Bees Can't Eat Kind Words

[djg]

There’s no doubt that bees are riding a wave of popularity. And nowhere more so than in London. That’s great news.

But there’s a problem just around the corner. The coming crisis is that London’s bees don’t have enough to eat. And bees can’t eat kind words.

There are some 3,225 beehives in a 10 kilometre radius around our Bermondsey Street apiary, according to the National Bee Unit. That many hives requires 8,000 tonnes of nectar and 1,600 tonnes of pollen, each year, just to survive. That’s the equivalent of 60 refuse truckfulls of nectar and 12 of pollen. That’s a big ask in an intensely urban environment.

Fortunately, London is rich in green spaces which have been able to support the doubling of London’s hive population over the last 10 years. But London’s capacity to feed an exponentially growing bee population is not infinite. The fact that London has come bottom of the British Beekeepers’ Association table of UK regional honey yields in 2 of the last 3 years tells us that London already has a forage crisis.

To raise awareness of this crucial issue, The Apis Forage Index (AFI) is a breakthrough. Up to now, there has been no common language to describe the most important factor in beekeeping: what the bees will have to eat.

The AFI fills that gap. It’s a user-friendly, ready-reckoner, available on-line for a free assessment of the forage value of a potential apiary site. Just click on the AFI site, follow the instructions, enter your 10 responses and see your percentage score: an AFI reading over 50% means that your site is viable from a forage perspective, under 50% means that you should think again, or introduce a quantity of local forage before installing a beehive.

The Apis Forage Index is designed to make people consider the forage aspect of beekeeping before they plonk down a beehive. If we succeed in raising awareness of the forage issue in London, we will have taken a crucial step together on the road to responsible and sustainable beekeeping. And remember: bees can’t eat kind words.

Link to Apis Forage Index http://bit.ly/1LgjgDQ

 

[oliver90owner]

There are some 3,225 beehives in a 10 kilometre radius .... That many hives requires ... and 1,600 tonnes of pollen,

WOT?!? Half a ton of pollen per hive?

Not looked at the rest. Might also be drivel!

 

[EKBee]

You must've got the calculation muddled

15-55 kg of pollen per hive a year
& 80 Kg of honey consumed per colony per year

from the notes I've read anyway

At some stage an area could provide too little forage if the no of colonies was ever increasing I think that's the point

 

[djg]

** Corrected Version **

There’s no doubt that bees are riding a wave of popularity. And nowhere more so than in London. That’s great news.

But there’s a problem just around the corner. The coming crisis is that London’s bees don’t have enough to eat. And bees can’t eat kind words.

There are some 3,225 beehives in a 10 kilometre radius around our Bermondsey Street apiary, according to the National Bee Unit. That many hives requires 80 tonnes of nectar and 16 tonnes of pollen, each year, just to survive. That’s the equivalent of 60 refuse truckfulls of nectar and 12 of pollen. That’s a big ask in an intensely urban environment.

Fortunately, London is rich in green spaces which have been able to support the doubling of London’s hive population over the last 10 years. But London’s capacity to feed an exponentially growing bee population is not infinite. The fact that London has come bottom of the British Beekeepers’ Association table of UK regional honey yields in 2 of the last 3 years tells us that London already has a forage crisis.

To raise awareness of this crucial issue, The Apis Forage Index (AFI) is a breakthrough. Up to now, there has been no common language to describe the most important factor in beekeeping: what the bees will have to eat.

The AFI fills that gap. It’s a user-friendly, ready-reckoner, available on-line for a free assessment of the forage value of a potential apiary site. Just click on the AFI site, follow the instructions, enter your 10 responses and see your percentage score: an AFI reading over 50% means that your site is viable from a forage perspective, under 50% means that you should think again, or introduce a quantity of local forage before installing a beehive.

The Apis Forage Index is designed to make people consider the forage aspect of beekeeping before they plonk down a beehive. If we succeed in raising awareness of the forage issue in London, we will have taken a crucial step together on the road to responsible and sustainable beekeeping. And remember: bees can’t eat kind words.

Link to Apis Forage Index http://bit.ly/1LgjgDQ

 

[djg]

Thanks for the correction! Much appreciated.

There are some 3,225 beehives in a 10 kilometre radius .... That many hives requires ... and 1,600 tonnes of pollen,

WOT?!? Half a ton of pollen per hive?

Not looked at the rest. Might also be drivel!

 

[djg]

Yes indeed, temporary decimal place blindness, as oliver90owner spotted.

I used the LBKA's figures of 250kg nectar and 50kg pollen/hive/year:

http://www.lbka.org.uk/forage.html

You must've got the calculation muddled

15-55 kg of pollen per hive a year
& 80 Kg of honey consumed per colony per year

from the notes I've read anyway

At some stage an area could provide too little forage if the no of colonies was ever increasing I think that's the point

 

[sipa]

Hmmn...

Stocking density and food supply..... that's an age old issue for all livestock farmers.

But, in most cases livestock farmers have a pretty good handle on how their acres perform.

Bit different for beekeepers tho, given that our livestock (bees) are able to forage freely up to the outer limits of their range.

Let's say that outer limit is 3 miles, that gives a foraging area approaching 28 sq miles, or about 18,000 acres.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can make a reasonably accurate subjective assessment of the forage capability and stocking density over that kind of area.

 

[domino]

WOT?!? Half a ton of pollen per hive?

The bee obesity epidermic is real.

 

[sipa]

I'd be interested to learn what the weighting factors in your spreadsheet are based on, apart from the wisdom of your experienced beekeeping friends that you mention.

 

[kazmcc]

Has anyone considered what this means for our wild bees and other insects that depend just as much on these resources? When most people talk about bees in crisis, it's always the honey bee that get the attention. Just a thought.

 

[For want of a better word]

Tragedy of the commons.


Would the last Beekeeper to leave London , kindly turn off the lights!

Nos da

 

[djg]

Sipa,

Thanks for your comment.

Precisely. I am constantly amazed that, in the rush to embrace bees, people often forget that they are livestock.

The point of the Apis Forage Index is to put the forage provision question before the introduction of bees, not as an afterthought, or as no thought at all.

In the professional version of the AFI, I take the postcode of the proposed site, then go to a number of authoritative websites to query the land type, prevailing flora and land use in a 5km radius (in 9 of the 17 forage factors assessed, information from a government or academic website is used to score the input). Together with observations from a site visit, this provides an adequate snapshot of the forage potential. Of course, like all indices, as the variables change, the headline number will change. Of course, if you input bad data, you will get bad data back. Rubbish in, rubbish out.

But at least the AFI has introduced a free, standard expression of forage potential, with the benefit of objective, expert opinion. In the ready-reckoner on the website, we ask for one of three answers : Good OK or Bad. It's quite straight-forward.

The point is that the AFI offers a standard framework to discuss the forage potential of a U.K. apiary site. That is new and valuable, I believe, especially since many organisations and individuals siting beehives have given no thought to forage at all.

 

[djg]

I'd be interested to learn what the weighting factors in your spreadsheet are based on, apart from the wisdom of your experienced beekeeping friends that you mention.

sipa

Hello again! The weighting factors are SOLELY based on the judgments of expert beekeeepers of my acquaintance.

I identified 17 factors which affect the forage potential of a potential apiary site. I then asked 27 urban and country beekeepers whom I know and who have over 5 years’ experience of beekeeping to rank those 17 factors. The mean of their responses was expressed as a multiplier for that factor on the spreadsheet. In the Apis Forage Index “starter” version on the website, these 17 factors have been combined to form 10 questions, each with an option of 3 answers.

Obviously, the “starter” AFI result published on the website depends on the observations of the individual providing the data, but includes the adjustment of the weighting of those data from experienced U.K. beekeepers.

Like any index, the AFI does not express a permanent number. It will change as the variable inputs change. The point is that the AFI provides a rational starting point to assess UK apiary sites using a standard framework. That is an innovation.

On stocking density: data is available to subscribers on Beebase. Their parameter is 10km radius for data protection reasons, they tell me. If you ask them nicely - and wait a couple of months - they will supply you with an average density for apiaries in a 10km radius in the UK, which is a useful yardstick to judge whether the stocking density of any site is high or low, relative to the UK average.

The AFI is not designed to give a definitive value. There are many variables which change from season to season, which is why I describe it as a “ready-reckoner” rather than a precision instrument.

The point is that AFI forms a structured basis for an informed discussion of the forage potential of an apiary site in ten mouse-clicks. That is new.

 

[djg]

Has anyone considered what this means for our wild bees and other insects that depend just as much on these resources? When most people talk about bees in crisis, it's always the honey bee that get the attention. Just a thought.

kazmcc

Indeed. We are always careful to describe out plantings as “pollinator-friendly” to be inclusive. But the point about honeybees is that (a) they are livestock, farmed by human beings who can affect their outcomes and (b) there is more information available on honeybees from sources (like Beebase) on which to make husbandry decisions.

The AFI is a step towards more responsible and sustainable beekeeping – which should also benefit the wider pollinator population.

 

[Hivemaker.]

On stocking density: data is available to subscribers on Beebase. Their parameter is 10km radius for data protection reasons, they tell me.

Does not appear to be very accurate though, much as described in this post...

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=504382&postcount=174

 

[Finman]

.
I do not believe that kind of calculations or variabiles. You cannot make Formula for these things.

Problem is that you cannot see behind trees and houses what potential is there.
Yes, inside radius of 1 km. More difficult is to are inside radius of 2 km.

Second is that it is difficult to know how much the area has bee colonies.

I have trained serious pasture evaluation. IT is most difficult in beekeeping. Colony rearing is very easy compared to that.

Third thing is that very few beekeepers have realistic attitude to beekeeping.
Like this Style: "I have a strong healthy hive". When I ask further, the colony has one box and 6 frames of brood and 2 foundations. To me it is minimum size colony.

 

[djg]

Does not appear to be very accurate though, much as described in this post...

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=504382&postcount=174

Hi Hivemaker,

Thanks for your comment, The post you link to ends:

They try from time to time to tidy it up (our list anyway, no idea about other peoples), but everywhere we go there are many redundant entries on Beebase, ours and even more in aggregate from other people, so do not go thinking these numbers are anywhere near accurate.

Could be reasonably so in areas with little or no migratory beekeeping.

Two points: The correspondent you cite concedes that Beebase data could be reasonably accurate in areas with little of no migratory beekeeping. Apart from "taking the bees to the heather", is there much migratory beekeeping in the UK ?

Secondly, checking Beebase today, one of my apiaries has 641 apiaries within a 10km radius and another has 47 apiaries within a 10km radius. Allowing for minor inaccuracies, the divergence is very significant when considering a stocking density comparison, such as the one used in the spreadsheet.

The point which I feel people may be missing is that the Apis Forage Index is an indicator - an accessible prompt for responsible, sustainable bee husbandry from a forage perspective. It is not intended to be rocket science.

 

[Thymallus]

Apart from "taking the bees to the heather", is there much migratory beekeeping in the UK ?

I don't how much it is practiced elsewhere, but taking bees to the oil seed rape fields, taking bees to the field beans, taking bees to the borage crops are all aspects of migratory beekeeeping that go on in my area.
There are also pollination contracts where bees get moved into orchards, but this is more confined to southern regions.
I'm sure there are lots of others.
The answer is yes there are lots of migratory beekeeping practices that don't involve heather.

 

[djg]

Hi Finman

Thanks for your comment.

I fully agree that pasture evaluation is difficult. That is why the AFI provides a simple template, asking 10 questions, each with only 3 potential answers.

Several data providers make available detailed map-based pasture / land use information, so line-of-sight observation is not the only available resource. Yes, pasture evaluation is difficult, but it is crucial from a forage perspective and a reasonable assessment is not impossible with on-line tools and local observation.

Beehive density is also discoverable within reasonable tolerances. Checking Beebase today, one of my apiaries has 641 apiaries within a 10km radius and another has 47 apiaries within a 10km radius. Allowing for minor inaccuracies, the divergence is very significant when considering a stocking density comparison, such as the one used in the spreadsheet.

You suggest that "very few beekeepers have realistic attitude to beekeeping " – I would counter that I am constantly surprised how many organisations and individuals considering siting beehives have no concept of forage as a requirement for bees.

To that end, the Apis Forage Index provides a framework to encourage beekeepers, organisations and individuals to take a more "realistic attitude", by asking them to input local, common-sense observations to provide a snapshot of the most important beekeeping resource, forage.

To recap, the primary intention of the AFI is to raise awareness of forage as a prerequisite for healthy, productive bees.

 

[djg]

I don't how much it is practiced elsewhere, but taking bees to the oil seed rape fields, taking bees to the field beans, taking bees to the borage crops are all aspects of migratory beekeeeping that go on in my area.
There are also pollination contracts where bees get moved into orchards, but this is more confined to southern regions.
I'm sure there are lots of others.
The answer is yes there are lots of migratory beekeeping practices that don't involve heather.

Hi Thymallus,

Thanks for your comment.

I would be surprised if migratory beekeeping would skew the national Beebase data to the extent that the Hive Density data was unrepresentative of the reality on the ground. We use Hive Density as one of the 10 factors in the AFI - and believe that Beebase has the best available data on this metric.

We're really just two sides of the same coin. In your area, you take your bees to the forage - and in my area, we're trying to take forage to the bees !