Subject: Re: Two-queen hive - has anyone tried this layout?

From: [email-masked] (Aaron Morris)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 12:07:02 EST

In article <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Joel Govostes) writes:
 
>
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>[email-masked] (Owen Watson) wrote:
>
>> I've always liked the idea of a 2-queen hive, ....
>
> Regarding the 2-queen arrangement for comb honey --
>
> One way this is accomplished by some is to have two single-story brood
> nests right up next to each other, side by side on a stand.  The
> entrances can point in opposite directions. A queen excluder is layed
> on across both boxes in the middle (halfway covering each box), and
> supers are added above this.  The exposed portions of the brood
> chambers (on either side of the excluder and super stack) are covered
> with simple board lids...
 
I have not tried this particular method, but it seems like yet another
workable plan, with an advantage that the height of the 2Q hive is
reduced by one brood chamber.  The advantage of Taylor's method with two
queens in a single brood chamber bisected by a separator board is that
there are only 4 deep frames available to each queen, so almost the
entire frame surface is used for brood rearing and honey stores are
limited to the comb section supers.  Another advantage is that brood is
raised in standard deep frames vs shallow frames used in the shook swarm
procedure.
 
> I used to run a dozen or so colonies in 2-q fashion, one brood box per
> queen, single excluder between, ... but the work was too much,
 
I have to concur with this.  The harvest from a two queen hive is truly
amazing (in these parts), but upon final assessment, the work involved
to get those impressive harvests is greater than that involved to get
two smaller harvests from two single hives.  It's true that the total
>from  one 2Q colony is far greater than the sum from the two singles, but
I've decided that the extra work is not proportional to the extra yield.
Your results may vary.
 
> Shook swarming two colonies into a single (portioned-off) brood
> chamber seems like much more work compared to the simple horizontal-
> 2-hives mentioned above, and part of each queen's potential is more or
> less wasted (what do you think?).  My results from shook swarming
> (though not quite this manner) have been sadly disappointing,
> regardless of Dr. Taylor's promotional pitches and  promising
> descriptions.
 
Taylor himself admits that a double shook swarm is a lot of work.  In
the final chapter of his book he writes that as time marches on he is
less inclined to do the manipulations he describes in his book and
more inclined to simply let the bees do what bees will do when left to
their own devices.  However, I've had very good results using both the
shook swarming method he describes (which usually guarantees 3 round
comb supers of blue ribbon quality) and I've had VERY good results
following Killion's methods (usually guarantees 5 round comb supers),
but talk about extra work!  I have not tried, hence cannot speak about
results from Taylor's described double shook swarm method.  But before
time marches past me, I'll give it a try.
 
As far as wasted potential of the queens who have only four frames for
brood production, well I guess that's so.  But such a setup would be
made around June 1 in these parts for a flow that lasts 6 to 8 weeks,
after which time the beekeeper's concern shifts from comb production to
rearranging the production unit so it will overwinter.  This usually
means combining the comb production hive with another colony if the
production unit was a single hive in a single brood chamber, or
allowing the colonies in each half of the double shook swarm to build
up as nucs to overwinter on top of another colony.  If these nucs can
be successfully overwintered then final assessment of wasted potential
must be weighed against the section harvest plus nucs the following
spring, in which case I don't mind the wasted potential.
 
> The big field force in a shook swarm only lasts so long (!), and soon
> the foundation in the brood nest is drawn and the bees settle down to
> raising brood, which requires a great deal of nectar and pollen.  Work
> in the supers slows way down, and you may wish you had kept them as
> "normal" separate colonies after all!  Of course, the weather is a
> factor as well.
 
Yes, the field force from the shook swarm lasts only so long, but you
shake more than just field bees into the shook swarm.  Virtually all
field bees stay with the shook swarm by virtue of leaving the shook
swarm at the original location.  However, young bees are also part of
the shook swarm and these bees join the field force at the height of
the honey flow.  If timed correctly, the slow down in the supers
coincides with the end of the honey flow and the shift in concerns from
production to build up for overwintering, so having the bees shift from
honey production to brood rearing is just what you want!  Working with
the bees, the solution is to pull the supers.  Hopefully the beekeeper
provided just enough supers for the bees to fill and there aren't any
half or poorly filled sections.  This is a rare occasion when it's
better to err on the side of too little than too much.  The "great deal
of nectar and pollen" needed for brood rearing comes with the fall flow.
 
Readers should note that Joel and I are relatively close geographically
 - approximately 150 miles between us east to west and 100 miles
north to south, so seasonal conditions are nearly the same.  Joel
experiences more influence from the Great Lakes and I am closer to the
Adirondack Mountains, but we are both considered "upstate" New York.
According to _The_Hive_and_the_Honeybee_, two queen management
techniques are not suited to all locations, but are best suited for
temperate climates with short but intense honey flows.  That makes
upstate NY an ideal candidate for such techniques.  As always, your
results may vary.
 
Aaron Morris - thinking it's gonna be a long winter!
               2 inches of snow this am - took over an hour to make a
               20 minute drive to work :(
               Time to sharpen those skis!

---

From: Graham & Annie Law <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:17:57 +0000

In article <[email-masked]>, Joel
Govostes <[email-masked]> writes
>> I've always liked the idea of a 2-queen hive, but the thing that put me
>> off was the height of the stack (with the necessity of taking it to bits
>> if you want to look at the brood boxes). It just occurred to me that it
>> could be done in a side-by-side arrangement (with one large baseboard)
>> with a channel between the two hives containing a narrow queen excluder.
>...>

Iv'e tried something very similiar in recent years, one major problem
seems to be getting the virility of the two queens matched.  If the
queens are not sisters of the same age then you are likely to find that
one half dwindles and is eventually robbed out.  Even if matched the
arrangement seems to be inherently unstable.  

You can't always beat nature but it can be fun trying. :-)

bye

Graham Law
[email-masked]
Leicestershire
(about 100miles north of London)
UK

"I see no future in the cathode ray tube"
                John Logie Baird
                1929

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Murphy)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:25:35 GMT

[email-masked] (Owen Watson) wrote:

>Obviously this wouldn't be very wonderful for migratory beekeeping, but
>otherwise looks an ideal arrangement. As there's almost nothing new under
>the sun with beekeeping, has anyone heard of this being used/tried?

>If not, I hereby declare it's called the Watson hive 8->

>and I'll make it myself!

Owen, we are running six hives along the lines you proposed this
season in an attempt to get large populations in spite of chalkbrood.
We use a double brood chamber with a one inch (or thereabouts) wooden
divider, which effectively gives us two eight frame hives working to
common honey supers.  We have entrances to each section facing
opposite directions.  So far we have not found them any more trouble
than the standard hive although one became so strong both sides
swarmed in September!  It has collected 3 boxes of honey since.  We
run all our nucs in divided 10 frame boxes, four frames a side and if
the season is a cracker we can just pop a honey super above an
excluder for some bonus honey.  These nucs overwinter very well in our
area, Northern NSW.
A friend who runs 12 frame equipment divided all his bottoms and has a
queen in each side with both entrances to the front he claims queen
loss is not significant but I have heard from others that queens
sometimes come out and go into the other half with bad results!