There have been a lot of hot shots taken at the D.E. hive recently.
Unlike others who have commented on the D.E., I have more than a few
years experience keeping bees AND I have purchased one and ONLY one D.E.
Hive.  I have in the past corresponded with others (off list) regarding
the D.E. Hive (I like to call it deHive! and will do so, no disrespect
for the product or David Eyre).  Appended through this post will be
excerpts from those private cor-E-spondences.
 
I first read of the D.E. hive in ABJ in the August '93 issue (Vol. 133,
No. 8, pp 568).  The ABJ article tells more about deHive! than I have
found anywhere else (including the Bee Works home page).  I read the
article, I weighed the price vs the claims and decided that the only
way I would know if his design was right for my conditions was to give
it a trial.  As in all things, you pays your money, you takes your
chances.  I purchased one of David's hives in 1996 and have now, two
season's use on which to base my evaluations.  I have in NO WAY done
'scientific evaluations' of deHive!, rather it has been one of 40
colonies I run, receiving no special attention or note taking requisite
of a scientific study.
 
Initial requests for my opinions of deHive! were answered as follows:
 
    "I am not in a position to 'pick or pan' David's design as I
     have only just purchased one myself.  All I can say is it is
     nicely crafted (good lumber stock, well cut and measured, easy
     to construct).  More care is needed to insure the box is square
     but neither does it take a master carpenter.
 
     I was somewhat concerned purchasing deHive! as it strays from
     standard Langstroth equipment.  It occurred to me as I was
     constructing deHive! that I'll need different equipment than
     what I have stocked: I usually use division board feeders for
     which I'll have to substitute inverted jars or baggie feeders
     (not a big deal), David's hive comes with a plastic queen excluder
     (I prefer wire bound metal excluders), and come harvest time,
     deHive! uses Porter bee escapes (a piece of equipment I personally
     do not like, preferring a triangular escape board).
 
     But, if the claims for happier, healthier bees and better harvests
     prove true, I will be able to live with the differences I stated
     above.  I cannot speak to these later claims, as my hive is
     constructed and colorfully painted (the design has panels that to
     my artistic eye demanded a two color paint scheme - I buy my paints
     at the "color reject" section at the hardware store, quality paint
     at rock bottom prices) and I have yet to install the bees (my
     packages are due next week).
 
     Now, your questions leave me to believe that you are considering
     the conversion kit rather than deHive! itself.  This will overcome
     the concerns about nonstandard equipment I raise above, but as I
     imagine it (and I HAVE NOT examined a conversion kit) you miss one
     of the advantages to David's hive which is the frame lugs which
     prevent the bees from propolizing together the spacer lugs (bee
     squashers) of Langstroth frames.  David's design includes plastic
     spacers that keep the frames apart and the bees out of harm's way
     and away from the lugs themselves.  Again, I have yet to test this
     design under field conditions so I am not sure if they work as
     well as I imagine they might.
 
     As far as just slapping a ventilation box on top of a Langstroth
     hive, I imagine that could aid in ventilation but don't feel I am
     able to evaluate at this time if that would work as well as
     David's design."
 
Two years later I have comments.  Regarding the frame spacers, I have
since learned that the plastic spacers are not an idea from Bee Works,
rather it is a design borrowed from English hives.  I readily admit my
lack of exposure to hive designs other than the Langstroth hive and I
cannot today quote the differences in English hives (the WBC? and others
- hey, I'm an ignorant yank!), but when I showed deHive! to a more
knowledgeable beekeeper he quickly commented, "Oh, it's like the
English hives."  I was somewhat embarrassed by my ignorance but glad for
a new lesson.  Regardless of whose innovation the frame spacers are,
they DO work, they space the frames and are not accessible to the bees
and remain propolis free, not glued together and easily workable after
two years.  The only way bees can connect deFrames together is via
brace comb.  There are no bee accessible frame to frame contacts for the
bees to glue together, a definite advantage.
 
More regarding deviation from standards, written to someone just
starting out in beekeeping, again written almost 2 years ago:
 
    "Since you are  new to the craft you have going for you the fact
     that you have not already invested in a lot of standard equipment,
     so purchasing David's equipment would not be a great deviation
     from the standard.  The other side of that coin is that purchasing
     David's equipment IS a deviation from the standard.  I had the
     opportunity to hear Dr. Roger Morse (recently retired from Cornell
     University, author and seasoned beekeeper) speak last fall, the
     title of his presentation being "Making Money Keeping Bees".  The
     jist of his speech was, "Standardize your operation".  I purchased
     deHive! against Roger's recommendation and perhaps against my
     better judgment, but then again, I like to think of myself as an
     investigator rather than a follower and as I said earlier, the
     only way I could know if deHive! was right for my conditions was
     to give it a trial...."
 
Deviation from standards is the only "complaint" I have with deHive!
That it deviates from "standard" hives is David's design strength, but
is arguably his biggest hurtle to overcome.  Some may argue that close-
mindedness is the biggest hurtle, but I'll leave that for others to
discuss.  I was fifteen years and $ignificantly invested in my pursuit
of beekeeping before I purchased deHive!  The first year yielded one
D.E. super of honey, and would definitely have yielded another super
had I had it ready.  I ordered more supers midseason (a newbie move not
worthy of my years) but did not have them ready in time.  At the time I
had Langstroth supers ready and available, but my standard equipment was
not usable with the non-standard D.E. hive.  My loss of honey was not a
problem with David's design per se, but the deviation from standards was
problematic.  This season I had three supers ready, but I could have
used more.  I had to extract and give back empties at a time when I
would have preferred to simply add another super.  Again I had spare
Langstroth supers which were not usable with D.E. equipment.  David has
posted before that his preference is to extract and give back empties to
reduce equipment expenditures.  I'd rather have extra equipment because
I have so little spare time.  For the record, last year was a record
setting season (best year in 40 according to the old timers) and this
season was also much above average in these parts.
 
Additional deviation problems were encountered in the extraction room.
I purchased this season from Maxant a 10/20 extractor and a 20 frame
uncapping tank.  deFrames are shorter than standard Langstroth frames,
fall into my uncapping tank and just barely make it to the top support
in my extractor.  Additionally, there is one slot in my extractor that
has a bottom support that is in the way of the end of a D.E. frame.  If
I use that slot the frame is unstable when the extractor comes up to
speed and when that unstable frame shifted in the extractor I blew out
the unstable frame as well as the two adjacent frames.  I cannot use
this slot in my extractor, nor can I use the slot opposite to it for
balance reasons.  My 20 frame extractor can only extract 18 deFrames
at a time.
 
However, it is only these deviant stones I will throw at the D.E. Hive.
Regarding the claims of more honey and happier and healthier bees, I am
not comfortable issuing an endorsement for these claims, but neither do
I have reasons to shoot them down.  I have not found David's claims to
be false.  I fall short of an endorsement because I simply do not have a
large enough D.E. Hive population to make "scientifically valid"
conclusions.  My ONE D.E. Hive has done well two years in a row.  I
cannot say it has consistently out produced its Langstroth counterparts
because I have not had the equipment to allow deBees to produce all out
in a manner similar to the neighboring Langstroth hives.  Furthermore,
due to the limitation in the number of deHives! I own, I cannot say with
assuredness that any variation I may see in performance is attributable
to hive design and not to a difference in the bees that inhabit the
non-standard hive.  I am not yet comfortable that, as David likes to say,
I am comparing apples to apples.  To endorse deHive! I would need more
of them and more seasons for evaluation.  However, my one D.E. Hive has
consistently been a nice home for the bees residing therein.  During the
winter, deBees took cleansing flights on days when my Langstroth bees
stayed home (only based on a few observations).  Hive design or bee
variation?  Spring population was lower in my D.E. hive than nearby
Langstroth hives, but by late spring deBees had recovered to similar
numbers.  Hive design or bee variation?  My D.E. Hive has yet to out
produce its neighbors, but I suspect it could/would if I had a stockpile
of supers to use.  Hive design or beekeeper variation?  Another thing I
wonder about in this regard is the color scheme of my D.E. Hive.  I'm
sure the pastel blue with green panels hive sticks out more that the
neighboring standard white Langstroth hives and has a definite
minimizing effect on drifting.  My all time top producing Langstroth
hive is one which I have painted to resemble a Jersey cow!  Could it all
be in the paint job?  Beats me, needs more study.
 
However, I would not be too hasty to dismiss deHive!  I have found no
reason to dismiss the claims and would like to evaluate more D.E. Hives.
However the standardization bug bites again when it comes to expanding
an operation.  I found a great deal this spring on some used equipment
and for the price of a single D.E. Hive and a lot of elbow grease I was
able to purchase boxes and frames to start 20 hives.  This is not a
comment on the price of D.E. Hives, it's an observation on "standard"
equipment.  If I had an apples to apples opportunity to buy used D.E.
equipment vs used Langstroth equipment I would have opted for D.E.
However, standards are standards.  I think David is on to something,
but he's bucking over a hundred years of standards.  I chose to try
his equipment because there was a nagging thought in the back of my
mind that asked, "If history bears out the claims will I regret
following rather than investigating?".  Given what I have seen I have
less reason to doubt the claims but more incentive to stick with
standards.  I'm trying to build my hobby into a business and it's more
cost effective to stick with standards than to invest in what may be an
innovative new design.  However if my aspirations were to buy a small
hobby where I could deal with the lack of standardization and I could
make a choice between apples and apples I would be thankful for the
advice to try deApples!
 
Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee!
 
PS: My reference to deHive! vs the D.E. Hive in no way offers disrespect
either to David Eyre or his product.  It actually is a rip off from a
Saturday Night Live skit - the one where references to the Chicago Bears
were simply, deBears!  What a difference a season makes!