News from Njiro

A bee smoker appropriate for African conditions

by R S Koisianga

INTRODUCTION

A smoker is very important tool used when beekeepers and honey hunters work with bees.

In its modern shape it is metal container filled with smoke-giving material and a lows to produce the air flow. It is necessary to smoke honeybees before the colony is touched. The smoke is puffed into the colony and the bees sense it. They move back to the combs and concentrate on eating honey. The most commonly accepted theory about smoke is that it breaks the communication within the colony and causes bees to engorge themselves with nectar or honey. Thus they prepare to abandon the hive and avoid the source of the smoke. The result of smoking bees is that they become less defensive and less likely to sting

THE PROBLEM

Many modern smokers are unable to calm African bees. These modern smokers need refuelling inconveniently often when working with African bees. When used intensively they produce a hot blue smoke that burns the bees and makes them aggressive. The modern smokers are also too expensive for poor beekeepers.

In Tanzania three types of smokers are used by beekeepers: traditional smokers; locally made, modern style smokers; and imported smokers.

Traditional smokers

Honey gatherers smoke bees when harvesting honey. Some of these gatherers burn pieces of plant or fruit to produce smoke Some cut branches and grass They make fire on ground directly beneath the colony so that the smoke blows in the direction of the colony. Honey collecting this way is done usually on a dark night. This gives the beekeeper some defence against the angry bees. However these traditional methods can cause forest fires and also harm the bees and make them abscond. These methods are still used by honey hunters and beekeepers

Locally made, modern style smokers

According to reports from beekeepers, locally made smokers are neither efficient nor durable. They claim that these smokers give hot smoke that makes bees more vicious instead of calming them. At the same time the smoker itself becomes very hot and becomes difficult to hold. This is due to use of the wrong type of tin in making the smoker body. However we have seen some smokers made locally from scrap material that work very well The problem is that their volume is too small.

Imported smokers

Many imported smokers are unable to calm African bees. These European-style, modern smokers are durable and efficient but expensive: beekeepers cannot afford to buy them. Most imported smokers are also small and therefore burn out quickly and need to be re-filled.

THE OBJECTIVE

We have seen how each smoking method has disadvantages. The objective of this project was to test and develop an appropriate bee smoker for African conditions, and to recommend the best materials to use as fuel.

An ideal smoker is one that produces plenty of cool smoke for a long time yet without threatening to causes fires. Therefore the objectives were:

- To see how long smokers could produce smoke

- To study the quality of the smoke produces and its acceptance by both beekeeper and bees

MATERIALS

Cheap, locally available materials were selected. The materials requires for making and using a smoker are:

- Soft and hard pieces of leather -

A spring with fittings

- Durable tin of 1 mm thickness

- A piece of wood 19cm x 13 cm - Smoker fuel

METHODS

a) Three types of bellow springs of different heights were tested:

(I) 12.0 x 9.4 x 3.5 cm

(II) 13.0 10.5 3.5 cm

(III) 14.0 x 14.0 x 3.5 cm

b) Four containers of different volume were tested

c) Three types of leather were tested durability

d) The costs for making these different designs of smokers were compared

e) Eight types of smoker fuel were tested.

RESULTS

Spring

Of the three types of spring tested, spring (I) was easiest to work and most durable. The others were too hard. As a result the operator of the smoker became tired. These hard springs lasted only for short period before the returning mechanism spring became weak due to hard pressure from the

Container

Table 2* shows the results for each container with range of smoking materials. See also Figures 1* and 2*

Material

The different types of leather materials tested were hard, medium hard and soft. A suitable leather was the soft one especially goat or calf leather. The hard side of the leather should be outwards and the wood pieces should be polished to avoid any sharp edges

Cost

In this test the cost of making each different smoker was the same despite the materials used being slightly different.

Fuels

eight smoker materials tested were harmless to beekeepers and bees (no side effects observed). The materials differed in the length of time they produced cool smoke (Table 3*).

CONCLUSIONS

1. A smoker that produces smoke for more than one hour should be considered satisfactory.

2. Disadvantages were noted for rice husks (produced sparks), sacks (often contaminated with chemicals), maize cobs (difficult to light), and wood shavings (extremely short smoking time and bad smell).

3 . Both smokers (3) and (4) in Table 2* burned for more than one hour. Smoker (3) is very tall in shape and smoker (4) is wide bodied. From this experiment we judged that the shape of the smoker container is not so important but the volume must be at least two litres.

4. From this project we can conclude that the best smoking materials, easily available in most parts of our country, are dried cow dung or dry fibres from the papaya trunk. Also mixture of these materials is suitable.

5. The so-called Botswana smoker (a simple tin held with wire hook) is easy to make and cheap. Unfortunately it produces smoke for only short time (28 minutes), produces flames and sparks, and puts the beekeeper at risk from inhaled smoke during its operation. Also it is not advisable for use where the chance of forest fire is high.

6. Some of the traditional and locally-made smokers are good but not recommended to be used in fire hazard areas

It is still difficult to find workshop in Tanzania that can produce quality smokers that last many years. To develop a good smoker is easy in theory but to have them prepared on large-scale to benefit poor beekeepers is very difficult!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express my sincere gratitude to our research co-ordinators, Mr Stephen Liseki and Mr Bérje Svensson for their help with my project. Many thanks also to the Director, Mr Liana Hassan for his constructive opinions and logistical support. Field attendants and beekeepers in the field played a good role in evaluating the smokers. Many thanks to my wife Joan for taking my responsibility at home when I was out collecting data for this project. Thank you to all my co-workers, who in many ways facilitated my work.

*Where reference to tables or figures is made, please see the original journal article

REFERENCES

ANDERSON,R H, BUYS,B; JOHANNSMEIER,M (1983) Beekeeping in South Africa. Department of Agricultural Technica! Services Bulletin no 394, Pretoria, South Africa.

CRANE, (1990) Bees and beekeeping: science, practice and world resources. Heinemann Newnes, Oxford, United Kingdom

FREE,] (1982) Bees and mankind. George Allen Unwin, London, United Kingdom. GOULD] L; GOULD,C (1988) The honey bee. Scientific American Library, New York, USA

KIGATIRA,K (1988) Beekeeping for beginners. Nairobi, Kenya, published by the author.