Alan Riach wrote:
> the point is well made that young bees "want" to produce wax so
>allowing some wax production is probably a good thing.

        I have long felt this is an issue of not only 'mass flow' but also
aesthetics for the bees.  The top-bar hive allows them to build freehand
combs, which are among the more impressive creations of the animal kingdom,
whereas the rectangular frame with foundation supplied leaves them less
scope for their marvellous architecture, and once made is subject only to
capping and repairs between centrifugings as an application for their wax
secretion.
        The answers so far to my question about alleged wax/honey ratios
have been less than convincing.  Energy densities of the two materials are
not a sufficient basis to justify any number, because other variables may
affect the actual ratio.  The one expt outlined is so artificial that it
hardly bears on the real-life options of a colony.  I remain unsuccessful
in imagining a scientific basis for these alleged ratios.
        Therefore I wonder whether, in some situations at least, the
top-bar hive isn't under-rated.  It may well fail to produce as much honey
for export  -  all else being equal  -  tho' this remains (so far as we
have yet seen) unproven; but in view of the unrivalled merits of beeswax
for several purposes this difference is not all loss (or production
forgone); and may not the top-bar hive have as-yet undetected merit for bee
health?
        I mean no disrespect for beekeepers who use the production system
based on centrifuging and re-installing 'wets'.  But, at least for hobby
bkprs not oriented to maximising honey production, the top-bar hive would
seem to offer advantages, no?

R