w beekeeping in the amtiara region

< £ W 3 2 S

Beekeeping In the

Amtiara RegionEthiopian Institute of Agricultural

R esearch C e n tra l L IB R A R Y

PJvT-P’fcf ̂ 9°C9°C K T rh 'ly l'& t"TdiM'P n, h «»'X-rii'T«>

A d eb ab ay K eb ed e K e rea le m Ejigu

T essem a A ynalem A b eb e J e n b e rie

Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute

Beekeeping in the

Amhara Region

Copy editing: Abebe Kirub

© A RARI, 2008Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI)P. 0. Box 257 Code 100 Bahir Dar, Ethiopia PHONE: 251 (08) 207806, 206400 FAX: 251 (08) 205174 http://www.ar-ari.org

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Rese;irc h Central

LIBRARY P‘9 'f lC ? 9°G 9°C

a'tdiwr. aox th& t

Printed by Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) http://www.eiar.gov.et

http://www.ar-ari.org

http://www.eiar.gov.et

Introduction 1Methodology 2

The Study Area 2Livestock and Honeybee Population 2Sampling 5Data Collection 6Data Analysis 8

Results and Discussion 9Socio-economic Characteristics 9Educational status of respondents 11Land holding and land rental type 12Livestock holdings and purpose of keeping 13Involvement in non-farm activities 14Credit services 15Beekeeping extension service 15Income sources of a household 16Beekeeping 17Source of foundation colony and preference for apiary site 19Colony holdings and service years of hives 20Sources of frame and top-bar hives 21Beekeeping equipment 22Local names behaviors of honeybees 23Honeybee races 24Training and access to technical assistances 24Trends of hive products 25Incidence of absconding 26Incidence of swarming 27Controlling reproductive swarming 27Preparing the hive and transferring colonies 27Inspecting honeybee colonies 28Marketing colony and labor sources 28Honey production and season 30Honey containers and storage condition 36Honeybee Flora Condition 37Honeybee Pests and Diseases 39Indigenous Knowledge 41Beekeeping Constraints 42

Conclusions and Recommendations 44References 47

Appendix 54

Beekeeping in the Amhara Region

IntroductionBeekeeping is a very long-standing and deep-rooted household activity for the rural communities of Ethiopia. There is an ancient tradition for beekeeping in Ethiopia that stretches back into the millennia of the country's early history. It seems as old as the history of the country and it is an integral part of the life style of the farming communities.

The contrasting geomorphic landscapes of Ethiopia create favorable environment for the existence of a large and unique biodiversity in both plants and animals including honeybee subspecies (Nuru, 2002). It has been estimated that about 10 million honeybee colonies exist distributed wherever there are human settlements with the exception of extreme hot and cold areas. This makes the country to have first rank in honeybee population in Africa and serves as an evidence for the enormous potential of the country for the development of apiculture bee density in Africa (EARO, 2000; Ayalew, 2001).

Regarding geographical races of honeybees that are found in Ethiopia, the existence of five statistically separable morphoclusters occupying ecologically different areas are reported by Amssalu et al., 2004 and these are:

• Apis mellifera jemenitica in the northwest and eastern arid and semi- arid lowlands;

• A.m. scutellata in the west, south, and southwest humid midlands;• A.m. bandasii in the central moist highlands;• A.m. monticola from the northern mountainous highlands; and• A.m. woyi gambella in southwestern semi-arid to sub-humid lowland

parts of the country.

As stated by Ayalew and Gezahegn (1991), Ethiopia is the leading honey producer in Africa and one of the ten largest honey and beeswax producing countries in the world. The national average honey produced for the year 1997 to 2004 was estimated at 30 thousand, which accounted over 23% of the total African production and about 2% of world honey production (Beyene and Phillips, 2007). From the total honey produced in the country, beekeepers are estimated to earn 360 - 480 million Birr/ year (Nuru, 2002). In Ethiopia, much honey has traditionally been fermented to make 'tej' (local famous drink).

Similarly, production of beeswax was 3.0 thousand tons per annum and this placing the country among the four largest world beeswax producers in the world after China, Mexico, and Turkey (Girma, 1998; MoA, 2003). The beeswax supports the national economy through foreign exchange earnings. At present beeswax is one of the major exportable agricultural products.

[1]

Adebabay et.at

Ethiopia is the leading beeswax exporter from Africa and the fourth in the world (MoA, 2003); and the annual average value of beeswax is estimated at about 125 million Birr (Nuru, 2002).

Beekeeping is also believed to play a significant role in the food security of the country, through honeybee pollination services of major cultivated food crops. In Ethiopia, the value of honeybee as a pollinator is not known much, but from a single crop Guizotioa abyssinica (Noug) case study from 20,000 tons of annual yield, it was estimated that 43% is due to honeybee pollination (Admassu and Nuru, 1999) which worth about 15,000,000 Birr per annum (ANRS BoA, 2003a). From this, it is possible to extrapolate the contribution of honeybee pollination service of various crops for the national economy.

Amhara region also endowed with varied agro ecological zones that are suitable for apiculture. In the western parts of the Region, the natural vegetation coverage is relatively high, as a result, in this area, the honeybee population is dense, and production is relatively high. In the eastern parts of the region, in spite of scarcity of natural vegetations, large areas of inaccessible lands for cultivation and livestock grazing (along escarpments, hills and undulated mountainous) are covered with various types o f bushes and make this part of region still to remain potential for beekeeping. Besides this, the beekeeping potentiality of the region is partly attributed to the various cultivated oil crops, pulse, and field flowers, which are very important to bee forages and honey production. About 20,000 km2 (12%) land of the Region is wasteland, which could be utilized for beekeeping successfully (ANRS BoA, 2003a).

Beekeepers have long-standing traditional skills. Beekeeping is practiced in the backyards by keeping beehives under separate shelters or around the house wall or even inside the house with domestic animals and family members without any problems. Beekeepers have better knowledge to manage their honeybees and hive products. However, the level of beekeeping remains in traditional system and more than 90% of bees are still kept in traditional hives with its various limitations. However, the chances to introduce and adopt improved beekeeping practices are very high since it is based on improving and expanding the existing rich traditional beekeeping practices of the farmer beekeepers.

The regional government has recently put in its agenda the need to develop apiculture as one of the strategies to reduce poverty and to diversify national exports. NGOs like SOS Sahel, Agri-Service Ethiopia, Save the Children Fund, and World Vision Ethiopia are also giving more attention to the subsector than ever before as an important intervention areas to support the poor and particularly the women. As a result, the extension service is made to disseminate aggressively beekeeping equipment like modern frame hives, Kenyan top-bar hives, and other accessories. However, to make this effort

[2]


fruitful, for efficient utilization of resources and for sustainable development of this sub-sector, making detail investigation on the existing beekeeping practices of the region has paramount importance.

Thus, this study was conducted to assess beekeeping and honey production in the Amhara Region with the objectives to understand and document the existing beekeeping practices, identify major honeybee floras and their flowering calendars, and identify major problems and constraints limiting beekeeping activities and to suggest solutions.

[3]

Adebabay et.al

MethodologyThe Study AreaAmhara National Regional State (ANRS) is located between 9° 20’ North to 14° O’ North latitude and 36° 20’ East to 40° 20’ East longitude. Administration division includes 11 zones, 115 weredas, and 3224 kebeles. It covers an approximate area of 161,828 square kilometer (occupies 25 % of the total area of the country) with an elevation ranging from 500 to above 3500 m. Based on the traditional altitude classification three main agro climatic category can be identified. These are Dega (2500 to 4600 m), Woina Dega (1500 to 2500 m.), and Kolia (below 1500 m) which comprised of 6.4%. 68.7% and 24.9% respectively. The Region boarders with Tigray in the north, Afar in the east, Oromiya in the south, and Benishangul- Gumuz and the Republic of Sudan in the west. The regional population is estimated at 16.7 million out of which 89.3 % resides in the rural areas (CSA, 1998; ANRS BOFED, 2004).

The land use pattern of the region is 28 % arable, 30 % pasture, 2.1 % forest, 12.6 % bush, 7.2 % settlement, 3.8 % water bodies and 16.3 % unusable land. Mean annual rainfall ranges from 700 to over 1400 mm characterized b} two rainy seasons, Belg (short rainy season) and Kiremt (main rain season) and region receives the highest percentage o f the total rainfall of the country. The annual mean temperature for most parts of the region is from 15 to 21 °C.

Livestock and Honeybee PopulationThe rural population of the Region depends on crop-livestock mixed farming with an average landholding of 1.7 hectare. The rain-fed agriculture is a major economic activity, which provides 63.1% of the regional GDP, major source for export revenues, and source of all forms of employment. According to the livestock census, the region has about 8.9 million cattle, 3.8 million sheep, 3.7 million goats, 1.4 million equines, 9.1 million poultry, and constituting 35 % of the national livestock population (CSA, 19r c>). The livestock contribution to agricultural output is estimated at 20-30° o.

According to CACC (2003), 917,460 honeybee colonies are reported to exist in different zones of the Region. This constitutes about 20 % of the national honeybee colonies population. In general, the density of honeybee colonies is more in high biomass areas of the west and northwest parts of the region. While, some of the low biomass and m oistir: s ^ s s areas of the eastern

[4]


region, supports quite large number of honeybee colonies (ANRS BoA, 2003a).

' \ . :LJ A d i_ A rV a y

/ / L*

UNDP-EUE 1995

A ll borders are uno ffic ia l and approxim ate

Dabara*it̂ -̂-̂ ,r#ua-rA \._E n

W o9 d«f* #l»1* / A n tso > i» _ 4 _ O e m ia ,I T E (i«m iy ' / / V \ Arturfafari»_4_Jila

I >w.LBUi' J V > — t i f o M a / . r & » r f> n k ,M * d « f

M o W ^ ^ i r u i \ j j j ^ u j» m « j« x {r_ M o jin & Wad ra

S«y*dob«r_W »you 4 Anwi'ro V y OD'»bar«'b»rhan_Z|iiy» 4 kayat

W /̂ "-tykon'ar A n a o lVi»_T a r t r i »-A a a fl fl

(J n T^SH a g o r o m a ry a m _ e 5 ^ f?

S h in ko nj a r

\ . ( \ r

Figure-1: Administrative weredas of the study areas

SamplingIn this study a multistage sampling procedures were used. The study was conducted in 9 purposively selected potential beekeeping zones of the region. These are East Gojam, West Gojam, Awi, South Gonder, North Gonder, South Welo, North Welo, Oromiya, and Wag Himra. Once again, based on honeybee colonies population and production potential 16 weredas from the region (Table 1) and 110 representative potential beekeeping Peasant Associations (Kebeles), five to eight Kebeles from each wereda, were selected using purposive sampling techniques. The selected weredas represent the major regional and agro-ecological areas of the region. From each Kebele 10

[5]

Adebabay et.al

beekeepers (respondents), a total of 1034 beekeeper households were selected using random sampling method. Single household respondent was used as sampling unit in this study.

Table 1. Sample weredas of the study

Zone Wereda Number of cases %East Gojam Gozamin 81 7.8

Machakel 79 7.6Awi Dangela 74 7.2West Gojam Mecha 62 6.0

Bahir Dar Zuria 62 6.0South Gonder Fogera 49 4.7

Estie 50 4.8Ebnat 52 5.0

North Gonder East Belessa 51 4.9Dembia 49 4.7Alefa Takusa 50 4.8

Wag Himra Sekota 74 7.2Ziquala 79 7.6

North IVeto Bugna 82 7.9Oromiya Dawwa Cheffa 58 5.6South Welo Sayint 82 7.9

All weredas 1034 100.0

Data CollectionThis study was carried out by Andassa Livestock Research Center, Sirinka Research Center, and Sekota Dryland Agriculture Research Center. In this study, both secondary and primary data were used to generate qualitative and quantitative information. The secondary data relevant this study were collected from published and unpublished sources o f Holetta Bee Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Amhara Region Agriculture and Rural Development Offices at different levels and Bureau of Finance and Economic Development.

To collect primary information household survey, interviews with focused groups and key informants and personal observation were undertaken. Prior to the actual survey, information was gathered through informal survey and based on the information obtained from secondary data and informal survey, a semi-structured questionnaire was developed.

Pre-testing of the questionnaire was also made for its consistency and applicability to the objective of the study as a pilot survey. Contents of the questionnaires were refined and verified based on a pretest that were made on individuals engaged in beekeeping before embarking into the formal survey. A person qualified for consideration as beekeeper on the basis that he or she

[6]


managed at least one honeybee colony independently were the target respondent.

The task force members at each research center interviewed beekeepers. The primary data pertaining to the year 2006/07 were collected from 1034 sample respondents through a semi-structured questionnaire, which was designed to generate data on some social, institutional, economic variables and other related data that were supposed to be important for this study. Single-visit- formal-survey method was employed to collect the data on various aspects of beekeeping production and management systems.

In addition, primary data were collected using informal discussion with focus groups and key informants. They were interviewed in order to obtain their views, opinions, and suggestions about constraints and opportunities. Moreover, for better understanding the overall circumstance o f the beekeeping activities, direct observations were also used. This helps for crosschecking o f the data collected through various methods.

The types o f data generated for this study are listed below.

• Household characteristics: sex, age, family size, education level, land holding, livestock, non-farm activities,

• Beekeeping activities: beekeeping experience, type and number of hives owned, comparison as well as strength and weakness of the hives used, beekeeping equipments, frequency and amount of honey harvest, harvesting seasons, trends of honeybee colonies and products, farmers' indigenous knowledge and practices, labor required for beekeeping and women participation, place of keeping hives (site), methods of swarm control, swarm catching experiences, seasons of transferring, hive inspection, types of supplementary feeds and feeding system,

• Honeybee biology: sources of honeybee colonies, types and behaviors of local honeybee species, Bee products production, handling and marketing: color of honey produced, honey utilization, amount of honey sold, type of honey storage employed and method of handling the product, transportation, market prices, wax production and utilization,

• Bee forage source plants: type, amount, distributions, flowering time,• Constraints and opportunities of beekeeping: major honeybee diseases

and pests, season of occurrence of pests and diseases, dearth period, shortage and availability of water, honeybee forage shortage/availability as a function of floral composition and flowering time, poisonous plants and incidence of agro-chemical poisoning, lack and availability of improved bee equipments, lack of technical assistances,

• Credit and extension services: source of credit service, amount borrowed, and purposes, participation of beekeeping extension,

• The roles of government organizations, NGOs, donor agencies and private sector, and

[7]


Results and DiscussionSocio- economic CharacteristicsThis section provides an overview of the beekeeping production practices of sample respondents in Amhara Region based on the questionnaire surveyed and sample collected. The questionnaire contained many open-ended questions that allowed the respondents to express their opinions on various issues. In this section, the results are presented and discussed more specifically and entirely to the situation of sample households and are presented in descriptive statistics.

Household characteristicsOver 1000 sample households were interviewed to generate qualitative and quantitative data on beekeeping, of which 97.6% were male headed and the rest 2.3% were female headed. This very limited number of female participation agrees with Kerealem (2005). This might be because even though parts or all the beekeeping activities were performed by women these are reported as the work of men (head of the household). Moreover, interviewed female-headed household were also limited in this study.

The results of this survey indicate that there are some other cultural issues like and believes that “the brood will be changed into worm (other than bee) if the women works on bees specifically during her menstrual period”. Nevertheless, like any other economic activities, the traditional ways of living that restrict women to other domestic activities will limit the women involvement in beekeeping. However, someone frequently will encounter a woman who keeps bees or helps a family member to harvest honey, settling, and catching swarm and hive inspection.

Of the total households interviewed, 97.4 % are married while 1.2%, 0.8% and 0.6% are single, divorced and death of husband or wife, respectively. With regard to religion, majority of the household respondents are Orthodox (92.6%) while the rests are Muslim (7.3%) and Protestant (0.1%). Based on the results of this study, people regardless of their marital status and religion undertake beekeeping activities in the region.

The mean age of respondents were 44.61 years (SD 12.71) ranged from 18 to 85 years (Table 2). This result showed that beekeeping can be performed by economically active age groups and in most cases people at younger and old age is actively engaged in beekeeping activities.

[9]

Adebabay et.al

The age group between 15 and 60 years are considered economically active age group in many findings (Melaku, 2005) and as the result o f this survey, out o f the total households interviewed 84.08 % of the household heads are found between this age group. However, the working force of the society within the region has not to be limited due to so many types of works that have to be performed specially by those below 15 and above 60. According to the results o f this study the most common beekeeping activities such as hive inspection, settling swarms, water and feed provisions, assisting the household during honey harvesting and so forth are carried out by 10 to 85 ages in general. According to the results of this survey, in most o f the cases age group ranges from 20 to 65 actively take part in beekeeping activities.

Table 2. Age of the household head (years) by wereda

Wereda Number of cases Mean Minimum Maximum SDMachakel 79 42.76 23 76 11.81Gozamin 81 45.57 25 78 11.83Dangela 74 41.36 18 77 11.86Mecha 62 45.09 30 70 10.33Bahir Dar Zuria 62 43.38 22 79 12.30Fogera 49 46.87 18 78 13.77Estie 50 48.44 25 82 12.88Ebnat 52 42.32 20 74 12.90East Belessa 51 44.33 24 75 13.95Dembia 49 47.45 23 83 13.95Alefa Takusa 50 43.82 19 85 15.19Sekota 74 44.18 20 76 12.74Ziquala 79 43.30 19 71 12.51Bugna 82 47.50 21 78 13.57Dawwa Cheffa 57 42.63 20 70 13.56Sayint 81 45.83 25 77 10.64All weredas 1032 44.61 18 85 12.71

The total and average number of family members of households by sex and age group is presented in Table 3. The average family size of the sample beekeepers in the study area were 6.56 individuals (slightly higher than the national average o f six persons) ranges from 1 to 19 individuals, of which 5 5 .4 % are economically active. While the average female family size of the sample beekeepers was 3.10 with a minimum and maximum of 0 and 10 individuals, respectively. The average male family size of the sample beekeepers were 3.46 individuals with the minimum and maximum of 0 and 13, respectively. This variable can indicate the ample labor input potential for beekeeping activities and other agricultural activities. Based on the results o f this survey, in terms of beekeeping significant variation (p < 0.05) was not observed regard to gender. However, households with large family size (both female and male) were most benefited to perform different agricultural duties including beekeeping.

[10]


Educational status of respondentsEducation is an important and one entry point for fast transfer of knowledge on improved beekeeping. Moreover, educational level of the farming households may have significant importance in identifying and determining the type of development and extension service approaches. The role of education is obvious in affecting household income, adopting technologies, demography, health, and as a whole the socio-economic status of the family as well (Kerealem, 2005).

Regarding educational status of the respondents about 37.2% were not received any education while 62.8% are at stages of literacy ranging from read and write to diploma level (Table 4). The sample households do not have significant difference in literacy across the weredas. Education level has a positive correlation with number of owning of moveable frame hives with a correlation coefficient of 0.142 (P < 0.01). This reflects that how the mind of educated people is open to accept (adopt) improved technologies.

Table 3. Number of family in sample by age group

Age qroup Average per household SD TotalFamily members 6.56 2.30 6791Female family members 3.10 1.46 3207Male family members 3.46 1.61 3584FM** age less than 14 2.77 1.64 2866Female FM age less than 14 1.35 1.12 1399Male FM age less than 14 1.41 1.15 1467FM age between 14 to 30 2.03 1.49 2099Female FM age between 14 to 30 0.93 0.90 963Male FM age between 14 to 30 1.10 1.08 1136FM age between 31 to 60 1.52 0.90 1573Female FM age between 31 to 60 0.73 0.54 759Male FM age between 31 to 60 0.78 0.54 814FM age greater than 60 0.24 0.53 252Female FM age greater than 60 0.08 0.27 86FM age greater than 60 0.16 0.38 166

"F M = Family Member

Table 4. Educational status of the household heads

Educational status Number of cases %Illiterate 384.0 37.2Read and write 291.0 28.2Elementary (3 to 6) 250.0 24.2Junior (7 to 8) 34.0 3.3High school (9 to 12) 33.0 3.2Religious school 38.0 3.7Diploma 1.0 0.1Total 1031.0 100.0

[11]

Adebabay et.al

Gichora (2003) noted that for more advanced beekeeping, one should have a good grasp o f bee biology and behavior of bees for better colony management. For illiterate people there is a need of intensive training and persuading of beekeepers before distributing movable frame hives.

Therefore, according to the result of this study the high level of illiteracy (37.2%) in the region limits the effectiveness o f formal training programs and requires more emphasis to be placed on practical demonstration of essential concepts especially in improved beekeeping.

Sample respondents were also interviewed to describe their participation and involvement in the community and 42.6% simply members where as about 28% have a role in political participation (Table 5).

Table 5. Household heads participation in the community

Household heads participation Number of cases Valid %Political 284.0 27.7Yager shimagile 215.0 20.9Member 437.0 42.6Religious leader 59.0 5.7Social Participation 14.0 1.4Political and religious leader 9.0 0.9Political and yager shimagile 9.0 0.9Total 1027.0 100.0

Land holding and land rental typeAs a result of high population and mountainous topographical nature of parts o f the region, shortage of productive land in particular and arable land in general characterizes the prevailing farming system. The average land (plowing, backyard and pasture) holding of the sample respondents during the study year was 1.45 hectares (Table 5) which is coincided with the National average household landholding of 1.0 - 1.5 hectares. About 8% of the sample respondents have no private land holdings. This portion of sample respondents came from peri-urban dwelling and landless youth beekeepers. This is in line with the general fact that beekeeping is an opportunity and can be exercised by landless people where land is a very limiting factor. On the other hand, 24.4% and 36.7% of the sample farmers involved in rent and sharing systems indicating that sample farmers in the region derive proportionate part of their benefit from contractual land tenure arrangements. According to the results of this study, the rental and shared land holding comprise 0.23% and 0.32%, respectively (Table 6).

[12]


Table 6. Land holdings of the household heads

Land holding Number of cases Mean (ha) Maximum SDPlowing land 1024 1.13 7.50 0.86Shared land 1023 0.32 7.00 0.66Rent land 1023 0.23 5.00 0.58Back yard 1024 0.21 5.00 0.34Pasture land 1024 0.11 1.75 0.21Total 1029 1.98 15.00 1.37

Livestock holdings and purpose of keepingBased on this survey result, the livelihood of the people in the study areas is based on subsistence farming. Major source of income include crop production such as cereal, pulses, oil crops and fruits and vegetables together with livestock husbandry and beekeeping. As an integral part of the mixed farming system, livestock production plays a substantial role in the household food security in the region. It meets urgent financial need, dietary requirements, draught power, transport, loan repayment, dowry and gift, fuel, fertilizer, as a buffer in the case of crop failure, and for social and cultural functions.

The most important resources owned by sample households were livestock (particularly oxen) and plowing land. Among the interviewed households, 8.2% owned no ox indicating that resource poor farmers are also participating in beekeeping, 14% owned an ox, 50.8% owned two oxen, and 27% owned more than two oxen. The dominant livestock types kept by the farmers in the study weredas were small ruminants (41.82%), cattle (29.78%), poultry (23.79%)), and equines (4.6%). Honeybee colonies ownership and mean honeybee holding of household respondents were 95.5% and 4.0 colonies respectively. That means 4.5% of interviewed households were lost their honeybee colonies by disease, chemicals application and absconding. Detail of the average livestock and honeybee colony owned in the study areas is indicated in Table 7.

According to the interviewed beekeepers, the main purposes of keeping livestock and poultry were for draught power, cash income, food and transport purposes (Table 8). Cow dung and droppings were also used as fuel and fertilizer. The major food sources obtained from cattle were milk and milk products. Small ruminants and chicken were slaughtered during festivals and used as source of meat. It also reported that the main purposes of keeping bees were source of income and nutrition.

[13]

Adebabay et.al

Table 7. Livestock and honeybee colony holdings of sample_____________ respondents ______________________________

Livestock % Mean Maximum SD •TLU (mean)Ox 91.80 2.20 10 1.30 1.65Cow 83.00 2.05 30 2.51 1.54Heifer 60.60 1.21 30 1.35 0.41Bellow 43.30 0.70 10 1.02 0.24Calf 57.10 1.07 15 1.40 0.21Sheep 58.20 3.82 90 6.12 0.49Goat 37.80 4.99 800 31.47 0.65Donkey 55.10 0.78 4 0.86 0.55Horse 6.40 0.10 5 0.44 0.11Mule 8.00 0.08 2 0.29 0.088Chicken 75.9 5.02 87 7.23 0.065Bee colony 95.5 4.00 150 7.06 -

0 One Tropical Livestock Unit = 250 kg which is equivalent to 0.2 calf; 0.75 heifer/bellow; J O cows/oxen; 0.13 sheep/goat; 1.1 horse/mute; 0.7 donkey; 0.013 chicken (Source; Storck el a l . 1991).

Table 8. Purpose of livestock keeping

Livestock Purpose (%)Cash

incomeConsumption Draught

powerTransport Dowry

and qiiftBreeding

Ox 6.4 1.4 96.8 - 0.9 4.4Cow 44.3 88.9 2.6 - 1.3 76.2Heifer 18.3 24.9 3.6 - 1.1 90.8Bellow 12.2 4.4 79 - 1.2 22.3Calf 9.4 7.3 - - 2 87.7Sheep 86.6 76.5 - - 2.7 76.8Goat 82.8 78.2 1 . - 1.6 78.1Donkey - 4.1 4.3 97.5 .2 7.2Horse - 7.6 13.4 92.4 0 25.8Mule - 7.2 8.4 91.6 2.4 -

Chicken 89.4 78.4 - - - 62.9Bee colony 94.3 100 - - - 47.3

Involvement in non-farm activitiesAccording to the survey result, sample respondents involved in different nonfarm activity to supplement their livelihood. The percentage involvement and type of non-farm activities are co-worker (40.2%), trade (16.1%), building technician (13.3%), carpenter (11.4%), weaver (7.6%), civil servants (7.15%), and guard (4.3%). The involvement of sample respondents in various nonfarm activities reflects that beekeeping can be exercised as part time activity to supplement the household livelihood. Men (85.2%) ranked first in the degree of involvement in non-farm activities followed by women (6.9%), son (6.4%), and daughters (1.5%). The major reasons for involvement in non-farm activities are for source of income (91.3%) and services fee (8.7%). The average amount o f money gained from non- farm activities is 1308.99 Ethiopian Birr (BIRR) with a minimum and maximum of 10 and 12,000 BIRR per annum respectively.

[14]


Regarding beekeeping, as information obtained from key informants, there are people who are engaged as non-farm activities in making, and selling hives and other bee equipments (like veil, smokers and honey containers).

Credit servicesAccording to the results of this survey, 51.5% of interviewed households have access to credit services. The main credit sources of the sample respondents were cooperatives (58%), Amhara credit, and saving institution (34%), and non-governmental organizations (8%) such as World Bank, AMAREW, Save the Children Fund (R2D) and Ambasel Trading House. However, about 48.5% of the sample respondents have no access to credits for farming operations for defined reasons. This is mainly due to lack of interest to take credit (37.5 %), lack of awareness (22.1%) and afraid of credits (12.5%) (Details are indicated in Table 9). Thus, in this regard much has to be done to work in creating awareness of farmers to credit to facilitate the utilization of inputs and technologies for farming activities in general and beekeeping activities in particular.

Table 9. Reasons for inaccessibility of credit services

Reasons %Lack of interest 37.5Lack of awareness 22.1Afraid of credit 12.5Disappointing procedures 10.6High interest rate 9.3Lack of collateral 2.7Late delivery of credits 2.8Religion taboos (Islam) 1.4Unavailability of credit 1.1Total 100.0

Sample respondents those have credits access used for purchasing livestock and livestock inputs (44.4%), colony and beekeeping inputs (20.6%), fertilizer (15.5%>), seed (3.2%) and trading activities (2.8%) and others like construction (13.5%). The high percentage of credits for livestock and beekeeping might be attributed to their nature of requirement of more capital. Moreover, this reflects that interventions in livestock sector are profitable and should be given due attention by the government.

Beekeeping extension serviceThe survey work illustrated that only 33.2% of the sample respondents had the chance of getting extension service delivery. The types of extension services provided were input provision; training and advisory services (55.7%>), input provision only (20.1%), advisory services only (15.3%), and

[15]

Adebabay et.al

the rest (8.9%) get training services only. Methods of extension delivery are in-group (73.7%), individually (22.9%) and the rest (3.4%) were innocent of the methods employed. This reflects the need of developing concrete and sounding beekeeping extension system in the future for sustainable beekeeping development.

According to this study, 20.1% of beekeepers received receive improved beehives without training services. In addition, majority of these beekeepers reported that they can’t transfer the colony from local to frame hives, and those can to transfer unable to harvest the honey. This hampers the process of adopting beekeeping technology. Therefore, training should go side by side to beekeeping technology and input provision. Among those who are members of the extension service 64.1 % are extension package participants followed by follower farmers (18%) and contact farmers (17.7%).

The sample respondent farmers get information about beekeeping from different sources. These include through frequent contact of extension agents (33.2 %), ancestor experience (14.7%), colleagues (7.1%), radio (2.6%), cooperatives (1.8%), and other sources such as reading text (1.6%), NGO’s (0.3%) and the majority (38.7 %) uses their own experience. Among the total interviewed respondents 59.6% of them have radio and had the chance to listen about agricultural programs broadly (80.1%) and beekeeping programs specifically (61.5%). Interviewed respondents those listen radio reported that they were benefited from the information (particularly in improved beekeeping) they obtained. From this, it can be noted that informal knowledge flow plays vital role for sharing of experiences among beekeepers that in turn build up indigenous knowledge like swarm control, queen rearing, pest, and disease control. Majority of beekeeping activity is geared by self-owned form of indigenous knowledge. This again notes us the essentiality o f considering indigenous beekeeping knowledge in each modem beekeeping development intervention.

Income sources of a householdThe major sources of cash income of the sample respondents are cash income from crops, livestock sells, bee products sells, credits, non- farm activities and from other sources like donations. The mean and maximum income of the sample respondents from beekeeping (including colony selling) is 415.32 and 21,000 BIRR respectively. Details are indicated in Table 10 (the minimum value for all cases were zero, and not indicated in the table). From this survey result, it can be concluded that beekeeping ranked as the third source of income next to crops and livestock.

[16]


Table 10. Annual cash income (Birr) of sample respondents in 1997 E.C

Sources of income Number of cases

Mean SD Maximum

Crops 1018 862.06 1451.56 20,000.00Livestock 1027 812.54 1341.37 20,000.00Beekeeping 1025 415.32 974.94 21,000.00Non-farm 1031 209.21 755.54 10,000.00Credit 1029 380.64 760.65 12,000.00Gift 1031 19.51 126.36 1800.00Other sources (donation) 1029 34.57 397.58 11,000.00Total 1034 2718.39 2934.03 45000.00

BeekeepingBeekeeping in Amhara region is practiced as a sideline to other agricultural activities. Based on their level of technological advancement, three distinct types of beehives were used by the sample beekeeper farmers in the region. These were local (traditional), top-bar (intermediate or transitional) and moveable frame (modern) beehives.

Traditional beekeepingIn Ethiopia, traditional beekeeping is the oldest and the richest practices, which have been carried out by the people for thousands of years. More than seven million honeybee colonies are managed with the same traditional beekeeping methods in a traditional basket hives in almost all parts of the country (Fichtl and Admassu, 1994; MoA, 2003). This type o f beekeeping practice covers the use of traditional techniques of harvesting honey and beeswax from bees, using various traditional styles of hives and other equipment.

These hives are fixed comb type because the combs are attached to the top and sides of the hive itself and the beekeeper cannot remove and replace them. In some traditional hives, only one end o f the hive could be opened, but in most forms, each end of the cylinder will be fitted with a removable lead. Honey is harvested by the use of fire or live torches, which burn the honeybees to death. During honey harvesting since many of the hives were “beyond the reach of a man’s arm” and only one end is worked at a time, some combs would be left intact without being harvested so that some combs, broods, bees and the queen wouldn’t get destroyed. Local or traditional beekeeping was practiced in forest and at backyard.

As far as the shape of traditional hives is concerned, the cylindrical (99.7%) hive was the commonly used type of hive by the majority o f sample respondents followed by eight-shaped (0.3%). The variability of shapes of traditional hives mainly attributed to the climate condition of the area and the

[17]

Adebabay et.al

different honey production systems. Beekeepers of the region construct their traditional hives from different locally available plant species such as Cordia africana, Arundo donax, Arundinaria spp., Clematis hirsute, ‘Zenezena’, Grass species, Justicia schimperiana, Ficus species, Vernonia biafrae Acanthus senni, Maytenus species, Premna schimperi, Acacia species, Calpurnia aurea.

Types of traditional hive in use and ways of keeping honeybees var from area to area. Based on locally available materials used for construction the following types of hives were reported throughout the region. These include cane or reed grass hive, mud (clay) hive, animal dung (mixed with ash) hive, hollowed logs and gourd hives.

Top-bar hive beekeepingTop-bar hives are often called transitional or intermediate technology hives. It is a type of intermediate beekeeping between local and movable-frame (modem) beekeeping practices. Generally, this type o f beekeeping uses a single story horizontal with slopping sidewalls inward toward the bottom (forming an angle o f 115° with the floor) and covered with top-bars (27 - 30) each having width of 32 mm for east African honeybees.

Recent studies suggested that for technical and economic reasons, most African countries are not yet in a position to use moveable frame hives in full potential, and for them top-bar hive could be appropriate. Although frame hives are recommended for experienced beekeepers who want to optimize honey production, top-bar hive has proved to be the most appropriate because of its low cost and the fact that the beekeepers or local carpenters can easily construct it (Kerealem, 2005).

Bureau of Agriculture, NGOs, and research centers introduced top-bar hives since the last decade mostly for demonstration purposes. It has been reported that the intervention of SOS Sahel, Agri-Service Ethiopia as well as Honey producers, collectors and marketing cooperatives were created a new market opportunity and fast transfer of knowledge on improved beekeeping. With practical training, beekeeper farmers are encouraged to construct the hives from locally available materials. Top-bar hives, in most cases are made from cane or reed grass, ‘kerkeha’ (Arundinaria alpine) and ‘shembeko ' {Arundo donax), and eucalyptus. Then the hives were plastered with fresh cow dung and fumigated with smoking materials. Some beekeepers construct their movable comb hives from lumber and others from mud, which is a mixture of clay, cow dung, and ash. Then the top-bars’ grooves or edges are smeared with molten wax to guide the bees. It has been reported that the only problem for constructing top-bar hives by beekeepers is the inability o f keeping the specific size o f top-bars, which require precise width measurement (32 mm).

[18]


Moveable frame hive beekeepingThis system of beekeeping is often called modem beekeeping. Moveable frame hive consists of precisely made rectangular box hives (hive bodies) superimposed one above the other in a tier. The number of boxes is varied seasonally according to the population size of a colony and increases as the bee population increase and decreases likewise.

Movable frame hives allow appropriate colony management and use of a higher-level technology, with larger colonies, and can give higher yield and quality honey but are likely to require high investment cost and trained work force (Crane, 1990).

Reasons for beekeepingAccording to the results of this survey, majority of the farmers started beekeeping due to self motivated interest (59.4%) followed by inheriting from parents (34.7%), training (4.2%) and from a friend (1.7%). The level of beekeepers' experience was taken to be the number of years that an individual was continuously engaged in beekeeping. The average year of experience in beekeeping of the sample beekeepers was 16.01 and ranged from 1 to 64 years. This result was positively correlated with age, having a correlation coefficient of 0.601 that was significant (p < 0.01) and this result was in line with Gichora 2003. In this case, one could expect in situation where people are actively engaged from an early age in helping older beekeepers to undertake basic tasks. Based on this exposure, young people gradually move on to become independent beekeepers as soon as they can obtain their own hives. They continue accumulating experience by seeking technical advice from fellow beekeepers whenever necessary (Gichora, 2003).

Source of foundation colony and preference for apiary siteWhen sample beekeepers were interviewed to describe their sources of foundation colony 53.1 % of the respondents have got their establishing colonies by hanging bait hives on the apex o f trees followed by purchase (35.9%), gift (3.5%), both bait and purchase (1.7%), incidental swarmed bee occupation (1.9%), family inheritance (3.4%) and collecting from caves (0.5%). Based on the results of this study the main sources of establishing bee colonies were trees, which magnifies the role of trees not only as bee forage but also as a means to get new colonies in beekeeping activities. Experience also indicated than swarmed colony can also be obtained when the swarm temporally land on fence and trees or during its travel to new sites.

Majority of the sample respondents (94.7%) keep their colonies around their homestead (backyard) that they mainly attribute to supervise closely their colonies. Whereas, some of the sample respondents (4.8%) keep their colonies

[19]

Adebabay et.al

in forests that might have been for the sake o f accessibility of bee forages followed by clefts/ caves/ (0.5 %).

The main criteria for apiary site selection o f the sample beekeepers were:

• Close supervision (59.6%),• Less humid site with ample forage and water access devoid of huge

trees (16.9%),• Provision of shelter (6.5%),• Free from reach of animals and human (6.1%),• Wind direction (4.4%),• Orientation to sunlight (3.1%), and• The rest (3.4%) exercises any of the combinations of the

aforementioned criteria.

Colony holdings and service years of hivesThe mean honeybee colony holding of the sample respondents for traditional, top-bar and moveable frame hives were 6.38, 0.26, and 0.38 respectively. Whereas the maximum service years of these three different types o f hives were 60, 10, 22 years respectively (details are indicated in Table 11). Although service years o f moveable frame hive dates back more than 20 years the average holding of the hive is low (0.38 hives per household). This indicates that the adoption rate of the technology is very low. This might be due to the distribution of frame hives without full technological packages (training and improved beekeeping accessories) which should be given due attention. Low adoption and disseminations of moveable frame beehive is attributed to many factors like weak extension, initial high costs, for demanding its own seasonal management techniques and other accessory equipments, poor economic background of the beekeepers, lack o f knowhow, and the like.

Majority of the sample respondents have only traditional hives (73.1%) followed by frame (1.7%), top-bar (0.3%), traditional and top-bar (7.5%), traditional and frame (14.1%), top-bar and frame (0.2%) and all the 3 types of hives (3.2%). According to this result, it is a vivid fact that the adoption processes of improved hives were not prominent might be for different reasons.

Table 11. Honeybee colony holdings and service years of the hive

Type of hives Number of colonies Service years

Mean Maximum SD Mean Maximum SDLocal 6.38 149.0 9.21 10.86 60.0 10.21Top-bar 0.26 15.0 1.03 2.54 10.0 1.67Frame 0.38 20.0 1.21 1.87 22.0 2.16

[20]


This low amount of moveable frame distribution record is despite the available statistics from regional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (ABoARD). The bureau is highly optimistic when it showed that many thousands of moveable frame hives were distributed in the year 2005/06. However, it is likely that this number of hives once installed but many might since have fallen into disuse in the absence of an effective training and technical support and follow-up system. Most of the development agents promoting the use of modern beekeeping technologies need basic training so that they can easily understand the technology.

Sources of frame and top-bar hivesAccording to the survey result the major source of information about modern and top-bar hives are Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development BoARD (83.6%) followed by beekeepers colleagues (6.8%) and relatives (2.3%), NGO’s (1.4%), radio (1.3%) and research institutions (0.7%).

Regarding sources of hives, 69.3% and 59.1% of sample respondents replied that they construct traditional and top-bar hives respectively, where as Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development BoARD is the major supplier and sources (93.5%) of frame hives (Table 12). From this, one can infer that the weight of extension service burdens shoulders on Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development BoARD. Hence, involvement of NGOs and research institutes is vital to hasten the extension service process.

Table 12. Sources of hives (percentage) of responding samples

Source of hives Traditional Top-bar FrameBeekeepers themselves 69.3 59.1 1.0ANRS BoARD 0.3 28.7 93.5Local hive maker 12.8 7.0 2.0Merchants 12.0 0.0 0.5Research center 0.3 0.9 0.0Beekeepers and local hive maker 3.3 2.6 1.5Beekeepers and merchants 2.0 1.7 1.5Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Beekeepers were also asked to compare and contrast the o :s they use by considering different parameters (Table 13). ” --bar hive eems suitable as a bridge to transit to modern hive technology, as .: • . . squiresgreater technical knowledge and input of improved facilities.

Local hive in most cases can be constructed by beekeepers from locally available materials. Beekeepers preferred local hive for its low price, availability, ease of management and colony reproduction. It is also used as a bait hive. However, beekeepers agreed that local hives are not productive, easily liable to pests, and characterized for their low quality bee products harvest. According to sample respondents, top-bar hive is preferred for its

[21]

Adebabay et.al

better quality o f honey and it requires little knowledge and accessories. On the other hand moveable frame hive is preferred for its better quantity and premium quality of honey. However, it is costly and requires skill and accessories. During the field survey, it has been observed that the moveable frame hives distributed so far by ANRS BoARD is not standardized and it has ample pitfalls and its degree o f acceptance was low.

Table 13. Comparison of hive types using different parameters

Parameters Type of hivesLocal hive TBH Frame hive

Less Medium High Less Medium HK)h Less Medium HighPrice V V y1Skill required to make hives V - v VDegree of absconding V V VSwarming tendency V V 4Ease of harvesting V V VQuality and quantity of honey V V VQuantity of wax production V V VEase of management V ' V VDegree of acceptance V V VDegree of pest incidence V V

TBH = Top-bcir Hive i ^sitive response

Beekeeping equipmentWhen sample respondents asked to list the equipment they use, interviewees mentioned in a wide range of accessories that goes hand in hand with traditional beekeeping. For traditional beekeeping system equipments that are required includes smoker, knife, honey containers, bee brush and queen cage. These equipments are constructed by the beekeepers or can be purchased from local market. Eighty three % of the respondents have been locally made beekeeping equipment (materials) made by themselves while the remaining (17%) has fabricated smokers, gloves and other type of protective clothing. Based on beekeepers opinion, the qualities of the materials made locally were very poor. It was reported by respondents that protective clothes were rarely used. Moreover, the protecting cloths were not honeybee proof, which can discourage the beekeepers to harvest and conduct regular hive inspections more than two hives per day due to more bees’ stings.

Generally, top-bar and moveable frame type hives are demanding more additional beekeeping equipment than traditional hive. Top-bar hive beekeeping practices require improved beekeeping equipment like protective cloth, smoker, and chisel; and in addition to these moveable frame hive beekeeping require casting mould, honey extractor, and queen excluder. Frame type and top-bar hive users have better understanding for different types of beekeeping equipment as compared to the local hive users. However, majority of the beekeepers lack protective cloth, smoker, casting mould and honey extractors, which, without these basic equipment and accessories improved beekeeping practices, cannot be successful. Therefore, the adoption

[22]


of improved beekeeping practices also relies on the supply of these basic concepts.

Local names behaviors of honeybeesSample respondents were asked to describe local names of their honeybee colonies. Majority of the sample respondents (62.2%) have both Wanzie or Shimbrie (nearly yellow color) and Shcinko (black color) types of honeybees while others have Wanzie (6.7%), Shanko (4.7%), Tinjutie (grey color) and mixed type Wanzie and Shanko (0.8%), Shanko and mixed type (9%), Wanzie, Shanko and mixed (15.2%). The rest of the sample respondents do not know what kind of colony they have. Beekeepers are also familiar with the physical appearance of local honeybees and reported that both yellow and dark varieties occur together in the same colonies. This might be because the queen is mated with drones that come from different hives having varied colors.

The majority respondents prefer Wanzie to other types (Table 14). Majority of the respondents (60.7%) characterize Wanzie as a productive and behaviorally gentler than other types of honeybees with greater body size. Shanko is known for its aggressive nature and lesser capacity for honey production. Behaviorally, Tinjutie is described as less aggressive and lesser honey producer than Shanko. Regarding the size of the honeybees, Shanko has smaller body size and Tinjutie lies in a medium position between these two types.

The higher degree of preference to Wanzie by beekeepers might be due to their assumption that this variety is more productive and have gentle behavior (Table 15). In this study, the beekeepers have also noted that they provide queens from Wanzie variety and/or brood combs to breed the receiver hive into Wanzie. Nevertheless, as there is not controlled mating this technique holds true only to replace part of the colony for few generations. In this case, there is a chance that the colony will return to their original type. Therefore, this beekeepers traditional knowledge of selecting the best performing bee type should be backed with training mainly targeting on the technique of s nple honeybee queen rearing.

Table 14. Sample respondents' preference and possession of honeybee colony type

Honeybee colony type %Wanzie 60.7Shanko 23.9Tinjutie and mixed 7.4Wanzie and Shanko 4.7Wanzie and mixed 0.6Shanko and mixed 0.8Wanzie, Shanko and mixed 0.4I don’t know 1.5Total 100.0

[23]

Adebabay et.al

Table 15. Behavior of honeybee varieties based on beekeepers’ judgment

Characteristics Wanzie (%)Less Medium high It depends I don’t know

Aggressiveness 60.0 22.4 16.9 0.2 0.5Productivity 21.2 24.8 51.6 1.1 1.1Swarming tendency 29 39.3 26.7 0.8 4.2Absconding 39.2 29.9 25.7 1.2 4.0

Shanko (%)Aqqressiveness 24.6 8.4 66.3 0.3 0.4Productivity 41.9 29.5 26.3 1 1.3Swarming tendency 26.3 39.2 28.9 1 4.7Absconding 26.9 31.6 36.3 1.3 3.8

Tin jutie (%)Aggressiveness 26.6 56.0 16.2 0.8 0.4Productivity 31.1 45 21.9 1.6 0.4Swarminq tendency 25.6 50 19.8 0.4 4.1Absconding 29.9 45.7 17.9 1.7 4.7

Honeybee racesFour geographical races of honeybees (Apis mellifera monticola, Apis mellifera bandasii, Apis mellifera jemenitica and Apis mellifera scutellata) are reported to exist in different ecological zones o f the region (Nuru, 2002). Among these Apis mellifera monticola and Apis mellifera bandasii are widely distributed mostly in high and mid altitude parts o f the region. Behaviourally, the migratory tendencies of monticola and bandasii are very low. Even in the absences of food, they remain in their nest up to starve to death. The reproductive swarming tendencies of these bees are also very low. Some colonies reported to remain 5 - 1 0 years without having reproductive swarm. Compare to others, these bees are relatively gentle, which may be because they have been kept very close to human and livestock for many centuries. The other bee races, Apis mellifera jemenitica and Apis mellifera scutellata are found in the western mid and lowland areas of the region. The migratory and reproductive swarming tendencies of these bees are relatively high and are more defensive. Generally, the bees in the Region are fast in population build up and in exploiting resources in erratic environment (ANRS BoA, 2003a).

Training and access to technical assistancesInformal and formal training prevail in the existing beekeeping system of the Region. Beekeepers receive training in traditional beekeeping methods from an experienced family member or local beekeepers can be considered as informal training. Apart from the informal experience sharing, in Amhara region formal training in improved beekeeping is offered by ABoARD at different levels, Research Centers and some NGOs.

[24]


Only 36.7% of respondents have got training in beekeeping activities about improved beekeeping practices whereas, 63.3 % of the sample farmers have no chance of getting training. This fact will make the adoption of improved beekeeping practice impaired. Therefore, to facilitate and enhance the adoption of improved beekeeping practices training of improved beekeeping practices should be given to elite beekeepers accompanied with provision of full productivity enhancing technology packages.

The training can bridge technical gaps and equip the beekeepers with basic knowledge on how to operate improved hives and bee equipments, basic bee biology, manipulate honeybee colonies, record keeping, grow appropriate bee forage plants, new processing techniques for production of higher quality products and its marketing.

Poor access to technical support is also one of the factors that cause great difficulties to any beekeepers who adopted improved beekeeping practices. They end up following traditional management approaches while using improved hives and fail to get full benefits. This study reveals that due to lack of technical support, even for the users of the improved technology, the existing beekeeping practices are more of traditional and are based on informal opportunities and an individual’s level of formal education did not seem to matter. This notion is in line with the findings of Melaku (2005). It has been observed that due to lack of technical support some beekeepers that used frame hives harvest their honey-using knife. Interviewed beekeepers suggested that areas where the beekeepers demand technical assistance like making foundation sheet, colony transferring, honey extraction, and the like.

Trends of hive productsAccording to the results of this survey, 78.3% of the respondents agreed that the trend of hive products during the period from 2001 to 2006 has reduced for any one of a multitude reasons. This agrees with the results of Kerealem (2005) and other recent studies. Kerealem (2005) reported that the mean amount of honey produced over the years of 2000-2004 in Amaro wereda was declined while that of Enebse was relatively constant. The sample of respondents attribute the decreased in trend of bee products to shortage of bee forage (37.7%), climate change that can be manifested with rain fall distribution (34.9%), both climate change and bee forage shortage (12.5%), diseases (8.8%), poor management (6.0 %) and punishment of God (0.1%).

On the other hand, 17.7% of the respondents have replied that the trends of bee products in the given years have increased. These respondents attribute the increased in trend of bee products might be as a resultants of getting additional colonies, adoption of improved beekeeping practices and forestation programs. On the other hand, some respondents (3.1%) have judged the trend as it is constant and some respondents are innocent of in all cases (0.9%).

[25]

Adebabay et.al

Incidence of abscondingHoneybee colonies abandoned their hive at any season of the year for different reasons. According to the response of the respondents, 87.3 % of absconding o f honeybee colonies incident was in traditional hives. The incidence from top-bar and frame were 1.4% and 2.7% respectively. Absconding from local and top-bar (95.3%), local and frame (2.3%), top-bar and frame (0.2%) and all the three types (0.9%) were also noted.

Regarding the types of honeybee colony Shanko (26%) absconds frequently followed by Wanzie (25.1%) and mixed type (4.5%). While 38.7 % of absconding, occurs in any of combinations of the above.

The stated reasons for absconding were lack of bee forage (33.1%), incidence of pests (20.4%), poor management (16.5%), bad weather conditions (6.5), swarming (4.8%), bee diseases (4.4%), bee poisoning (3.5%), and 10.8% of the respondents were not stated the reasons. The mean number o f bee colony absconded in the sample respondents was 3.78 with a minimum of 1 colony and maximum of 40 bee colonies. According to the respondents, absconding of bee colonies from March to May ranks first (25.3%) followed by June to August (19.9%), September to November (13.7%) and December to February (18.8%). However, 2.8% of the respondents replied absconding occurs throughout the year while the rest 19.5% were missed value. From the results of this survey one can associate the cause of absconding from March to May (25.3%) with lack or scarcity of bee forage, which has contributed about 33.1% of the share from the reasons of absconding.

In a situation where an individual colony costs about 116.77 BIRR (mean price of a colony during the study year, 2006/7), loosing of a maximum of 40 honeybee colony means loosing of 4670.80 Birr BIRR for a given household. On average, a beekeeper household looses 3.78 colonies multiplied by 116.77 gives 441.40 BIRR per production year. Therefore, every beekeeper should get basic training on colony management and on absconding per-disposing factors to the extent of reducing absconding rate.

In order to reduce and control absconding, respondent beekeepers exercises different traditional and improved ways of swarm control like frequent inspection, supplementary feeding, transferring of colonies to other hives, uniting of colonies, spray Holy water (tebe 1), dusting eminet and migrate bee colonies to better bee forage source areas. According to the respondents, bees absconding vary from season to season. September to November accounts for absconding of repr ;t:vely swarmed colonies. This mighthappen due to lack of close superv of colonies and incomplete harvestingof honey, which leads the bee c ny into congestion and ultimately to creation of swarm to depart the mo; colony. In general, as absconding is the ultimate occurrence of poor man ^ement honeybee colonies should be

[26]

Beekeeping in the Amhara Renion

well managed year round with special emphasis to dearth periods and season of reproductive swarming.

Incidence of swarmingReproductive swarming is a common phenomenon in honeybee colonies. About 42% of the respondents replied that there was an incidence of reproductive swarming during the study year (2006/7). The mean reproductive swarming incidence per household was 2.96 colonies for local hives, 1.1 colonies for top-bar hives, and 0.73 colonies for frame hives with maximum colonies of 45 for local, 12 for top-bar, and 15 for frame hives.

About, 73.6% of the sample respondents have experience of catching incidental swarms that could be transferred to other hives (70.3%) to increase own bee colony stock, returned to mother colonies (15.6%) to maintain the strength of the colony, offer for selling (0.4%) to generate income and about 13.7% were absconding beyond the control of the beekeepers.

Controlling reproductive swarmingThe most frequently ways of controlling reproductive swarming by the respondent beekeeper were removal of queen cell, increase volume of hive, partial harvesting of honey and brood, killing queen of the swarm, and reuniting of honeybee colony to its mother colony. Moreover, some indigenous knowledge like putting ''Yejart eshoh' and ‘Yezaf teketila' in the hive, fumigating the hive with ‘Etan’, ‘Wogert’ and bone of dead horse or mule were also exercised by beekeepers. In order to identify and verify this indigenous knowledge, further research is required. However, due to in need of additional colonies 26.4% of the beekeepers don’t apply any reproductive swarming control methods

Preparing the hive and transferring coloniesThe common procedures undertaken by beekeepers are to prepare hives for occupation by bees aimed to provide clean and safe environments that are convenient and attractive to the honeybee colonies. Transferring of the colonies from local hive to top-bar and moveable frame hives or to the same type of hive (when it becomes old or damaged) was carried out by the respondent beekeepers.

Almost all of the sample respondents exercise fumigating their hives prior to the transfer of colonies to hives. The most commonly used fumigating materials are Tid (Juniperus procera), Wanza (Cordia africana), Weira (Olea africana) and cow dung, ‘KorekondcC and ‘LoV (Ekebergia capensis). After fumigation, the beekeepers sweep the hive using brooms made out of special plants such as Amija (Hypericum revolutum), Asta (Erica arborea ), Abalo (Terminalia brownii), Kessie (Lippia adoensis), Tembelel (Jasminum abyssinica), molten beeswax and the like that leave behind an attractive scent

[27]

Adebabay et.al

for bees. Newly constructed or non-occupied hives were prepared in such manner and hanged as a bait hive during swarming seasons to attract reproductively swarmed colonies.

Concerning seasons of transferring, it was reported that 57.6% of the sample respondents transfer their colony from August to October. While 35.7% of the respondents, transfer their colony from April to June and 6.7% do in bothseasons.

Inspecting honeybee coloniesSample respondents were interviewed to describe the frequency of inspecting their apiary and honeybee colonies and 63.7%, 23.0% and 6.7% of the respondents replied that they look into the hives every day, weekly, and fortnightly respectively. The rests (6.6%) were inspecting their apiary during spare times (Table 16). These inspections were carried out externally, and in most cases internal inspections were exercise during honey harvesting seasons. However, inspection of hives and apiary is indispensable to safeguard honeybee colonies from different natural calamities and various hazards (pests, diseases and chemical poisoning), 5% respondent beekeepers believe that visiting the apiary and the hive external or internally during rainy season causes diseases. For this reason during rainy seasons, the apiary is exposed to growing plants and that in turn will serve as a hiding place of pests for honeybees.

Experience shown that if inspection is carried out externally it can be done at any season, however, caution move is required as to at what season and at what frequency that internal inspection should be conducted. In this regard, training beekeeper farmers is essential.

Table 16. Frequency of external inspection of apiary

Inspection frequency %Everyday 63.7Weekly 23.0Fortnightly 6.7Monthly 2.4Every 2 months 0.3Every 6 months 0.1Yearly 0.7Every day except rainy season 1.0Occasionally 2.0Strange sound of bees 0.1

Marketing colony and labor sourcesThis day colony marketing is becoming known practice in Amhara region. In some places like Burie of Gojam, colonies are carried to market when a beekeeper household decides to sell his/her own colony for cash income. In

[28]


some areas, bee colony marketing takes place at backyard in which buyers come and buy the colony by coming to the beekeeper’s home. Due to its recently emerging exercise, only a small portion of the respondents (14.4%) has the experience of selling honeybee colonies. The price a bee colony ranged from 40 to 220 Birr with an average of 116.77 Birr. According to the respondents, the selling price of a bee colony is drastically increasing from time to time. This fact may be attributed to decrease in trend of honeybee colonies (due to environmental degradation, intensification of agriculture, poisoning of honeybees) and increased attention to the beekeeping sub-sector by the government involving non-beekeepers through improved beekeeping practices.

Considering the current demand and price of bee colony, rearing and selling honeybee colony could be an opportunity for livelihood earnings.

Because of presence of sufficient family labor, the entire sample respondents stated that they do not use hired labor for beekeeping activities (97.8%). Moreover, those respondents, which lack family labor also, have no experience of using hired labor due to high wage of daily laborer (1.2%), shortage of daily laborer (0.3%) and other reasons (0.3%).

From this survey it could be learnt that all family members were directly or indirectly involved in beekeeping activities. Concerning the roles of women in relation to beekeeping activities, 92% of the respondents replied that women are involved in hive construction, plastering and smoking hives, colony inspection, swarm control, honeybee pest control, assist during honey harvesting, processing, and marketing of hive products. However, 8% of the sample respondents agreed that women do not participate in beekeeping activities mainly because of afraid of bee stings (61%) and lack of experience (16.6%) and details are indicated in Table 17.

Table 17. Reasons of women for not participating in beekeeping

Reasons Frequency %

Afraid of bee stings 32.0 61.0Lack of experience 9.0 16.6Busy in homestead work 6.0 11.1Being physically weak 5.0 9.3Aging 2.0 2.0Total 54.0 100.0

In this study, there was no report that prohibits women from undertaking beekeeping activities. However, according to some beekeepers, women are not allowed to visit the apiary during menstrual period. Generally, provision of practical training, protective cloth, beekeeping accessories, and introducing affordable and appropriate beekeeping technology in the form of top-bar hive

[29]

Adebabay et.al

may be a step towards promoting the role of women in beekeeping development. In addition, placing of hives suitable for women has to be developed and tested with users at local condition (Kerealem, 2005).

Honey production and seasonThe average amount of honey harvested from traditional, top-bar and frame hive were 10.2 kg, 16.6 kg and 17.5 kg per hive respectively (Table 18). The result obtained from traditional hive is higher than the national average yield (5 kg) and the result reported by Workneh et al.y (2007) that states the average amount o f honey harvested per traditional hive in West, South West, and North Shewa zones was 6.2 kg. Maximum figures from traditional hive were reported from Gozamin (60 kg) and Machakel weredas (40 kg) and the minimum figures reported from the study areas were nil.

Results of paired sample t-test showed that there was significance difference in the production of honey between traditional hives versus both top-bar and modern hives. However, there was no significance difference in honey yield between top-bar and frame hives (Table 18). This reflects that, unless moveable frame hives are managed using improved beekeeping practices (like adding and reducing supers, using honey extractor), the expected promotion of beekeeping industry will not be achieved.

Table 18. Paired sample t-test for amount of honey per types of hives

Type of hive N Amount of honey (kq)Mean SE

Traditional 981 10.2® 0.51Top-bar 91 16.6* 1.26Modern 124 17 5* 1.28

N = Number o f cases. SE = Standard Error, Means fo llow ed with common letters have no significant difference (P < 0.05)

The sample respondents harvest their honey in two distinct harvesting seasons, that is, from October to December and/ or from April to July. Majority o f the sample respondents (76.8%) harvest their honey during the autumn season whereas, 5.1% of the sample respondents harvest during spring or belg season. The rest (18.1%) harvest their honey during the aforementioned harvesting seasons, especially in areas where, bimodal type of rainfall prevails.

Based on the results o f this study, in the region honey is harvested 1-3 times (Table 19). Of the total respondent beekeepers 47.8%, 45.4%, and 43.0% reported that they harvest honey only once in a given production year from traditionsi. top-bar and frame hives respectively. According to CACC (2003)

[30]1


report the average frequency of production for all the three type of hives used in Amhara region were once and ranged from one to two.

Table 19. Frequency of harvest of honey

Type of hive Frequency of harvest (%)

Once Twice Trice Not harvest yetTraditional 47.8 40.2 11.1 1.0Top-bar 45.4 31.5 11.1 12.0Frame 43.0 32.9 8.7 15.4

The amount of honey produced from one beehive per year varies from places to places, which in most case determined by the existences of plenty pollen and nectar sources plants and the level of management input. As portrayed in Table 20, the maximum amount of honey harvested from traditional, top-bar and frame hive were 60 kg, 75 kg and 120 kg, respectively. (While the minimum records from all three type of hives in the study areas were nil, meaning there were some beekeepers, which did not harvest honey during the study year.) These figures were higher when compared to what previous findings reported (CACC, 2003, Kerealem, 2005). Nevertheless, these results are reflections of room to increase performances of these beehives through good management coupled with favorable beekeeping environment. This is below the line o f productivity what the beekeeping industry could perform.

Product handling and marketingBased on the results of this survey, the major product of beekeeping in study weredas was honey. Nearly 94 % of those interviewed placed high value on crude honey as a commodity for sale (Table 21). Honey is most commonly consumed in its unprocessed or natural state and it used in different recipes such as Birz, Tej (honey mead), local beer, coffee, bread, noug, milk, besso, telba, garlic and Feto (Lepidium sativum). Of course, in this study, some beekeeper households exercise consumption of bee brood and pollen for the sake of energy and protein production and healing purposes. Fifty seven % of the respondents resort honey as medicine in its own right or as a sweetening ingredient for bitter herbal drugs that are available from traditional doctors at local level.

There are good internal and external markets for natural honey as it is not only a food but also has therapeutic properties if unprocessed. This fact was observed in this study at Bebre Birhan and Kemissie towns with greater price o f crude honey than refined honey. According to the sample respondents, price of honey is, determined by its color, beeswax content, aroma, taste and flavor, viscosity and origin of produce.

Adebabay et al

Table 20. Average quantity of honey (kg) harvested from different hives by weredas in 2006 year

Wereda Traditional hive Top-bar hive Frame hiveN Mean SD Max N Mean SD Max N Mean SD Max

Machakel 75 11.59 6.41 40.00 4 21.00 9.12 30.00 5 15.70 12.71 30.00Gozamin 77 10.12 829 60.00 7 33.43 24.19 75.00 26 26.15 22.62 120.00Danqela 71 10.81 5.04 27.50 21 16.93 6.69 32.50 10 26.90 7.98 40.00Mecha 55 9.39 5.22 30.00 5 7.4C 3.70 12.50 5 11.70 10.12 27.50B/Dar Zuria 61 9.05 5.67 35.00 3 717 2.56 10.00 6 14.58 6.00 20.00Foqera 49 11.59 5.62 25.00 5 16.00 9.45 30.00 NA NA NA NAEstie 49 9.78 5.90 27 50 3 18.33 11.06 30.00 NA NA NA NAEbnat 48 10.38 4.46 24.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEast Belessa 48 9.29 6.00 30.00 3 19.67 8.96 30.00 NA NA NA NADembia 49 9.39 4.38 22.50 5 14.40 5.58 22.50 NA NA NA NAAlela Takusa 50 1036 4.73 20.00 1 10.00 0.0 10.00 NA NA NA NASekota 71 9.87 5.50 25.50 6 1275 5.55 20.00 13 11.62 8.52 25.00Ziquala 76 11.77 5.28 27.50 NA NA NA NA 15 14.50 9.82 35.00Buqna 75 9.89 5.96 34.00 14 1725 12.14 48.00 18 14.61 7.50 30.00D/Cheffa 49 8.35 6.48 35.00 4 2.75 1.26 4.00 22 11.14 8.12 30.00Sayint 78 10.33 7.66 35.00 11 16.73 11.57 35.00 3 35.33 4.50 40.00All weredas 981- 10.20 6.01 60.00 91 16.60 11.88 75.00 124 17.50 1423 120.00

N = Num ber o f cases. S.D Standard Deviation. Max Maximum SA - Cases were not available' O f the to la11034 respondents, 981 reported that they were harvesting honey and the rest 53 were not

Beekeepers harvest red, white, yellow, black, and mixed color of honey harvested in the study weredas. Of all sample respondents interviewed, 77.5%, 60% and 26% were producing white, red and yellow color honey respectively. Similarly, 22.1% and 14.3% of the sample respondents produce black and mixed color honey respectively. Color o f honey determines the utilization of honey and the market price. Regarding the price of honey, white and yellow honey fetches the higher price. Majority of the sample respondents consumed honey that fails to fulfill the customer preference.

Table 21. Purpose of using honey based on by color preference (percentage)

Description Color of honeyWhite Yellow Red Black Mixed

Income and household consumption 69.5 71.5 73.0 47.8 66.6Income only 24.5 18.9 16.4 26.5 16.7Household consumption 6.0 9.6 10.6 25.7 16.7Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

As to the results o f this survey, only 10.2% of the respondents were straining honey before marketing whereas 89.8% of them had no habit of straining honey. This might be due to lack of knowledge, lack o f straining materials and presence of market for crude honey. From those, which have the habit of straining honey 32% used honey extractor, 25% used cloth and sieve materials and the rest 43% simply crush and squeeze the honeycomb and remove the floating impurities by hands.

In Amhara region about 26 Bee Products Development and Marketing Cooperatives have been organized by Regional Bureau of Cooperatives Promotion Agency. O f these, in 2006 cooperatives found at Bahir Dar Zuria, Dangila. Gozamin, Gonder Zuria, Libokemkem, Meket, Debre Sina, Guangua

[32]


and Woreilu are organized as “Zembaba Bee Products Development and Marketing Cooperative Union”, of which the first six were financially supported by SOS Sahel Ethiopia Bees’s Products Development and Trade Promotion Programme.. The Union has a total members of 3415 of these 14% are female. (Meseret Abera, 2008, Personal communication). By most of these cooperatives, there is a unique experience of honey collection and extraction methods and they sell their honey at trademark of AMAR with reasonable prices. Others cooperatives organized by Regional Bureau of Cooperatives Promotion Agency found in Burie, Awebel, Debre Eleyas. Lay Gayint, Ziquala, Delanta Dawunt, Woreilu, Wogedi, Jamma, Tehulederie, Ambassel, Mekidela, Dessie Zuria, Gubalafto and Fagita Lakoma, (Meseret Abera, 2008, Personal communication), and this is one of the most significant developments within the sub-sector.

Some NGOs also play an important role in beekeeping development and promotion of hive products. For instance, in Waghimira Zone in 2006 Save the Children Fund (UK) was carried out promotion of honey at Addis Ababa, Lalibela, and Dessie.

As far as strength of straining materials concerned, the honey extractor enables the beekeepers to have pure honey and there is no loss of honey. Similarly using honey presser is easy and ideal method for straining honey harvested from local and top-bar hives. Concerning the weakness, honey extractor is not easily accessible where as using honey presser is a labor intensive and not efficient method other than hygienic.

Of the total sample respondents 94.6% sell honey. Of which 9.1% sold semi- refined honey whereas 86.36% of them sell in crude state. According to the results of this survey, the mean prices of refined and crude honey were 13.25 and 11.10 Birr/kg, respectively (Table 22). Whereas, the maximum price of honey per kg for refined and crude honey was 30 and 40 Birr respectively. The higher figure for crude honey might have been due to the reported data from Belesa area with ideal market price they receive from Tigrian traders. This was also true in some other areas of the target wereda like Oromiya Zone, as crude honey is believed to have greater medicinal value than refined honey.

Table 22. Quantity sold (kg) and selling price (Birr/kg) of refined and crude honey in 2006

Description Refined honey Crude honeyQuantity Price Quantity Price

Mean 33.40 13.25 36.78 11.10SD 37.84 4.86 52.53 4.30Minimum 2.00 6.00 1.00 3.00Maximum 167.00 30.00 52.53 40.00Sum 2805.50 1112.70 32409.00 9723.19

[33]

Adebabay et.al

Sixty three % of the sample respondents sell their refined honey during harvesting time and the rest (37%) waiting for better price or cannot bring to market due to workload. On the other hand, 54.3% of sample respondents sell crude honey during harvesting season while 43.0% after harvesting seasons and 2.7% at all seasons of the year. Majority (24.2%) of the respondents agreed that honey is expensive from March to September (details are indicated in Table 23). On the other hand 7.8% of the interviewed respondents have experience o f purchasing honey (for instance for wedding ceremony) from local market of which 61.8% during harvesting season. From this survey results, it can be concluded that majority o f the beekeepers are not benefited when they are selling honey during harvesting season (mainly October to November) because the price of honey is relatively low due to high supply.

Table 23. Months when honey is expensive

Months Number of cases %October to November 197 19.6December to February 119 11.9March to May 243 24.2June to September 196 19.5December to September 199 19.9October to September 22 2.21 do not know 27 2.7Total 1003 100.0

Sample respondents were interviewed the place where they sell their honeybee products (mainly honey) and 10.5% of them sold at village and others travel on the average 11.26 km to the nearby and central market where most o f the beekeepers sell their bee products. Only 4.34 % and 0.42% of the respondents sold their honey by traveling 31.0 - 70.0 km and more than 100 km, respectively using public transport (Table 24).

Table 24. Distance traveled for selling hive products

Distance (km) Number of cases %

0 (sold at village level) 99 10.500 .1 -1 .5 57 6.032 .0 -1 0 .0 399 41.731 1 .0 -3 0 .0 319 33.8031.0 -7 0 .0 41 4.34>100.0 4 0.42

The sample respondents transport their honey by carrying (50.8%), cart (1.9%), donkey (2.6%), public transport (2.1%), and both carrying and use of donkey (19.1%). The rest 23.5% of the respondents were not sell honey during the study period. Majority of the respondents sell their honey to intermediaries. Vendors were the main buyer of both refined and crude honey, followed by consumers (Table 25). These merchants pay cash on delivery of

[34]


honey, collect honey from local market, and sell to consumers, Tej houses, and wholesalers. Some of the beekeepers sell their produce to cooperatives and intermediaries who are specialized traders mostly operating in the larger trading centers of the region. There are also traders operating outside the region like Tigray. Some beekeepers from Dangila sold parts of their honey for consumers in abroad. Nevertheless, these beekeepers were not volunteered to tell the amount of honey they sold to abroad.

Table 25. Customers' type by state of honey

Customers type Refined honey Crude honeyFrequency % Frequency %

Vendors 62 66.0 649 1 11Consumers 27 28.7 86 9.6Vendors and consumers 2 2.1 78 8.7Cooperatives 3 3.2 58 6.5Tej producers 0 0.0 15 1.7Consumer and tej producers 0 0.0 7 0.8Total 94 100.0 893 100.00

Beeswax is another valuable hive product and has local demand for making mainly for church candles and foundation sheets. It is also one of the exportable agricultural products of the country. However, its production has rarely been considered and only 29.8 % of the respondents collect crude beeswax from empty honeycomb during harvesting and after home utilization of honey. Therefore beekeepers should not only train how to collect beeswax as an input to frame hives but also as a source of income. Beekeepers mainly used this crude beeswax for donation to the church (60.7%), for sale (21.7%) and for beekeeping activities (11.9%) like smearing hives to attract bee swarms and making of foundation sheets (Table 26).

Because of this study, the mean price of 1kg crude beeswax is 16.30 Birr with standard deviation, minimum and maximum prices of 14.12, 5.50, and 60.00 Birr respectively. It was reported that the price of wax was cheaper in Sayint wereda and more expensive at Dangila and Bahir Dar Zuria weredas.

Table 26. Utilization of beeswax

Beeswax utilization Frequency %Gift for churches 190 60.7For sale 68 21.7Beekeeping activities 37 11.9Gift for churches and beekeeping activities 7 2.2Candle (tuaf) making 5 1.6Other household uses 6 1.9Total 100.0

[35]

Adebabay et.sl

According to this study, there was no report on production o f products other than honey and beeswax for commercial purpose. This needs special attention to utilize other valuable hive products such as propolis (a resinous part of a plant with higher medicinal value) and pollen. Especially, propolis is the most valuable hive product that fetches higher price in foreign market as far as produced in a desired quality. Therefore, in this regard, appropriate propolis collection and refining methodologies should be developed. Besides, more focus should also be given to propolis marketing. Beekeepers should also be trained on technical harvesting and handling procedures of propolis from production to marketing.

Honey containers and storage conditionWhen the beekeeper is not in urgent need of cash, honey is stored for certain period of times awaiting better market prices. Types o f storage containers commonly used by beekeepers in the study weredas were sealed plastic containers (52.6%), gourd (47.9%), local clay pot (36.3%), plastic sac (23.5%), leather sac (9.7%) and tin (5.3%). The percentage results when added give more than 100 % because more than one variable asked at a time and the interviewees replied more than one answer, i.e., they used more than one type of container.

The gourd and clay pot containers are fitted with lids made of locally available materials and sealed with cow dung and ash mixture. Such traditional containers will absorb moistures or may change the flavor of the honey and may deteriorate the quality of the honey. In addition, there is high chance of breaking of these containers during transportation of honey from the production areas to home and to the market. The newly prepared and used leather sac results in change of taste and flavor of honey and nowadays it is gradually replaced by plastic sac. Tin containers, in most cases result in rusting hence it deteriorates the honey. According to recent studies, plastic container is the ideal and safe way for storage of honey.

Beekeepers were asked for the commonly used methods they exercise to store honey for longer periods o f time and they replied that they store their honey using air tighten containers and put in cold places were the commonly used methods. Based on the results of this study, different methods used to store honey for longer time by the respondents are indicated in Table 27. Grain storages (‘Gottera’) were considered as cool and dry and are the appropriate places for storage o f honey at rural areas

Granulation of honey is one of the normal physical properties o f honey, which is affected by the floral source from which the honey is made. Regarding granulation of honey, beekeepers were interviewed whether their honey is granulated or not and according to their response 94.6 % of them assured the existence of granulation in their honey. In this regard, many consumers consider wrongly that crystallized honey is adulterated. Before marketing

[36]


their stored honey 63.7%, interviewed beekeepers melt their honey using sunlight (94.3%), direct heating (3.4%), water bath (1.8%), and putting nearby fire (0.5%). Some studies indicate that direct heating with fire has great effect on the content and quality of honey.

Table 27. Methods used to store honey for longer time

Methods used Frequency %Using airtight containers 376 41,9Put in cold places (room) 82 9.1Using airtight containers and put in cold places 254 28,2Put in raised places 13 1.4Melting (Manter) 2 0.2No methods used 146 16,2Not storing a 27 3.0

Honeybee Flora Condition

Bees obtain their food and raw materials for all the hive products such as honey, wax, royal jelly, and propolis directly and indirectly from plants. Among many factors, availability of potential flowering plants and ample sources of water for bees are the two major parameters for an area to be considered as potential honey production.

According to the results of this survey, the honeybee plants of the study areas comprise trees, shrubs, herbs, cultivated crops, and the species with their composition and population varies widely from area to area. The recent studies revealed that the expansion of agriculture and rapid population growth resulted in dwindling of the forest into tiny leftovers, which are found around churches, permanent graves, schools, private holdings (mostly around villages, towns and cities), and the vegetation is dominated by shrubs, herbs and cultivated crops largely replacing the previous forest vegetation areas.

Presently the region's vegetation cover is quite small especially the high forest area is less than 5% (ANRS BoA, 2003b). This shows that in the region there is high degradation of natural resource base and demands strong conservation and rehabilitation efforts. Interviewed beekeepers were asked to list major honey plants in their localities. Some important honeybee plants of the study areas mentioned by respondents were recorded in vernacular (common) and scientific names with their flowering calendars (Appendix Table 1). The scientific names were determined using reference books of Fichtl and Admassu (1994) and Azene et al. (1993).

The beekeepers also described the flowering periods of honeybee floras of their localities. Based on the results of this survey, the availability of bee feed supplied by plants found varied across the respondent areas. This is mainly

[37]

Adebabay et.al

based on seasons, agro ecologies, and rainfall conditions of an area. Nearly eighty-nine % of the sample respondents replied that their colonies suffer from feed shortage at certain season of the year, which differs among the areas. For instance, in Sekota flower is available for few months only (mid of July to September), whereas, in Dangila flowering period is prolonged from June to December (personal observation).

This feed shortage happens mainly during February to May (56.2%) followed by from February to August (33.7%), June to August (7.3%) and September to January (2.8%). During period of feed shortage, about 42.8% of the respondents provide supplementary feeds to their colonies. Among these. 65.1% of the sample respondents provide supplementary feeds to their colonies during February to May (65.1%). February to August (25.7%), June to August (7.1%) and from September to January (2.1%). The most commonly used supplementary feeds include sugar syrup and honey, flour of soybean, field pea, barley, and pepper. In most cases, external and mass feeding was exercised by the beekeepers. This approach is believed to create suitable condition for fighting of bee colonies and attraction of insects and honeybee enemies to the apiary. Therefore, feeding of colony using in-hive mode of feeding should be rather exercised. To mitigate the shortage of feed for their colonies 47.2% of the respondent plant bee forages around their apiary while some respondents leaving some amount honey un-harvested for the later dry season period.

Of the total beekeepers interviewed, 47.2% of the respondents plant any type of honeybee floras around their apiary. Thus, plantation of multipurpose, drought tolerant, pollen and nectar rich plants and conservation of natural resources and integrating these activities with the development of apiculture should be the major concern of the region at all levels.

Honeybees collect water from rivers, springs, ponds, watering tanks, standing pipes and from other available sources. They use large quantities of water to dilute their brood food and to cool the hive by evaporation during dry seasons. If colonies are not placed nearby any source of drinking water, it is desirable to provide water particularly during the dry seasons.

Concerning provision o f water, 70.8% of sample respondents have experience of providing water to their honeybee colonies. Whereas, 29.2% of them not providing water to their bee colonies for reasons like nearest water source around the apiary (79.3%), lack of awareness (11.0%), negligence (5.2%), and absence of tradition (4.5%). The mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum distance of water sources from apiaries were 1.8, 3.58, 0.0, and 30.0km respectively. If suitable drinking water is available in the immediate surroundings from the apiary provision of water is not required. In many literatures, water is mentioned as everything as equivalent to bee forage to the honeybees (Paterson, 2006; Jones, 1999). Honeybees elapse most of their time

[38]


in collecting of water for major purpose of rinsing the collected nectar and keeping the microclimate of their hive.

Poisoning of honeybeesHoneybees can be poisoned by chemicals and poisonous plants. The chemicals used for crop protection are the main pesticides that kill the bees. The use of chemicals and pesticides for crop pests’, weeds, Tsetse fly, malaria, and house pests control brings in to focus the real possibility of damaging the delicate equilibrium in the colony, as well as the contamination of hive products. Nectar or pollen of poisonous plants was reported to be toxic to the bees themselves, and those in which the honey produced from their nectar are toxic to humans (Kerealem, 2005).

The beekeepers were asked whether their bees get chances of poisoning or not. Accordingly, 52.5% of the respondents replied positively. According to the sample respondents 95.1% of the bees poisoning occur due to agro chemicals mainly insecticides and herbicides. Whereas 4.9% the case occurs due to poisoning from plants like Bisana (Croton macrostachys), and Serk abeba (Cassia siamea). However, these need to be confirmed by research.

Honeybee Pests and Diseases

Many factors endanger the life and products of honeybees generally in the world and specifically under local conditions. The bees and their products are vulnerable to various diseases, parasites, and pests. The existences of two adult honeybee diseases namely Nosema apis and Melpighamoeba mellificae and their distribution was studied and reported by Gezahegn and Amssalu, 1991; Desalegn and Amssalu, 1999. The occurrence of brood disease known as Chalk brood in Ethiopia for the first time was reported by Desalegn (2006). Some major types of honeybee pests and predators, magnitude of their damage, and some possible solutions to minimize the damage they cause on bees and their products were discussed by Desalegn (2001). Moreover, the occurrence of small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray; Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in honeybees was assessed by Desalegn and Amssalu (2006) and recently the effect of ant (Dorylus fulvus) on honeybee colony and their products in West and Southwest Shewa zones was examined by Desaleen (2007).

Beekeepers of the study areas were asked to identify honeybee diseases and major pests. Based on the result of this study, the existence of pests were major challenges to the honeybees and beekeepers. After having identified the major pests facing the beekeeping acti\ :■ ies, farmers were requested to rank them and the result indicated that ants, a ax moth (Galleria mellonella), bee- eater birds, spider, bee lice (Brauia c 'ecal.), honey badger (Mellivora capensis), termite, smail hive beetles iAethina tumida) and snake were the

Adebabay et.al

most harmful pests in order of decreasing importance (Table 28). Based on personal observation, pests cause devastating damage on honeybee colonies within short period and significantly affect honeybees and their productivity.

Table 28. Major pests identified in the study weredas

Pests and predators Season of incidence

Type of damageHoneybee Bee

broodHive Bee

productAnts Year round yl V ' V

Wax moth May - September VBirds March - June VSpider Year round VBee lice May-September VHoney badqer Year round V VTermite June-SeptemberSmall hive beetles Year round VSnake Year round '<1Deaths head hawk moths (Archerontia atropos)

Honey flow season yJ

Farmers are not aware o f the direct or indirect effect of some pests like pseudo-scorpions (chelifer species), lizards, bee mites, and Pirate wasps (Polarus latifrons). However, these pests are already known to have considerable effects on honeybees and their products.

Along with the identifications, beekeepers of the region have serious concern and have rich experience and various practices in controlling some of the honeybee pests (details are indicated in Table 29).

Table 29. Techniques used by the beekeepers of the region to protect pests of honeybees

Pests Protection techniquesAnts Place fresh ashes around the base of a hive stand, plastering hives stands

with mud, putting dead snake on the nest of ants, spraying garlic juice, burning the ants with fire, destroying ants nests, use of white eucalyptus leaves as repellant, plastering of thin rubber sheets and metals between the hive and hive stands, pour used engine oil around the hive stand and keeping weeds well away from the base of the hive stand

Wax-moth Fumigation with cotton cloth, rubbing with recommended plant materials like Vemonia amygdalina, removal of infected comb

Birds Killing using ‘wonchif and whippingBee lice Fumigation with Olea africana and cigaretteSpider Removal of spider’s web and killingTermite Destroying of nestsBeetles (small one) Narrowing the hive entrance, hand pickingHoney badger Killing, fencing, chasing with dogsSnake Killing, smoking with some plant materials

Among some honeybee diseases, the most commonly known reported to exist in Ethiopia are Nosema, Amoeba and Chalk brood diseases (Gezahegn and

[40]


Amssalu, 1991; Desalegn and Amssalu, 1999; Desalegn, 2007). Based on the results of this survey, h j% of sample respondents had observed honeybee diseases in their hive.

The beekeepers recognized that their bees could suffer from disease locally known as ‘m ich’ or ‘muashegn\ which result in mass death of adult honeybees in the hive. However, the beekeepers did not known real causes. Some beekeepers also responded as if they observed brood disease, which results in bad smell of the hive and formation o f worms. However, there is no honeybee disease known to create worm in the hive. The perception of the beekeepers in the formation of worms due to disease has had probably happen due to lack o f knowledge of differentiating the damage caused by honeybee diseases and larvae of wax moth. The latter is known to affect the bee’s comb through its larvae with which the beekeepers get confused worms formed due to disease.

Indigenous KnowledgeBeekeepers of the region have rich indigenous knowledge on hive management and utilization of hive products. Indigenous knowledge used by the beekeepers in the study areas includes disease investigation, disease control, prevention of bee stings, controlling reproductive swarming, reduction of pain of bee stings, strengthening o f colony, utilizing bee product as local medicine, controlling honeybee enemies, colony multiplication, swarm catching, determination of honey harvesting season, identification of adulterated honey. Details are indicated in Table 30.

[41]

Adebabay et.al

Table 30. Indigenous knowledge of beekeepers

Description Applied indigenous knowledgeDisease investigation Visual observation: decrease of colony, mass death of honeybees,

unusual buzz of bees, bad smell of brood, disability of flyingDisease control Cleaning of apiary and hives, prohibition of entering into apiary from

June to September, transferring the diseased colony to new hives, burning and removal of diseased colony, prohibition of digging soils around apiary, fumigation of 'itan' {gum o f Boswellia papyrifera), human hair and different tree species, spraying of 'tebel' (Holy water)

Controlling reproductive swarming

Removal of queen cells, increase hive volume, fumigation with ‘itan] human hair, bone of equines, plant materials, mixture of wheat bran and salt, mosses, and noug1, placing of leaves of special plant and spraying urine of mule

Prevention of bee stings Clothing, bare body, ointment of honey, lemon juice and ash, smoking and spraying of milk and water

Reduction of pain of bee stings

Removal of stinging apparatus, eating brood, pollen and honey, drinking of pea flour syrup, whey and ‘feto'(Lipidium sativum) washing with soap and cold water, ointment with fresh soil, honey and butter, rubbing with rapeseed leaves and ‘Astenagir1 (Datura stramolum) and flaming with fire

Strengthening of colony Uniting of colony, supplementary feeding (sugar, flour syrup, pepper and barley flour), rubbing with ‘Zikakibe (Ocimum basilicum)', replacing the weak colony with strong queen, providing with water and milk-water solution.

Utilizing bee product as local medicine

Honey and brood with other additives are commonly used for stomachache, inflammation, coughing, malaria, dermatophylosis, asthma, antiheliments, cardiac diseases, source of energy, vomiting (as a mixture of honey and coffee). Honey also serves as a carrier for different medicines in the treatment of hydrophobia and cattle diseases

Controlling honeybee enemies

Cleaning of apiary and hives, applying ash, fencing, destruction of ant nests, spraying with juices of neem trees, eucalyptus leaves, garlic and tenaadam (Ruta chalepensis), application of chemicals (DDT), using wonchif and wotmed, smoking with hair, rubber

Colony multiplication Using small size hives and gourd (overcrowding), feeding of pepper and noug, spraying of ‘tebel’ (Holy water)

Swarm catching Spraying water and soil, whippingDetermination of honey harvesting season

Observation (honey aroma, cluster of bees outside the hive, opening of the hive), decline of foraging activities, ventilation of the hive by bees, knocking the hives, death of drones and worker bees

Identification of adulterated honey

Unusual color, bad aroma and test, low viscosity, incomplete burning of honey, not granulated,

Beekeeping Constraints

Based on the result o f this study, beekeepers were much suffered from a number o f difficulties and challenges that are antagonistic to the success desired in honey production. Major problems in beekeeping arise from bee characteristics or environmental factors that are beyond the control of the beekeepers, while others have to do with poor marketing infrastructure and storage facilities. After having identified the major problems facing the

[42]


beekeeping activities, farmers were requested to list their priority in order of importance.

According to the response of the beekeepers and available information on major challenges of the beekeepers, the major constraint of honeybee production is lack of rainfall (Table 31). More than 45% of the weredas in the region are categorized as moisture stress areas. Particularly, eastern parts of the region experience shortage of rainfall with poor distribution, usually torrential and erratic in nature, which results in poor plant performance. Serious shortage of moisture is common at the time of planting (sowing), growing, flowering and grain filling stages o f plant development (ANRS BoA, 2003b). This result is in line with the works of Kerealem (2005), stating frequent occurrence of drought (associated with lack of rainfall) was the main challenging issue of beekeeping development. This constraint has a direct and indirect effect on the reproduction and productivity of honeybees. This is mainly attributed to the unavailability bee forages. Therefore, in this regard, one has to provide supplementary feed to his/her colony, planting drought resistant bee forage species around the apiary and provide water to the colony.

According to the respondent beekeepers, the second most devastating phenomena that curtails the productivity of honeybee colonies, is poisoning of honeybees by agro-chemicals such as fungicides, pesticides, and herbicides. These days, it is becoming a social problem due to the conflict of interest between the beekeepers and non-beekeepers during its application. Therefore, it needs urgency from the regional government to formulate policy and design legislations with regard to application of Agricultural chemicals. Moreover, focus should be given to those chemicals, which are not harmful to honeybees, and the applications should not match with flowering seasons to minimize the poisoning effect on honeybees.

In short, these problems are technical, management and policy issues and can affect the production and productivity of beekeeping in the region. Therefore, much focus has to be given to alleviate the described constraints, to tap the maximum potential of the beekeeping industry. In this regard, it is time to develop beekeeping development strategy and policy by the Regional Government, Bureau of Agriculture, and Rural Development, Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute, Holetta Bee Research Center, NGOs, and others concerned organizations.

[43]

Adebabay et.al

Table 31. Constraints of beekeeping (weighted average scores)

Description Ranks

Production constraintsLack of rainfall 1 (5.874)Bee poisoning 2 (5.836)Lack of bee forage 3 (5.726)Pest and diseases 4 (5.435)Absconding 5 (4.983)Lack of beekeeping accessories 6 (4.860)Lack of honeybee colony 7 (3.766)Market constraintsLack of market 1 (3.492)Lack of inputs (like containers for transporting) 2(3.417)Farness of market place 3 (2.853)Lack of transport 3 (2.853)Hive management constraintsLack of capital 1 (4.717)lack of labor 2(3.216)Lack of storage (for products) 3 (2.770)Beekeeping informationLack of improved beekeeping information 1 (2.864)lack of information on honey and wax marketing 2 (2.269)Credit constraintsHigh interest rate 1 (4.493)Lack of credit 2 (3.295)Untimely back payment 3(3.106)

Formula had been used to calculate average weight scores (Appendix II)

Conclusions and RecommendationsThis study was aimed to assess the status of beekeeping in Amhara region. The results of this study indicated that beekeeping is one o f the most important income-generating activities. It was also found that the region has untapped potential for beekeeping development. This was reflected by the various indigenous knowledge practices, diverse distribution of honeybee floras (in most part of the region), bee product processing and handling and different type of honeybees residing in different agro ecological zones of the region.

It was also found that various constraints have been a bottleneck to exploit the untapped potential of beekeeping industry. The major ones are lack of rainfall, agrochemical bee poisoning, shortage o f bee forage, incidence o f pest and diseases, shortage of honeybee colonies, the lack of promising market, lack of inputs, lack o f beekeeping information, lack of credit and high interest rate of credits.

[44]


Although these days, improved beekeeping technologies are being introduced by the government, the existing system of their management by the target groups was similar to the local type of beekeeping system. Majority of the beekeepers follow traditional colony management, harvesting and processing methods to produce honey. There is great variability on production and reproduction behavior of local bee races.

In addition, this study, had also noted that only honey and wax are the main products of beekeeping industry in the region.

On the other hand, from the survey it can be concluded that even though the majority of region areas has untapped potential for beekeeping, the existing beekeeping system of the region is local type interwoven by various constraints.

Every beekeeping development project should consider the whole beekeeping system before any development intervention endeavors. These include availability of honeybee colonies, vegetation, water, bee management, breeding, and bee protection aspects. Besides, introduction of beekeeping technologies should be preceded with practical training. Emphasis should also be given to monitoring and evaluation at different level of development intervention.

To avoid colony shortage and in order to get the bees with desirable characters, the beekeepers should get training and encouraged for selection and breeding of honeybees. Moreover, splitting queen-rearing method undertaken by Andassa Livestock Research Center should be scaled-up to mitigate the shortage of honeybee colonies. Emphasis should also given by the regional government on bee product diversification like production of pollen and propolis production via designing appropriate production and marketing procedures.

Efforts should also be geared to alleviate the main constraints that hindered beekeeping development of the region. Therefore, there is a great need of attentions in planting multipurpose and drought resistant honeybee floras, conservation of existing vegetation, development of water resources, minimization of the effects o f agrochemicals, introducing and disseminating productivity enhancing technologies, improving access to credits, rendering intensive training, integrating beekeeping with agro forestry and crop production.

From this study, among many issues come across, it is suggested that the following points for future work.

® In this survey, identification o f honeybee plant resources was done based on only the beekeepers' knowledge. Thus, further studies will be

[45]

Adebabay et.al

undertaken for confirming species diversity, structure, and composition of honeybee floras.

• In order to promote the beekeeping sub-sector, formulating a beekeeping development strategy that would be applicable to the different production systems and agro-ecological zones of the region is crucial. This calls a comprehensive beekeeping research agenda to be developed for various areas of the region. This will give a clear sense of direction and ensure the sustainable development of beekeeping industry.

[46]


References

Adjare, S.O. 1990. Beekeeping in Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Agricultural Service Bulletin 68/6. FAO, Rome, Italy. 130p.

Admassu Adi and Nuru Adgaba. 1999. Preliminary investigation on the effect of honeybee pollination on seed yield o f Guizotia abyssinca. In proceedings o f first National conference o f the Ethiopian Beekeepers Association, pp. 74-82, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Amssalu Bezabeh, Nuru Adgaba, E Sarah, H. Radloff, Randall Hepburn. 2004. Multivariate morphometric analysis o f Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) in the Ethiopian region. Apidologie 35 (2004) 71-84.

Ayalew Kassaye. 2001. Promotion o f beekeeping in rural sector o f Ethiopia, pp. 52- 58. Proceedings o f the third National Annual Conference o f Ethiopian Beekeepers Association (EBA). September 3-4, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ayalew Kassaye and Gezahegn Tadesse. 1991. Suitability Classification in Apicultural Development, Ministry o f Agriculture, Addis Ababa.

Azene Bekele-Tessema, A. Birnieand B Tengnas,. 1993. Useful trees and shrubs for Ethiopia. Identification, propagation and management for agricultural and pastoral communities. Technical handbook No 5. Regional Soil Conservation Unit (RSCU) Swedish International Development Authority. Nairobi, Kenya.

Beyene Tadesse and David Phillips, 2007. Ensuring small scale producers in Ethiopia to achieve sustainable and fair access to honey markets. Paper prepared for International Development Enterprises (IDE) and Ethiopian Society for Appropriate Technology (ESAT), Addis Ababa.

Amhara National Regional State, Bureau o f Agriculture (ANRS BoA). 2003a Honeybee queen rearing centre establishment project document. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

ANRS BoA, 2003b. Three Years (2004 - 20060 Strategic Plan. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.Amhara National Regional State Bureau o f Finance and Economic Development

(ANRS BOFED). 2004. Rural households socio-economic baseline o f 50 weredas in Ahmara Region. Volume VIII: Livestock production. September 2004, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Central Agricultural Census Commission (CACC). 2003. Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration, 2001/ 02. Results for Amhara Region, Statistical Reports on Livestock and Farm Implants (Part IV). CACC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp.45-46.

Central Statistical Authority (CSA). 1998.. Agricultural census main report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Desalegn Begna 2001. Honeybee pest and predators o f Ethiopia Proceedings o f the third National Annual Conference o f Ethiopian Beekeepers Association (EBA). September 3-4, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp 59-67, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Desalegn Begna. 2006. The occurrence of Chalk brood (Ascosphaera apis): A new honeybee (A. mellifera L.) disease in West Shoa, Ethiopia. Ethiopian journal o f animal production. 6(1): 1-8, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Desalegn Begna and Amssalu Bezabeh, 1999. Distribution o f honeybee diseases Nosema apis

and Melpighamoeba mellificae in Ethiopia. Holetta Bee Research Center. Annual Report.

[47]

Adebabay et.al

Desalegn Begna and Amsalu Bezabeh . 2006. Occurrence o f small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray:; Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in honeybee {A.mellifera L.) in Ethiopia. Ethiopian vetrinaryjornal 2006, 10(2): 101-1 10. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Crane, E. 1990. Bees and Beekeeping: Science, Practice and World Resources. Comstock Publishing Associates (Cornell University Press), Ithaca, New York. 614p

Fichtl, R. and Admassu Addi. 1994. Honeybee Flora o f Ethiopia. Margraf Verlag, Germany. 5 lOp.

Gichora, M. 2003. Towards Realization o f Kenya’s Full Beekeeping Potential: A Case Study o f Baringo District. Ecology and Development Series No. 6, 2003. Cuvillier Verlag Gottingen, Germany. 157p.

Gezahegn Tadesse and Amssalu Bezabeh, 1991. Identifying and Diagnosing Honeybee Diseases at Holeta Bee Research and Training Center. Proceedings o f the fourth National Livestock Improvement Conference, pp. 263 - 265.

Jones, Richard, 1999. Beekeeping as a business. Commonwealth Secretariat, London.Keralem Ejjgu. 2005. Honey bee production system, opportunities, and challenges in

Enebse Sar Midir Wereda (Amhara Region) and Amaro Special Wereda (Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region), Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis presented to Alemaya University, 133p.

Melaku Gorfu. 2005. Adoption and profitability o f Kenyan top-bar hive beekeeping technology: the case o f Ambasel wereda. Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis presented to Alemaya University, 140p.

Meles Minale. 2002. National Bank of Ethiopia: Agricultural Policy in Ethiopia’s Development: scope, issues, and prospects, proceedings o f the 6U1 annual conference o f Agricultural Economics Society o f Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Ministry o f Agriculture (MoA). 2003. Honey and Beeswax Development and Marketing Plan, Amharic Version, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Nuru Adgaba, 2002. Geographical races o f the Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) o f the Northern Regions o f Ethiopia. Ph.D Dissertation. Rhodes University, Department o f Zoology and Entomology, South Africa. 265p.

Paterson, P.D. 2006. Beekeeping. The Tropical Agriculturalist. The Technical Center for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation (CTA), International Bee Research Association (1BRA) and Macmillan. Malaysia

Workineh Abebe. Sebisibe Zuber and Enani Bashawurad. 2007. Documentation o f indigenous knowledge for the development o f improved beekeeping practices. Holeta Ethiopia. Unpublished

[48]

Beekeeping in (he Amhara Region

Appendix I. Honeybee floras in the Amhara Region

Amharic Scientific name Floral calendarAdeyabeba Bidon spp September-OctoberAluma D iscopodium penninervium September • NovemberAba Grewia bicolorAzo Harege Clematis hirusta MarchAbosida Nigella saliva October - DecemberAmekela Hygorophilia auriculataAnkua Commiphora africana/ habeccinica September-DecembjrAvalo Combretum globifervs MarchAbalo Terminalia brownie March - MayAnfar Buddleja polystachya January - FebruaryAgam Cp/issa edulis March - MayAtat Maytenus arbutifolif/obscura JuneAkureater Glycine wax September - DecemberAlquaza Unidentified Nov. - December and March . ,aAmebabesa Albizia schimperiana/gmmiferaAbish Trigonelia foenicuium DecemberAwebaze Unidentified SeptemberAbatsemara Unidentified September - DecemberAhunda Unidentified NovemberAlmati Piiiostigma thonningii September - Nove; berBisana Croton macrostachy April - mayBirbera Melletia ferruginea MayBameba Adansonia digitatah MarchBahirzaf Eucalptus spp September - N ?.r, ii - JuneBekolo ZeaMays September - Novemi arBerbere Capsicum annuum November* DecemberBakela \facia foba NovemberBuna Coffea arbica April - JuneBuie Cantana trifolia DecemberBesobela Ocimum basilicumBebesha - Unidentified April - JuneBesuda UnidentifiedCheba Acacia niiotica DecemberChecho Premna schimperiChemeho Unidentified .Chegogit Bidens pilosaDedeho Euclea schimperi September - November; MayDuduna Cussonia holstii AprilDokema Syzygium guiness February

[49]

Adebabay et.al

Amharic Scientific name Floral calendarDong Apodytes dimidiate January - FebruaryDengorita Vemonia biafrae October - DecemberDegta Calpumia aureaDamakase Negeta azurea JanuaryDebrkayna UnidentifiedDuduna Cussonia holstii OctoberDonga Apodytes dimidiata MayDergaja Unidentified February - marchDerech UnidentifiedDadesa Unidentified May - JuneDench Plectranthus punctatus/ Salanum nigrum M ay-JuneDebretit Unidentified August - SeptemberEmbuay Solanium indicumEmbacho Rumex nervosus June and NovemberEndod Phytolacca dodecandra MarchEkema Unidentified JuneEnkuay Ximenia americana MayEshe Mimusops kummel March - mayEnjory Rubus spp December - JanuaryFeto Lipidium sativumFila UnidentifiedFeteqa Boswellia papyrifera M ay-JuneGumera Acacia polyacantacha March - AprilGirar Acacia spp October - November and March-MayGimero Cappahs tomentudsa/polycantha March - AprilGirawa Vemonia spp November - January & MarchGaja Andropogon abyssinica October - NovemberGuaya Lathynjs sativa FebruaryGomene Brassica Spp October - DecemberGulo Pinunus communis DecemberGesho Rhamnus prinoides March - JulyGetem Schefflera abyssinica March - MayGaba/Kurkura Ziziphuus mauritiaha/ Spina christi MarchGorgoro Hypericum revolutum/quartinianum OctoberGorteb Unidentified September - NovemberHulaga Ehretica cymosaHada SolanumHareg Solanecio angelatus MarchHariya UnidentifiedJaderakena Unidentified April-JuneKundobribere Schinus molle December - MarchKontire Petrolobium stellatum MarchKeg a Rosa abissinica February - May; September-OctoberKentafa Pteerrolobium stellatum Nov. - December/February-MayKusheshle Acanthus sennii SeptemberKuara Erythrina abyssinica June- JulyKontir Acacia brevicpica MarchKinchib Guphorbium candelabmm FebruaryKulkual Euphorbia spp MarchKese Lippia adoensis JanuaryKoso Hagenia abyssinicaKoshim Dovyalis caffra

[50]


Amharic Scientific name Floral calendarKoret Osyris quadripartitaKirba UnidentifiedKurm Unidentified MarchKilintos Unidentified MarchKengera UnidentifiedKolibel UnidentifiedKorencho UnidentifiedKotikoto Unidentified April - marchKasadibo Unidentified March - MayKitkita Dododinea angustifolia February/September - OctoberLenkuata Grewia ferruginea MayLole Ekebergia capensis MarchLanquso Dracaena steudneri AprilMashila Sorghum bicolor September - November

Moata Bracaena steudneri JuneMaget Trifolium steudneri/acaule September - OctoberMeche Guizot ia sea bra September - OctoberMeser Lens culiaris JanuaryMango Mangifera indica MarchMalkeba Unidentified May - JuneMuja Unidentified August - OctoberMenoguaya Vacia dassycrapa JanuaryMerenze Acokanthera shimperi/Stratychnos innocua MarchNug Guitozia abyssinica October - NovemberNechazimud Trachyspermum ammi September - NovemberPapaya Carica papaya FebruaryRete Aleo brahana March - June and DecemberRench Caylusea abyssinica August - SeptemberShisha Nicandra physalodes December and January - MarchSuff Helianthus annuus September - NovemberSelit Sesamum indicumli September - NovemberSasebaniya Sesbania seshan June and November-JanuarySesa Albizia gummifera/ schimperiana February - JuneSerdo Eleusine floccifoliaShenbeko Arundo donaxShola Ficus sur February - MarchShinkurt Allium cepa Year roundShimel Oxytenanthera abyssinicaSama Urtica simensis MaySibkana Unidentified March-JuneShifana Unidentified JuneSeho Allophylus abyssincus J u n e -J u lySuriya Unidentified Decem ber-M archSiriwa UnidentifiedSerkabeba Unidentified FebruarySendel Unidentified MarchSila Trigonella foenumgraecum OctoberSimiza Justitia schemperina NovemberStalwa Unidentified M a y -J u n eTelba Linum vsitatissiumum S eptem ber-O ctoberTembelel Jasminum abyssinicum MarchTenadame Ruta chalepensis

[51]

Adebabay et.al

Amharic Scientific name Floral calendarTimbaho Nicotina tabacumTikurazimude Niqella sativa November - DecemberTeketila Tapinanthus globiferusTeqeqit Bidens pilosaTrilucern Chamaecytisus prolifererus February/June - JulyTualiya Unidentified September& MarchTei Unidentified March - MayTik Unidentified AugustTosiqn Thymus schimperi July - SeptemberVangder Unidentified OctoberWalwa Wosewellia papyrifera May - June and December - JanuaryWyira Olea africana March - AprilWoyin Vitis vinifera JulyWanza Cordia africana February; September - NovemberWajma Medicago polymorpha August - SeptemberWareka Ficus vasta MarchWelkefa Dombeya torrida October - JanuaryWirchibi Unidentified MarchWenbrat Unidentified SeptemberWenahi Unidentified MarchYezihonanqet Unidentified November - DecemberYekolawanza Piliostigma thonningii FebruaryZana Stereospermum kunthianum M a rc h -J u n eZikakibe Ocmum basilicum OctoberAba Grewia bicolorBesobela Ocimum basilicumBesuda UnidentifiedChecho Premna schimperiChemeho UnidentifiedChegogit Bidens pilosaDiqta Calpumia aurea June - SeptemberDebrkayna UnidentifiedDuduna Cussonia holstiiDerech UnidentifiedDadesa UnidentifiedEmbuay Solanium indicumFila UnidentifiedGula UnidentifiedHulaga Ehretica cymosaHada SolanumHariya UnidentifiedKontire Petrolobium stellatumKentafa Pteerrolobium stellatumKinchib Guphorbium candelabrumKese Lippia adoensisKoso Hagenia abyssinicaKoshim Dovyalis caffraKoret Osyhs quadripartitaKolibel UnidentifiedKorencho UnidentifiedKasadibo UnidentifiedKitkita Dododinea angustifolia

[52]


Table 1. continued

Pests and diseases184.392(1) 7 1290.744227.732(2) 6 1366.392189.120(3) 5 945.600139.476(4) 4 557.904

32.308(5) 3 96.9249 456(6) 2 18.9126.304(7) 1 cn co o

Total 4282 780N = 788Total/N 5.435bee forage238.64(1) 7 1670.480259.16(2) 6 1554.960139.84(3) 5 699.20066.88(4) 4 267.52050.90(5) 3 152.7603.04(6) 2 6.0800.76(7) 1 0.760Total 4351.760N = 760Total/N 5.726Bee poisoning420.66(1) 7 2944.620186.39(2) 6 1118.34090.63(3) 5 453.15076.095(4) 4 304.38029.07(5) 3 87.21029.07(6) 2 58.14023.94(7) 1 23.940Total 4989.780N = 855Total/N 5.836Lack of bee colony105.57(6) 2 211.14086.02(5) 3 258.06060.996(4) 4 243.98453.176(3) 5 265.88039 882(39) 6 239.29235.19(1) 7 246.3307.82(7) 1 7.820Total 1472.506N = 391Total/N 3.766

Given: 1= s c o r e ! 2= score 6; 3 = score 5: 4 = score 4 : 5 - score 3: 6= score 2;7= score I

[55]

Adebabay et.al

Table 2. Formula used to calculate average weighted scores for market related problems

Lack of market346.944(1) 4 1387.776147.896(2) 3 443.68848.928(3) 2 97.85612.232(4) 1 12.232Total 1941.552N = 556Total/N I 3.492Expensiveness of inputs275.184(1) 4 1100.736182.952(2) 3 548.85626.208(3) 2 52.416

20 160(4) 1 20.160Total 1722.168N = 504Total/N | I 3.417Farness of market place109.074(1) 4 436.29689.994(2) 3 269.98282.044(3) 2 164.088

36.888(4) 1 36.888Total 907.254N = 318Total/N | 2.853Lack of transport69.085(3) 2 138.17064.985(4) 1 64.98543.050(2) 3 129.15028.085(1) 4 112.340Total 444.645N = 205Total/N I 2.853Lack of labor132.928(1) 4 531.71275.040(3) 2 150.08060.030(2) 3 180.096

Total 861.888N = 268Total/N 3.216Lack of storage143.016(2) 3 429.048

54.988(1) 4 219.9522.360(3) 2 4.720Total 653.72N = 236Total/N 02.770Lack of capital436.182(1) 4 1744.728271.960(3) 2 543.92059.099(2) 3 177.297

[56]


1.046(4) 1 1.046Total 2466.991N = 523Total/N 4.717Lack credit183.0600(1) 4 732.24072.8859(2) 3 218.65583.0550(3) 2 166.110

Total 1117.005N = 339Total/N 3.295Interest rate280.840(1) 4 1123.360111.923(2) 3 335.769198.240(3) 2 396.480Total 1855.609N = 413Total/N 4.490Untimely back payment87.884(1) 4 351.53697.028(2) 3 291.08468.072(3) 2 136.14410.160(4) 1 10.160Total 788.924N = 254 3.106Total/N

Given: / = score 4: 2 = score 3; 3 = score 2; 4 = score I

Table 3. Formula used to calculate average weighted scores for beekeeping information problems

Lack of information in bee keeping545.184(1) 3 1635.552

85.816(2) 2 171.632Total 1807.184N = 631Total/N 2.864Lack of information on honey and wax162.871(1) 3 488.613436.927(2) 2 873.854

1.202(3) 1 1.202Total 1363.669N = 601Total/N 2.269

Given: 1= score3; 2 = score 2; 3= score I

[57]

w beekeeping in the amtiara region

Documents