HONEY BEE PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND HONEY QUALITY IN SILTI WEREDA, ETHIOPIA

  • 985 views
Uploaded on

Presentation

Presentation

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
985
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Beekeeping industry is at its infancy to utilize its immense potentiallack of systematically documented knowledge Scanty information
  • Make follow up easier.The placing of the hives in the vicinity of the village also allows women to participate in beekeeping.
  • This indicates Current low yields are an opportunity.China and Mexico production averaged between 50kg – 150kg per hive.
  • Denial to formal credit (88.75%), Extension service (62.5%), training (63.75%) Less attention and little effort has been undertaken to develop the sub sector.Inadequate beekeeping skills of Das., inadequate training for extension staff63.75% of the beekeepers did not attended any beekeeping training.Limited access to extension services.

Transcript

  • 1. Honeybee Production Practices and Honey Quality in Silti Wereda, Ethiopia By Alemayehu Kebede Major Advisor: Nuru Adgaba (PhD) Co- Advisor: Eyassu Seifu (PhD)
  • 2. 1. INTRODUCTION  Beekeeping plays major role in socioeconomic development and environmental conservation.  Contributions:  Food  Raw materials for various industries  Income for people  Generates employment opportunity  Foreign exchange earnings  Provide pollination to both cultivated and natural plants 2
  • 3. 1. INTRODUCTION ( cont’d) The country in general and the study area in particular holds large potential for beekeeping development due to their: • Diverse topographic and climatic conditions • Large number of bee colonies • Diversified and huge honey flora resource (some threats exists though). • Relatively disease-free environment for honey bees 3
  • 4. 1. INTRODUCTION ( cont’d) • honey productivity is low • Moreover, quality and postharvest handling of bee products are relatively low. • Generally, beekeeping resources are largely unexploited! (Beekeeping industry is at its infancy) • Why is this? – So far little is known about the existing type of beekeeping practiced, quality of honey produced and major constraints and opportunities for the development of apiculture in the study Wereda (Silti). 4
  • 5. 1. INTRODUCTION ( cont’d) • Therefore, this study was conducted – To assess honey bee production practice in Silti Wereda. – To identify major constraints and potentials of honey bee production in the area, and – To determine the quality of honey produced in the study area. 5
  • 6. 2. MATERIALS and METHODS 2.1. The study site Silti is one of the eight weredas of Siltie Zone in SNNPRS Lies approximately between from 7°38' to 8°07' N latitude and from 38°12' to 38°30' E longitude Administrative structure: 41 kebeles, (3 =urban and 38 =rural kebeles) has 2 major AEZs : •Midland (1650-2300 masl) (Weyna Dega) → 79.7% •Highland (2300-3100 masl) (Dega)→20.3% Rainfall pattern: Bimodal annual rain fall, ranging from 875 to 1213 mm Temprature: Min. and Max. Temp. of 12 and 25OC, respectively. 6
  • 7. 2. MATERIALS and METHODS (cont’d) 2.1. The study site (cont’d) Figure 1. Map of Silti Wereda with sampled Kebeles 7
  • 8. 2. MATERIALS and METHODS(cont’d) 2.2. Sampling procedures 2.2.1. For survey – Silti wereda was Selected purposefully – The wereda was stratified based on AEZs(7 Dega and 31 Weyna Dega) and 20% of each AEZs KAs selected randomly(total 8KAs, 2Dega and 6 Weyna Dega KAs) SRS – 10 beekeeping households per KAs were selected by using SRS. (total= 80HHs) 8
  • 9. 2. MATERIALS and METHODS(cont’d) 2.2. Sampling procedures (Cont’d) 2.2.2. For honey sample collection – 3 locations were selected for quality determination purpose o 2 AEZs ( Dega 3KAs and W/Dega 3 kAs) SRS (farm gate)  Dega and Weyna Dega to see AEZs difference o One market (the only honey MKt in the district)  Kebet honey market place to look - adulteration, contamination at d/t stages (marketed) o 6 samples of honeys collected from each locations ( 3 from traditional and 3 from box hives) 9
  • 10. 2. MATERIALS and METHODS(cont’d) 2.3. Honey Quality Analysis  The honey samples were analyzed for reducing sugars, sucrose, moisture, acidity, WIM, mineral contents and pH  reducing sugars and sucrose were determined according to Pearson (1971) at EHNRI laboratory, and  the rest parameters were determined according to the procedures of QSAE (2009) at QSAE laboratory. 10
  • 11. 2. MATERIALS and METHODS(cont’d) 2.4. Data collection • PRA technique for group discussion, informal interviews & direct observations were carried out. • Formal survey using a semi-structured pre-tested questionnaire was administered to collect data • Honey samples were taken from the three locations using food grade plastic containers. Each sample was labeled with the following information: sample number, date, collector, AEZ/market, KA, beekeeper and hive type. • Secondary data were collected from different sources such as books, research works, journals, office reports, Internet etc. 11
  • 12. 2. MATERIALS and METHODS (cont’d) 2.4. Statistical Analysis  Survey data was analyzed by descriptive statistics using SPSS software version 16 (SPSS, 2007).  Different categories of the results were compared using χ2 and t-test.  Laboratory data was analyzed by two way ANOVA using SAS software version 9 (SAS, 2002).  When the ANOVA showed presence of significant difference between the different samples, the DMRT was used for mean separation and significant differences were declared at 5% significance level. 12
  • 13. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION 3.1. Socio-economic characteristic of respondents • Beekeeping is dominantly practiced by male (95% Dega and 96.7% Weyna Dega) with no significant differences between locations. • About 60 % of interviewed households were literate. Important to access relevant information that will stimulate honey production • The overall mean landholding was 0.60 ha and about 68.75% of respondents possessing ≤ one hectare land. • This reveals that the importance of beekeeping activity as alternative food security means for farmers having little /no land. 13
  • 14. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.2. Honeybee production practices • Based on the types of technology and management practices used, 3 types of honeybee production practices were identified: Modern bee hives Top bar hives Traditional hives 14
  • 15. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.3. Number of honeybee colonies of the respondents by hive type Table 1. Number of honeybee colonies of the respondents (in 2009) The studytype Hive showed extreme dependence on low productive traditionalthives Dega(N=20) Weyna Dega Total sample – value (N=60) (N=80) (rep. 87% of total hives). No. of % hives No. of hives % No. of hives % The adoption of modern bee hive was very low (rep. 11.54% of total Traditional hive 87 89.69 547 86.69 634 87.09 hives). 1.4% of total hives1.11 (insignificant in Intermediate hive hives were top bar bee7 3 3.10 10 1.37 Movable frame hive Av. total number 7 7.21 of hives/HH= 9.177 12.20 Vs (Dega=4.8 84 hives/HH). Significant (p > 0.001)631 Total number 97 100 100 728 Mean (Over all)/HH 4.85b 10.52a #). 11.54 100 9.10 - 4.796*** beekeeping sector in the district is severely underdeveloped 2-50 2-10 Relativeley Weyna Dega loc. had better 2-50 potential than Dega loc Colony Holding range 15
  • 16. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.4. honeybee colony population trend Figure 3. Trends in the number of honeybee colonies over four years The recorded 1.11% average annual colony population growth rate indicates the existence of large and unexploited beekeeping resources in the study area 16
  • 17. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.5. Placement of honeybee colonies In the study area, bee hives were predominantly placed at the back yard of the respondents. Backyard Inside the house Under the roof Figure 4. Backyard beekeeping in the study area 17
  • 18. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.6. Honey bee management practice Colony inspection • Internal hive inspection was undertaken by not more than 18% of beekeepers (mostly respondents using modern bee hive). Colony feeding • Out of the sampled respondents 63.75% do not practice dearth periods feeding - result in higher rate of absconding and weak colonies. (Starvation) Swarm control • About 60% of respondents did not control swarming, which resulted in (weak colony)lower honey production. 18
  • 19. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.6. Honey bee management practice (cont’d) Honey harvesting methods • Traditional hives were harvested by cutting comb -result in a mixture of brood, wax and honey • Generally, beekeepers employ poor Apiary Scarcity of honey extractor force some of beekeepers to harvest honey from box management practices hive in traditional way • Only few beekeepers (7.6%) are involved in beeswax production. • Excessive use of smoke during harvesting to calm down bees - affect honey quality Generally, The harvesting method used results in contamination of honey during harvesting 19
  • 20. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.7. Honey production in the study area Table 2.Annual honey production obtained by respondents in 2009 •AV. Honey out put /yearPer HH of W/Dega respo. 5 fold of Dega,Stat. sig (p<0.001) Honey yield (in kg) Dega(n=20) Weyna Dega Total sample t-value •Productivity per hive W/Dega > 2 fold Dega, sig (p<0.001) (n=60) (n=80) •This productivity difference Shows existence of better potential at W/Dega production Total honey AEZ 6879.5 419.50 6460 Mean/HH (Kg) 20.97b 107.67a 85.99 Range yield/HH(Kg) 9-120 16-900 9-900 Range (all hives)(Kg) 1.5-18 2.5-30 1.5-30 Range (MFBH) (Kg) 7 - 18 2.5 -30 2.5 – 30 Range (IBH) (Kg) 4–6 3 – 30 3 - 30 Range (TBH) (Kg) 1.5 - 8 3 - 18 -4.277* 1.5 - 18 The productivity range shows existance of room for increasing Yield/hive (all hives)(Kg) -7.68*** prductivity with better mng’t. i.e there is A 9.45 potential exists for great 4.32b 10.24a honey production that is not being exploited. 20
  • 21. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.8. Honey production trend in the study area 8000 6852.5 6610 Total honey production increased by 1.32% Average annual 4 yrs p.a. in the 7000 6535 growth rate 1.32% period, unlike reports of studies 5727 made by other parts of the country. 5824.5 5806.5 Honey production (kg) 6880.5 5610.5 6000 5000 This indicates the existence of unexploited beekeeping potential in the area Traditional hive 4000 Intermediate hive 3000 Movable frame hive Therefore, the result reveals the importance of beekeeping as a All hives 2000 strategic tool for poverty reduction/food security in the area 1225 1095.5 680.5 773.5 30 30 30 45 2006 1000 2007 2008 2009 0 Year of production Figure 5.Total honey production of respondent farmers. 21
  • 22. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.9. Honey productivity trend in the study area This indicates Current low yields are an opportunity Figure 6. Trends in productivity of honeybee colonies over four years in the study area. Over all average honey productivity recorded in 2009 was 10.34% lower than 2008 (drought) 22
  • 23. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.10. Post harvest handling of honey Traditional straining 3.10.1. Processing • Purification/filtering Only farmers in traditional in Weyna Dega) of the sampled Most 17% (21%useDega and 14%Poor processing methods and households strain their storage equipment. honey before sale. • Honey containers used/Packaging -No standardized material -plastic bucket , earthen pot (31.2%), gourd (2.5%) and animal skin (1.2%) were used to store honey for short period . • earthen pot, gourd and Animal skin inappropriate storage materials negatively affecting honey quality Figure 7.Types of containers used by beekeepers and traders in Silti district 23
  • 24. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.11. Marketing of hive products 3.11.1. Annual income from beekeeping Table 3. Annual income per household earned from apiculture (in 2009) Description Dega(n=20) Weyna Dega Total sample (n=60) (n=80) The mean annual income obtained per household from the sale of hive products was 2,472.30 ETB Mean income/HH (in ETB ) 442.18b 3155.70a 2472.30 Income range (in ETB ) 360 - 25650 0-25650 0 -1365 - 4.777*** This result Shows the importance of beekeeping for improving livelihood of 300.04a 272 -8.52*** Mean income/hives resource poor farmers. 87.05b (in ETBsurvey out put indicated that the benefits from the local honey The ) production are high. Thus, beekeeping in the area is a promising income generating activity 24
  • 25. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.9.2. Honey price in the study area Table 4.The average price of different hive types honey over four years in the study area Type of honey Production years 2006 Traditional (crude) Movable frame(pure) Average price (ETB/Kg) 2007 18.37 24.73 24 2008 20.73 29 24 2009 26.30 35.20 29.67 2010 32.76 43.66 40.61 price increment 39.22 57.25 49 104% 69.2% Over the five years time (2006-2010) average honey price increase by 104 %  Hence, this situation indicates existence of better market opportunity in the area 25
  • 26. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.12. Honey bee flora 3.1.8.1. Major honeybee floras of the study area  80 plants has been identified as bee flora.  From these 38 -major bee forages: Tree ,shrub and Herb plants ( shares 68%) Ten top tree, shrub and Herb bee floras – Acacia spp., Eucalyptus spp., Cordia africana, Coroton macrostachy, Carissa edulis, Entada abyssinica, Syzygium guiness, Dovyalis abyssinica, Rosa abyssinica , Guizotia scabra, Bidens sp., Trifolium steudneri/acaule,  Cultivated plants (shares 32%) Ten top Cultivated crops (bee floras) – Phaseolus vulgaris L., Vicia faba, Pisum sativum, Solanum tubersum, Allium cepa, Brassica carinata, Persea americana, Malus domesticas, Carica papaya and coffea arabica 26
  • 27. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.13. Beekeeping equipments and accessory ownership & use Low technological input utilization – low productivity and production – Movable frames ownership and use (45%=36HH) productss - low quality of hive • 41.25 % of W/ Dega beekeepers ( ownership = 1.28box hive/HH) • 25 % of Dega beekeepers (ownership = 0.35 box hive/HH) – Protective equipment ownership and use (fabricated smokers, veil Most of the respondent bee-keepers do not have protective equipment. and glove) This makes itDega sampled them to properly manage the hives. • ≤ 10% difficult for beekeepers • ≤ 30% W/Dega respondents – Availability of equipments ( honey extractor, casting mould and Lack/shortage of processing equipment leads to poorer quality of strainer) honey ( honey extractor, casting mould and strainer) • In the district level – One honey extractor serves to 228 box hives – One casting mould is allocated for 685 box hives. – Lack of honey strainer Scarcity of processing equipment lead to poorer quality of honey (high contamination with water insoluble solids). 27
  • 28. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.14. Access to Credit and Beekeeping Extension Description responses Dega(n=20) Weyna Dega (n=60) % Credit accessed Yes No Total % % Once Twice Three times Total Yes No Total 5 95 13.3 86.7 100 100 11.25 88.75 100 60 63.3 62.50 40 16.7 22.50 - 16.7 12.5 100 3.3 100 2.50 10 Extension contact (12mths) No contact at all Access to training Total sample (n=80) 45.0 36.25 90 55.0 63.75 100 100 100 100 28
  • 29. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.15. Major constraints and opportunity of beekeeping 3.15.1. Major constraints of honey production in the study area  Inadequate access to beekeeping equipment and accessories Limited input supply (affordability & availability)  ranked 1st with 25.6% respondents. modern hives, casting mold, honey strainers and pure beeswax  Prevalence of Pests and predators – Ranked 2nd as 23% of the bee farmers complained about this. – reduces colony of bees in the hives/ quantity of honey produced – The major pest of beekeeping were:  Chemical poisoning – was ranked as 3rd by 17.5% of HHs – indiscriminate use of pesticides  Shortage of bee forage – ranked as 4th by 9.3% respondents. 29
  • 30. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.15.2. Opportunities and potentials of honeybee production  Presence of beekeepers and honey bees » There are about 4125 beekeepers » large number of managed honey bee colonies » Presence of ample honeybee colony swarms.  Existence of huge and diversified honey flora  Existence of huge cultivated and natural honey flora in the area make it extremely favorable for beekeeping.  4808 hectares forest trees, shrubs and bushes  5211 hectare is grazing land  36673 hectares cultivated crop. 30
  • 31. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.15.2. Opportunities and potentials of honeybee production (cont’d)  Availability huge Water resources  Presence of many natural Lakes, springs and small rivers  Employment opportunity  With relatively low start up costs and minimum land requirements, bee-keeping offers high potential for employment  Traditional know-how of beekeepers  Presence of long standing beekeeping practices and indigenous know how is very important to improve the existing practices than introducing new practices.  Better market opportunities  The areas high price of honey could be as incentive to motivate non beekeepers and also to retain beekeepers  The recent attention of the government and NGOs to improve beekeeping 31
  • 32. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.16. Laboratory Results of Honey Quality Test 3.16.1. Physico-chemical properties of honey produced in the study area Table 5. Physico-chemical properties of honey samples collected from traditional and modern hives (n=18) Parameters Hive type (Mean) Traditional (n=9) Modern (n=9) Moisture content (% by mass) 15.95ns 15.93ns Reducing sugars (% by mass) 69.65a* 68.42b* Sucrose (% by mass) 4.42ns 3.69ns Water insoluble matter (g/100g) Ash content (% by mass) Free acidity (milliequivalent acid/kg) pH 0.49a* 0.025b* 0.17ns 0.50ns 17.38b* 21.25a* 4.52ns 4.37ns 32
  • 33. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.16.1. Physico-chemical properties of honey (Cont’d) Table 6. Physical properties and chemical composition of honey samples collected from the different locations (n=18) Parameters Location ( Mean) Dega (n=6) Weyna Dega (n=6) Market(n=6) Moisture content (% by mass) 16.07 15.58 16.18 Reducing sugars (% by mass) 68.89ab* 68.17 b* 70.05 a* Sucrose (% by mass) 4.10 4.35 3.72 Water insoluble matter (% by mass) 0.192 0.326 0.26 Ash content (% by mass) 0.47 0.37 0.158 Free acidity (milliequivalent acid/kg) 24.39 a** 16.848 b** 16.71b** pH 4.368 4.57 4.41 33
  • 34. 3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d) 3.16.1. Physico-chemical properties of honey (Cont’d) Table 7. Comparison of pysico-chemical properties of honey produced in the study area with the National and International standards Parameters Sucrose (% by mass) Mean(Silti) National mean QSAE 69.04 66 ≥ 65 4.10 3.6 ≤ 10 CAC ≥ 65 ≤5 EU ≥65 ≤5 Moisture (% by mass) 15.94 21 ≤ 21 ≤ 21 ≤ 20 Ash (% by mass) 0.34 0.23 ≤ 0.6 ≤ 0.6 ≤ 0.6 Acidity (meq/kg) 19.32 39.9 ≤ 40 ≤ 50 ≤40 - ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.1 - ≤ 0.1 - ≤ 0.5 - ≤ 0.5 - Reducing s. (% by mass) Water insoluble (%) 0.26 In general 0.025 Pressed honey 0.49 pH 4.45 In general, honey produced in Silti meet the local and international quality standards. 34 However, honey WIM require improvement
  • 35. 4. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS • In view of the study findings, the following points require attention by all concerned bodies to develop the apiculture sector in the study area: • Based on the identified potentials of the district ,beekeeping development efforts (interventions) should be focused primarily in Weyna Dega areas and secondarily in Degas parts of the district. • To increase the low level of women participation in apiculture, women should be encouraged to participate in modern beekeeping through availing supports like training, credit services and modern beekeeping technologies by GOs, financial institutions and NGOs. • To improve the low level of technological input utilization and capital shortage, credit facilities need to be facilitated to supply improved bee-hives, honey processing materials and other beekeeping equipments. 35
  • 36. 4. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS (cont...) • In order to address the skill gap on bee colony management and post harvest handling of hive products, practical training on bee and bee products management should be given. – This will enable producers to manage the honey equipment, and apply appropriate principle of honey production, extraction, and processing activities. • The threat of chemical poisoning and pests and predators in the area, should be managed through awareness creation on readily available biological and/or scientifically approved control and prevention methods. 36
  • 37. 4. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS (cont...) • To improve the gap in extension service delivery and inadequate skill of extension agents in the study area, – Practical oriented training should be given for development agents on improved beekeeping. – There is a need to enhance extension services through practical onfarm demonstrations, field-days, exchange visits and study tours. • To improve the honey quality defects associated with higher waterinsoluble matter in the study district, – there is a need to provide a practical training to local beekeepers and traders about proper ways of harvesting, handling, processing, packaging and sale of honey, – moreover, facilitating supply of quality apicultural equipment is crucial. 37
  • 38. THANK YOU