TBS versus BBS - what debate?!

Over my twenty-some years of beekeeping, I have become increasingly intrigued (and fascinated) by the debate about top bee-space versus bottom bee-space. For most of us, this is an academic arguement, since we buy British National equipment and use it as it comes. But time after time, over the years, I have read one statement after another that top bee-space is superior - without any explanation why - indeed it seems as if this were so self-evident that any explanation were superfluous. Ted Boper, certainly one of the most respected modern-day beekeepers, recommends top bee-space, even though he recommends British National hives - going so far as to suggest that we should convert all ones National equipment to top bee-space.

He does give one reason - that one brood box or super can be placed diagonally on top of the previous one, and manoeuvred into place without crushing bees. I have heard this argument elsewhere too. Am I the only person who fails to see the logic here? When I am manipulating a hive and placing one box back on top of another, I smoke the bees down so that they are not in the way. I can easily see whether there are any bees that are likely to be crushed by the manoeuvre or not. Any bees hanging under the frames in a bottom bee-space hive, if one moves slowly enough, will be able to move up into the bottom bee-space out of harm's way. With a TBS hive one cannot see the bees which are likely to be hanging underneath the frames, and these may well be caught between the two boxes as they come together. In short, the surfaces that come into contact during this manoeuvre are almost the same (the bottoms of drawn-out frames are not much smaller in area than the tops), the amount of bee space is the same, the only difference is that with top bee-space one cannot see the bees one is crushing, with BBS one can! And what if one is careless and allows the corner of the top box to fall into the TBS of the one underneath?

Ian McLean, writing in the BBKA journal in favour of TBS in February 2004, advances the same argument as Ted Hooper. He also says that, with top bee space equipment, the frames from the box below are never inadvertently lifted when removing the upper box. I am just trialling an MD hive, and this is exactly the problem I have had. I have hardly ever had the problem with National hives - at least not properly made ones. Frames get lifted, when one is separating boxes, because of brace comb between the frames in the two boxes, and this, surely, can happen just as easily with TBS as with BBS. And what about the fact that, with TBS, one has to lift each frame that bit further before it is sufficiently above the rim of the box to allow a good grip?

I recently came upon an internet conversation between some American beekeepers, one of whom said he would prefer the "European" idea of bottom bee space. Occasionally, in an emergency, he had wished he could put down a brood box or super on a flagstone or the roof of another hive - on a flat surface, in other words. With BBS he could have done this, with TBS it would be messy in the extreme!

Brother Adam adapted the Dadant hive to bottom bee space, and his example is followed by the German Society of Buckfast Beekeepers (Yes, there is such a thing!). He gave a reason for prefering BBS - when he clamped the travelling screen on top of the brood box ready for transporting the hives, the frame of the screen would hold the frames steady (since with BBS the frame tops are flush with the top of the brood-box) and prevent them from swaying during transport.

The reasom for TBS, surely (as for everything to do with American hives), is money. Crown boards can be simple sheets of wood with no need for strips around the edge. The floor, whose upstands around the edge are strictly unnecessary for a BBS hive (the floor should really be flat against the brood box, with a slope at the front to let the bees out, as in a WBC hive, is equally, with TBS, a piece of equipment with no effort wasted. A BBS brood box needs rebates both at the top and at the bottom - at the top for the frame lugs, and at the bottom for bee space, but with TBS the single rebate at the top of the box serves for both purposes. The manufacture is thus far simpler and should be cheaper - presumably Thornes' only excuse for this not being the case in England is that the volume of sales works in favour of the price of National Standard equipment.

The British National hive is not a cheap (some would no doubt say, not an efficient) design. Unless one is intent on cutting expenditure and space down to a minimum, it is, however, beautifully sturdy and very good to use. The rebated front and back give wonderful hand holds which are secure whatever the weight (and crucially, sometimes, weight distribution) inside. Indeed, one can carry a brood box with one hand if one has to. And these extra structures lend more lateral strength to the box so that it lasts longer. Most Commercial and Dadant brood boxes I have come across, for example, have been rather wonky after years of use - the strength of construction is not up to the immense weight that can accrue in such a vast volume.

So let's have no more of this inferiority complex about top bee space and stand up for the more expensive, but more workable, bottom bee space which seems to be the European norm. If you have a cogent, rational argument in favour of top bee space (other than that of manufacturing convenience), I would be interested to hear it. I am open-minded and willing to be convinced! Until then I shall remain mystified as to why so many people use BBS but proclaim TBS to be superior!

Pete Sutcliffe

Return to top of page

Latest Articles:

Archive Articles: