Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:21:05 +0100 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In article <[log in to unmask]>, Roger Flanders
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Can someone explain to me what the advantages are of the tin-roofed,
>telescoping hive cover over the simpler (and far cheaper) "travel" cover?
>I can see that the sides of the travel cover, with its simple front and
>back overhanging cleats, sits flush with the sides of the hive
>bodies/supers hive body sides, making it easier to tie down securely and
>allowing transport of more side-by-side hives in the same space. Why not
>just use them all the time? Isn't an inner cover used with either style?
>Is there some disadvantage to the simpler style I'm not seeing?
<snip>
I have never used the travel cover that you describe (the "telescopic"
cover is a standard item on hives in the UK) but, I would guess that the
advantages are :-
better ventilation
better stability in strong winds
better water-proofing
I am sure that there must be other advantages (especially in the British
climate) but I can't think of any at the moment. Of course, the
disadvantage is that they are far more expensive than a simple wooden
travelling roof.
--
Paul Walton
Bedfordshire, England
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|