Mike Rowbottom  wrote:<It seems to me that what matters, if you want to make comparisons with others, is how the average is defined.  I use the number of colonies going into the previous winter to use with the subsequent year's honey crop.>

As a beekeeping tutor, I am regularly asked how much honey a new beekeeper can expect to get when considering whether to invest in equipment.  If the investment comes from the pension lump sum or redundancy money it is essential decisions are made on a sound basis.  So far this thread has been disappointing as it has largely produced only anecdotal evidence. 

To be able to give informed data, we do need a definition and the total honey harvested during a year divided by the number of hives put to winter the previous year does seem unequivocal and the most useful. It takes into account winter losses. Could BEE-L not adopt that? 

The problem that some hives are split to produce nucs could be catered for by adopting a second standard measure, the average total wholesale value of all products from the hives in the  previous autumn count,  including honey, pollination fees, nucs, queens, beeswax in blocks and pollen and propolis if significant. The value added by direct sales to the customer - or making wax into candles - should not be included as marketing is a separate optional activity not part of beekeeping itself, even if small scale beekeepers often rely on adding value in such ways. 

The third useful measure for the information of beginners would be total costs divided again by autumn hive count , plus a note of the total autumn hive count - which would indicate how overall profitability depends on scale of operation as well as beekeeping competence ( classing the hobbyist with 5 hives as running a business). 

Beekeepers often seem reluctant to share such information, perhaps because they do not share it with the tax man.  I have always shared mine, as I include all my costs and so have consistently made an annual loss over the last 50 years which the tax man has allowed to be set off against other income. All fair and legal and realistic! 

The first two annual measures would show wide variation year on year due to weather or disease epidemics as has been said, with less variation in total annual costs.  But annual tables could then be analysed to see if taking say the average over 5 years, or 10 years, or xx years, substantial reduces variation and produces figures usable for a Business Plan to persuade a spouse or even a bank manager.  Have such 5 or 10 year figures been published in any study? 

On absence of such shared information, new beekeepers can only jump in as an act of faith - but is St Ambrose up to the job of saving beginners who have invested too rashly? Does it do beekeeping any favours to have possibly a high number of failures amongst new recruits to the 'industry', who have naively assumed 70lbs of honey in every year from every hive plus a split from every colony to sell on, or who are under-capitalised for taking the rough years as well as the smooth? 
. 
Robin 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html