Which shallow frames for a national?

[Into the lions den]

I use sn1 I use narrow pacers for new foundation in the supers. The second year I put the same frames back but use wide spacers, this time the bees draw more of the wax out to the new beespace so I get less frames in each super but more honey for less cappings. Actually I use wide spacers at all times but I overlap them with new foundation which turns them into narrow spacers! Does all this make sense? If not I can send photo's

Yes it makes perfect sense. Was actually an old system for the more 'economically minded' beekeeper, who abounded in parts of Scotland in the past. You do not even need to overlap them. A wide spacer on every other frame has the same effect.

 

[susbees]

Yes it makes perfect sense. Was actually an old system for the more 'economically minded' beekeeper, who abounded in parts of Scotland in the past. You do not even need to overlap them. A wide spacer on every other frame has the same effect.

even for Scottish born beekeepers now happily living in Wales and with an English accent

 

[mbc]

Unless you uncap with a fork I see uncapping being awkward with the thin comb 11 frames to a box involves

 

[Beanwood]

all for your wisdom. I do find the spacers fiddly, and don't like the castellations. However I do like the logic of the same spacing from brood to super. As have Hoffmans in my 14x12 brood box, I suppose it would be SN4 that I should standardise on. Order going in to a certain well known sale next week I think.

 

[itma]

... I do like the logic of the same spacing from brood to super. As have Hoffmans in my 14x12 brood box, I suppose it would be SN4 that I should standardise on. ...

Ummm.

Actually SN5s rather than 4's. So using the same top bar as in your 14x12 brood and thus the same bar/bar-beespace (yes beespace - the comb centre-to-centre spacing being set by the hoffmans).

However, you'll note that ITLD's rationale was to absolutely maximise the long-term total honey yield. All other considerations are subordinated to that.
Is that your aim? Do the same considerations apply?

By having 10% (11 rather than 10) more frames (and foundation) to buy, make up and get drawn, you are also giving yourself 10% more uncapping and extractor loads to deal with.
You will also have at least 10% more cappings to separate from residual honey - something I expect ITLD is better tooled-up for than you!
And apart from having more cappings, because of the thinner combs, a much greater proportion of your honey will be with the cappings rather than in the frames going into the extractor - one reason why some prefer the opposite route - 9 fat combs in a super rather than 10, let alone 11 ... They are concerned to get the maximum honey crop from the extracted combs - rather than including all the cappings honey in their 'yield' calculation.
How do you extract *all* the honey from your cappings, and do you think ITLD does the same on his scale of operations?
For the hobby beekeeper even the fact that frames and foundation are generally sold in 10's rather than 11's can have a bearing - the small user needs to buy 20 to get 11 ... and 30 to get 22 ...

As always, information from other beekeepers needs to be considered carefully to see whether or not their situation is the same as yours.
What works best on a commercial scale may not be automatically the ideal method for the hobby beekeeper!



// And regarding "the logic of the same spacing", while using the same number of frames and careful alignment cound give a better simulation of the long combs that bees can draw in the wild, the bees own logic is to make the comb/comb beespace narrower in stores comb than in brood comb - one beespace in stores, two in the brood nest ...

 

[enrico]

Oh well said itma
E

 

[george]

Itma , why would you go to the cost and trouble of sn5s ? 4s are the same central spacing as 5s but the 5s have a wider top bar . sn4s over either dn4 or 5s shouldnt make any difference should it ? Or have I missed something earlier in the thread .
G

 

[itma]

Itma , why would you go to the cost and trouble of sn5s ? 4s are the same central spacing as 5s but the 5s have a wider top bar . sn4s over either dn4 or 5s shouldnt make any difference should it ? Or have I missed something earlier in the thread .
G

5's are better everywhere!
On hoffmans the bar/bar beespace (with Type 5 topbars) is an appropriate 8mm, not the strange 12mm of the type 4. This makes for less brace comb, and in the super maybe better uncapping. And of course this also means that DN5's give an easlier to inspect Nat brood than DN4's.
Its also the same top bar used on his 14x12 brood frames - which means Beanwood would have fewer different parts to store and keep unmuddled. And thus while buying 50's in the sales, the addition of a few 14x12 sidebars gives him a few spare brood frames. Standardisation!
So *less* not more "trouble".

And the extra cost is just 16p/frame in T's sale ...

 

[Into the lions den]

However, you'll note that ITLD's rationale was to absolutely maximise the long-term total honey yield. All other considerations are subordinated to that.

Oh its not the sole consideration. Robustness is another. The thin frames are flimsy things, and in this country we have some of the poorest frame designs (for strength) I have seen anywhere.

Fat combs very often also have plates of wild comb attached between them and do tend to be messier to work with.

If..........and only if............the queen finds her way into the supers (happens sometimes) wide spacing leads to a total pigs ear of a mess, and even Manleys are miles from ideal.

The different spacing you mention in honey supers and brood areas is not really the case. The spacing is centre to centre, not the gap between the surfaces of the combs, and they just draw the cells deeper and reduce the separation between the faces of the combs when the do not require the extra working room for the brood area.

In OUR operation we also removed all the excluderds at late June or early July and just give the queen a free run, and bad spacing causes difficulties then. But as you point out, thats our way and may well beof limited or zero relevance to others.

Not all commercials work like us either...........in Canada etc it is common, once combs are drawn, to reduce them down to 9 or 8 in a 10 frame box to get fatter combs for easier extracting. The capping issue is not really relevant, as we take less of a capping off in total than anyone hand knifing wider combs, and this them goes through a squeezing device to remove the honey. We do not actually generate a lot of cappings, certainly far fewer than a friend of ours who knife uncaps. We use a Dakota (flails) and finish off low bits, if any, witha quite whix with an uncapping fork. Do not look down on uncapping forks. They are amazingly fast to use if the honey is liquid, and actually faster than loading and unloading the uncapper. We can scratch a deep in about 7 seconds.

 

[george]

Itma , I agree to a certain point . I use 5s on brood frames and sn1s in the supers . But 16p a frame extra when i have 100 supers to fill is too much . But on a small scale I like the idea of having a single type of top bar . As you say it saves confusion mixing things up .
G

 

[itma]

...
Touched on by other posters is the main reason, though maybe approached from a different angle. Spacing.

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.
...

...
The different spacing you mention in honey supers and brood areas is not really the case. The spacing is centre to centre, not the gap between the surfaces of the combs, and they just draw the cells deeper and reduce the separation between the faces of the combs when the do not require the extra working room for the brood area.

Sorry, I could have been clearer.
My point was merely that with frames on the same spacing, the bees will leave a different beespace/airway in the supers compared to brood - as you put it they will draw deeper combs in the supers.

Regarding 'ripening' speed, have you investigated top vents/entrances to permit some air through-flow by convection (only during the ripening periods)?

The capping issue is not really relevant, as we take less of a capping off in total than anyone hand knifing wider combs, and this them goes through a squeezing device to remove the honey. We do not actually generate a lot of cappings, certainly far fewer than a friend of ours who knife uncaps. We use a Dakota (flails) ...

Murray, my point there was that while I was quite certain that *your* loss of honey in cappings would be minimal, while Beanwood, with "three and a bit" hives is surely likely to be much less efficient at minimising (and recovering) wastage. Hence he should not automatically think that using 11 frames per super is going to maximise *his* honey yield through to the jar.
However many (or few) mm he cuts away during uncapping, that is going to be a greater (prospective) loss with thinner frames (more per box). Fewer, fatter combs should get *him* more honey from the extractor.
I think the "capping issue" is very relevant to Beanwood - I certainly wasn't suggesting that it was an issue for you.
I just hope Beanwood realises that what works best for the man with 2000 hives isn't automatically going to be the best choice for his own 3 hives!

 

[Into the lions den]

I just hope Beanwood realises that what works best for the man with 2000 hives isn't automatically going to be the best choice for his own 3 hives!

Not for a minute would I be suggesting going down the line of uncapping machines and all sorts, in fact on that scale I would be happy with the simple uncapping fork and just scratch them. The idea of the spacing of the frames is not, at least as far as I can see, in any way relevant to the scale of operation. Just give the bees what they do best in........same story from 1 hive to 100,000.

Always of course, as I said elsewhere, bearing in mind that it is usually simplest to continue with what you have and how you work so long as its a success, as mixing formats makes difficulties you need not create.

 

[Beanwood]

OK, so I thought it was going to be an easy question.

One quesion might be: Do you use a queen excluder at all times (in the summer season)?

Another might be :how much honey do you wish to collect per super?

Yet another, which is unlikely: cut comb or for extraction?

RAB, apologies, but I can't work out the relevance of the questions? Are these things that should affect my final choice?

5's are better everywhere!
On hoffmans the bar/bar beespace (with Type 5 topbars) is an appropriate 8mm, not the strange 12mm of the type 4. This makes for less brace comb, and in the super maybe better uncapping. And of course this also means that DN5's give an easlier to inspect Nat brood than DN4's.
Its also the same top bar used on his 14x12 brood frames - which means Beanwood would have fewer different parts to store and keep unmuddled. And thus while buying 50's in the sales, the addition of a few 14x12 sidebars gives him a few spare brood frames. Standardisation!
So *less* not more "trouble".

And the extra cost is just 16p/frame in T's sale ...

Spot on ITMA - my mistake - too tired last night to check if it should be SN4 or SN5 - but thought the vertical part of the frame (The actual spacer - which is the same) meant it wouldn't really matter. I'm keen to reduce brace comb - even though as you mentioned, they won't be removed that often. I also particularly like your tip about starting the comb in the brood box.

I just hope Beanwood realises that what works best for the man with 2000 hives isn't automatically going to be the best choice for his own 3 hives!

Absolutely understood - but even ITLD started somewhere. I look here for various advice - some of which I take, some of which I choose to respect but make my own decision, and of course the occasional one I just choose to ignore.

Always of course, as I said elsewhere, bearing in mind that it is usually simplest to continue with what you have and how you work so long as its a success, as mixing formats makes difficulties you need not create.

Thanks ITLD, well reasoned arguments - and your time and effort responding to someone that only has three and a half hives is very much appreciated.

Thanks all.