Bill Russell wrote

> I thought I'd put my two cents in about the economic viability of a remote
> hive monitoring device from a commercial beekeeper's standpoint. It's almost
> worhtless from an economic view. It might be fun to look at, but its not
> going to make or save you any money.

 This may be the case in the USA but in Australia there is certainly a case to
 be made for remote hive monitoring as a tool for the commercial beekeeper.  To
 this end, a research project was carried out on this several years ago and
 there was certainly interest from the commercial beekeeper.  There has been
 nothing done since and reading Jerry's comments, it seems we need do no more
 here except adapt Jerry's work.

 As well as monitoring hives for weight gain, we have cases where bees have to
 be watered and water levels can be monitored remotely and save a round trip of
 several thousand kilometres and save the bees if something has happened to the
 waterers.  It can be used as a rain monitor.  Beekeepers in Australia work
 areas that are a long way from an official rain gauge and with our storms, it
 can pour rain in one area and 5 kilometres away it can be bone dry.

 We had the usual jokes about tricking beekeepers by placing a large rock on
 his hive that was monitoring weight to make him think he had a honey flow on
 and make him rush out with supers.

 Where are the economics?  Fuel here cost around 75 cents a litre for diesel.
 That would be just over US$2 a gallon.  In some places it is higher so any
 saving of fuel makes economic sense and of course there is the saving on wear
 and tear on your vehicle.  Also time is saved but I suppose unless you can use
 the saved time profitabily then it is not worth anything.

 So here in Australia there is certainly a case to be made for remote
 monitoring to be economically viable.

 Trevor Weatherhead
 AUSTRALIA