On 31 Oct 97 at 15:31, Joel Govostes wrote:
 
> Dissin' the  D.E.:
Trashing the D.E might be a better title!
I'm sure the list will give me a little time to refute the false
statements and bear with me while I defend my good reputation and
business.
        My first question is very simple. What qualifications does Joel have
that allows him...Uninvited...to trash my work, and criticise a
system that he obviously knows little about? On checking our records
we find he hasn't bought a hive or a catalog, so all his information
is only hearsay. Hardly a good base from which to make observations.
 
> The "D.E" hive design is not particularly novel, by any appearances.
>  This is essentially the same as the "Modified National" hive, which
> is the one most commonly used by hobbiests in Britain.
 
We never claimed a 'novel design' and freely admit that we have
adopted some ideas from the National hive, as it's an excellent
system, but a trifle on the small size for North America.
>
> It follows the same principles as the hives usually used here
> (Langstroth)....... (a little less volume)
 
That's a very obvious statement? Like comparing a Model T to a
Ferrari, one is 150 years old the other a lot younger!
As to volume, in certain circumstances the D.E has more brood space.
The D.E always has 11 frames, the Lang has 10 but very often 9 to
make it easier for the keeper. The outer frame is always honey, the
outer surface of the next frame is honey and pollen, that removes 3
from each. So, we have 8 in the D.E. and 6 in the Lang available for
brood. Grade school maths tells us that's 76.8 square inches more
area per D.E. box.(We measured them carefully) We run our D.E.s on
two and sometimes 3 boxes, so that's 153.6 or 230.4 square inches
more brood area. A very brief explaination why we make more honey. A
basic equation says 'more bees=more honey'.
 
> as everything fits together and comes apart with a minimum of
> effort.  This might not be the case after a few years of weathering.
>  (Even Nationals with British Standard frames can cause problems -
> the spacers are not ideal, bees can get mashed, the long frame lugs
> break off, etc.)
 
We designed the D.E in ' 88 and put them into use in '89, in all that
time we have never suffered broken frame lugs. I fail to understand
the quote 'the spacers are not ideal' they do the job they were
designed for. What do you need, a song and dance act when you open
the hive?
>
> It is always safer to go with standard equipment, which in North
> America means Lanstroth hives.  The investment is quite a bit less,
> and the resale value is high, whereas with oddball equipment you can
> pay much more at the outset, and there is not apt to be a market for
> the same, used equipment later.
 
Why safer? The investment is in fact equal or even less. You don't
have a current price list to compare apples to apples.
>
> Also, when it comes to buying, selling, or trading stocks, the combs
> and boxes will always be Langstroth, so you will be in much better
> shape if everything  is uniform.
 
We do breed bees, sell queens and nucs, our customers can request the
frame type on ordering. Plus we have designed a system to transfer
bees from Langstroth boxes into D.E.s without wasteage.
 
> I am not saying the DE hive is no good as a home for bees, but
> perhaps it would make better sense if it was marketed in the UK and
> not North America. It is not going to take over as the "standard
> hive" over here, it has no particularly wonderful advantages over
> the standard one, and if you want to minimize your investment and
> headaches, stick to the standard hive.
 
Again, you have no basis for comparison, so your statements are
irrelevant. As to taking over the 'standard hive', I have no wish to,
just to provide a good product for the more enlightened amongst us.
 
> the maximum honey crop).  Claims that some gadget will increase
> honey production should be held suspect.  If you don't mind spending
> the money you can give them a try, but any apparent increase (or
> decrease) in honey production one could attribute to any of a number
> of factors, not the least of which would be genetics and management
> of the colony.
 
I would point out, the D.E system is not new, it has been around for
almost 10 years. In that time a number of independant studies have
been done, without influence from me. All have quoted increased crops
among other advantages.
 
> About the only useful aspect of the DE that the standard hive
> doesn't have is the plinths across the box, which act as hand-holds.
>  They provide a much firmer grip than the handhold "cutouts" in the
> Langstroth boxes. However, the standard boxes can be easily improved
> just by nailing a strip of wood 3/4" thick x 2" wide across the
> front and back of each box.  This is commonly what commercial
> beekeepers do, and it facilitates lifting and moving a great deal.
 
Hardly worthy of comment!
 
> There is no mad rush on the part of beekeepers to get the "special"
> ventilation-boxes on their hives - I don't see how this gadget can
> be hailed as such a great innovation.  There is even one on the
> market now that uses a SOLAR PANEL on the roof to open and close the
> vents.  (O-kay... is the jury in on that one?) Years ago there was a
> common practice of drilling a 1" hole in the front of every box, but
> this really isn't necessary or worth the trouble.
 
Careful Joel. The Solar Panel people claim a University study has
proved their claim. That's dangerous ground to trespass on! Being on
the internet does not confer special rights nor imunity from legal
action.
 
> The bees are quite capable of providing whatever air flow they need
> through the hive.  To assist in this, many beekeepers (yours truly
> included) "stagger" the supers during the height of the honey
> season.   Or, simply jacking up the outer cover with sticks laid on
> the inner cover will allow the stale moist air to escape out under
> the lid, summer or winter.
 
Even a second year physics student would understand the principal of
ventilation and the problems associated with a sealed box. If memory
serves, you were asking about the cure for Wax worm! Your method of
ventilation encourages wax worm. Just in passing we don't have a wax
worm problem, coincidence? Perhaps we have a better solution?
 
> beekeeper (650 col.), harvesting the crop across a wide area in
> upstate NY.  Some of this season's biggest-yielding hives - 6-8
> supers of honey - had no such "extra" ventilation.  In fact, large
> number only had 3/8" x 3" entrances at the bottom, period (the
> winter entrance-blocks were still in place)!   They certainly didn't
> seem to be any worse off for it, and colonies at the same sites with
> more ventilation certainly did no better.
 
Is it not possible that those 6-8 might have been 8-10, but then you
are unlikely to find out as you buried your head in the sand, just
like so many of our kind!
 
It would appear that the detractors of our hive don't have to see
one, handle or work with one to know all about it. In my 48 years of
keeping bees I have had the priviledge of working with many
knowledgeable bee keepers, and many different hives. In the UK there
are at least 6 hives to choose from.
        When this is analysed, that's what this comes down to. Choice or the
lack of it! At least you now have a choice, take it or leave it. But
please don't knock it till you've tried it? Be grateful, before me
you had no choice.
        One final point, I would like to 'thank you'. Someone once wrote
'the only bad publicity is when they spell your name wrong'.
At least you didn't add that insult to your unfounded tirade against
something new. Lets face it 'D.E'. is reasonably easy to remember.
 
        Was this enough 'comments, corrections solicited' for you?
 
*******************************************
The Bee Works, 9 Progress Dr, Unit 2,
Orillia, Ontario, L3V 6H1
Phone/fax  705-326-7171
David Eyre, Owner.
http://www.muskoka.net/~beeworks
e-mail <[log in to unmask]>
********************************************