This page has not been written for any reason other than to offer the beekeeper a personal view of both Payne's and Maisemore polynucs. This page was originally based on my experience of them up until October 2015. I have updated in 2022. Both Payne's and Maisemore may have changed the designs since then, but my comments are confined to the original polynucs mentioned below. There are several other designs, but I have little long-term experience of them. It may be that some of the issues I mention below apply to them too

At the Wisborough Green BKA teaching apiary, we run 20-30 nucs during the summer, mainly for queen rearing, so the nucs are constantly handled and the boxes probably get much more use than the ordinary beekeeper will give them. Any nuc's that I consider to be strong enough, or weaker ones with a good queen, we usually try to overwinter, so the boxes must be suitable for permanent exposure to the elements.

When Payne's polynucs appeared, they looked remarkably like those supplied by a company that is no longer in business. I had a good look at them and although there were a few features I didn't like, I thought they were good value, so we bought 6 for use in the teaching apiary. We used them for 2-3 years, during which time I found what I considered to be some rather annoying features. Maisemore Apiaries introduced a new design about the end of 2014, which overcame some of the problems I saw with Payne's polynucs, but they retained some of the features I disliked. We bought 6 of these too, so what I write here is based on several season's use. Of course, I accept that others may disagree and I'm sure they will, as there are many who like them, but I'm telling you my views and reasons for them.

With experience in the teaching apiary, where we use several different nuc boxes, visiting other beekeepers and my own bees, I get the opportunity to compare different things. There are benefits to polynucs, but overall, I still find well designed and well made wooden nuc boxes superior to polynucs for my purposes. My own design of nuc box has proved to be very satisfactory for what I use them for.

What I like about Payne's and Maisemore polynucs:-

• Polynucs are light if you are moving them. As a fairly strong chap, that is no great benefit to me, but it might be for others.
• There is a mesh floor. The good thing is it is only partial, so it doesn't weaken the construction much. Bees can ventilate them very much better than a solid floored box. This is important in a nuc box, where the entrance is usually quite small and beekeepers often put nuc's in full sun.
• There are feet moulded into the base. When on a flat surface, air can easily get into the nuc box. The feet can lock into depressions in the roof, which could be a benefit if the boxes are stacked for transport. This is probably of little benefit to the ordinary beekeeper, although it does aid storage.
• The entrances in both types are quite small, but large enough for the strongest nuc. They are closed off with a circular closure, although the queen excluder slots won't even let workers through! This may have changed in later versions.
• Within the same type they are identical, so everything fits. That's a real benefit when you are dealing with quite large numbers.
• The ends are well designed, with good sized hand holds.
• The cost is low enough, that I think many beekeepers would buy one or more, where they may not buy a wooden nuc box. That is a good thing, because it will give them an opportunity to get a queen mated, make a small colony for increase or to replace losses.
• They are good for collecting swarms, where often you need a light box, especially up a ladder The size is good for even the largest swarm.
• When removing wild colonies from buildings you often need a fair sized bee proof box that is light. These are ideal.

Now what I don't like:-

• In my view, the material of both types is too soft. They damage very easily. Extreme care is needed at all times, which is not easy, especially when using hive tools and bumping the boxes on the ground to remove bees. In a teaching situation, some people aren't as careful as others, especially if they treat poly hives the same as they do wood.
• The top of the box and roof on both types has a recess all round, presumably to prevent movement during transport. The idea sounds good, until you use these boxes several times, when you discover the bees love to fill any gap, especially ones you can't get at, with propolis. This idea was used many years ago by Steele and Brodie on their "Wormit" hive. There are many references in old Scottish literature to the problems of separating the boxes! I much prefer a flat surface, as in a conventional hive. Even in the first autumn with the six Maisemore polynucs, I found the polystyrene breaking up when removing the feeder. I accept that smearing with petroleum jelly might reduce the problem, but it is an inconvenience I can do without.
• In my view, neither type had a satisfactory crown board. The Payne's we have and Maisemore don't have one, but the later Payne's boxes have a thin clear plastic sheet, that seem like an afterthought.
• I use a piece of tough plastic sheet that is cut from animal food bags on top of the frames. This causes problems when putting the roof on, because it won't sit properly.
• At first, I thought the internal feeder of the Payne's box was a good idea, but the wooden float easily gets lost, especially when the box is turned upside down to knock bees out. I know several beekeepers who have cut the internal wall of the feeder out to make space for an extra frame. If the nuc gets large and there is a nectar flow on, the bees build comb in the feeder, then if the "queen excluder" is lost, which is very easy, the queen lays in the comb in the feeder. I know someone who didn't clear the comb out quickly enough when the box was empty and Greater Wax Moth bored holes in the feeder, so it leaked!

  Maisemore got over the internal feeder problem by using a Miller type feeder, which had the benefit of reducing the width of the box. One very good feature of this is the bottom of the compartments slope towards the middle, so the bees can use all the syrup without the hive having to be level. Unfortunately the edge is recessed, making it difficult to remove the feeder if the bees propolise up the joints, as they are bound to do in the autumn. I am writing this a few hours after fighting my way into half a dozen of them!

• Both these are rapid feeders. There are times when I like to feed a nuc slowly, which you can't do with these. If you use a slow feeder, such as a honey jar with a few holes punched in the lid, you need to make a "crown board" of some type and an eke that is taller than the feeder.
• The ledge where the frames rest on Payne's box is flat, so the bees propolise the lugs down. Maisemore got over this by recessing the ledge, so there was less contact. Well done, I thought, until I used them a few times. Because the material is soft, the lugs make a sizeable depression in the "runner". The answer would be to use harder material or insert a tough plastic runner, but that would presumably add to cost.
• There is far too much room between the bottom bars of the frames and the floor, in our Payne's boxes it is 25mm, Maisemore 30mm. This allows bees to build comb under the frames, which has to be removed when the nuc is transferred to a standard hive. The bees build a deeper bit of comb where the mesh is, because of the depression. On many occasions I have seen queen cells built in this comb.
• With a wooden box, you can scrape propolis and wax off with a hive tool, but these polynucs are so soft they are soon damaged, especially with enthusiastic beginners cleaning them. I know you can use petroleum jelly or washing soda solution, but I need to reduce time, not increase it.
• Both types are advertised as accommodating 6 frames, but that is stretching it a bit! You can just squeeze in 6 Hoffman frames, because they are 35mm wide, but the standard metal or plastic end is 38mm. The former "rolls" bees when you remove the first frame, the latter you can only get 5 frames in. I prefer 5 frames and a division board, which works well for me. In my view, there would be great benefit in increasing the internal width by 20mm. This would then make it a genuine 6 frame nuc and much easier to use.

I know that beekeepers have different ideas and they favour what suits them, but although I gave our Payne's and Maisemore polynucs a long and fair trial, the Wisborough Green BKA committee agreed to stop using them. This was supported by our demonstrators. The polynuc's were sold at the West Sussex BKA auction, where they found willing buyers.

For a nuc box, I think it is better to have top bee space, because you just need a flat piece of plywood for a crownboard.

I see a lot of these polynucs, but very few are painted. I think this is a big mistake, as they will last much longer if they were. Many have obvious degradation of the surfaces, telling me they probably won't last long. Many of my wooden nuc boxes are well in excess of 20 years old and even after quite a hard life, they are still in very good condition.

Some of the issues I have mentioned can partly be overcome. I suggest the following may help:-

• Paint the outsides and if you can the inside of the feeder.
• When not in use, keep inside covered up from the light.
• Smear petroleum jelly on all working surfaces.
• Be careful not to damage them, either in handling or with the hive tool.
• DON'T stand a smoker on them. They melt!

In writing the above I have tried to be helpful. If either supplier wishes to ask me, I am happy to speak to them, but some of the modifications I suggest may mean expensive modifications to the tooling. It is certainly not my intention to discourage beekeepers from buying or using either type, as there are benefits. These are simply my views of them after giving them a fair trial, but bear in mind they have probably had heavier use than many beekeepers will give them. I think they are fine for the ordinary small-scale beekeeper who is careful when using them.

If you have found ways of overcoming any of the issues I have raised please Email me and if I think the comment useful I will include it here, so it will help others.

Roger Patterson.

Page created October 2015

Page updated 09/12/2022