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

By Alemayehu KebedeMajor Advisor: Nuru Adgaba (PhD)Co- Advisor: Eyassu Seifu (PhD)

Honeybee Production Practices and Honey Quality in Silti Wereda, Ethiopia

1. INTRODUCTION

Contributions:

Food

Raw materials for various

industries

Income for people

Generates employment

opportunity

Foreign exchange earnings

Provide pollination to both

cultivated and natural plants2

Beekeeping plays major role in socioeconomic development and

environmental conservation.

1. INTRODUCTION ( cont’d)

• 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

The country in general and the study area in particular holds large potential for beekeeping development due to their:

1. INTRODUCTION ( cont’d)

Paradox!

• 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

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

2. MATERIALS and METHODS

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.

2.1. The study site

6

7Figure 1. Map of Silti Wereda with sampled Kebeles

2. MATERIALS and METHODS (cont’d)

2.1. The study site (cont’d)

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

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

2. MATERIALS and METHODS(cont’d)

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.

2.3. Honey Quality Analysis

10

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

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

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

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:

Traditional hives

Top bar hives

Modern bee hives

14

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)

Hive type Dega(N=20) Weyna Dega (N=60)

Total sample(N=80)

t – value

No. of hives

% No. of hives

% No. of hives

%

Traditional hive 87 89.69 547 86.69 634 87.09

Intermediate hive 3 3.10 7 1.11 10 1.37

Movable frame hive 7 7.21 77 12.20 84 11.54

Total number 97 100 631 100 728 100

Mean (Over all)/HH 4.85b 10.52a 9.10- 4.796***

Colony Holding range 2-10 2-50 2-50

15

The study showed extreme dependence on low productive traditional hives (rep. 87% of total hives).

The adoption of modern bee hive was very low (rep. 11.54% of total hives).1.4% of total hives were top bar bee hives (insignificant in #).

Av. total number of hives/HH= 9.1 (Dega=4.8 Vs W/Dega=10.2 hives/HH). Significant (p > 0.001)

beekeeping sector in the district is severely underdeveloped

Relativeley Weyna Dega loc. had better potential than Dega loc

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

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.

Under the roof

Inside the house

Backyard

Figure 4. Backyard beekeeping in the study area 17

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.6. Honey bee management practice

18

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.

Honey harvesting methods

• Traditional hives were harvested by cutting comb -result in a mixture of brood, wax

and honey

• Scarcity of honey extractor force some of beekeepers to harvest honey from box

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

harvesting19

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.6. Honey bee management practice (cont’d)

Generally, beekeepers employ poor Apiary management practices

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.7. Honey production in the study areaTable 2.Annual honey production obtained by respondents in 2009

Honey yield (in kg) Dega(n=20) Weyna Dega

(n=60)

Total sample

(n=80)

t-value

Total honey production 419.50 6460 6879.5

Mean/HH (Kg)20.97b 107.67a 85.99 -4.277*

Range yield/HH(Kg) 9-120 16-900 9-900

Yield/hive (all hives)(Kg)4.32b 10.24a 9.45

-7.68***

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 1.5 - 1820

• AV. Honey out put /yearPer HH of W/Dega respo. 5 fold of Dega,Stat. sig (p<0.001)

• Productivity per hive W/Dega > 2 fold Dega, sig (p<0.001)• This productivity difference Shows existence of better potential at

W/Dega AEZ

The productivity range shows existance of room for increasing prductivity with better mng’t. i.e there is A great potential exists for honey production that is not being exploited.

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.8. Honey production trend in the study area

2006 2007 2008 20090

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

5824.5 5806.5 5727 5610.5

30 30 30 45

680.5 773.51095.5 1225

6535 66106852.5 6880.5

Traditional hiveIntermediate hiveMovable frame hiveAll hives

Year of production

Hon

ey p

rodu

ction

(kg)

Average annual growth rate 1.32%

Figure 5.Total honey production of respondent farmers.21

Total honey production increased by 1.32% p.a. in the 4 yrs period, unlike reports of studies made by other parts of the country.

This indicates the existence of unexploited beekeeping potential in the area

Therefore, the result reveals the importance of beekeeping as a strategic tool for poverty reduction/food security in the area

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.9. Honey productivity trend in the study area

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

This indicates Current low yields are an opportunity

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)3.10. Post harvest handling of honey

3.10.1. Processing • Purification/filtering

Only 17% (21% in Dega and 14% in Weyna Dega) of the sampled households strain their honey before sale.

• Honey containers used/Packaging-No standardized material-plastic bucket (78.8%), 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

Traditional straining

23

Most farmers use traditional Poor processing methods and storage equipment.

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.11. Marketing of hive products3.11.1. Annual income from beekeeping

Table 3. Annual income per household earned from apiculture (in 2009)

Description Dega(n=20) Weyna Dega (n=60)

Total sample(n=80)

Mean income/HH (in ETB )

442.18b 3155.70a 2472.30 - 4.777***

Income range (in ETB ) 0 -1365 360 - 25650 0-25650

Mean income/hives (in ETB )

87.05b 300.04a 272 -8.52***

24

The mean annual income obtained per household from the sale of hive products was 2,472.30 ETB

This result Shows the importance of beekeeping for improving livelihood of resource poor farmers.The survey out put indicated that the benefits from the local honey production are high.

Thus, beekeeping in the area is a promising income generating activity

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.9.2. Honey price in the study area

Type of honey Production years

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Traditional (crude) 18.37 20.73 26.30 32.76 39.22Movable frame(pure) 24.73 29 35.20 43.66 57.25Average price (ETB/Kg) 24 24 29.67 40.61 49

price increment 104%69.2%

Table 4.The average price of different hive types honey over four years in the study area

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

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

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.13. Beekeeping equipments and accessory ownership & use– Movable frames ownership and use (45%=36HH)

• 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 and glove)

• ≤ 10% Dega sampled beekeepers • ≤ 30% W/Dega respondents

– Availability of equipments ( 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

Low technological input utilization – low productivity and production - low quality of hive productss

Lack/shortage of processing equipment leads to poorer quality of honey ( honey extractor, casting mould and strainer)

Most of the respondent bee-keepers do not have protective equipment. This makes it difficult for them to properly manage the hives.

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)3.14. Access to Credit and Beekeeping Extension

Description responses Dega(n=20) Weyna Dega (n=60) Total sample(n=80)

% % %

Credit accessed Yes 5 13.3 11.25

No 95 86.7 88.75

Total 100 100 100

Extension contact (12mths) No contact at all 60 63.3 62.50

Once 40 16.7 22.50

Twice - 16.7 12.5

Three times - 3.3 2.50

Total 100 100 100

Access to training

Yes10 45.0 36.25

No 90 55.0 63.75

Total 100 100 10028

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

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

3.15. Major constraints and opportunity of beekeeping

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

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

3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION (cont’d)

3.16. Laboratory Results of Honey Quality Test3.16.1. 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) 0.49a* 0.025b*

Ash content (% by mass) 0.17ns 0.50ns

Free acidity (milliequivalent acid/kg) 17.38b* 21.25a*

pH 4.52ns 4.37ns

32

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

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 Mean(Silti) National mean QSAE CAC EUReducing s. (% by mass) 69.04 66 ≥ 65 ≥ 65 ≥65Sucrose (% by mass) 4.10 3.6 ≤ 10 ≤ 5 ≤5Moisture (% 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

Water insoluble (%) 0.26

In general 0.025 - ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.1

Pressed honey 0.49 ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.5 ≤ 0.5 pH 4.45 - - - -

In general, honey produced in Silti meet the local and international quality standards.However, honey WIM require improvement 34

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

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

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 on-farm demonstrations, field-days, exchange visits and study tours.

• To improve the honey quality defects associated with higher water-insoluble 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

THANK YOU