Harnessing sensor technologies to improve beekeeping in South Africa - our third and final sprint
A blog by J. Ross (1,2,*), J. Godber (1,2,), H. Sanders (3), C. Woodward (3), C. Kroukamp (4), A. Darker (5) & L. Alusala (5), Frontier Tech Implementing Partners.
(1) Crop Health and Protection (CHAP), 1.34 CHAP, Innovation Centre, Innovation Way, Heslington. YO10 5DG. United Kingdom.
(2) UK Agri-Tech Centre, Innovation Centre, Innovation Way, Heslington. YO10 5DG. United Kingdom.
(3) AgriSound, Enterprise Centre York St John University, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York. YO31 7EX. United Kingdom.
(4) CropImpi, 18 Neden Road, Montrose, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
(5) UK Science & Innovation Network in South Africa, British High Commission, 255 Hill Street, Arcadia, Pretoria, South Africa.
*corresponding author: jenna.ross@chap-solutions.co.uk
The South African beekeeping industry includes all persons and organisations involved in the keeping of bees for either commercial or recreational purposes, and the industry contributes significantly to the South African economy through honey production, pollination services and enhanced natural capital. Beekeeping contributed $16B (ZAR) to the South African economy in 2016 and provided 180,000 jobs.
However, the industry faces a number of significant challenges including sub-optimal pollination, biodiversity loss, productivity challenges, theft of hives and attracting new entrants to the sector, especially from underserved groups.
This project aims to address the above challenges through the introduction of in-hive sensor technology to deliver real-time decision support for South African beekeepers.
The technology has already been implemented across Europe, and as part of our first and second sprints, we piloted the in-hive sensors in two South African provinces: namely KwaZulu Natal and Western Cape. The reason these provinces were chosen was due to the distinct presence of the African honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellate) and Capensis bee (Apis mellifera capensis), respectively, both of which are commonly used for beekeeping by both commercial and hobbyist beekeepers.
The project delivery team brings together a collaborative UK-South Africa consortium including:
AgriSound – UK pollination management technologists,
Crop Health and Protection (CHAP), a UK Government funded Agri-Tech Innovation Centre,
CropImpi, a South Africa-based R&D organisation.
The pilot is supported by the Frontier Tech Hub, an initiative funded by UK Aid from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), and has involved working closely with the Science and Innovation Network team in South Africa.
Outputs from Sprints 1 and 2 have been essential in formulating our approach to our third and final sprint. During sprint 3, data was gathered from our 25 participant beekeepers in KwaZulu Natal and 18 participant beekeepers in the Western Cape, alongside the 200 deployed devices (Fig. 1).
Devices were deployed to a) assess functionality within a non-European environment; b) determine the value gained by South African beekeepers from the data generated by the sensors; and c) understand end-user behaviour and engagement to inform post-project commercialisation.
A participant installs a sensor into a hive
Through the project, devices were deployed for 10 (KwaZulu Natal) and 7 (Western Cape) months, respectively, providing sufficient time for beekeepers to be onboarded, become comfortable with the technology and to use the resulting data to make evidence-led decision making. Participant beekeepers in this project represented different backgrounds, experience, geographical locations and beekeeping sectors, with an additional focus on under-represented groups.
Figure 1: Two-hundred deployed in-hive sensor devices in KwaZulu Natal (KZN) and Western Cape (WCP) provinces
During Sprint 3, we investigated the following critical questions:
Will project participants across KwaZulu Natal and Western Cape report greater productivity and/or efficiency as a result of using the in-hive devices?
Can the in-hive devices be made more accessible to underserved groups in South Africa through an appropriate business model? This included assessing local production and cost models.
Delving into the data
To address our first critical question, we designed and rolled out a final questionnaire and open-ended interview guide to effectively gather data from our participants across KwaZulu Natal and Western Cape on:
How different users engaged with the technology and what actions they took as a result.
What the users see are their greatest needs / priorities as beekeepers and how the solution addresses these needs.
Whether or not the user groups value the solution and would invest in purchasing one, as well as associated barriers/conditions of doing so.
What needs the users have to effectively adopt the solution (from a usability and cost perspective).
What additional data has been generated from the in-hive devices on productivity/efficiency (e.g. time savings / honey quantities yield) and hive health.
The data generated through the questionnaire was essential for understanding the value proposition of the technology within a South African context. It also fed into the business model, helping align to the pains and gains of potential customer groups. Furthermore, it allowed us to assess the value of the solution, both in cost savings, and an appropriate cost model to bring to the market.
Project participants reflected a wide range of user groups (Fig. 2), with commercial (46.7%) and hobbyist (43.3%) beekeepers making up the biggest percentage.
Figure 2: Project participant beekeeper types
The gender split between total participants included 66.7% male and 33.3% female. The largest age group was represented by 36–55-year-olds, with further details of age split between total participants detailed in Fig. 3.
Figure 3: Project participant age split
The results showed:
A total of 43% overall participants took corrective actions thanks to the in-hive device usage. The types of corrective actions taken included:
(a) temperature control (e.g., moving the hive into the sun/shade/removing super).
(b) humidity control (e.g., tilting hive to remove excess water).
(c) introduction of a new queen (e.g., following the identification of severe temperature fluctuation of hive).
(d) Honey harvest (e.g., stable temperature recorded indicating the box was full and ready to harvest).
(e) Preventing splitting of hive by addition of super (e.g., due to lack of space in the hive thus inducing swarming).
(f) Where no corrective actions were taken, this was due to: no action required; difficulty in understanding data; mobility/disability challenges; and connectivity issues.
The needs and priorities identified by beekeepers included theft protection/identification (23%), opportunity to learn more about their hives (33%), early/remote detection of issues (16%), opportunity to save money/time/fuel to visit hives (10%) and reduce swarming (10%).
During this study, all participants received training, with 97% of participants finding the training helpful, and 57% of users felt that they were able to learn more about beekeeping as a result of using the technology.
Results also showed that 70% of participants valued the technology, with 54% of commercial beekeepers benefitting from using the technology and 86% of hobbyists benefiting from using the technology, offering an insight into customer segment. Furthermore, 87% of participants would like to continue using the technology after the trial, indicating a need for the technology.
Overall, there are strong indications that the sensors devices help to reduce time of beekeeping, but it is too early to know whether they have a tangible impact on honey productivity. The overall data showed that 47% said it reduced time spent monitoring hives, and 63% said it enables them to take quicker action on their hives. Furthermore, 20% of participants recorded increased yield as a result of using the device. Of the participants involved in this study, 71% said they were willing to pay for the technology. Those that weren’t identified cost as a barrier. This provided valuable insight and motivation for finding a suitable cost model.
Image: A beekeeper checks on their hive. The AgriSound gateway can been seen in the background.
Assessing the Cost Model and Local Manufacturing
To address our final critical question regarding making the in-hive devices more accessible to underserved groups in South Africa, a series of comprehensive interviews were performed, with questions following the established Van Westendorp Pricing Model.
Post-analysis, the optimum price point was shown at R600-1000 (£25-40) for a gateway and four sensors, with a monthly data fee of R99 (£5/pcm) which is 400% over the cost price to produce. This was generally consistent between hobbyist and commercial beekeepers, although commercial beekeepers exhibited stronger affinity to the technology and placed higher value on the data generated.
The current level of price sensitivity means that the existing business model is not viable and indicates a need to identify new more affordable solutions. Several options were considered, including local manufacturing, and sponsorship and/or subsidies.
A deep-dive into local manufacturing showed that several electronics manufacturers are present in the region and have the ability to produce the hive monitoring technology. However, this option was ultimately discounted since:
Costs of labour, whilst lower than the UK, were not significantly different to China which also benefits from higher levels of automation.
Most components are produced in China and would need to be shipped to South Africa regardless.
Ultimately, whilst some small savings were achievable (5-10% based on volumes), it would not be significant enough to increase affordability for end-users (expanded in Appendix 1). Therefore, we focused on conducting desk research to find suitable subsidy schemes or examples of corporate sponsorship to reduce the cost to end-users.
Promisingly, the rise of an ‘agri-fintech' sector presents a great opportunity to spread the cost of the hardware over a multi-year period through an asset financing model. Simple modelling suggested that spreading the cost over a 5-year period could make the technology accessible to most end-users and aligns with their willingness to pay. Additionally, external funding from NGOs and international governments could further subsidise the cost for technology adoption, further lowering the barriers for beekeepers.
The potential for support and subsidies from both international foundations and local government agencies is substantial. Funding aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability could be strategically directed towards subsidising in-hive devices for smallholder farmers and those transitioning to commercial beekeeping. Success stories, such as Hello Tractor’s machinery-as-a-service model, illustrate the effectiveness of public-private partnerships in making agricultural technology more accessible. By drawing inspiration from such models and engaging with financial institutions offering targeted support, post-project work will explore collaborative financing options, reducing the financial burden on beekeepers and thereby facilitating wider access to this technology.
A deeper dive on the business model research is available in Annex A.
Understanding the Business Model
The data generated from our aforementioned critical questions was essential in helping us define our value proposition of the in-hive devices thus allowing us to address the business model. We first conducted a workshop to build out a Business Model Canvas; a strategic tool that can be used to easily define and communicate a business idea or concept. It involves a one-page document covering nine fundamental elements of a business or product, helping to structure an idea using a coherent approach. This was particularly important with regards to addressing the cost barrier mentioned above, with special emphasis placed on assessing local manufacturing and costing models.
Figure 5: In hive sensor Business Model Canvas (BMC) for South African market
Conclusions on the Business Model Canvas
It is evident where the target market lies and which products should be marketed to different sections for maximising sales. The value proposition ties in well with market opportunities. More work is needed to identify partnerships that could potentially fund or subsidise the business model, as well as to identify opportunities for local manufacturing and reducing costs.
Project Conclusions
During this third and final sprint, the team was able to overwhelmingly demonstrate the positive value of in-hive monitoring technologies and develop (in part) a business case for further expansion of the project. From among the 200 in-hive sensors installed across the 43 project participants in KwaZulu Natal and Western Cape, 47% of participants noted that the technology had reduced the time spent monitoring their hives, while 63% said it enables them to take quicker action on their hives. Showcasing these technologies has increased customer awareness and understanding, thus creating demand for the product. This is supported by 87% of participants wanting to continue using the technology after the trial, and 71% saying they were willing to pay for the technology.
Whilst work is still required to improve affordability, several options exist including leveraging new agri-fintech solutions and subsidies for agricultural development which may support scale up across the region. Unfortunately, the devices did not ultimately benefit novice beekeepers/underserved groups to the extent that was anticipated at the beginning of the pilot, as their knowledge of beekeeping was still too limited and it was more challenging for them to interpret the data to inform decisions and actions to take for their hives.
Overall, the pilot project demonstrated the exciting possibilities of combining traditional beekeeping practices with innovative technology. By empowering beekeepers with valuable data and insights, this approach has the potential to create a thriving future for beekeeping in South Africa.
Looking ahead, AgriSound plans to leverage the project’s success and learnings, as well as the increased product awareness in South Africa, by assessing the opportunity to combine the in-hive sensors with smart bioacoustics, thus bringing even more value to beekeepers. This supports a precision pollination strategy to drive a more sustainable and productive agricultural industry in South Africa.
Annex A: Deeper Dive into the Business Model Research
We conducted a desk-based piece of research to identify examples of similar products/services which have been subsidised through a sponsorship or loan model (i.e. local biodiversity groups, agricultural bodies, research/academic partnerships, CSR partnerships etc.), and mapped potential partners for post-pilot activities.
A review of current subsidy models operating in South Africa were explored. The search focused on support for agricultural technologies and looked for support from: (i) Corporates operating within the region, (ii) Government, (iii) NGOs, charities and funding bodies.
Research indicates that there are multiple organisations and programmes designed to support agricultural productivity within South Africa, especially for smallholders and those transitioning to commercial production.
However, funding from corporates is most commonly used to support training or access to farming inputs (seeds, chemicals) and very few examples exist to support technology adoption.
A list of key stakeholders for future engagement was generated:
Research also indicated that multiple governments are supporting R&D work in South Africa using ODA and non-ODA funding. Much of this funding is to support infrastructure development or politicised in nature and therefore less accessible for use to subsidise technology usage:
UK (FCDO) - Multiple programmes including Climate Smart Farming (learnings for mitigating risk), research funding (CABI) and short-term funding for innovation.
US (USAID) - Feed the Future Initiative (including FASA fund with Norway - microloans to support land development by SMEs) and other trade initiatives to support private sector intervention.
EU - Political focus including the formation of the Task Force Rural Africa aiming to improve the research base across Africa to support sustainable development. Limited funding has been granted under the EU-Africa Research & Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FNSSA).
Examples of successful public-private partnerships were limited, however, one case study is Hello Tractor (based in Nigeria) which leverages strategic collaborations with John Deere, IBM, and funding from USAID to deploy a ‘machinery-as-a-service’ model to make heavy CapEx items available through an Uber-like app and microtransactions. As a result of this model, Hello Tractor has been able to scale across Africa and Asia.
Partnerships with agri-fintech and financial providers in South Africa could also provide another option for scaling deployment by allowing for the development of a lease model. Several providers have been identified and could be explored in more detail:
High level modelling suggests that it may be possible to work with an asset financing company to increase access to the technology. This model shows hardware costs kept at the current UK levels but models revenue based on willingness to pay over a multi-year period:
Hardware costs could also be further subsidised (for a fixed volume) by NGOs and other external funders who have interests in supporting agricultural development and new agribusiness creation:
Other local agencies may also be able to provide financial support to increase uptake.
Further details:
If you are interested in learning more about this project, please contact CHAP at enquiries@chap-solutions.co.uk or visit www.chap-solutions.co.uk
About AgriSound: AgriSound Limited was launched in January 2020 and is based in York. The company was founded by Casey Woodward, an experienced agri-tech innovation expert, with an aim to bring modern technology to insect monitoring. AgriSound has created special smart sensors and listening devices to monitor insects across a range of environments including beekeeping, farming, educational and corporate sites, with the aim of deploying sensors across the planet to transform how people monitor insect activity and make a positive impact on biodiversity. Since its establishment, AgriSound has partnered with a number of companies and projects, including M&S, Tesco, WWF, Dyson Farming, Innocent Drinks, National Trust Scotland and Royal Horticultural Society to spread the message worldwide and is continually looking for opportunities to branch out further. For more information, visit the AgriSound website: https://www.agrisound.io/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/agrisoundtech/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgriSoundTech
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/agrisound/
About Cropimpi: Cropimpi is an Agricultural Research and Development Company based in South Africa. Cropimpi specialises crop protection trials, demonstration sites for agricultural products, viability projects, business establishment, business development and training. They have assisted many international companies to enter the South African crop protection market by assisting with independent trial work for registration purposes. As part of their social responsibility Cropimpi has an enterprise development section that specialises in teaching rural farmers in their native language to farm sustainably to ensure food security. These charitable training sessions also showcase newer farming technologies like hydroponics for water conservation. Clients include Bayer, Villa, Farmers Agricare, Rolfes Agri and various smaller companies.
About CHAP: Crop Health and Protection (CHAP), funded by Innovate UK, is one of four UK Agri-Tech Centres. CHAP’s vision is for UK Agri-Tech innovation and expertise to drive sustainable farming systems which deliver economic, environmental, and societal benefits across the globe. CHAP acts as a unique, independent nexus between UK government, researchers and industry, building innovation networks to identify and accelerate cutting-edge solutions to drive incremental, transformative and disruptive changes in sustainable crop productivity. For more information, contact Senior International Business Development Manager, Dr Jenna Ross OBE — jenna.ross@chap-solutions.co.uk