Man, that's a crazy good idea. First, it's 85% effective in solving the elephant problem; second, free honey which makes the fence a profitable venture in its own right; and third, the bees will pollinate the crops they're protecting, potentially maximizing crop yield.
Free honey? Beekeeping is actually a lot of work (especially when the hives are spread out like this). Also they say it's up to 85% effective, so that's the maximum not the average.
I'm not sure about the rest of the world but honey prices in New Zealand are skyrocketing - this may be due in part to Manuka honey being a particularly valuable honey. It might be hard work, but the returns would appear to be at levels so high that give theft is in the papers regularly now.
> this may be due in part to Manuka honey being a particularly valuable honey.
That's more than likely, and there's probably an international manuka craze on top of it: my (euro) grocery has a bunch of the usual blended "flower honey" and manuka, and that's it. Manuka is the first monofloral honey I've found outside of specialized or semi-specialized shops[0] (which is a shame).
[0] well not exactly, (false) Acacia is a fairly common one as well due to its physical characteristics: it's very clear and stays liquid for a very long time so it's an easy sell. But it's even blander and nondescript than blended
Manuka has good characteristics and is a reasonable antibacterial. It seems to be possible to fake Manuka content with Eucalyptus, which is a shame however.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mānuka_honey
Oh I'm not saying manuka isn't as exceptional as it's supposed to be, I'm just saying it does get special import treatment which likely drives prices up in NZ since more of the production goes out to non-NZ consumers.
Ah, got it. Yes. This happens a lot here, dairy products being a prime example. New Zealand produced stuff is often cheaper outside the country. It grates a little.
Yes, I imagine widespread adoption of this idea will lower honey prices and therefore increase the effective cost of the fences.
Still, it's neat to have a fence that's a potential source of profit if managed efficiently and depending on local prices. Elephant related cost savings will subsidize the cost of bee-keeping.
The original problem is that farms are blocking elephant migration paths. "The elephants’ key migratory routes have been cut off in many places."
And now you've replaced a fence that they can break through with a fence made of bees. Yes, this is probably good for the humans, but I don't see how it's better for the elephants.
From TFA, above the photo of Ms. King standing next to a hive fence, "The farmers leave wide pathways between their crops so elephants can move past the fences along their migratory routes."
Brilliant! I'm a little confused by this line though:
>> If an elephant makes contact with one of the hives or the connecting wires, the beehives all along the fence will swing and release the bees.
The first part made it sound like elephants would stay away from this perimeter just because there was an active beehive, so it's unlikely the elephant would get close to the fence anyway. But then if it does, wouldn't the sudden release of all bees drive the elephant into a panic precisely when it's choices are to run into the field or away from the fence? Or am I just misunderstanding something?
It seems that fences are set up to prevent elephants from entering entirely. Although they are spaced widely (and a weak breakaway trip wire is strung from hive to hive), so that if an elephant is trapped, or approaches the fence violently, it can still pass through without damaging the hives.
I'm guessing that has to do with their 85% effectiveness. Most of the time the fences work, but when they don't they want to minimize hive damage.
They do say an elephant never forgets. It's possible that after stomping through the fence and releasing all the bees the elephant simply continues to charge into the field. But once the elephant is shooed out of the field, the next time it considers entering, it will remember the bees and might reconsider.
It's also possible the elephant doesn't stomp through the fence, but simply meanders toward it until it feels the wire. After which some of the bees come out and the elephant simply decides to not break through the wire and to instead return from where it came.
I wish there was some way for her to profit off of the idea not for the sake of getting rich but to encourage others to take a look at solving other problems. Profits as signalling rather than for the sake of profits.
Yes but she said in that article that the money will go towards expanding the programme:
'The recognition and financial support will enable us to expand our vital research work and protect many more rural farming families from elephant invasions.'
I was friends at university with Lucy - she's amazing and the success and expansion of this work will definitely be her main motivator. She's doing it because she adores elephants and spending the money on protecting even more of them will be her main priority.
Like all 'overnight successes' (she's been working on this for over 10 years) it's the result of many years of tough grind and convincing skeptical people you have a viable idea. It's great to she's getting the recognition she deserves.
Yes you are right. I was really just qualifying the original post about her getting rich. On reflection we're all making the same point that she's getting recognition and the programme is getting financial signalling of a job well done, which is great.
He said "not for the sake of getting rich". This indicates he's okay with her being rich, but he hopes she becomes rich for the sake of helping with an innovative idea rather than pure profit-mongering.
The phrase "profit-mongering" also shows that you demonize wealth unless you agree with the recipient's intentions.
Markets should be designed to reward people who produce and serve others well. When a market rewards someone or a group of people for producing and serving well, it should not be demonized. If what they are producing or serving is counter to the good of society then society must adapt laws and regulations to prevent those products and services from being distributed.
To pretend that a bee fence deserves more reward from the market than a soft drink formula simply because it makes you feel better inside is not a sustainable economic model.
I don't know what your agenda is, but you're assuming an awful lot about me and the other guy. You're reading things we never wrote, and it's quite irritating. Because I use the term "profit mongering" means I demonize wealth? I don't think so, and I'd appreciate you not to insult me like that. I think it's pretty easy to understand what we're saying. You seem to be being intentionally dense, or intentionally argumentative. I'm not sure which.
Society adopting laws and regulations depends on there being a respectable society to being with. Laws will only get you as far as their enforcement. It's incredibly easy to take advantage of a poorer person than yourself just because you have the upper hand. I'm not talking the difference between bee farms and soft drinks, I'm talking the difference between helping farmers set up these fences themselves and forcing farmers to set these up while demanding half their profits forever in return. But you completely understand that, don't you?
The phrase "because it makes" shows that you are going to stop being pointless unless you have a valid argument to bring to the table. To quote The Big Lebowski: You're not wrong, you're just an asshole.
I'd be happy if she got rich, that would be fine by me. I think the economics of her getting rich off of it are hard for me to imagine, but I don't have any problems with it. Since I can't imagine a way for her to get rich given the rural (and thus likely poor) nature of the problem she's solving I was simply providing a caveat.
I have to wonder, why are these kind of solutions driven by outside players instead of local communities? Is there some kind of informational advantage the locals don't have? Elephants scares bees seems so simple that I'm not sure why locals weren't already doing it.
Firstly, there are all sorts of biases involved. We're far more likely to hear about situations like these, than native development of solutions.
Secondly, there is a non-trivial cost to thinking up ideas and experimenting. Beyond costing time and resources that the farmers may not have/may not want to spend, experimenting as a whole is pretty risking. Being an outside player with far greater ability to take on risk has an obvious advantage.
Thirdly, while the farmers probably don't want to fight elephants, in the scheme of things, they probably individually rate the well being of elephants lower than their survival. We on the other hand probably rate the importance of the two far more equally, and thus have a greater incentive to solve the problem in such a way.
For many locals, just shooting the elephants would be the solution.
Outsiders care about the elephants and the humans (most of the times, in that order).
I like the ingenuity of it, seems pretty counter intuitive though. I mean keeping the elephants away by bring swarms of african killer bees into close proximity with humans... not sure if the trade off is worth it. There is a reason elephants are afraid of them.
That being said I am sure the farmers understand the risks more than I do, if they are down with it seems like a good solution
"Killer" is a misnomer -- in the beekeeping community, for obvious reasons, they prefer the term "africanized". And it is likely that these bees, being in Africa, are or will very soon be africanized.
But it is still possible to safely and enjoyably keep and tend Africanized bees -- you just require some extra precautions, like smoking the hell out of them when you're working the hive, and leaving your protective gear on even after you're far from the hive.
A friend of mine did beekeeping in Paraguay through the Peace Corps (the last country featuring a Peace Corps beekeeping program), and said bees would still be ramming his face veil, even after walking several kilometers away from the hive.
That was, however, after he had been working them for anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Generally bees don't bother you if you're not bothering them. And if they do, you might just wear a veil when harvesting the crops closest to the fence.
I understand that 'killer' is a misnomer, in fact i debated the use of the term but in the end chose to use it precisely because a lot of the posters in this thread don't seem to be aware that (most?) common african bee variant is what we generally refer to as the killer bee.
To go from occasionally having an interaction with Elephants, to everyday working your field in close proximity to highly aggressive bees that relatively commonly swarm intruders.. is not a guaranteed win. I don't know enough to evaluate the trade off and I said as much.
I have kept bees in West Africa. In my experience, African bees are a bit more defensive than European bees but they are by no means "killer" bees.
Certainly, there is no more risk (from the bees, anyway) to maintaining a bee hive in Africa than one in the US.
In fact, I am frequently amazed at how much less protective gear African bee keepers use.
Also, I find that hive bees tend to be generally less aggressive than their wild cousins and can co-exist just fine with people. It is not at all uncommon for hives to be situated on farms or near houses.
Occasionally suffer a relatively harmless sting from a bee versus have elephants destroy your livelihood... doesn't really seem like a difficult choice to me.
These are african bees, what we in america refer to as 'killer' bees. These bees are highly agressive and are much more likely to swarm a perceived threat, and once swarming will not stop stinging the preceived threat for potentially hours.
Elephants which are more than 10 times as big as a person with a much thicker hide are not 'paranoid' of bees. Their fear is well justified.
Yes, I remember the hype around "killer" bees coming to the US. Then the hype went away, even though the bees didn't. I think the threat is vastly overstated.
