BEFKEEPING
&
DEVELOPMENT
36
DON’T FIDDLE WITH THE TOP-BAR HIVE! by
A reply to the article by Mark Luckhurst, Kenya, A frame for the Kenya
Bernhard Clauss, Germany
Your statements, Mark, very much resemble the position of a typical frame hive beekeeper who surprisingly finds himself confronted with a new beekeeping technology without having been introduced
top-bar hive published in June B&D 35
to it.
Quite obviously you missed the idea of a simple, but mature hive design, modern, adapted and appropriate technology on its own, the top-bar hive. Modern - in comparison with conventional frame hives, and appropriate - to the needs and means of local people. Adapted to the biology and behaviour of the notorious “African honeybee”. a
PRACTICAL EFBEEKEEPING
As
a consequence you seem to regard the topbar hive as an intermediate design in need of improvement, and there must of course be frames!
To go into more detail with my comments: 1.
You have come to the somewhat puzzling conclusion that frames have not been “developed” for the Kenya top-bar hive, because:
e
itis
e
of its sloping sides
a hive
suitable for rural beekeepers
the horizontal top-bar hive was developed as an alternative to vertically supering frame hive systems. Its simple and “bee-friendly” design was a response to the inappropriateness of the complicated, capital-intensive frame hive
BERNHARD CLAUSS
In fact,
i vs
mf
hie
and honey processing technologies, as far as African, rural, sideline beekeepers are concerned,
The sloping sides of the Kenya top-bar hive reduce the attachment of (honey}combs, an advantage, which may compensate for the disadvantage of the more complicated cutting pattern compared to the straight-sided Tanzanian top-bar hive. .
The use of “movable combs” excludes migratory beekeeping, naturally, but the use of movable combs does not exclude the use of centrifugal extractors. There are several African and Asian designs which are feasible, above ali, the one which has been in use by the Kenyan Nightingale family. However, this feasibility does not mean automatically that a centrifuge is a realistic option for the rural small-scale beekeeper (see “transport” below).
Surprisingly you yourself seem to put little emphasis on the use of extractors. At the end of your article one wonders why you come to harvest comb honey from (wired!) frames. In this context you forgot to explain why a~ framed comb is of “increased harvest value” compared to a suspended comb. How could this be possible, especially as you did not apply any foundation? You mention the disadvantage of handling fragile combs during top-bar hive inspections. Of course, one has to adapt to the top-bar system which requires careful handling of bees and combs. But any technology, especially when “natural”, requires a certain amount of sensibility and specific adaptation!
You mention hive inspection and honey cropping after dusk as being a disadvantage (because of soiled and inferior honeycombs), and you favour frames in the interest of seasonal migratory beekeeping. These facts have to be discussed in context: Zambian traditional beekeepers are teaching us an impressive lesson. The vast majority of 15,000 beekeepers in the North Western Province prove that daylight cropping and subsequent proper grading of honey are possible, if colonies are treated sensibly
(Figure !).
Figure
1.
Daylight honey harvesting is
possible if done with care
FOUR
These beekeepers generally cover long distances on footpaths through the woodlands, thus transporting tremendous
A Bees for Development publication
