Presentation

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