on top and adding boxes at the bottom .....

 

[Madge]

If it's a Warre hive with frames ... would you not be better off with national boxes ? Or am I missing something ? Cheaper boxes and cheaper frames .. you could still run it the same as Warre and with the quilt/roof on top and adding boxes at the bottom .....

It is the Warré box size that is important, not nadiring.

 

[pargyle]

It is the Warré box size that is important, not nadiring.

No adding boxes at the bottom of the stack so that they gradually work their way up to the top as they are used for brood and then filled with honey is a critical component of the warre system - And having top bars, not frames, so the bees build their own comb .... but the Abbe was as much concened with the available timber that he could economically as what he wanted to create was a hive that anyone could build.. I suspect that 'available timber' was redundant wine bottle crates .. so the 300 x 300 x 210 internal measurement is largely irrelevant today... there is no reason why you cannot run a set of national boxes which, as you probably know, are 440 x 440 x 225 in the same way. The warre 'system' was developed before modern highly prolific bees ... the boxes are only 30 litres so a little undersized for a modern hive .. indeed, if the Abbe were around today I reckon he would be using 14 x 12's.

 

[Madge]

... so the 300 x 300 x 210 internal measurement is largely irrelevant today... there is no reason why you cannot run a set of national boxes which, as you probably know, are 440 x 440 x 225 in the same way.

Of course you can run any box in any way you want. That is exactly what I said.

The nadiring dogma associated with Warré hives is irrelevant. What matters is the size of the box which is broodnest-friendly. That was the reason for the choice of box size whether you think it is relevant today or not.

(Btw, is there any evidence to support this often-repeated claim that modern bees have evolved to need larger brood nest areas?)

 

[user 6228]

Have modern bees a preference for wide and low as opposed to tall and thin ? And do they prefer to manage the air flow or have a gap all around their combs?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

did they have any choice in the past? I'm sure my ancestors never chose to have rickets

 

[user 6228]

in amongst all the hilarity that is natural beekeeping there are a few serious points that need examining closely.

 

[Little John]

[...] the Abbe was as much concened with the available timber that he could economically as what he wanted to create was a hive that anyone could build..

Indeed. If a person reads both the 5th and 12th Editions of his book without rose-tinted spectacles, then it can be seen that the Abbot's operation was based on maximising profit (exactly the same story with Buckfast Abbey, who made £8 million profit last year).

The first priority for any author is to produce saleable books - for if they don't sell, then you've failed at being an author.
Now bearing in mind that when Warre conducted his initial comparative trials, he very curiously chose to compare only large volume 'chest' hives such as the Layens and Dadant - he omitted to trial stackable systems such as the increasingly popular Langstroth, or the WBC/British National from just across the water from his base at that time in the Somme.

So - Warre's framed hive (championed in the 5th Edition) would then have been pitched against two or three existing systems - one of which (the Langstroth), was being successfully marketed world-wide. My guess is that he wouldn't have sold too many of the 5th Edition.

Could it be that he switched to the fixed-comb seen in the 12th Edition in order to address a different market ? The easy-to-build DIY, minimum-expenditure, hobbyist market ?

I think a clue is given in the following quote from the 12th Ed., in which it is clear that the guy was very much a salesman attempting to address two very different markets:

We thus have two hives: the People's Hive with fixed comb, a perfect hive, but not convenient on a commercial scale because it does not allow the extractor to be used, and the People's Hive with frames, very superior to modern hives, inferior however to the People's Hive with fixed combs, but convenient for commercial use.

What may be relevant to beekeeper's in the UK today is that 8 National DN4 frames occupy the same cross-sectional area (1110 sq cm.) as 9 Warre frames (1122 sq cm.) - hence the hive volume will be the same, and the amount of brood comb available will also be identical, to within three-quarters of one per cent. The only difference lies in the box shape, with the Warre being square, and the 'National-Warre' being oblong.

I'm currently in the process of converting a couple of Russian 'Alpine' Hives (Warre variants) to accomodate DN4 frames, and I'm only surprised that this hasn't been done before now - or if it has, why someone has kept quiet about it.

So - for anyone wanting to test the Warre system - simply dummy-down a National brood box to take 8 frames - you've then got yourself a Warre box - and without incurrng any additional expense.
LJ

 

[Gilberdyke John]

in amongst all the hilarity that is natural beekeeping there are a few serious points that need examining closely.

Taking cover!

 

[Madge]

... The only difference lies in the box shape, with the Warre being square, and the 'National-Warre' being oblong. ...
LJ

My understanding of a Warré hive is that the shape, being square, mattered, and is very important - not just the cost of the hive.

That is one reason why I prefer Nationals over Langstroth - the shape is closer to being square than that of a Langstroth (but not as good as a Warré).

BTW, I like the idea of your National-Warrés.
Kitta

 

[Little John]

My understanding of a Warré hive is that the shape, being square, mattered, and is very important - not just the cost of the hive.

Hi Kitta - sure, Warre did make the point that his hives were square and can thus be easily run 'warm' or 'cold' way.

As I see it, the only difference that would make is to the combs close to the entrance. I intend running the framed variants I'm making over a deep slatted floor, so all the combs are lifted up away from the entrance - so the concept of warm or cold-way no longer has any relevance.

Warre made lots of claims in his book - one was that his hive design obeyed 'The Laws of Nature' - yet he coated the hessian covering under the quilt in rye flour to stop the bees from tearing it up.
Clearly the bees would rather that quilt didn't exist, as they will try to destroy it if they are able, or if not, they'll lay down propolis in order to seal it. Warre claims that bees will de-propolise it (my words) in order to control the air flow ... but I ain't never seen a bee remove such propolis yet. Around an entrance, yes - but not when they've sealed the upper surfaces/ joints/ cracks etc of a box hive.
LJ

 

[Madge]

Hi Kitta - sure, Warre did make the point that his hives were square and can thus be easily run 'warm' or 'cold' way. ...
LJ

The warm or cold-way argument has not occurred to me, LJ.

I was thinking about that the shape of the brood nest - being round, when seen from above - fits nicely into a square box - so, the temperature can be more easily maintained. I thought that was the advantage of the shape of a Warré box.

Kitta

 

[user 6228]

Warres did well against the conventional hives in terms of heat loss
conductance 1.6 to 1.3 vs 2.6W/K for a national

Mitchell, D. (2016). Ratios of colony mass to thermal conductance of tree and man-made nest enclosures of Apis mellifera: implications for survival, clustering, humidity regulation and Varroa destructor. International Journal of Biometeorology, 60(5), 629–638. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-015-1057-z

 

[Little John]

Here again we see the idealistic theoretical tree cavity being used as a barometer with which to propose an accurate measure of heat loss - which is delusional. Real-world tree cavities are nothing like the diagram in Seeley's paper, which was only intended as a diagrammatic representation of typical tree cavity layout, and which is so often used as some kind of blueprint for hive design.

But in general terms I'd be the first to agree that the narrow chimney format is favoured by the honeybee. During his Bait Hive Selection Trials, Seeley's test swarm didn't select any of the bait hives on offer, but chose to set up home in the chimney of the only cottage on the otherwise deserted island which was being used for the experiment. That event was omitted in his 'scientific' report (my views on the dubious truth presented by scientific papers are well-known), but instead revealed in his later book 'Honeybee Democracy'. But - like so many chimneys chosen as homes by honeybee colonies, it was fully open at the top - thus providing zero insulation.

The internal dimensions of the hives I'm building are 370mm x 300mm, compared with Warre's 300mm x 300mm of the fixed-comb hive and 325mm x 325mm of his framed hive - so we're staying very much in 'the same ball-park', as an American might say. But, in contrast to Warre's hives, my boxes are made from much thicker (35-38mm) timber. But this is not primarily for reasons of improved insulation, but rather for weight to give stability, and for reasons of economy, as scaffold boards present as being one of the cheapest sources of substantial timber currently available in Britain.

Overall, the project has been motivated by a desire to re-cycle existing (and unused - due to their incompatibility with other hives) Warre-style boxes, to produce a useable beehive with Warre-style characteristics, and not by any drive towards producing the 'perfect'(undefined) beehive, as I subscribe to a 'good enough' philosophy of life, rather than pursue any quasi-religious search for perfection.
LJ

 

[Madge]

...

Overall, the project has been motivated by a desire to re-cycle existing (and unused - due to their incompatibility with other hives) Warre-style boxes, to produce a useable beehive with Warre-style characteristics, and not by any drive towards producing the 'perfect'(undefined) beehive, as I subscribe to a 'good enough' philosophy of life, rather than pursue any quasi-religious search for perfection.
LJ

Understood, LJ. That's why I like your National-Warrés.
Kitta

 

[user 6228]

Here again we see the idealistic theoretical tree cavity being used as a barometer with which to propose an accurate measure of heat loss - which is delusional. Real-world tree cavities are nothing like the diagram in Seeley's paper, which was only intended as a diagrammatic representation of typical tree cavity layout, and which is so often used as some kind of blueprint for hive design.

But in general terms I'd be the first to agree that the narrow chimney format is favoured by the honeybee. During his Bait Hive Selection Trials, Seeley's test swarm didn't select any of the bait hives on offer, but chose to set up home in the chimney of the only cottage on the otherwise deserted island which was being used for the experiment. That event was omitted in his 'scientific' report (my views on the dubious truth presented by scientific papers are well-known), but instead revealed in his later book 'Honeybee Democracy'. But - like so many chimneys chosen as homes by honeybee colonies, it was fully open at the top - thus providing zero insulation.

The internal dimensions of the hives I'm building are 370mm x 300mm, compared with Warre's 300mm x 300mm of the fixed-comb hive and 325mm x 325mm of his framed hive - so we're staying very much in 'the same ball-park', as an American might say. But, in contrast to Warre's hives, my boxes are made from much thicker (35-38mm) timber. But this is not primarily for reasons of improved insulation, but rather for weight to give stability, and for reasons of economy, as scaffold boards present as being one of the cheapest sources of substantial timber currently available in Britain.

Overall, the project has been motivated by a desire to re-cycle existing (and unused - due to their incompatibility with other hives) Warre-style boxes, to produce a useable beehive with Warre-style characteristics, and not by any drive towards producing the 'perfect'(undefined) beehive, as I subscribe to a 'good enough' philosophy of life, rather than pursue any quasi-religious search for perfection.
LJ

Just who exactly are you accusing of being delusional? ... Seeley's paper gave a good statistical analysis of the dimensions of tree cavities he encountered and the spread of tree species. It is then possible to calculate and and determine experimentally an average tree properties and the statistical distribution of those properties. An before you say "averages dont exist" a tree nest that I inspected in Norfolk was almost identical to the Seeley average nest .

Seeley's diagram is just an illustration , but some of us also read the words and dont just look at the pictures.


btw one hypothesis (unproven) for the A.m chimney fixation might be they prefer thick walled nests

 

[user 6228]

My understanding of a Warré hive is that the shape, being square, mattered, and is very important - not just the cost of the hive.

That is one reason why I prefer Nationals over Langstroth - the shape is closer to being square than that of a Langstroth (but not as good as a Warré).

BTW, I like the idea of your National-Warrés.
Kitta

nothing special about it being square its just the physics of heat transfer.
The heat loss is reduced if the heated wall surface area is reduced for the same wall thickness . However as the warms and increases it needs additional volume but then can afford and may need additional heat loss. One solution is a tall thin insulated nest cavity where the colony expands or contracts to suit the heat budget. so when a colony contract from 40L down to say 8 litres in winter it moves up into a space that is tight fit for a ball of that volume.
in heat transfer shape it self matters and affect the so called "shape factors"
for a cylindrical tube the shape factor is 2*pi*L/ln(R/r) where as for a square tube its 2*pi*L/(0.785*ln(W/w) ) where R & W are the outer dimensions and r & w are the inner dimensions. L is the heated length.

Rohsenow, W. M., Hartnett, J. P., & Cho, Y. I. (1998). Handbook of heat transfer. http://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(75)90148-9
Incropra, DeWitt, Bergman & Lavine (2006) Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer.Wiley

 

[Madge]

nothing special about it being square its just the physics of heat transfer.
... One solution is a tall thin insulated nest cavity where the colony expands or contracts to suit the heat budget.

A square, as opposed to a rectangle, is surely closer to a tall, thin cavity?