Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (17)
Similar to Towards Increased honey production in Northern Uganda: A multiperspective approach
Similar to Towards Increased honey production in Northern Uganda: A multiperspective approach (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (8)
Towards Increased honey production in Northern Uganda: A multiperspective approach
- 1. Towards an increasing honey production in Northern Uganda: A multi-perspective approach Ms Deborah Ruth Amulen (BSc, MLD) In Hebrew “Deborah = dēvōrah = Bee or swarm of bees”
- 2. Outline of presentation 1 Relevance of beekeeping 2 Current situation and challenges 3 Research questions & conceptual framework 4 Specific studies 5 Pathways for improvement 6 Areas of future research
- 3. Relevance of beekeeping Ecosystem service: Pollination Economic contribution Social role “Gets someone a wife” Medicines The wonder insect
- 4. Why Northern Uganda? 20 Year WAR People in camps Hunger No trees
- 6. Current situation West Nile and mid-northern high density of beekeepers Eastern medium density of beekeeping 50% of Uganda’s beekeepers 10% of Uganda’s beekeepers/ Fruit production belt!! (Kajobe et al., 2009; UBOS & MAAIF, 2009)
- 7. Current situation: Production Traditional beehives Fixed comb beehives 87% beehives used. National yield 8kg vs 15kg potential and in Northern 5kg
- 8. Current situation: Technology and production Transitional beehives Top bar beehives 11% beehives used. National yield 12kg vs 26kg potential and in Northern 3.8kg
- 9. Current situation: Production Frame beehives Frame beehives Langstroth beehives 2% beehives used. National yield 15kg vs 60kg potential and in Northern 5.5kg
- 10. Current challenge Potential is said to exist! (500,000MT Per annum) Adoption remained low Production sub-optimal Global bee decline threats
- 11. Conceptual framework Institutional environment Natural environment Household environment/capital Bee colony environment Government, NGOs, market Bees, plants, agriculture, diseases Physical, human, social, natural, financial Honeybee diseases, race, behaviour, products Livelisystems transitions Adoption of beekeeping Hanging in –current state (no- profit) Falling down impoverishment Stepping up improved beekeeping Stepping out Quitting beekeeping Study 1: Socio- economic drivers and barriers to beekeeping Study 1: Socio- economic drivers and barriers to beekeeping Study 2: Toxicological status of the environment Study 3: Prevalence and extent of pest, pathogen and parasites effect Study 4: Most-cost effective interventions
- 12. Study 1: Drivers and barriers to adoption 1. Quantify beekeeper wealth status 2. Determine drivers and barriers 3.Quantify relative contribution
- 13. Study 1: Methods
- 14. Study 1: Well-being index BK NBK Sleeping hungry Food shortage No off farm income No cattle keeper Not a casual labourer Grass thatched house Sleeping on polythene 52% 34% 88% 72% 39% 49% 37% 23% 53% 42% 54% 12% 17% 12%
- 15. Study 1: Wealth status BK NBK
- 16. Study 1: Drivers and barriers to adoption Income (92%) Nutrition (91%) Market for the product (71%) Limited knowledge (62%) Fear of bees (59%) Insufficient capital (31%) Beekeepers: drivers to adoption Non-beekeepers: barriers to adoption
- 17. Study 1: Predictors of adoption NGO groups male Less educated Poor
- 18. Study 1: Income contribution 7% Annual mean household income = 616
- 19. Study 1: Conclusions and implications Beekeepers are poor1 Adoption is driven by development agencies 2 Knowledge of beekeeping is low3 Training approach could be wrong4
- 20. Study 2: Environmental contaminants Multi-residue analysis (QuECHERS) Less intensive farming region 5 samples 18 samples 8 samples
- 21. Study 2: Detected pesticides Analysed for 36 Detected 20 neonicotinoids organophosphates carbamates 12 insecticides 8 fungicides 4 3 2
- 22. Study 2: Link with agriculture Less intensive farming region Citrus farms Tobacco Less pesticide use
- 23. Study 2: Conclusions and implications Focus on organic products1 Effects on honeybee heath2 More detailed studies3
- 24. Study 3: Pathogens, parasites and pests Observed declines in African honeybee colonies (Carroll &Kinsella., 2013) Pathogens, Parasites and Pests poorly characterised Wild bee swarms
- 25. Study 3: Methods Honeybees collected Beehives inspected Molecular analysis
- 26. Study 3: Viruses Honeybee viruses 69% Infected 63% Single 5% Double BQCV SBV ABPV Type of detected viruses Most prevalentDWV 59% 13% 4% 0.4 %1% Triple
- 27. Study 3: Other pathogens and pests
- 28. Study 3: Conclusions and implications Detected pathogens associated with colony losses 1 Extent of damage unknown2 More detailed surveillance3
- 29. Study 4: Estimated potential production (Monte Carlo simulation) Added fixed comb hives Added top bar hives Added frame beehives Planted Calliandra trees Would there be an improved beekeeping?
- 32. Study 3: Conclusions and implications The current state of beekeeping can be improved 1 Even local beehives make a change 2 Bee forage is key3
- 33. Routes for improvement Knowledge- based Business- oriented Marketing associations Product diversity Organic farming Bee nutrition Health surveillance
- 34. Knowledge dissemination Areas for future research 1 Effectiveness of development agencies 2 Market research3 Product quality and development 4 Further health screening5 Production- model validation6
- 35. Overall conclusion This PhD study has established that beekeeping has the potential to improve livelihoods 1 However, this can only be achieved if beekeepers improve their current management practices and adopt beekeeping technologies 2
- 36. Acknowledgements The beekeepers in all agro-ecological zones sampled