Remarkable precision there - 19.2% - not 19.1, or 19.3....... and then this was a survey by an association that boasts about a third of the UK's beekeepers as members - obviously completely accurate then!
If one were a teensie cynical (heaven forfend), one would almost suspect that a certain society had an "interest" in "pushing" back-yard urban beekeeping - wonder if it's a new departure in "branding"....... surely not?
"Bees are suffering from viruses, a parasitic mite and changes in the weather" - obviously thriving on the chemicals - no problem at all there then!
The conservation watchdog Natural England recently called on people living in urban areas to consider keeping bees.
Its chief scientist Tom Tew told the BBC: "We want urban people to engage with wildlife and get joy and pleasure from it. The more hives you have the more resilient the whole population is to the outbreak of disease."
You can't fault the intention or sentiment. There are worries though. Will the hoped for rise in urban nature awareness and keeping be matched by a corresponding demise of the 'blaim' culture? I sadly suspect any neighbourhood sting incident will be the responsibility of and liability of the nearest known beek (irrespective of the insect causing it). Not withstanding the appauling insensitivity and the fact that Dickman's attutude (recent Scottish news item) was perfectly atuned to his name, does this case and others give an indication of legal views on liability? The local beek is guilty unless they can prove they are innocent - and of course that would be virtually impossible! I'd like to see this initaive succeed, will urban culture allow it to?
(I still keep in the back garden in a residential area, but am thinking of moving everything to farmland out apiaries for next year, interestingly family and neighbours want me to retain a hive at the house because they like comming to see them - but then I have never had a stinging incident to deal with)