HONEY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEM IN THREE

SELECTED DISTRICTES OF KEMBATA TEMBARO ZONE,

SOUTERN ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. Thesis

BY

Melese Meno Abose

April, 2015

Jimma University
 HONEY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEM
IN THE THREE SEECTED DISTRICTES OF KEMBATA
TEMBARO ZONE SOUTHERN, ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. Thesis

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies

Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in
Agriculture (Animal Production)

By

Melese Meno Abose

April, 2015
Jimma University
 APPROVAL SHEET

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

JIMMAUNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTUREAND
VETERINARY MEDICINE

As thesis research advisor, we here by certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis
prepared, under our guidance, by Melese Meno entitled “Honey Production and
Marketing System in the three selected districts of Kembata Tembaro Zone Southern,
Ethiopia’’ we recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling thesis requirement.

Desalegn Began (PhD) _________________ __________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Kebede Debele (M.Sc.) _________________ _________________

Co-advisor Signature Date

As members of Board of Examiners of the M.Sc. thesis open defense examination, we certify
that we have read, evaluated the thesis prepared by Melese Meno, and examined the
candidate. We recommended that the thesis could be accepted as fulfilling the thesis
requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Animal Production).

------------------------------------ ________________ ________________

Chairperson Signature Date

----------------------------------- _______________ ________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

----------------------------------- ______________ ________________

External Examiner Signature Date

2
 DEDICATION

To my mother, for her pure and unconditional love

 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

I declare that the thesis here by submitted for the M.Sc. Degree at the Jimma University, College
of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine is my own work and has not been previously submitted
by me or others at another University or institution for any Degree. I concede copyright of the
thesis in favour of the Jimma University, Collage of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine.

Name: Melese Meno Abose

Signature: _________________

Place: Jimma University, Collage of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine

Date of submission: _______________

II
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born in Wonji Showa town, Oromia Regional State in 1979 G.C. He started his
elementary school education at Tigileledget in 1988 G.C and completed his elementary school in
1995 and he started his secondary school at Wonji Showa Compressive High School in
1996.And completed in 2000. Then, he joined Debub University, Awassa College of Agriculture
in 2001, and graduated with B.Sc. Degree in Animal and Range Sciences in 2005. After
graduation, he joined in the government office in Angecha Agricultural and Rural Development
Office and served until he joined Jimma University, School of Graduate Studies for the Degree
of Master of Science in Animal Production in 2012.

III
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the almighty God. I am deeply grateful
and would like to express uninterrupted acknowledgement to Angecha Woreda Agricultural and
Rural Development Office which has allowed me to join the program with a full of sponsorship.

I also owe my deepest gratitude to Kembata Tembaro Zone, Agricultural and Rural Development
Office for their willingness to provide the necessary information that for my research work and
coordinated the research sites. Hence, I have a great acknowledgement for ARD offices of
Doyogena, Damboya and Tembaro districts. I acknowledged also each respective Agricultural
and Rural Development Office District’s Leaders, Experts, Development agents and Farmers
who gave me the basic data for the research to be fulfilled.

My special thank also goes to my major advisor, Dr. Desalegn Begna who, helped me in
undertaking the statistical analysis, editing the whole draft of my paper, for his resourceful
comments, suggestions throughout the research period and at the time of write up process of this
thesis. My heartfelt thanks also to my co- advisor Mr.Kebede Debele who provided his valuable
comments at the time of the research as well as during thesis write up process.

Lastly but not least, I would like to thank my lovely parents for their enormous support during this
study.

IV
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... I
STATEMENT OF AUTHOR ..................................................................................................... II
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................................................................................... III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... IV
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ VIII
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... XI
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... XII
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................. 3
1.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................. 3
2. LITRATURE REVIEWS ......................................................................................................... 4
2.1. IMPORTANCE OF BEEKEEPING IN ETHIOPIA ........................................................................... 4
2.2. CURRENT STATUS OF HONEY PRODUCTION IN ETHIOPIA ....................................................... 6
2.3. HONEY PRODUCTION PRACTICES IN ETHIOPIA ....................................................................... 7
2.3.1. Traditional beekeeping system ...................................................................................... 7
2.3.2. Transitional Beekeeping System .................................................................................... 8
2.3.3. Moveable frame beehive Beekeeping System ................................................................ 8
2.4. HONEY MARKETING IN ETHIOPIA........................................................................................... 9
2.5 POTENTIALS AND CONSTRAINTS IN BEEKEEPING .................................................................. 10
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................... 12
3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREAS..................................................................................... 12
3.2. SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND SAMPLE SIZE ......................................................................... 13
3.3. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION ....................................................... 14
3.4. DATA COLLECTED ............................................................................................................... 15
3.5. DATA MANAGEMENT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/DATA ANALYSIS ................................. 15

V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................... 16
4.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS ................................................ 16
4.2 MAJOR BEEKEEPING ACTIVITY ............................................................................................. 19
4.2.1. Beekeeping practice ..................................................................................................... 19
4.2.2 Sources of honey bee colonies to start bee keeping...................................................... 21
4.2.3 Placement of honeybee colony ..................................................................................... 22
4.2.4 Reason for involving in beekeeping .............................................................................. 23
4.3 HONEYBEE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................. 24
4.3.1 Swarming incidences and its managements ................................................................. 24
4.3.2 Absconding and reasons for bees absconding .............................................................. 26
4.3.3 Honeybee feed and Floral Condition ........................................................................... 28
4.3.4 Inspection of honeybee colonies ................................................................................... 32
4.3.5 Types of beekeeping equipment used ............................................................................ 32
4.3.6 Hive products harvesting in the study area .................................................................. 35
4.3.7 Post harvesting handling of honey ............................................................................... 36
4.3.8 Storage practices of honey in the study area ................................................................ 38
4.4 AMOUNT OF HONEY YIELD FROM DIFFERENT TYPE OF HIVES IN THE STUDY AREA ................ 39
4.5 TREND OF HONEYBEE COLONIES AND HONEY YIELD IN THE STUDY AREAS ........................... 41
4.6 MARKETING OF HONEY IN THE STUDY AREA ......................................................................... 43
4.6.1 Honey marketing channel ............................................................................................. 44
4.6.2 Honey price and factors governing the price of honey in the study area ................... 46
4.6.3 Annual income earned from beekeeping ...................................................................... 48
4.7 ACCESS OF FARMERS ON BEEKEEPING INFORMATION AND CREDITED ................................... 48
4.8. PESTS AND PREDATORS IN THE STUDY AREA ....................................................................... 50
4.9. HERBICIDES, INSECTICIDES AND POISONOUS PLANTS.......................................................... 52
4.10. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF BEEKEEPING ........................................................ 53
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 55
6. REFERENCE .......................................................................................................................... 58
7. APPENDICE ........................................................................................................................... 65

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
7.1. Appendix 1. ANOVA and other tables............................................................................... 65
8. Questionnaires ......................................................................................................................... 70

VII
 List of Tables
PAGE

Table 1 Socio economic characteristic of the house hold in the study area ................................. 18
Table 2 Honeybee colonies holding by the respondents (year 2013) ........................................... 21
Table 3 Source of foundation colony in the study area ................................................................ 22
Table 4 Placements of honeybee colony by the respondents in study area total sample (N=180) 23
Table 5 Reason for farmer to engage in beekeeping in the study area (n=180) ........................... 24
Table 6 Swarm incidences and its managements by the respondents in the study area ............... 26
Table 7 Absconding and reason for bees absconding from hives and months of swarming ........ 28
Table 8 Honeybee feeding practices and type of feed supplement by the respondents ................ 29
Table 9 Major Bee forage plants and their flowering period in KembataTembaro Zone............. 31
Table 10 Percent distribution of frequency of external and internal inspection of apiary in the
study area ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 11 Types and availability of bee equipment in the study areas (n=180) ............................ 34
Table 12 Types of hive products produced by the respondent in the study areas. ....................... 36
Table 13 Honey harvesting frequency per year in the study area (n=180) ................................... 36
Table 14 Post-harvest handling activities undertaken by respondent beekeeper .......................... 37
Table 15 The reason for honey storage and types of container used in the study area ................. 39
Table 16 The amount of honey yield from different hives in the study area ................................ 41
Table 17 Utilization of honey and place of sell by the respondent in the study area ................... 44
Table 18 The average price of honey from different type of hive in the study area ..................... 47
Table 19 Percentage of factors governing the price of honey in the study area (n=180) ............. 47
Table 20 Per cent distribution of respondents by annual income (2013). .................................... 48
Table 21 The source of information and access of credit by the respondents in the study area ... 50
Table 22 Pest and predators in the study area (n=180) ................................................................. 52
Table 23 Major constraints of honey production in the study areas ............................................. 54

VIII
 List of Figures

PAGE

Figure 1 Location sites of the study areas ..................................................................................... 12

Figure 2 The level of education in the study area ......................................................................... 19
Figure 3 Traditional bee hive of the study areas ........................................................................... 21
Figure 4 Keeping traditional bee hives under the eve of the house .............................................. 23
Figure 5 Number of honeybee colonies over the past four years in the study area ...................... 42
Figure 6 The amount of honey yield (kg) over the past four years in the study area ................... 43
Figure 7 Honey market channel of the study area ........................................................................ 46

IX
 LIST OF TABLE IN THE APPENDIX

PAGE
Appendix Table 1 ANOVA test on family size per household among the study areas ............... 65
Appendix Table 2 ANOVA test on land holding of the respondent’s household ....................... 65
Appendix Table 3 ANOVA test on the numbers of traditional hives holding/HH. ...................... 65
Appendix Table 4 ANOVA tests on the numbers of intimidate hive holding/HH. ...................... 66
Appendix Table 5 ANOVA test on the numbers of movable hives holding /HH ........................ 66
Appendix Table 6 ANOVA tests on the experiences of beekeeping by the responds. ................. 66
Appendix Table 7 ANOVA test on honey yield from traditional hives (Kg)/hive/HH ................ 66
Appendix Table 8 ANOVA test on honey yield from intermediate hives (kg)/hive/hh in the study
areas .............................................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix Table 9 ANOVA test on honey yield from modern hives (kg)/hive /hh...................... 67
Appendix Table 10 ANOVA test on honey yield from all hives (kg)/hh. .................................... 67
Appendix Table 11 ANOVA tests on numbers of bee colony holding /HH ................................ 67
Appendix Table 12 ANOVA tests on average annual income earned (birr) form sealing of honey
/hh. ................................................................................................................................................ 68
Appendix Table 13 Major bee forage plants and their flowering period in kembata tembaro zone.
....................................................................................................................................................... 68

X
 LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

AN0VA Analysis of Variance

CSA Central Statistical Agent
DA Development Agent
EEPD Ethiopian Export Promotion Department
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
GDS Global Development Solution
HBRC Holeta Bee Research Centre
Kg Kilo grams
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
SC-UK Save the Children UK
SNNPS Southern ,Nation and Nationalities and People
SOS Save Our Soul international ,U.K
SPSS Software Packages for Social Sciences

XI
HONEY PRODUCTION AND MARKAING SYSTM IN THREE SELECTED DISTRICS
OF KEMBATA TEMBRO ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

ABSTRACT

A study on honey production and marketing systems was conducted in three selected districts of
Kembata Tembaro Zone of Southern Ethiopia. The specific objectives of the study were to assess
honey production and marketing system opportunities and constraints in the study area.
Producer’s interview was the sources of the primary data while, secondary data was taken from
Kembata Tembaro Zone. The study districts were classified based on agro ecology as highland
(2600-3100 m.a.s.l.), mid- land (1501 to 2500 m.a.s.l.) and lowland (below 1500 m.a.s.l.). From
each selected agro ecology, two PA’s were purposively selected based on potentials for
honeybee colonies and honey production. A total of 180 households were randomly selected
using systematic random sampling method from the six PA’s. Questionnaire based survey as well
as PRA techniques were employed to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Beekeeping
is dominantly practiced by male households in highland (98.3%) and midland (95%) and
lowland (93.3%) of the study area. In the study area, three types of honeybee production
practices were identified, namely: traditional, transitional and movable frame hives. About 76%
of bee hives owned by the beekeepers was traditional hives, while the remaining 19.4% and 4.6%
of hives were movable frame and top bar bee hives, respectively. The main purposes of keeping
honeybees were for both income generation and home consumption. The major sources of the
foundation colony were catching swarm (76.2%) then followed by (21.1%) gift from parent and
buying (2.2%). The overall mean honeybee colony holding per HH in the study areas was (7.91
±7.27). The average colony holding (10.88± 8.34) of lowland households was significantly
(p<0.001) higher than midland (8.52 ± 7.83) and highland (4.32 ±4.32) areas. According to the
55% of the respondents, honey harvesting is done twice, (43.9%) once and 1.1% three times per
year. The lowland respondents had the highest mean honey production of 115.8kg / year / HH
than midland (71.85kg) and highland (14.10kg)/year/HH). The average productivity of
traditional, transitional and movable frame bee hives in 2013 was 4.28±2.12, 10.22 ± 4.75 and
17.16 ±5.89 kg / year, respectively. About 35.6% of respondents did not control swarming while,
some of them (64.4%) control swarming by cutting and removing some part of brood combs. The
overall average annual gross income of the studied respondents from beekeeping was Birr
2,053.38 Birr/HH /year and it was significantly different (p<0.001) among the three districts.
The overall average price of crude honey and table honey in the study area was 29.5 Birr/kg and
51.2Birr/kg respectively. The major constraints to exploit the untapped potential of beekeeping
activity in the study areas were incidence of pest, shortage of beekeeping equipment, shortage of
bee forage, high costs of modern hives, absconding, poor extension service, pesticide and
herbicide, inadequate access to training and excessive rain fall. Therefore, the results suggest
that beekeeping development efforts should be focused on Practical oriented training on
improved beekeeping practices should be given for the farmers and development agents to
alleviate the major constraints. There is a need to enhance extension services in the area and
also credit provision need to be facilitated to supply improved beehives and accessory
equipment.

Key words: Honeybee; Honey Production, Beehive, Marketing, Income

XII
1. INTRODUCTION
.
Beekeeping in Ethiopia is a long-standing agricultural practice. It has been exercised as a
Sideline activity by many of the rural farming communities for its honey and beeswax
Production that contributes to income generation (MoARD, 2010). It also provides job
opportunity in the sector. The role it plays in enhancing food security, poverty reduction and
food production through pollination of crops has become substantial in the recent years.

There is no well-documented evidence that indicates when and where beekeeping practice
started in Ethiopia. According to Ayalew (1978), it had started in the country between 3500–
3000 BC.From the rural community’s point of view; beekeeping is an inherited tradition and
an ideal occupation that contributes for improvement of livelihoods.

The country has a high potential for beekeeping as the climate is favourable for growing
different vegetation and crops, which are a good source of nectar and pollen for honeybees.
Due to suitable natural environment of the country more than one million households are
estimated to keep bees using traditional, intermediate and modern hives (Gidey and
Mekonen, 2010).

Ethiopia is believed to possess high potential in producing the honey. Ethiopia is currently
ranked as the leading honey producer honey producer in Africa and one of the 10 largest
honey-producing countries in the worldwide by producing 45,300 tons of honey in 2010
(FAOSTAT, 2012).

Many people are engaged in the production and trading of honey at different levels and
selling of honey wines (local beverage Tej) which create employment opportunities for large
number of citizens (Beyene and David, 2007).And more than 95% of the honey and beeswax
produced in Ethiopia is obtained from traditional beekeeping the remaining 5 percent
includes transitional and modern beekeeping. In the country, an average of 420 million
Ethiopia Birr is obtained annually from the sale of honey (ECAEPA, 2006). Honey
production of the country meets beverage requirements of the urban and rural population and
also export of honey and beeswax contributes an average of 1.6 million USD to the annual

1
national export earnings (ECAEPA, 2006). It is also demanded for its nutritional and
medicinal values.

Although Ethiopian has a huge beekeeping potential, the country did not realize the benefits
of the subsector until recently. The share of the subsector in the GDP is not corresponding
with the huge numbers of honeybee colonies and the country's potential for beekeeping
(MoARD, 2007). The low productivity of apicultural sectors led to underutilization of hive
products both domestically and in export earnings (Nuru, 2007). Consequently, the country in
general and the beekeepers in particular are not benefitting from the huge potential that exists
on the apiculture sub-sectors.

Therefore, the products obtained from this subsector are still low as compared to the potential
of the country because of several factors such as lack of appropriate production technologies,
Weak market and absence of value chain development largely resulted in much lower
contribution of the honey subsector (Wilson, 2006; 2006). And also lack of beekeeping
knowledge, shortage of trained manpower, pests and predators and inadequate research are
the major constraints in Ethiopia (SOS-Sahel-Ethiopia, 2006).

In addition to, Investigation indicated that the number of the honeybee colonies of the
country has been declining (CSA, 1995) and consequently the honey and beeswax production
as well as export earnings fell down (Gezahegn, 2001b). This is attributed to drought, ever-
expanding population pressure and associated vegetation changes and indiscriminate
applications of chemicals.

In recent years, the contributions of beekeeping in poverty reduction, sustainable

development and conservation of natural resources have been recognized and well
emphasized by the government of Ethiopia and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
As the country is endowed with varied ecological zones and different flora, there is a great
potential for the country for working with communities by introducing simple and easily
adaptable apiculture production systems that will lead to considerable gains in productivity
beyond family consumption needs (MoARD, 2007).

2
Production system study is important to identify problems and come up with research
proposals relevant to the constraints and to formulate appropriate development plan for an
area (Edessa, 2002). Hence, characterization of production systems, Identification and
prioritization of the available constraints and suggesting possible intervention areas are the
first steps towards any development planning in any fields and also in the apicultural sub-
sector. Moreover, farming system approaches to research and development work is
recognized as one of the most appropriate method used to diagnosis and gaining knowledge
of the technologies and describes factors affecting production at farm level (Amir and
Knipscheer, 1989).

The study area, Kembata Tembaro Zone that is found in SNNPR is one of the zones in the
country with high potential for beekeeping and honey production. The area is densely
covered with various types of trees, shrubs and cultivated crops that provide sufficient forage
for bees. So far in Kembata Tembaro Zone there is no compiled and reliable information on
honey production and marketing system. The numbers of beekeepers, bee colonies, and
amount of honey produced, type of beekeeping practice, and constraints were not known.

Therefore, this research was initiated with the following specific objectives:

1.1. General objective

-To study and characterize the honey production and marketing systems of the study areas

1.2. Specific objectives

-To assess honey production systems of the study areas

- To assess honey marketing systems of the areas

- To identify the potentials and constraints of honey production in the study areas

3
2. LITRATURE REVIEWS

2.1. Importance of Beekeeping in Ethiopia

Apiculture plays a significant role in the national economy of the country (Nuru, 2007). The
majority of Ethiopians live in rural areas depending on agriculture as their source of
livelihood and apiculture is one of an important agricultural activity in most rural areas. As
beekeeping has low start-up cost and requires little land or labor, It is accessible to many
rural communities and is promoted as a pro-poor income generation activity (MoARD, 2007)
.Frequent droughts coupled with environmental degradation have threatened the livelihood of
this rural community for several decades (MoARD, 2007).

However, regardless of other agricultural activities, bees survive in drought-threatened areas

and supplement the vulnerable communities with nutritious food, honey, and a source of
income. Therefore ranges of applications emerging from apiculture development are
enormous and it is considered a major tool of combating food insecurity, while protecting the
environment. Furthermore, the apiculture subsector is emerging as a strategic means of export
diversification (GDS, 2009).

Beekeeping, in addition to its economic importance, has high social value in the country. The
number of honeybee colonies and hives owned serves as a major wealth ranking in some
societies (Nuru, 2007). Honey is highly regarded product and in widely used in different
cultural, religious, spiritual ceremonies and traditional medication (Nuru, 2007).

Apiculture has also a great role in natural resource protection. Beekeeping is environmentally
friendly activity and beekeepers are more aware about the importance of conservation of
natural resource than any ordinary farmers (Nuru, 2007). Integrating natural resource
conservation programs with income generating options like utilizing the forest resources, In
the form of honey and beeswax, while maintaining the natural vegetation would be an
appropriate approach.

Beekeeping has many advantages that help farmer beekeepers to improve their well-being. Its
advantages comparing with other agricultural activities beekeeping has many relative
advantages because of the following reasons (Adjare, 1990; Palaniswamy, 2004; Nuru,
2007).

4
1. Beekeeping does not compete for resources with other agricultural activities. Hence, it can
be integrated with annual and perennial crop production, animal husbandry and natural
resource conservation.

2. Since beekeeping is light work, it can be done by women, aged men and persons with
disabilities. Moreover, since it is less labor intensive, it can be done as part time and side
line activity..

3. Beekeeping assists to utilize resources like pollen and nectar which otherwise are wasted.
Man cannot utilize these resources without bees.

4. Unlike cultivation of crops and animal husbandry, beekeeping does not disturb the
ecological balances of an area. Instead, it is an environmentally friendly activity..

5. Beekeeping can be run with little or no land, because bees can forage in any place around
their foraging distances and it is useful for intensification of land and also in areas where
there are shortage of land.

6. Bee products like honey and beeswax are not perishable and can be transported and stored
for longer periods and their price does not fluctuate very much over seasons.

5
2.2. Current status of Honey Production in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, honey production has been practiced for centuries in rural communities and
already appears in the ancient history of the country (Ayalew and Gezahegn, 1991).
Beekeeping is an environmentally friendly and non-farm business activity that has immense
contribution to the economies of the society and to a national economy as whole.

Ethiopia is the largest honey producer in Africa and 10th largest honey producer all over the
world. In addition to this a considerable amount of beeswax is produced in the country. On a
world level, Ethiopia is the fourth in bees wax production (Girma, 1998). The country, having
the highest number of bee colonies and surplus honey sources of flora, is the leading producer
of honey and beeswax in Africa. The total honey production of the country is estimated to be
more than 45, 000 metric tons per year (FAO, 2010).

In addition, Ethiopia has perhaps the longest tradition of all African countries in marketing
of bee products like honey and wax. Out of the total honey produced in the country only a
small amount of this is marketed. Besides poor marketing conditions the main reason is that
about 80% of the total Ethiopian honey production goes in to the local Tej-preparation, a
honey wine, which consumed as national drink in large quantities (Hartmann,2004).

The exact number of people engaged in the honey subsector in Ethiopia is not well known.
However, It is estimated that one million farm households are involved in beekeeping
business using the traditional, Intermediate and movable frame bee hive. It could also be
observed that a large number of people (intermediaries and traders) participate in honey
collection and retailing (at village, district and zonal levels). Thousands of households are
engaged in Tej-making in almost all urban areas, hundreds of processors are emerging and
exporters are also flourishing (Beyenee and David, 2007).

There are 5, 013, 848 traditional, 34, 552 transitional and 100, 843 movable frame bee hives
in Ethiopia (GDS, 2009). Ninety-three present of honey production comes from traditional
hives. Oromia , Amahra , Southern National Nationalities and People (SNNP ) , and Tigray
are the major honey producing regions with production quantities of 15 , 492 tons , 10 , 834
tons , 5 , 847 tons and 3904.6 tons , respectively , (GDS , 2009 ) .

6
Although the annual production of both honey and bees wax in Ethiopia is large compared to
other African countries, the system of production commonly exercised in the country is
traditional Productivity of honeybees is very low and only an average of 8-15kg of honey
could be cropped per hive per year . However, in areas where improved technology has been
introduced, an average of 15-20 kg/hive/year has been recorded (Gidey* and Mekonen,
2010).

2.3. Honey production practices in Ethiopia

Ethiopia is endowed with adequate water resources and various honeybee floras, which create
fertile ground for the development of beekeeping. Honey hunting and beekeeping have been
practiced in the country for the exploitation of honey and beeswax. In place where wild
colonies of bees are found, honey hunting is still a common practice in Ethiopia. Currently,
beekeeping in the country is being exercised in different production systems

2.3.1. Traditional beekeeping system

Beekeeping in Ethiopia has an ancient history and an integral part of the life style of the
farming communities (Mammo, 1976; Ayalew, 1990). They are made of cheap and locally
available materials like clay, straw, bamboo, false banana leaves, animal dung, grasses, and
wicker (Ayalew, 1990). Traditionally constructed fixed beehives are mostly cylindrical in
shape (about 1-1.5 meter in length and 30-50 cm width) and single chamber fixed comb.
Since the combs are made fixed on the roof of the hive body, the honey can be removed only
from breaking or cutting out the honey combs.

Traditional beekeeping is practiced with many millions of fixed comb hives in all parts of the
country. These fixed comb hives can yield a modest amount of honey. Also the proportion of
crude beeswax produced is about 8-10 percent of the crude honey weight HBRC (1997). This
harvest is achieved with minimal cost and labour, and it is a valuable to people marginal’s
living standards. Gezahegn (2001a) and EARO (2000) stated that under Ethiopian farmers '
management condition, the average amount of crude honey produced from traditional hive is
estimated to be 5 kg/hive/years. On the other hand, based on the survey conducted in West
Showa Zone (Edessa, 2002) the amount of honey harvested forms a traditional hive on
average was reported to be 6.1 kg/hive/years.

7
2.3.2. Transitional Beekeeping System

It is a type of beekeeping intermediate between traditional and modern beekeeping methods.

Generally, top-bar hive is a single story long box with slopping sidewalls inward toward the
bottom (forming an angle of 1150 the floor) and covered with bars of fixed width, 32 mm for
east African honeybees ( Nicola, 2002).

Adjare (1990) and IBRA (1997) suggested that for technical and economic reasons, most
African countries are not yet in the position to use movable- frame hives, and for them top-
bar hive represents a satisfactory compromise.Although movable frame hives are
recommended for experienced beekeepers that want to optimize honey production, the Kenya
top-bar (KTB) hive has been proved to be most suitable because of its low cost and the fact
that the beekeepers or local carpenters can easily construct it.

Transitional beekeeping started in Ethiopia since 1976 and the types of hives used are: Kenya
top-bar hive, Tanzania top-bar hive and Mud- block hives. Among these, KTB is widely
known and commonly used in many parts of the country (HBRC, 1997). The advantages of
KTB over fixed comb hive and movable frame hive is discussed by Segeren (1995), Nicola
(2002) and SOS Sahel (2002).

Top-bar hive in an ideal condition can yield about 50 kg of honey per year, but under
Ethiopian condition, the average amount of crude honey produced would be 7-8 kg/hive/year
(Gezahegne,2001a). However, at zonal level (North Wello) it has been reported that
production of 24-26 kilograms crude honey per hive per year (SOS, Sahel 1999), and about 8
percent as much beeswax per kilogram of honey is likely to be obtained.

2.3.3. Moveable frame beehive Beekeeping System

Modern or moveable frame beehive beekeeping methods aim to obtain the maximum honey
crop, season after season, without harming bees (Nicola, 2002). Movable-frame hive consists
of precisely made rectangular box hives (hive bodies) superimposed one above the other in a
tier.

Practical movable- frame hive was invented in 1851 by Lorenzo Lorraine Langstroth in
U.S.A.(Crane, 1976; Vivian, 1985). Later on different countries developed their own

8
movable frame hives (for instance Zander, Dadant) and Langstroth was the prototype of
movable frame hives used today. In many countries Langstroth hive boxes have proved to be
convenient for handling and management.

The numbers of boxes are varied seasonally from the population size of bees. In Ethiopia,
about 5 types of movable frame hives were introduced since 1970 (HBRC, 1997) and the
most commonly used are, Zander and Lang troth style hives. Based on the national estimate,
the average yield of pure honey from movable frame hive is 15-20 kg/year, and the amount of
beeswax produced is 1-2% of the honey yield Gezahegne (2001a). However, in potential
areas, up to 50-60 kg harvest has been reported HBRC (1997). Movable frame hives allow
colony management and use of a higher level of technology , with larger colonies , and can
give higher yields and quality honey but are likely require high investment cost and trained
man power .

2.4. Honey marketing in Ethiopia

Honey production is frequently promoted as a pro-poor income generation activity as it is

accessible to many members of a rural community, has low start-up costs and requires little
land or labour. According to MoARD (2003), about 10% of the honey produced in the
country is consumed by beekeeping households. The remaining 90% is sold for income
generation and of this amount, it is estimated that 70% is used for brewing Tej and the
balance is consumed as table honey. Tej brewers exclusively use crude honey from traditional
hives.Even though, the national honey production satisfies the local demand, and it is so
crude that it could not compete in the international market. In the year 2004 the quantity of
honey and beeswax exported amounted to 15.72 tones and 305 tones, respectively (MoARD,
2006). The total export earnings from honey and beeswax were ETB 481,266 and 8.366
million, respectively (MoARD, 2006). Although the annual production of both honey and
wax is large compared to other African countries, the system of production commonly
exercised is traditional.

Beekeepers, honey and beeswax collectors, retailers, Tej brewers, processors and exporters
are identified to be the key actors in the value chain of the honey sub-sector (Beyene and
David, 2007). These are Tej brewers channel, honey processing and exporting channel and
beeswax channel. These channels are complex and interconnected that implies absence of
organized marketing channels and lack of formal linkages among the actors. Beekeepers
directly sells their honey to local honey collectors (dealer or cooperatives) at districts or zonal

9
levels, which directly deliver the honey to Tej brewery houses in their localities and/or
transport it to big honey dealers (verandah) for breweries in Addis Ababa. Some beekeepers
who are producing large quantities of honey also directly supply it to Tej houses in their
areas.

2.5 Potentials and constraints in Beekeeping

Ethiopia has enormous untapped potential for promoting beekeeping; both for local use and
for export purpose. However, like any other livestock sector, this subsector has been ceased
by complicated constraints.

The prevailing production constraints in the beekeeping subsector of the country would vary
depending on the agro ecology of the areas where the activities is carried out (Edessa, 2005).
Variations of production constraints also extend in socio-economic conditions, cultural
practices and climate (seasons of the year). According to HBRC (1997), Ayalew (2001) and
Edessa (2002), the major constraints in the beekeeping subsector are the following: the
unpleasant behaviors of bees (aggressiveness, swarming tendency, and absconding
behaviors); lack of skilled manpower and training institutions; low level of technology used;
high price of improved beekeeping technologies; drought and deforestation of natural
vegetation; poor post-harvest management of beehive products and marketing constraints;
indiscriminate application of agrochemicals; honeybee disease, pest and predators; poor
extension services; absence of coordination between research, extension and farmers; absence
of policy in apiculture; shortage of records and up-to-date information; and inadequate
research institutions to address the problems. But all these problems may not be constraints to
all parts of the country and may not be equally pressing to every place. So it requires
characterizing the constraints in their respective places to take an appropriate development
measure.

Beekeeping research is new in Ethiopia. Holeta Bee Research Center (HBRC) is the main
mandated institution undertaking applied and adaptive apicultural research that would support
development (Gezahegn, 1996). The beekeeping research so far conducted in the country
although encouraging is not satisfactory because one center could not address all parts of the
country. Most of the research work is still being carried out on-station with modern
technology and management systems. However, the great majority of beekeeping production

10
is based on traditional production systems where the results of on-station research may not
often be applicable to the local conditions.

According to (Wilson, 2006 ).weak market access, weak price incentive systems, and limited
financial capacity of beekeepers are the major problems which largely reduce the potential
contribution of the honey subsector so this leads to low productivity and poor quality of bee
products.

To address these challenges, there is a national interest in linking small scale beekeepers with
agricultural marketing chains. Contract farming arrangements provide farmers with access to
a wide range of services that otherwise may be unattainable. Access to market, credit, and
new technologies and risk reduction are some of the benefits for farmers from contract
farming (Minot, 2007). Regarding to bee products marketing, private companies have
emerged that are largely involved in collecting and processing table honey for local and
export markets. This is a breakthrough in the development of the apicultural industries of the
country.

11
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the study areas

This study was conducted in Doyogena, Damboya and Tembaro Districts of Kembata
Tembaro Zone of Southern Ethiopia. Kembata Tembaro Zone is one of the 13 administrative
zones in SNNPR found in the South-Western part of Ethiopia. The zone covers a total area of
1523.6 sq. km. and topographically, it lies between elevations ranging from 501 to 3000
meters above sea level.

The zone is situated between latitude 7.10 –7.50E and 37.34-38.07N longitude. The zone has
three agrological zones, in which the highland (Dega), mid-land (Woina-dega) and lowland
(Kolla) accounts for 14.3%, 73.17% and 12.53%, respectively. The annual mean temperature
and rain fall of the zone ranges from 12.6-27.5 ºC and 1001-1400 mm, respectively. In the
zone, the apicultural resources are immense; particularly in Damboya and Tembaro districts
the natural vegetation coverage is relatively high. It was estimated that more than 35,000
honey bee population existed in the zone. So that the study areas were potential for honey bee
(ARDB, 2010).

Figure 1 Location sites of the study areas

Sources: SNNPR Kembata Tembaro Zone Investments Expansion Main Process (2011)

12
The Zone has a total population of 768,300 of whom 376,467 are men and 391,833 women.
While 97,797 (14.36%) are urban inhabitants (CSA, 2007). Durame town is the main city for
the zone and located at a distance of about 350 km away from Addis Ababa, South-West of
Ethiopia. Kembata Tembaro Zone has seven districts. Out of seven districts. Doyogena,
Damboya and Tembaro are the three districts out of seven rural districts of the zone were
selected for this study based on difference in agro ecology and beekeeping potentials .These
were composed of highland, mid land and low land areas represented by Doyogena,
Damboya and Tembaro Districts, respectively.

Based on the sources from zonal and each district’s administrative offices; Doyogena district
is located at a distance of 272 km, South West of Addis Ababa and 62 km from Durame the
city of the zone. The district is located an altitude ranging from 2600-3100 meters above sea
level and area coverage of 121.5 square kilometers. Mean annual rainfall of the district is
1600 to 2340 mm and the mean annual temperature is 11.5 – 24.5 oC.Doyogena is boarded
on North by Lemu on South by Kachabira on West by Duna and on East Angacha districts.

Damboya located at an altitude ranging from 1501-2500 meters above sea level, 285 km
South West of Addis Ababa and 30 kilometers from Durame. Mean annual rainfall and mean
annual temperature of the district are 1200 to 1800 mm and 19 - 29oC, respectively. The area
coverage of the district is 151.83 square kilometers. Damboya is boarde on North by Angacha
on South Kedida Gamella on East by Alaba special district and on West Kedida Gamella and
Angacha districts.

Tembaro district is located about 360km South West Addis Ababa and about 60 km from
Durame town. This district is predominantly low land and it is located an altitude of less than
1500 meters above sea level. Mean annual rainfall of the district is 900 to 1100 mm; whereas
the mean annual temperature is 27 - 38oC. The area coverage of the district’s 279.18 square
kilometers. Tembaro district is boarded on North by Sorro and Duna districts on South
Wolayta and Dawero Zones on East by Hadero Tunto district and on West Jimma Zone.

3.2. Sampling Techniques and Sample Size

Based on the information obtained from secondary data sources, the district in the zone were
stratified according to their agro ecological variations (lowland, medium land and highland).

13
From each agro-ecology, one district was selected purposively based on honeybee colonies
and honey production (i.e. Doyogena from highland, Damboya from midland and Tembaro
from lowland). Subsequently, two PAs were selected purposively from each district based on
their honeybee colonies and honey production. Also, based on their beekeeping experiences,
30 beekeepers were selected using systematic random sampling method. From each peasant
association making a total of 180 respondents from the three selected districts of the Zone.

3.3. Data Sources and Methods of Data collection

Both primary and secondary data were used to achieve the objectives of the study. Secondary
data are were obtained from reports of each district Agricultural Development Office, Zonal
Agricultural Department Office, Regional Bureau, NGOs and other published and
unpublished materials prepared by different governmental and NGOs.

A full understanding in identification of major honeybee forage and floral cycle preparation
were achieved by different methods. These were interviewing, personal observation, key
informants and focus group discussion. To collect information regarding bee forage plants
and related parameters like identification of common bee flora with their flowering time. And
the scientific names were determined using reference books of Fichtl and Admassu (1994).

Similarly, in order to get the overall picture of honey producers, traders, and consumers of the
honey marketing chain in the study area, the study used both primary and secondary data.
The primary data were collected using two types of questionnaires, one for farmers (honey
producers) and the other for honey traders.

In order to collect primary data, the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) specifically Focus
Group discussion (FGD) was used to undertake informal discussion with groups composed of
key informants like; development agents, Expert in Rural Development of the respective
districts, Elders, Women delegates and bee hive owners. Based on the information generated
through PRA, the questionnaire and record sheets was developed for the formal
interview/main survey. Then, the primary data was collected from sample respondents
through the semi-structured questionnaire. Pre-testing of the questionnaire and record sheets
was made as a pilot survey, and on the basis of information obtained during pre-testing,

14
modification was made on the questionnaire. Single-visit-multiple-subject formal survey
method was employed to collect data on various aspects of beekeeping production and
marketing systems. The enumerators were recruited from each selected study areas and these
all were made acquainted with the questions, trained on methods of data collection and
interviewing techniques.

3.4. Data collected

The study requires wide ranges of information with reference to beekeeping, honey
production and marketing systems. Both qualitative and quantitative data were generated
using conventional survey method, which include the following major data groups:

Household socio-economic characteristics: sex, age, family size, education level and
economic variables: land holding size and crop production

Honey production and marketing systems: the present number of hives owned, type of
hives used, the present number of hives occupied by honeybee colonies, beekeeping
equipment’s used, major honeybee flora, honey flow and dearth period, amount of honey and
crude beeswax harvested, cost of production of honey and crude beeswax, honey and bee
colony marketing situation and market prices.

Farmers' indigenous knowledge and practices: materials used to make beehives, place of
keeping hives (site), hive inspection, methods of swarm control, swarm catching experiences,
harvesting time and methods, honey storage facilities and post-harvest management of honey,
mechanisms to control and treat honeybee diseases, predators, pests and etc.

Potential, constraints and opportunities of beekeeping in the area: potential honeybee

plants and flowering time, poisonous plants, water resources availability, honeybee pests and
predators, insecticides and other chemicals application, availability of credit and extension
services.

3.5. Data Management and Statistical Analysis/Data analysis

Data (both qualitative and quantitative) were cleaned and entered into Microsoft office Excel
sheet every day after administering questionnaire to prevent loss of data. All the surveyed

15
data were analyzed using statistical packages for social science (SPSS) version 16 (SPSS,
2007). Statistical variations for categorical data were tested by means of cross tabs, with
significant differences at P< 0.05; while the descriptive statistics for the numerical data was
subjected to one way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) using the general linear model
procedure of SPSS. Mean comparisons was carried out using Duncan’s multiple range tests.
For parameters required ranking, indices were calculated to provide ranking of major honey
bee production constraint were calculated with the use of index methods. The indices were
calculated as follows;

Index= Sum of (3 x number of household ranked first + 2 x number of household ranked

second + 1 x number of household ranked third) given for an individual reason, criteria or
preference divided by the sum of (3 x number of household ranked first + 2 x number of
household ranked second + 1 x number of household ranked third) for overall reasons,
criteria or preferences.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the households

According to the result of the study, from the total sampled household (N=180), 95.6 % of
the beekeeping participants were headed by male (Table 1). Whereas, the rest (4.4 %) were
female headed beekeepers (Table 1). This result in the current study is in agreement with the
study conducted in Silti district, SNNPR (Alemayu, 2011) who reported (96.25%) of the
beekeepers as male headed and (3.75%) as female headed households. .This is in line with
similar study by Adebabay (2008), Tewodros (2010) in agreement with very limited number
of female participation in beekeeping. Similarly, Hartmann (2004) reported as traditionally
beekeeping is mainly men’s job in Ethiopia. Sex of the household head were not significantly
(P> 0.05) different among the three districts.

The age of the household head ranged from 22 to 74 years with overall average of 45.68
years old (Tables 1) and it was non-significantly different (P>0.05) among the three districts.
As the results showed about 68.9% of the age distributions of household heads were in the
active and productive age range i.e., 21 to 50 years.
‘
In Ethiopia, all age groups who are above ten years old in the rural areas are involved in
agricultural activities (CSA, 2008). This proves that beekeeping is an important economic

16
activity that can be performed by all age groups, i.e., by younger and old people and it’s
important to increased availability of able-bodied labour for production and ease of adoption
of apiculture related innovations. The present result was higher than the mean age of 40.7
years obtained in Gomma districts of Oromia regional states (Challa, 2010).

As the results showed that about 27.2 % of the respondents had no formal education at all,
while majority (72.9%) of them can read and write (figure 2). With literacy rate of 72.9%, the
person in the study area has a better educational entitlement which is more than the national
average, i.e., 35.5% (Ethiopian Media, 2010).

The present literacy level in the study areas was higher than the report of Adebabay et al.
(2008) and Tewodros (2010) who reported literate rate of more than 60% and 62.5% of the
sampled respondents of Amahra Region and Sekota district, respectively. Thus, the result of
this study indicates that most respondents of the study area can easily adopt apiculture
extension services, technologies and be able to access relevant information.

As shown in (Table 1), the overall mean family size was 7.13 per household, and it was
significantly different (p<0.01) among the three districts, being the highest in lowland 8.03
followed by midland 6.90 and highland 6.53 (Table 1). This result is higher than the study
conducted in Gomma districts, Oromia region (Challa, 2010) who reported an average family
size of 5.6 per household. This indicates that the respondent’s large household could be
important to honey production. Because family constitutes the bulk of labour supply to
holding large bee colony for beekeepers and also it could be important contribution to
increase the income obtain from beekeeping activity.

The mean land holding size in the study area was 0.7(0.03) ha/household (Table. 1) and this
is lower than regional average of 0.89 ha per household (Ethiopian Economic Policy
Research Institute 2001) and the national average of 1.18 ha given in the Agricultural Sample
Survey (CSA 2007/2008). The average land holding in lowland 0.94ha/hh and it is
significantly higher than (P<0.05) that of highland (0.04ha/hh) and midland (0.76ha/hh) area.

With regard to beekeeping experience out of the total sample only 10% of respondents had 5
to 8 years, 26.7% had 9 to15 years, 30.6 % had 16 to 20 years and 32.8% had is greater than
20 years of beekeeping experience (Table 1). The mean average of beekeeping experience in

17
the study area was 17.64 years old. There was significant deference (p<0.05) among the three
districts, being the highest in midland (23 years) then followed by lowland (18.8 years) and
highland (11.08 years), respectively. This result is in agreement with the study conducted in
Silti Districts, SNNPR which reported that 18.54 years of experience (Alemayu, 2011) and
higher than the result found in Gomma districts, with average experience of beekeeping per
household 5.66 years (Challa 2010)). Hence, it was indicated that farmers with more
experience in beekeeping would adopt the technology more and well experienced on bee
keeping in the study areas.

Table 1 Socio economic characteristic of the house hold in the study area

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Total p
N % N % N % N %
Sex of HHs
Male 59(98.3) 56(93.3) 57(95) 172(95.6) ns
Female 1(1.7) 4(6.7) 3(5) 8(4.4) ns

Total 100 100 100 100

Age (Mean +SE) 45.95(1.13) 46.57(1.15) 46.68(1.13) 46.68(0.69) ns

Age category
21-30 years 4(6.7) 4 (6.7) 5(8.3) 13(7.2)
31-40 years 11(18.3) 8(13.3) 20(33.3) 39(21.7)
41-50 years 20(33.3) 34(56.7) 18 (30) 72(40)
51-60 years 6(10) 4(6.7) 10(16.7) 20(11.1)
>61 years 19(31.7) 10(16.7) 7(11.7) 36(20)

Total 100 100 100 100

AFS (Mean +SE) 6.53(2.11) b 6.90(2.31) b 8.03(1.83) a 7.16(2.79) **

Land holding
(Mean +SE) 0.76(0.03) 1.09(0.04) 1.29(0.05) 1.05(0.03) *

Experience of beekeeping
< 5 years 18.3a 6.7b 6.7b 10.6 **
9-15 years 35a 15b 28.3ab 26.1 **
16-20 years 25b 31.7a 35a 30.6 *

18
> 20 years 21.7a 46.7a 30ab 32.8 **
Total 100 100 100 100

Mean (SE) 11.08c± 23.07 a 18.78ab 17.64 **

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly * different (P<0.05);
;**( p<0.01); N= number of respondents; AFS=Average Family Size, SE=Standard Error;
HH= House Hold; ns=non-significant difference

Figure 2 The level of education in the study area

4.2 Major beekeeping activity

4.2.1. Beekeeping practice

According to the result of the study, among the sample household (N=180), 75.9% practice
beekeeping using traditional beehives (Table 2). Comparing the three agro ecology, the
number of traditional hives is higher (90.3%) in the high land district than in the mid land
(75%) and the low land (71.9%) districts. This result is lower than the study conducted in
Silti district of SNNPR (Alemayu, 2011) reported (87.07%) of the practice in traditional
beehives. This also similar with other findings conducted in the Northern, South Western and
Central parts of Ethiopia which showed that traditional beekeeping is predominantly

19
practiced in most parts of Ethiopia (Kerealem et al., 2009; Kebede and Lemma, 2007; Nuru,
2007). And also the number of traditional hive in the study area was lower than the national
average of traditional hive of the country 95% of the hives was traditional (Beyene and David
2007).

Traditional beehives used are mostly cylindrical in shape with the dimensions of about one
meter in length and a diameter of around 20 cm. The variability of the shapes of traditional
hives is mainly attributed to the climate condition of the area and the differences in honey
production systems. Beekeepers of Kembata Tembaro zone construct their traditional hives
from different locally available plant species with local name Hareg (Solanecoangelatus),
Shenbeko (Arundinaria alpine). The internal parts of the hives are plastered with mud and
cow dung and the external part is covered with grass, plastic, and Enset (Coba) to protect the
hive from rain and other pest (Figure 3).

Based on this finding, 4.6% of the total respondents undertake beekeeping using intermediate
hives (Table 2) and it was non-significantly different(P>0.05) among the three districts. So
that this proportion is in line with beekeeping potential as well as promotion and
dissemination efforts of respective agro ecologies. Therefore, more efforts are required from
all the district Agricultural office to increase the utilization of intermediate hive since it is a
bridge to modern hive technology.

According to the result of the study, among the sample household (N=180), 19.4% practice
beekeeping using frame beehives (Table 2).Proportionally the number of frame beehives is
higher (23.4%) in the low land district than in the mid land (19%) and the high land (7.6%)
districts. This result is higher than the result obtained for Silti district of SNNPR (Alemayu,
2011) who reported (11.54%) of the beekeeper practice using frame beehives.

Proportionally frame beehive holding by the respondents in the study areas was lower in the
highland area (7.6%) than other districts. This is due to the highland is not suitable for
improved box hive. This is situated in cooler climate and at an altitude between 2600 to 3100
m.a.s.l. and with minimum temperature of 11C%. These results in high rate of absconding of
honeybees and low yield were absorbed and also less extension work were done in the
highland area.

20
 .
Figure 3 Traditional bee hive of the study areas

Table 2 Honeybee colonies holding by the respondents (year 2013)

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Total P
N % N % N % N %

Traditional 225(90.3)a 405(75)b 540(71.9)b 1170(75.9) **

Intermediate 5 (2.0) 32(5.9) 35 (4.6) 72(4.6) ns
Movable 19(7.6)b 103(19.0)ab 176(23.4)a 298 (19.4) **
Total number 249 (99.9) 540 (99.9) 751 (99.9) 1540(100)
Mean (TBH) 4.02c 7.64ab 10.0a 7.18 **
Mean (IBH) 1.67 2.29 2.33 2.25 ns
Mean (MFBH) 1.46c 3.22ab 4.40 a 3.51 **

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly * different (P<0.05); **
(p<0.01 );ns =no significant difference; N = Number of sampled respondents; ns=no
significant difference; TBH = Traditional bee hive; IBH = Intermediate bee hive; MFBH =
Movable frame bee hive

4.2.2 Sources of honey bee colonies to start bee keeping

According to the survey result about 76.7% of the respondents indicated, the major source of
bee colony to start beekeeping was through trapping bee colony, 21.1% by gift from parents

21
and 2.2% by buying (Table 3). The current result was lower than the finding of (Challa,
2010) for Gmma districts of Oromia regional state that established 87.8 % of bee colony
obtaining through swarm trapping.

Colony multiplication as means of getting new swarm is not introduced and practiced by any
of the beekeepers in the study area. To create supply of sustainable and quality bee colony in
the area, colony multiplication technique should be introduced and promoted.

Table 3 Source of foundation colony in the study area

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Overall P
N % N % N % N %

Source of colony
Trapping bee colony 51(85) a 47(78.3)ab 40(66.7)b 138 (76.7) **
Gift from parent 9 (15) b 11(18.3)b 18 (30)a 38(21.1) **
a a
Buying - 2 (3.3) 2(3.3) 4 (2.2) **
Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly * different (P<0.05); **
(p<0.01); N=Numbers of respondents

4.2.3 Placement of honeybee colony

Also it was known that the majority (35.6 %, 84.5% and 83 % with traditional, modern
moveable frame and transitional hive, respectively) keep their colonies around their
homestead (backyard) (Table 4) and this is mainly to enable close supervision of colonies.
Some of the respondents (45.6% and 3.3 % with traditional and intermediate hive
respectively) responded for keeping their colonies under the house eave. Whereas, few others
(11.7 %, 13.7 % and 15.5 % in traditional, intermediate, and modern moveable from beehive,
respectively) keep their colonies inside the bee house (inside a simple shed built for hive
placement). Besides, only 7.1% of traditional bee colonies were kept in forests that might
have been for the sake of accessibility of bee forages. This result is concurrent with
(Workneh, 2007) that reported (84.5%) of the respondents using frame beehive practice
backyard beekeeping. Such apiary sites are appropriate for daily activities of beekeeping than
the one that is located far away from the home.

22
Table 4 Placements of honeybee colony by the respondents in study area total sample
(N=180)

Placement of bee Traditional (%) Intermediate (%) Modern (%)

hive
Back yard 35.6 83 84.5

Under the eave 45.6 3.3 -

Under shade 11.7 13.7 15.5

Hanging in forest 7.1 - -

Total 100 100 100

N= Numbers of sample respondents

Figure 4 Keeping traditional bee hives under the eve of the house

4.2.4 Reason for involving in beekeeping

According to this study, from total sampled household (N=180), more than 46.1% indicated
the reason for involving in beekeeping was for income generation. This result is lower than
the result obtained for Burie district of Amahra Region (Tessga 2009) that reported
(79.2%).This indicated that in Burie districts the bee keeper was more commercialized.

23
As per the result of this study high proportion of the household in lowland (61.7%), midland
(55%) and highland (21.7%) area practice beekeeping for income generation, respectively
(Table 5). The reason behind for the high level of beekeeping engagement in the lowland
districts seems existing favourable weather, bee flora abundance and easy access to market
that encourage beekeepers to produce and market bee products.

According to this study, 26.7% of the respondents involved in beekeeping activities mainly
due to its easiness to perform as compared with other agricultural activities. Whereas, 22.8%
for being the practice is inheritance of the family and long-time experience and 4.4% for
being advocated by extension agents during basic beekeeping training (Table 5). The current
results were similar to the finding of (Nebiyu and Messele, 2013) in Gomogofaa Zone,
Southern Ethiopia.

Table 5 Reason for farmer to engage in beekeeping in the study area (n=180)

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Overall P
(n=60) (n=60) (n=60) (n=180)
N % N % N % N %

Reason for involvement

of farmer on beekeeping
-Income generation 13 21.7b 33 55a 37 61.7a 83 46.1 **
- Easy compared
to other agricultural 29 48.3a 15 25b 4 6.7c 48 26.7 **
ab b a
-House experience 14 23.3 9 15 18 30 41 22.8 *
-Training 4 6.7a 3 5a 1 1.6b 8 4.4 **
Total 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05),
**p<0.01;*p<0.05; n=numbers of sample respondents

4.3 Honeybee Management practices

4.3.1 Swarming incidences and its managements

Swarming is natural means of increasing bee colonies, and is essential to the continuation of
the species. According to this survey results, colony swarming occurs 42.8% in November,
22.8% in September and 21.7% in October months (Table 7). This colony swarming mainly

24
attributed to immense and diverse availabilities of bee forage source plants. While, February,
March, April, July, and December were months in which there was no record of bee colony
swarm incidence due to less availability of bee forage on this month. This study result is in
agreement with the result of the study conducted in Western Amhara that reported 42.1%
November (Assemu et al., 2013). Proportionally season of colony swarming in midland and
lowland areas almost similar. For the beekeepers in midland area bee colony swarm occurs
55% of the cases in November and 20% in October and for the beekeepers in the lowland
56.7% in November, 28.3% in October, and for the beekeepers in the highland 38.3% of the
record was August and 28% in September(Table 7).

The result also showed that 91.7 % of swarming incidence of honeybee colonies was
recorded in the hive during the study years 2013 (Table 6). The current results were similar to
the finding of (Alemayu, 2011) in Silti districts, Southern Ethiopia that reported high swarm
incidence (97.5%) for the areas. Proportionally in the highland areas (95.5%) more swarming
were occurred than midland(91.7%) and lowland(88.3%) areas, respectively this is due less
extension work were done on method of prevention in the highland area As the results
showed bee colony swarm do have an advantage in increasing the number of colony and to
replace non reproductive colony. As well it does also have side effects in causing bee colony
weakening that eventual lead to absconding and honey yield reduction. As shown in (Table 6)
the most frequently ways of controlling reproductive swarming were 26.1% by removing
queen cells, 20.6%, through enlarging hive volume, 5.7% through harvesting or cutting honey
combs, 7% by suppering , return back to the colony 5%.But 35.6% of the respondents were
recorded no control method in order to prevent swarming of honeybee colony (Table 6). The
current finding is similar with the finding of Tessega (2009) that established removal of
queen cell as the most widely used method of controlling reproductive swarming by
beekeepers in Burie district of Amahra region.

25
Table 6 Swarm incidences and its managements by the respondents in the study area

Agro ecology, % Overall

Factors Highland Midland Lowland p-value
N % N % N % N %

Does swarming
Yes (57) 95.5a (55) 91.7a (53) 88.3b (165) 91.7 *
b b a
No (3 ) 5 (5) 8.3 (7 ) 11.7 15 8.3 *
Methods of control
Removal of queen cell (16) 26.7 (17 ) 28.3 (14) 23.3 (47) 26.1 ns
No control method (24 ) 23.3b (30) 50a (20) 33.3b (64) 35.6 **
Suppering (3) 1.7b (4) 6.7a (6) 10a (130 7.2 *
Cutting of honey comb (5) 8.3a (2) 3.3b (3) 1.7b (10) 5.6 *
ab a b
Return back to the (2) 3.3 (4) 6.7 (3) 1.7 (9) 5 *
colony
Using large volume of (20 ) 33.3a (3) 5c (14 ) 23.3b (64) 35.6 **
hives
Total (60) 100 (60) 100 (60) 100 (60) 100
Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly * different (P<0.05); **
(p<0.01); N=Numbers of respondents, ns=no significant difference

4.3.2 Absconding and reasons for bees absconding

Absconding is a behavioural trait of all honeybees. The term is used when all the bees from a
hive leave and desert the combs. Most of absconding occurred in midland and lowland
districts were in February to June. Whereas, in highland it was absorbed from December to
June (WBoARD, 2012). This might be due to shortage of honeybee forage during this
period.

The current finding was in line with the finding of (Amssalu 2006; Gidey and Mekonen
2010) that stated absconding correlates with shortage of honeybee forage. Similarly (Haftom
and Tesfay 2012) showed that, shortage of honeybee forage is also indicated as the most

26
important constraints that hinder the development of beekeeping by triggering bee colony
absconding.

In this survey, 56.7% of the household reported the occurrence of absconding while the rest
43.3% did not face the incidence. Agro-ecologically, more absconding honeybee colony was
absorbed in highland (65%) than midland (48.3%) and low land districts 56.7% (Table 7).
The reason could be associated with climatic conditions in highland area is too cold and the
honeybees cannot resist the cold weather. It was also identified that, incidence of pests
(51.1%), shortage of bee forage (31.1%), poor managements(10.6%) and only 7.2% bad
weather condition(Table 7) were as possible causes of bee colony absconding in the study
areas. This result is in similar with the result of the study conducted in Western Amahra
(Adebabay etal.2008) that stated incidence of pest, poor management, bad weather as the
main causes for bee colony absconding. Hence, farmers should consider feed
supplementation and protection of colonies from natural enemies.

27
Table 7 Absconding and reason for bees absconding from hives and months of swarming

Agro ecology, % Overall

Factors Highland Midland Lowland p-value
N % N % N % N %

Does absconding
Yes (39) 65a (29) 48.3a (34) 56.7b (102) 56.7 *
No (21 ) 35b (31) 51.7b (26 ) 43.3a (78) 43.3 *
Reason for absconding
Incidence of pests (21) 35b (35 ) 58.3a (26) 43.3ab (82) 45.5 ns
ab b a
Shortage of bee forage (12 ) 20 (10) 16.7 (17) 28.3 (39) 21.7 **
Poor managements (10) 16.7a (5) 8.3b (5) 8.3b (20) 11.7 *
Bad weather condition (17) 28.3a (10) 16.7b (12) 20ab (39) 21.7 *
Total 60 100 60 100 60 100 180 100
Months of swarming
September (17) 28.3a (15) 25ab (9 ) 15b (41) 22.8 *
b ab a
October (10) 16.7 (12) 20 (17) 28.3 (39) 21.7 *
November (10) 16.7b (33) 55a (34) 56.7a (77) 42.8 *
August (23) 38.3a - - - - (23) 12.8 **
Total 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly * different (P<0.05); **
(p<0.01); N=Numbers of respondents, ns=no significant difference

4.3.3 Honeybee feed and Floral Condition

According to beekeepers, there are two peak dearth periods of the year. The dry season
(December to March) in which there are bee forage scarcity due to less flowering plants as a
source of pollen and nectar. The second one is during rainy season (June to July) in which the
pollen of the flowering plants nectar and pollen are washed out and diluted by the rain (BOA,
2008). Out of the total sampled households (N=180), 36.1% have the tradition of providing
supplementary feed to maintain the strength of their colony for the later better honey yield
(Table 8).

28
In this study information on the types of feed provided to bee colonies during dearth periods
has been collected. Accordingly, supplemental feeding identified were, 16.1% sugar syrup,
14.5% pea flour feed, 29% mixed pea flour and sugar syrup and 40.3% mixed honey, sugar
syrup (1: 1 water and sugar) and pea flour (Table 8) and this agrees with Solomon (2009) that
came up with 27.8%, 13.9%, 11.4% and 7.6% for sugar syrup, hot pepper, roasted pea flour
and honey syrup, respectively.

Table 8 Honeybee feeding practices and type of feed supplement by the respondents

Description Response N %

Existing of bee feeding Yes 65 36.1

No 115 63.9
Total 180 100
Type of feeding Sugar syrup 10 16.1
Pea flour 9 14.5
Pea flour and sugar syrup 18 29
Honey, sugar syrup and pea flour 25 40.3
Total 65 100
N=Numbers of sample respondents

In addition to supplementary feeding, planting bee forage is also required to get the intended
honey yield. Success in beekeeping depends upon many factors, among them availability of
honeybee forage are the fundamental one. Bee forage determines the amount of honey yield
obtained. The existence of more bee forage results in high honey production provided that
other factors are suitable for honey production. In the study area, there was no bee forage
promotion. However, there was an extension activity, which encourages beekeepers to grow
indigenous bee forage around backyard.

In the studied areas to identify the major honeybee plants, the respondents had shown their
own mechanism to select major honeybee plants for their bees. Understanding of these
criteria would help to consider the farmers interest and criteria in introducing and multiplying
honeybee plants. To select the major honeybee plants (Table 9) the respondents mentioned

29
the following criteria such as plant give good quality honey, plants have more number of
flowers, plants that give more nectar and/or pollen and long flowering period, plants which
have fast growth rate and plants that give flower at different season (more frequency of
flowering in a year).Based on this survey result, more than 39 honeybee floras including
trees, shrubs, bushes, crops, spices, flowering weeds, and grasses were identified in Kembata
Tembaro zone. From the total listed flora types, 9 of them are trees, 17 of them shrubs, and
herbs, 10 of them are crops and 3 of them are fruits, respectively (Table 9). List of honey
plant species found in the study area are presented in Appendix 1. The scientific names were
determined using reference books of Fichtl and Admassu (1994).

30
Table 9 Major Bee forage plants and their flowering period in KembataTembaro Zone.

Shrubs

No Scientific name Common name Agro ecology Flowerings time

1 Dovyalis abyssinica Koshim Mid/Highland March – June
2 Entada abyssinica Kontir Mid /High land August –October
3 Millettia ferruginee Birbera Mid /High land January- April
4 Rubu spp Enjori Mid /High land March – June
5 Sesbania sesban Sesbania Mid land August –October
6 Syzygium guineense Dokima High/Mid land April – June
Herbs
7 Echinope ssp Kosheshila Mid land March – April
8 Bidens sp. Adeyabeba Mid/High land August-Oct
9 Guizotia scabra Mech Mid/High land August -Dec
10 Negetaa zurea Dama-kesi Mid /High land January – Dec.
11 Ocimum basilicum Besobila Mid/High land August-Dec
12 Thymus schimperi Tosign Mid/High land July – Sep.
13 Trifoliumsteudneri/acaule Maget Mid/High land August Dec
14 Pinunus communius Gulo Mid/Lowland December
15 Scheffera abyssinica Gutum Mid/Highland March-May
16 Soanecio angelatus Harege Mid/Lowland January-March
17 Hygorophilia auriculata Amekela Lowland Nov-December
Crop
18 Allium cepa Shenkurt Mid/High May –June
19 Brassica carinata Gomenzer Mid/High land Sept.-October
20 Carica papaya Papaya Mid land Aug-Oct
21 Cicerarietium Shumbura Mid land October-Nov.
22 Coffee Arabica coffee Mid /High land March-April.
23 Guizotia abyssinica Nuge Mid/High Sep.-October
24 Phaseolusvulgarisl. Boleke Mid /lowland August – Sep.
25 Pisum sativum Pea/Ater Mid/High Sept.-Oct
26 Solanum tubersum Potato Mid/High May-June
27 Viciafaba Bakela Mid/High land August – Sep.
Fruit
28 Persea american Abokato Mid land Jan- Mar.
29 Mangifera indica Mango Mid land Jan-Mar.
30 Mus x paradisiaca Muze Lowland Year round
Tree
31 Corotonmacrostachy Bisana March –June Midland
32 Cordia africa Wanza Augus-Nov Mid land
33 Acacia species Girar March – July High/Mid
34 Acacia saligna Saligna Mid /High land August-Oct
35 Eucalyptus camadulensis Qeyibarzaf Mid land March –June
36 Eucalyptus globules Nechbarzaf High land March –June
37 Grevillea robusta Grevillea Mid /High land August-Nov
38 Hagenia abysica Kosso High land Oct.- Nov.
39 Jacaranda mimosifolia yetebemenjazaf Mid land Jan – Mar

31
4.3.4 Inspection of honeybee colonies

Generally beehive inspection by opening is not a common practice in traditional beekeeping.

In this study, it was indicated that the frequency of inspecting apiary and honeybee colony
was estimated. From the total respondents (N=180), 64.4% frequently do external inspection
to their bee colonies, 23.3% sometimes and 12.2% rarely (Table 10). However, it is only 15%
of the cases that internal bee colony inspection was done frequently, 53.9% of sometimes and
13% rarely (Table 10). It was also showed that internal hive inspection is limited to those
honeybee colonies placed at backyard and under the eaves of the house, and in most cases for
Moveable Comb Top-Bar and Moveable Frame hives. The less frequent inspection is
presumably because of fear of being stung, the risk of the colony absconding, lack of time
and lack of awareness of the value of doing so. Moreover, almost all beekeepers in the study
area perform external inspection and also clean their apiary to prevent ant and other insect
pests from getting access to hives. The study conducted by (Kerealem et al 2006), (Kerealem
et al. 2009), (Nuru 2007) and (Kebede and Lemma 2007) revealed the same results. All these
studies confirmed that internal hive inspection of traditional hive is not very common or non-
existent at all in their respective study areas, which indeed need to be promoted through
training and extension.

Table 10 Percent distribution of frequency of external and internal inspection of apiary in the
study area

Inspection Response External inspection Internal inspection

frequency N % N %
Sometimes 42 23.3 97 53.9

Rarely 22 12.3 56 31.1

Frequently 116 64.4 27 15

Total 180 100 180 100

N=Numbers of sample respondents

4.3.5 Types of beekeeping equipment used

Effective bee colony management requires the use of appropriate equipment and accessories,
like as modern bee hives, the protective clothing, bee smoker, bee brush and hive tools. Lack

32
of equipment and protective clothing has been a big hindrance to the adoption of improved
beekeeping style that results in low productivity.

According to the respondents most of (92.74%) traditional beekeeping equipment available in

the study areas is locally made. This includes smoker, knife and bee brush, queen cage and
honey storage containers. Whereas, the remaining (7.26 %) are fabricated (smokers, queen
cage and other type of protective clothing) respectively (Table 11). It was also stated that
88.3% of the beekeepers in Burie district of Amahra Region are using homemade bee
equipment (Tessega, 2009).

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 requires casting mould, honey extractor and queen
excluder. With regard to the type of bee equipment like honey container most of the
respondents use none standardized (no food grade) local honey containers, that impact the
quality of the products.

The other basic beekeeping accessories required for improved beekeeping technologies like
honey extractor and casting mold were observed during the survey being reserved at district
FTC (farmer training center) (Table 11). But, they were not in the hand of the respondents
probably because of the materials costly nature to have them at individual level. Although it
is at high competition, beekeepers have the right to borrow these materials when need arise.
Therefore, it is good to increase the number of these commonly used beekeeping materials or
create a mechanisms like credit facilities so that beekeeper can get them individually.
Unavailability and high cost of beekeeping input are one of the limiting factors to improve
beekeeping productivities of the country (Tessega, 2009 and Tewodros, 2010).

33
Table 11 Types and availability of bee equipment in the study areas (n=180)

NO Bee equipment type Available Unavailable Total (%)

(%) (%)

1 Hive home made 92.7 7.4 100

2 Hive on credit 13.3 86.7 100
3 Hive purchased and locally made 2.5 97.5 100
4 Smoker home made 96.3 3.7 100
5 Smoker purchased on credit 11.3 88.7 100
6 Water sprier homemade 88.9 11.1 100
7 Water sprier purchased on credit 64.5 35.5 100
8 Queen capture homemade 86.8 13.5 100
9 Queen capture purchased on credit 10 90 100
10 Knife homemade 95 5 100
11 Beeswax (pure) 25 75 100
12 Frame wire provided on credit 12.8 87.2 100
13 Frame wire homemade - - -
14 Uncapping fork homemade - - -
15 Uncapping fork purchased on credit - - -
16 Honey extractor locally made and - - -
purchased
17 Honey extractor purchased on - - Only (4) honey
credit extractors were
distributed to each
districts by gov.t
18 Casting mold purchased on credit Only (4) casting mold
were distributed to
each districts by gov.t
19 Honey container homemade 98.5 1.5 100
20 Honey container locally purchased 1.5 98.5 100
21 Bee brush homemade 94.5 5.5 100
22 Bee brush purchased on credit 7.8 92.2 100

n=sample respondents

34
4.3.6 Hive products harvesting in the study area

The major honey flow season in the study area is from October to November and the minor
flow season is from May to June, and it depends upon the availability of bee forage that in
return depends on the amount of rainfall. High availability of honeybee plants from July to
November in both midland and lowland. Whereas, in the highland area from August to
December were recorded (BOA, 2008) unpublished data.

Based up on the results of this study, 55% of the beekeepers harvest honeys twice per year
(Table13). There was significant difference (p<0.01) among the three districts. Both midland
(76.7%) and lowland (71.7%) areas of the beekeepers they harvest honey twice per year.
However, honey harvesting is done once per year in the highland (83.3%) area beekeepers.
Only, 1.7% of the beekeepers said that both in midland and lowland areas were harvesting
honey three times per year. This research result is with similar findings with (Challa 2010) in
Gomma district where honey harvesting record is once or twice, and in some cases even three
times. And also similarly Tessega (2009) reported that farmers in Bure district of Amhara
region harvest honey once or twice, and in some cases three times.

In the study areas, 81.1% of the beekeepers produce only honey, 11.1% rear bee colony, and
only 7.8% produces beeswax (Table 12) and this agrees with the study conducted in Silti
districts (Alemayu, 2011) that came up with 86.95%, 5.45% and 7.60% for honey, bee colony
and beeswax production, respectively.

As the result indicated that only few beekeepers (7.8%) are involved in beeswax production.
This could be lack of knowledge of its use and how to harvest and absence of demand in the
local market was the major reasons.

Harvesting of honey is still traditional in three districts. Virtually all sample farmers use
smoking during harvest, the majority of the respondents used smoking material such as, dried
cow dung, straw/grass, and worn out cloths. During honey harvesting from traditional hives,
beekeepers cut and pull the fixed combs one by one. Pollen, brood, and honey combs were
removed and kept in a container and covered with a lid. While, in the case of top bar hives
the beekeeper selects combs which contain ripe honey covered with a fine layer of white
beeswax, usually those nearest to the rear part of the hives. Combs containing pollen and
developing bees are left undisturbed.

35
Table 12 Types of hive products produced by the respondent in the study areas.

Factors Agro ecology % Overall P-

Highland Midland Lowland value
N % N % N % N %

Honey 54 90a 50 83.3ab 42 70b 146 81.1 **

Bee colony 4 6.7b 5 8.3b 11 18.3a 20 11.1 ***
Bees wax 2 3.3b 5 8.3a 7 11.7a 14 7.8 *
Total 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100

Table 13 Honey harvesting frequency per year in the study area (n=180)

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Overall P
(n=60) (n=60) (n=60) (n=180)
Harvesting frequency
Twice 16.7b 76.7a 71.7a 55 **
Three time - 1.7a 1.7a 1.1 *
a b b
Once 83.3 21.7 26.7 43.9 ***
Total 100 100 100 100
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05),
;***p<0.01;***(p<0.001),*p<0.05; n=numbers of sample respondents;

4.3.7 Post harvesting handling of honey

According to the result of the study, from total sampled household (N=180), only 27.8% of
the beekeeper strain honey before sold to market. There was significant difference (P<0.05)
among the three districts. As per the result of this study, higher proportion of the household in
midland (36.7%), than lowland (26.7%) and highland (20%) areas practice strain honey
before selling to market, respectively (Table 14). The current results were similar to the
finding of (Alemayu, 2011) in Silti districts of Southern Ethiopia that 38.8% of the beekeeper
they strain honey before sold to market. Accordingly, straining materials identified were, 80
% sieves, 12% clothes and only 8% of them use hands to strain honey with the help of solar
energy, respectively (Table 14).

36
Similarly, the majority 72.2% of the beekeeper do not practice staring honey.About, 43.8%
lack of strain materials ,23.1% lacked knowledge how to straining honey and 20 %
consumer not prefer strain honey and finally only 13.1% of the beekeeper both lack of
knowledge and strain materials(Table 14) were as possible causes of not practice of strain
honey in the study areas .The current study is in agreement with the study conducted in
Gamo Gofa zone of southern Ethiopia (Nebiyu and Messele, 2013) who was reported that lack
of strain materials, lacked knowledge and Consumer not prefer strain honey were the major
reasons for the beekeeper they do not practice of strain honey.

Table 14 Post-harvest handling activities undertaken by respondent beekeeper

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Overall P
(n=60) (n=60) (n=60) (n=180)
Does strain honey
Yes 20b 36.7a 26.7ab 27.8 *

No 80a 63.3b 73.3ab 72.2 *

Total 100 100 100 100
Type of material used
Sieves 75 77.3 87.5 80 ns
Cloths 16.7a 13.6ab 6.2b 12 **
Using hand 8.3 9.1 6.2 8 ns
Total 100 100 100 100
Reason for not staring
Lack of strain materials 41.7 47.4 43.2 43.8 ns
Lack of knowledge 25 21.1 22.7 23.1 ns
Consumer not prefer
Strain honey 22.9a 13.2b 22.7a 20 *
Lack of knowledge &
Strain material 10.4 b 18.4a 11.4b 13.1 *
Total 100 100 100 100
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different
(p<0.05);**p<0.01;*p<0.05; n=numbers of sample respondents; ns=non-significant
difference.

37
4.3.8 Storage practices of honey in the study area

Out of the total sampled households, 80 % of them sold honey immediately after harvest
(Table 12). This result is different from the study conducted both Burie district of Amahra
Region (Tessega, 2009) and Silti district of Southern Ethiopia (Alemayu, 2011). They
reported 53.4% and 36.2% of the respondents were sold honey immediately after harvesting;
respectively.Because of the early cash requirement to settle past loans, taxes, and other
expenses soon after harvest and the consumer gives leas price for honey stored for long
period of time.

On the other hand, the study revealed that the remaining, 20 % of respondent’s main reasons
for on average for 3 to 6 months (Table 15) , honey storage were expectations of better prices
(benefit from off-season) and beekeepers do keep some amount of honey for home
consumption for different proposes.

In this study, the reason for honey storage mentioned by the sampled households were, 52.8%
of them to sale in the time of scarcity honey.It is highest in midland (63.7%) , lowland
(50%) and highland(45%) respondents, respectively. Whereas, the remaining 28.9% of them
honey storage were to sale the time honey shortage and used for food and medicinal
propose(18.3%) ,respectively (Table 15).

This result in the current study is in agreement with the study conducted in Silti Districts of
Southern Ethiopia(Alemayu,2011) who reported (50%) of the beekeeper said that the reason
for honey storage was to sale in the time of scarcity.

With regarded to type of honey container .out of the total sampled households, 56.1%, 26.1%,
10.6% and 7.2% with plastic container , earth pots , silver materials and gourd pots were
used to store honey for short period of time, respectively (Table 15).This result is concurrent
with the finding (Challa, 2010) for Gomma districts of Oromia regional state who reported
that, majority of the beekeeper they used traditional storage containers such as pots, gourd
pots and plastic container, respectively. However, these are technically not appropriate
storage facilities as they result in serious quality deterioration.

38
Table 15 The reason for honey storage and types of container used in the study area

Factors Agro
ecology,% P
Highland Midland Lowland Overall
(n=60) (n=60) (n=180) (n=180)
Length of storage
Do not stored 83.3 71.7 85 80 ns
1-9 month 11.7b 25a 13.3b 16.7 **
a ab b
Above 1 years 5 3.3 1.7 3.3 *
Total 100 100 100 100
Reason of storage
To sale the time of honey
Scarcity (better price) 45b 63.7a 50ab 52.8 **
Food and medicine 16.7b 18.3b 20a 18.3 *
To sale the time of
honey shortage 8.3c 18.3b 38.3a 28.9 **
Total 100 100 100 100
Type container used
Plastic container 60a 45b 63.3a 56.1 *
a b b
Earthen pot 30 25 23.3 26.1 *
Silver material 3.3b 16.7a 11.7a 10.6 **
Gourd 6.7b 13.3a 1.7c 7.2 **
Total 100 100 100 100
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different
(p<0.05),**p<0.01;*p<0.05; n=numbers of sample respondents; ns=no significant
difference

4.4 Amount of honey yield from different type of hives in the study area

The overall average amount of honey harvested per hive per year from traditional,
intermediate and modern hive were 4.31 kg, 9.71kg and 17.8 Kg, respectively (Table 16).
There was significantly different (p<0.001) among the three districts in honey
yield/hive/year. The highest average honey yield from traditional hives in lowland (5.5kg)
then followed by midland (4.62Kg) and highland (2.79kg). Similarly, the highest honey yield

39
from modern hive is in lowland (19.3 kg) then followed by midland (17.3kg) and highland
(15.3kg) areas. Whereas, honey yield from intermediate hive in lowland area (12.57kg) is
higher than highland (5.67kg) and midland (8.57kg) areas. The present result for honey
yield/household/year from traditional hive is lower than the national average yield (8 kg)
(CSA, 2008). It is also less than the result reported by Workneh et al. (2007) that states 6.5kg
as mean honey yield for Atsbi Wemberta district of Tigray Region. But the obtained result for
modern hive is greater than the result reported by Alemayu (2011) as average honey yield
(14.57kg) in Silti districts for similar beehive type.
.
The relatively high mean honey yield record observed in the lowland and midland districts
might be attributed to accessibility of the beekeepers to training and applications of improved
beehive technologies. In addition, relatively high availability of bee forage in these areas
might be an advantage for the reported high yield.

The maximum amount of honey harvested from traditional, intermediate and modern or
frame hive were 10, 30 kg and 38 kg, respectively and the minimum outputs from traditional,
intermediate and movable frame types of hives in the study areas were 1 kg, 5kg and 8 kg
(Table 16). These results are indicators of the existence of room for increasing performances
of these beehives through incurring better management practices.

Honey yield per house hold in the study area was 67.25kg/hh/year and there were
significantly difference (P<0.001) among the three districts. The highest honey yield record
per HH was in lowland (111.58kg/HH) area flowed by midland (71.85kg/HH) and highland
area (14.10kg/HH) (Table 16). This suggests the presence of better potential for beekeeping
in lowland than highland and midland area.

The mean honeybee colony holding in the study areas were 7.91 per HH. It is 10.88 in
lowland which is significantly (p<0.001) higher than midland (8.52) and highland (4.32)
locations (Table 16). Based on the present study the average colony holding of beekeepers is
lower as compared to the findings for Bale highlands south east Ethiopia that established 10
colonies as mean per household (Solomon2009). However, it is higher than the mean bee
colony holding size (6 per HH) reported for middle Rift Valley Region of Ethiopia (Kebede
and Lemma 2007).

40
Table 16 The amount of honey yield from different hives in the study area

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Overall P
(n=60) (n=60) (n=60) (n=180)

Honey yield (Kg)/hive/HH

Yield/hive (TBH) (kg) 2.79 c 4.62b 5.50 a 4.31 ***

Yield/hive (IBH) (kg) 5.67b 8.57b 12.57a 9.71 **

Yield/hive (MFBH) (kg) 15.3c 17.3ab 19.3a 17.8 ***

Yield range (TBH) (kg) 1-5 1-8 2-10 1-10

Yield range (IBH) (kg) 6-8 5-12 6-30 5-30

Yield range (MFBH) (kg) 8-25 10-30 8-38 9 -31

Mean/HH (kg) 14.10c 71.85b 115.8a 67.25 ***

No of bee colony/HH 4.32b 8.52a 10.8a 7.91 ***

Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05),
;***p<0.001;**p<0.01; n=numbers of sample respondents; TBM = Traditional bee hives;
IBH = Intermediate bee hive; MFBH = Movable frame bee hives; HH: Household.

4.5 Trend of honeybee colonies and honey yield in the study areas

Based on the study, the majority of the beekeeper holding colony in traditional bee hives it
was estimated about, 75.9 % (Table 1).But, and the trends of familiarization on modern and
transitional hive were increasing gradually in midland and lowland districts. Whereas, in
highland area almost constant. Based on the information from the total sampled
respondents(N=180) honey bee colony number is increasing from the year 2010 to 2013 by
1399 to 1540 (Fig.5) .Similarly, the average number of colony per house holed in the study
area was 7.91. This might be due to favourable weather condition, increment of beekeeping
participant, and introduction of modern bee hives, a slight improvement of extension service.
However, it is yet not satisfactory in relation to its potentiality. This result realizing the

41
information obtained from woreda agriculture and rural development office which indicated
disseminations of improved beehives, mainly movable frame beehives, has increased since
2012/2013 production year, which had a significant contribution in honeybee colony
increment specifically both midland and lowland areas. During the survey it was observed
that, the number of bee colony was decreased from 1516-1487 in the year 2011-2012(figur.5)
due to low level of management practice and technological adoption. Furthermore, the
recurrent drought occurrence between three/four years and changing vegetation coverage
(i.e., flora) in the area were among other things to be considered as causative factors.

Similarly, the trends of honey yield of the past five years 2010-2013 were increasing from 9426.4 kg
to 11404.9 kg (Fig. 6) and the average production of honey/household/year was 67.25kg.As the result
s were indicated in (figure 5) that the annual increments honey bee colony in the study area was
increased by 2.37% .Whereas, the amount of honey yield was increased by double that is 4.66% per
annum (Fig.6). This increase in output over the past four years was due to the growth in hive
numbers rather than growth in output per hive, slight improvement of extension serves
favorable weather conditions and disseminations of improved beehives were significant
contribution to grow honey yield.

Figure 5 Number of honeybee colonies over the past four years in the study area

42
 Figure 6 The amount of honey yield (kg) over the past four years in the study area

4.6 Marketing of honey in the study area

Two types of honey have been marketed in the studied district were identified .The first and
the largest proportion is crude honey harvested from traditional hives and very small amount
of extracted honey harvested from box hives. According to sampled respondents indicated
that ,87.2% of the total honey produced in 2013 production year was supplied to the market
and the rest 12.8% of honey used for different propose(Table 17) .Out of this, 8.4% used for
household consumption and kept for medicinal purposes and only, 4.5 % of them gift to the
other person . This result is lower than with the finding of (Tessga, 2009) that states, 98.3%
of the sample beekeeper in Bure district reported that they sell honey to market. But, higher
than the finding of (Alemayu, 2011) that states, 78.82% of the beekeeper in Silti distrites.

In the study areas, most of honey producers largely sell their honey in the nearest local
market area. Specifically, Mudulla (lowland districts) is the most known, Damboya (midland
districts) and Doyogena (highland districts), respectively. Out of total sampled respondents,
(25.6 %) of beekeepers sell honey at farm gate, (56.7%) of the beekeepers sale at local
market. While (17.8%) of them sale their produce at markets found in nearby town and at
farm gate (Table 17).

43
Table 17 Utilization of honey and place of sell by the respondent in the study area

Factors Agro ecology,% Overall

Highland Midland Lowland p-value
N % N % N % N %
Place of sell honey
Sell honey at farm gate 17 28.3 15 25 14 23 46 25.6 ns
Local market 33 55ab 32 53.3b 37 61.7a 102 56.7 *
Nearby town and farm 10 17.8b 13 21.7a 9 15b 32 17.8 *
gate
Honey utilisation
Sell to market 49 81.7b 51 85ab 56 94.9a 165 87.2 *
Consumptions & 8 13.3a 5 8.3b 2 3.4c 15 8.4 *
medicinal
Gift to other person 3 5 1 1.7 4 6.7 8 4.5 ns
Total 60 100 60 100 60 100 180 100
Means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different
(p<0.05),;*p<0.05; n=numbers of sample respondents;

4.6.1 Honey marketing channel

In the study areas, different honey marketing participants were identified. This includes
producers/farmers, honey collectors, retailers, Tej- houses and final consumers of the
product.

Producers:- In the study area, farmers/producers sell their honey to different buyers at
village or district market centre. The market place that is the closest to the residence of the
farmers is the first choice with regard to minimization of transportation costs and less
bargaining power by farmers due to individual marketing because of little amount of honey
product, lack of information on honey marketing at other sites.

Honey collector:-The honey collectors found in the study area purchased the honey produce
directly from farmers in a small village markets for resell to other collectors, retailers, and
consumers who come from different areas of the region at the district market centre.

44
Retailers: There are shops and other retailers who sell large amount of product and sell it to
consumers in small units. These are the final link in the channel that delivered honey to end
users, since there were no processors in the study district. The majority of honey retailers
found at the woreda centres have their own small stores and retail shops.

Tej- houses: These buy honey mostly from honey collectors and producers.

These are also the final link in the channel that delivered honey to consumers.

Consumers: From the consumers’ point of view, the shorter the marketing chain, the more
likely is the retail price going to be affordable. Consumers for this particular study mean
those households who bought and consume honey. They are individual households; they
bought the commodity for their own consumption only.

According to Mendoza (1995), marketing channel is the sequence through which the whole
of honey passes from farmers to consumers. The analysis of marketing channel is intended to
Provide a systematic knowledge of the flow of the goods and services from their origin
(Produce) to the final destination (consumer). Therefore, during the survey, the following
honey marketing channels were observed (Fig.7).

I. Producer - consumers (41.1%)

II. Producer - honey collectors’- consumers (9.2%)

III. Producer - retailers’- consumers (5.6%)

IV. Producer - honey collectors’- retailers’- consumers (7.5%)

V. producer – honey collector – Tej houses – consumers (14%)

VI. Producer - Tej houses – consumers (22.6%)

45
 Honey Producers

Honey Collectors

Honey Retailers Tej Houses

Local Consumers

Figure 7 Honey market channel of the study area

4.6.2 Honey price and factors governing the price of honey in the study area

According to the respondents, the price of honey is generally increased over the time due to,
increasing demand of honey; consumer number and scarcity of bee fodder largely contribute
to the rise in the prices of honey, respectively. The price of honey is subjected to fluctuation
with highest price in the off seasons especially during wedding time, holy day (Meskel) and
during wet seasons in the period when there was no honey production, respectively.
Similarly, they get lowest price during honey harvesting time. Despite, this marketing of
honey is promising in the area.

The average price of crude honey and table honey in the study areas were, 29.5 and 51.2ETB
per kg, respectively .There was significantly deference (p<0.001) among the three
districts(Table 18). The highest average price of crude honey was absorbed in lowland (32.4
ETB/kg) then followed by midland (29.6ETB/kg) and finally highland districts 26.4ETB/kg
(Table 18). Similarly, the price of table honey in lowland (56.3 ETB/kg) area was higher than
midland (50.4 ETB/kg) and highland (46.8 ETB/kg) area, respectively. This due to, the high
quality of honey in lowland areas was the major contributing factors to raise the price of
honey. The price of crude honey and table honey in the study area was much higher than, the
study conducted in Gomma districts (Challa, 2011) who reported that the average price was
15.61 and 21.12 ETB per Kg, respectively.

46
The price of honey in the study area was reported to vary depending on seasons of the year,
colour, taste of the honey, and purity. According to interviewed respondent, the most
demanded honey was light (white) in colour, sweet in taste and pure. Honey was considered
to be pure if it had fewer amounts of impurities (wing of honeybees, wax, and dead adult bees
and brood). Based on the survey result, the most determinant factors governed to the selling
price of honey were, 61.1% of the respondents declared that season of the year; honey colour
and taste of honey, 26.7% of them colour and test of honey and only 12.2% of test of honey
was the most determinant factors for selling price of honey in the study area, respectively
(Table 19).

Table 18 The average price of honey from different type of hive in the study area

Factors Highland Midland Lowland Overall P

(n=60) (n=60) (n=60) (180)
Mean price of
Crude Honey (ETB/Kg) 26.4b 29.6a 32.4a 29.5 ***
Mean price of
Table honey (ETB/Kg) 46.8b 50.4b 56.3a 51.2 ***

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05), n=
number of respondents; ETB=Ethiopian Birr; Kg=Kilogram, ***P<0.001

Table 19 Percentage of factors governing the price of honey in the study area (n=180)

Factor affecting the price of honey n % of the respondents

Seasons of the year and Colors and taste of the honey 110 61.1
Colors and taste of the honey 48 26.7
Taste of the honey 22 12.2
Total 180 100
n=number of sampled respondents

47
4.6.3 Annual income earned from beekeeping

The mean annual gross income earned in the study area were, 2,053.38 Birr per household
(Table.20).There was significantly different (p<0.001) among the three districts. The highest
in lowland (3648.6 Birr) then followed by, midland (2188.4 Birr) and highland 323 Birr area
(Table 20). Based on the present study, the mean annual gross income earned by the
beekeeper as compared to the findings for Atsbi Womberta district (Assefa, 2009) that the
average annual gross income per household is 3503.74 Birr.

.In the study areas ,45.6% of the beekeepers earned an annual gross income was less than
1000 Birr per annum , 30% of them obtained between 1101 to 5000 Birr per annum and only
1.1% of the beekeeper annual gross income earned greater than 13001 Birr per annum
(Table. 20).

Table 20 Per cent distribution of respondents by annual income (2013).

Income category Agro ecology,%

(Per hh/Birr) Highland Midland Lowland Overall P
(n=60) (n=60) (n=60) (180)

<1000 80a 38.3b 18.8c 45.6 ***

1001-5000 20b 40a 30ab 30 **
5001-9000 - 21.7a 8.3b 20 **
9001-13000 - - 10a 3.3 ***
>13001 - - 3.3a 1.1 ***
Total 100 100 100 100

Mean income 323.09c 2188.40b 3648.64a 2053.38 ***

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05), n=
number of respondents; ***P<0.00;**p<0.01;hh=house hold

4.7 Access of farmers on beekeeping information and credited

Based on the present study, farmers in the study area get information on doing beekeeping
practices from different sources. As it is indicated on table (21) out of the total sampled
respondents, 45.6% and 27.3% of them getting information from extension agents and co-

48
farmers/beekeepers. Farmers were getting information about, 27.2% and 4.4% from radio and
other source and only 12.8% of the beekeeper are not get any information, respectively.
Apicultural information from co-farmers may be wrong and/or out-dated especially, if they
were not well informed on appropriate beekeeping practice and techniques (Table 21).

According to the results of this survey, the effort made so far in facilitating the beekeepers
access to appropriate technologies by provision of credit services was minimal. Only, 8% of
the beekeeper had access to credit for their beekeeping operations during the past years. The
main constraints on using credit were unavailability of credit (86.7%) for beekeeping
packages followed by both high interest rates (5.6%), Inaccessibility of credit agents (5.6%)
and lack of cash for down payment (2.2%), respectively (Table 21).

During the study period, it was observed that the sustainable land management programme is
addressing capital shortage through provision of transitional and frame beehives together
with other packages of beekeeping equipment’s on credit bases in lowland areas. Moreover,
recently a regional finance institution named Omo Micro Finance Institution in collaboration
with the district Agriculture Office has initiated a new scheme to facilitate credit for those
beekeepers in need of finance to improve their beekeeping production activities.

49
Table 21 The source of information and access of credit by the respondents in the study area

Factors Agro ecology,%

Highland Midland Lowland Overall
(n=60) (n=60) (n=60 (n=180)
Source of information
Extension agent (DA) 46.7 55 35 45.6
Radio 20 18.3 3.3 27.2
Beekeepers/ co-farmers 18.3 3.3 8.3 27.3
None 15 10 13.3 12.8
Others - 13.3 - 4.4
Total 100 100 100 100
Credit accessed
Yes 4 11 9 8
No 96 89 91 92
Total 100 100 100 100
Credit limitations
Unavailability of credit 91.7 83.3 85 86.7

High interest rate 1.7 6.7 8.3 5.6

Inaccessibility of credit
Agents 5 6.7 5 5.6
Lack of cash for
down payments 3.3 1.7 1.7 2.2
Total 100 100 100 100
n=numbers of respondents

4.8. Pests and Predators in the study area

According to the survey result, in the study area the existence of pests was a major challenge
to the honeybees and beekeepers. Based on the information from the respondents were
identifying the major pests such as ants, bee- eater birds, wax moth, spider, lizard and honey

50
badger were the most harmful in order of decreasing importance. Similar results were
observed in the central highlands of Ethiopia (Desalegn, 2001) and also by Solomon (2009)
in the highlands of south east Ethiopia.

According to the survey result, showed in (Table 22).Out of the total sampled respondents,
28.5% of them in all districts ants were similar effects on honey bees. Which, cause the
deaths of adult honeybee and finally absconding of bees were absorbed from their hives. The
next serious one is 22.3% of the beekeeper were bee-eater birds attack the bees, mainly
during the rainy seasons when there is no grain to feed. About, 18.6% of the respondents had
absorbed wax moth in the hives which, results in distraction of honey comb .As there affects
in bad smell of the hive and formation of worms.

Whereas, the prevalence of wax moth in lowland districts higher than midland and highland
districts. Because, of lowland districts had to hot so the bacteria can grow easily. Followed,
by spider (16.6%), lizard (10%) and honey badger (4%) were reported the most harmful can
attach honeybees as descending order and the extent of damaging almost similar in three agro
ecology. Finally, 4% of the beekeeper is honey badger commonly damage honeybee colonies
in the months of November to April when there is brood and honey in the hive.

Based on this survey result, different methods were used by the beekeeper in order to prevent
pest such as, keeping the apiary tidy and clean from under growth, avoiding
throwing/scattering combs around the apiary site, application of ash around the hive stand,
plastering the hive stand with plastic materials, finding and killing predators like bee- eater
birds and the queen of ants.

None of the interviewed beekeepers responded for the availability of bee diseases in the study
area which, could be due to its absence or lack of awareness about the various symptoms of
honeybee diseases.

51
Table 22 Pest and predators in the study area (n=180)

Types of pest and predators % Rank

Ants 28.5 1
Bee- eater birds 22.3 2
Wax moth 18.6 3
Spider 16.6 4
Lizard 10 5
Honey badger 4 6
Total 100
n=numbers of respondents

4.9. Herbicides, Insecticides and Poisonous Plants

According to the survey results, about (90.5%) of interviewed farmers and/or their
neighbours had used herbicides and/or pesticides to control crop and livestock pests and
diseases. Furthermore, chemicals were sprayed to prevent malaria and weeds. The applied
chemicals affected some of the respondents, by causing a decline in honeybee colony
population and honey flora resources and finally, minimized honey yield. The herbicides and
pesticides are used particularly on wheat and on vegetables such as tomato and cabbage. It is
rarely applied to grain crops like maize in time of large infestation with stalk borer and army
worm. The time of application varied from area to area it was usually between June and
September. Majority of beekeepers appeared to be aware of the toxicity of insecticide and
herbicides to bees. None of the beekeepers had taken any measure to protect their bees from
the sprayed chemicals. According to the respondents, several plants that are traditionally used
as source of pollen and nectar in the area are declining from time to time due to application of
herbicides.

There was no report regarding use of safe pest and weed control methods other than those
harmful chemicals like Sevin, DDT, Malathion and Roger which cause great harm to
honeybees and contaminate their products. Therefore, it is of paramount important to employ
integrated pest management techniques and use of lesser hazardous chemicals to control pests
and predators, increase soil fertility and agricultural productivity whilst enhancing forage
resources for bees and livestock.

52
In the study area, it was observed that, the knowledge of beekeeper regarding the damage
caused by poisonous bee plants on honeybees was comparatively very limited. Only, deaths
of field bees were reported under or around the suspected 'plants'. However, there is no
evidence whether plant products or pesticide applications poisoned the bees. Generally,
damage to colonies of bees from the poisonous nectar or pollen from plants may be severing
in one year and of little consequence another time (Robinson and Oertel, 1976).

4.10. Constraints and Opportunities of Beekeeping

As per the result of semi-structured interview supported with focus group discussions and
field observations held in each of the study kebeles, the major constraints that hindered the
performance of honey production in all districts were mentioned as pest and predators,
shortage of bee equipments, shortage of bee forage, high cost of modern hives, Absconding,
shortage of train man power, poor extension service, ran fall and pesticide and herbicide
application (Table 23).

Among these problems, incidence of pest and predators, shortage of bee equipments and
shortage of bee forage were ranked as first, second and third major honey production
problems in the study areas, respectively . In the highland area shortage of bee equipments,
pest and shortage of bee forage as the first ,second and the third major problems with
percentage of rank 28.7%,24.6% and 22.8%, respectively. Similarly the incidence of pest in
both midland and lowland areas ranks as first.

This study result, is in line with Kerealem et al (2009) who reported that shortage of bee
forage, agrochemical poisoning and honeybee pest which, were also reported as the major
beekeeping constraints in Amahra regional state. Similarly ( Nebiyu and Messele 2013) who
reported that lack of beekeeping equipment , shortage of bee colony , high cost of modern
hive , Pests and predators , lack of training , shortage of bee forage and absconding were
the major honeybee production constraints in Gomogofaa zone , SSNPR.

There is still huge potential to increase honey production and to improve the livelihood of the
beekeepers in the all districts, specially, in midland and lowland districts. Based on this, the
major opportunities for beekeeping include existence and abundance of honey bee colonies,
availability of potential flowering plants, ample sources of water for bees, beekeepers’,
experience and practices, marketing situation of bee products. Besides this, the existing

53
 natural base, the government has increased its attention to develop the apiculture subsector as
one of its strategies for poverty reduction and diversification of export commodities.

Recent initiatives taken by the public and private sectors as well as non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) are in the right direction towards improving the possibility of
exploiting the potential of the apiculture subsector, and increasing its overall competitiveness
through, introduction and promotion of modern hives in order to obtain honey of good quality
for industrial processing and export promotion. This opportunity will give a chance to get
support to alleviate major constraints hindering apiculture development in the area.

Table 23 Major constraints of honey production in the study areas

Study districts % Overall

Constraints Highland Midland Lowland

R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3

Pest 24.6 26.7 20.1 44. 12.8 18. 43.1 22.1 15 37.4 20. 18
7 9 5

Shortage of bee 9 20 22.8 15. 18.9 28 16.8 35.6 15.5 13.7 19. 21.1
forage 3 2

Cost of modern 11.2 7.4 12.9 12 10.2 15 11.2 10 20.1 11.4 9.2 16
hives

Shortage of bee 28.7 10.3 9 15. 32.5 20 22 19.7 22.1 18.2 24. 17
equipments 4 2

Absconding 9.8 11 9.2 4 13.4 4.3 1.2 1.5 8.5 5 8.6 7.3

Poor extension 4.1 6.8 10 2.2 5.8 4.4 1 1.8 8.6 2.4 4.5 7.6
service

Pesticide &herbicide 2.1 0 1.5 5.4 3.4 2.4 1.6 2.5 2.8 3 2.9 2.2

Shortage of training 4.4 8.6 10 1 2 4.5 3.1 6.8 7.4 2.8 5.8 7.3

Rain fall 6.1 9.2 4.5 0 1 2.5 0 0 0 6.1 5.1 3.5

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

54
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This study covered honey production practices and marketing system of rural households in
the three agro ecology area (highland, midland and lowland areas of Kembata Tembaro Zone.
Household survey, semi-structured interviews and field observations were used as a main tool
for data collection method. The data collected through survey was analysed by using SPSS.

Traditional hive was popular and out of the total sampled respondents, 75.9 %( 90.3%
highland, 75% midland and 71.9% lowland). Whereas, intermediate hives were 4.6 %( 2%
highland, 5.9% midland and 4.6% in lowland area).The number of modern hives were 19.3
%( 7.6% highland, 19% midland and 23.4% lowland).

Majority of the sampled respondent’s households, 84.5% keep their bee colonies at their
backyards and their main 76.7% source of bee colony to start and expand beekeeping
business was swarm caching. That shows, there was an availability of bee colony in the study
area. Assessment of gender indicated that majority 95.6% of the households interviewed
were, male beekeepers.

The overall average amount of honey harvested per hive per year from traditional,
intermediate and modern hive were 4.31 kg, 9.71kg and 17.8 Kg, respectively. There were
significant deference (P<0.001) among the three districts in honey yield/hive/year. The
highest in lowland for all types of the hives. Similarly, honey yield per house hold in the
study area significantly difference (P<0.001) among the three districts. The highest average
honey yield record per household in lowland (115.8kg/HH) area then flowed by midland
(71.85kg/HH) and highland area (14.10kg/HH), respectively. This suggests the presence of
better potential for beekeeping in lowland than highland and midland area. The mean
honeybee colony holding in the study areas were 7.91 per/HH. It is 10.88 in lowland which is
significantly (p<0.001) higher than midland (8.52) and highland (4.32) locations

In this survey, 56.7% of the household reported the occurrence of absconding while the rest
43.3% did not face the incidence. Agro-ecologically, more absconding honeybee colonies
occurred in highland (65%) than midland (48.3%) and low land districts 56.7%, respectively.

55
The reason could be associated with climatic conditions in highland area is too cold and the
honeybees cannot resist the cold weather.

The majority of the sampled respondents, 80% of them sold honey immediately after
harvesting. This, because of high demand for cash and lack of storage facilities. Based on the
result, beekeeper from highland (83.3%), midland (71.7%) and lowland (85%) districts sold
honey immediately after harvest. On the other hand, the remaining 20% of respondent’s
main reasons for on average for 1 month to 1 years, honey storage were expectations of
better prices (benefit from off-season) and beekeepers do keep some amount of honey for
home consumption and different purposes.

According to sampled respondents, (75.6%) of the total honey produced in 2013 production
year was supplied to the market and the rest 24.4% of honey used for different propose .Out
of this 18.3% of them used for household consumption or kept for medicinal purposes and
only 6.1% of them gift to the other person, respectively. In the study areas, different honey
marketing participants were identified. This includes producers/farmers, honey collectors,
retailers, Tej- houses and final consumers of the product.

The mean annual gross income earned in the study area were, 2,053.38 Birr per household
(Table.20).There was significantly different (p<0.001) among the three districts. The highest
in lowland (3648.6 Birr) then followed by, midland (2188.4 Birr) and highland 323 Birr area.
Similarly, the average price of crude honey and table honey in the study areas were, 29.5 and
51.2ETB per kg, respectively .There was significantly deference (p<0.001) among the three
districts. This difference is may be due to the quality of their product in relation to the way
they strained the honey and the physical appearance may be unattractive due to impurities.

Based on this study, the major constraints to exploit the untapped potential of beekeeping
activity in the district were pest ,shortage of beekeeping equipment (casting mold, honey
strainers, pure beeswax, honey extractors), shortage of bee forage ,high cost of modern hives,
absconding, poor extension service, agrochemical poisoning, inadequate accesses to training
and excessive rain fall. Furthermore, lack of capital to improved beekeeping technological
inputs, lack of honey storage facilities, poor extension service, lack of knowledge on
appropriate methods of beekeeping and lack of adequate number of trained experts in
apiculture were also the other important limiting factors in the study areas.

56
This survey has also revealed the existence of many opportunities and potentials for
beekeeping in the area. These opportunities and potentials includes: presence of experienced
beekeepers and ample honeybee colony in the area. The presence of unexploited resources,
i.e., huge water resources, diversified trees and shrubs spp., annual weeds spp. and cultivated
crops (horticultural crops, field crops (Pulses, oil crops), spice and stimulant plants), for
apicultural development. There is a growing demand for honey and beeswax both at local and
international markets. The presence of governmental and non-governmental organizations
that are involved in beekeeping activities and the recent involvement of micro finance
institutes to finance beekeeping packages are other opportunities. There is also a great
potential for diversification of hive products in the study area.

Based on the current finding, the following recommendations can be suggested:

-In order to address the skill gap on bee colony management(including pests and diseases
management, bee forage development, colony management, honey harvesting, extraction,
processing, etc) such that, practical oriented training should be given .

-To improve the low level of technological input utilization and capital shortage, credit
Provision needs to be facilitated to supply improved bee-hives, honey processing materials
and other beekeeping equipment.

In order to address the gap of shortage of bee forage there was extension service should be
given for the beekeeper to planting of indigenous bee forage around the back yard and
introducing improved bee forage in the study areas.

Further studies shall be under taken for confirming species diversity, structure and
composition of honey bee flora and poisonous plant to bees.

-The threat of chemical poisoning and the problem of pest and predators in the area should be
managed through awareness creation on readily available biological and/or scientifically
approved control and prevention methods.

-To improve the gap in extension service delivery and inadequate skills of extension agent in
the study area. Practical oriented training should be given.

- To exploit the existing opportunities and potentials of the district, more efforts should be put
to create awareness of people on beekeeping.

57
6. REFERENCE

Adebabay Kebede, Kerealem Ejigu, Tessema Aynalem and Abebe Jenberie (2008). Assessment of
the status of beekeeping in Amahra region. Amahra Regional Research institute, Bahirdar, Ethiopia.
PP. 32-35

Amssalu Bezabih, 1996. Preliminary study on honey plants around Holeta. Holeta Bee
Research and Training Centre, Holeta, Ethiopia.

Assemu Tesfa, Kerealem Ejigu and Adebabay Kebede (2013). Assessment of Current
Beekeeping Management Practice and Honey Bee Floras of Western Amahra, Ethiopia
pp.199-200

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.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0104e/t0104e00.ht

Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau (ARDB) .2010.Basic information and

Performance of Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau, SNNPR, Ethiopia.

Amir, P. and Hedrick C. Knipscheer, 1989.Conducting On-Farm Animal Research:

Procedures and Economic Analysis. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural
Development, U.S.A. and International Development Research Centre, Canada. Singapore
National Printers Ltd., Singapore. 244p.

Amssalu Bezabih (2006). Seasonal intensity of flowering and pollen-forage selectivity by

honeybees, Apismellifera bandasii in central highlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 14th
annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, September 5–7, 2006. Part II: Technical Papers. , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp
3-10.

58
Assefa Abebe, 2009. Mark ate Chan analysis of honey production: in Atsbi Wemberta
Districts of Eastern Zone of Tigray Region. MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate
Studies of Harmaya University. PP.45-46

Ayalew Kassaye, 1990. Beekeeping extension (Unpublished).Holeta Bee Research Center,

Holeta

Ayalew Kassaye (2001). Promotion of beekeeping in rural sector of Ethiopia: Proceedings of

the third National Annual Conference of Ethiopian Beekeepers Association

Ayalew Kassaye & Gezahegn, Tadesse (1991). Suitability Classification in Agricultural

Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Beyene Tadesse & David, P. (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,
Ethiopia.

Challa. Kinati, 2010 .Assessment of honey production system, marketing and quality in
Gomma district, south western Ethiopia.

Central Statistical Authority (CSA) (1995). Agricultural Sample Survey: Report on

Livestock, Poultry and Beehives Population, Vol. II, No 132, CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
p.28.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2007. Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia: Results
for Oromia Region, Vol. 1, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2008.Statistical Abstract 2007.CSA, Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia.

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

59
EARO 2000.Apiculture research strategy. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization,
Animal Science Research Directorate, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 45p

Edessa Negara, 2002. Survey on honey production system in West Shoa Zone (unpublished).
Holeta Bee Research Center (HBRC), Ethiopia. 15p.

Ethiopian Customs Authority and Export Promotion Agency (2006).Annual Report for the
year 2005.

Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute. 2001., Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Ethiopia Media, 2010. Ethiopia Press, Media, TV, Radio, Newspapers Press Reference » Co-Fa »
http://www.pressreference.com/Co-Fa/Ethiopia.html#ixzz18yrMMnOo Accessed on Dec 25,
2010.

FAOSTAT 2012. Food and Agricultural Commodities Production. Online. http://faostat.fao.

org/site/339/default.aspx (Accessed September 28, 2012).

Fichtl, R. and Admasu Addi, 1994. Honeybee Flora of Ethiopia. Margraf Verlag, Germany.

Gezahegn Tadesse. 1996. Zooming in on Ethiopia. The journal for sustainable beekeeping:
Beekeeping and Development, 40:11

GDS, 2009(Global Development Solution). Integrated Value Chain Analyses for Honey and
Beeswax Production in Ethiopia and Prospects for Exports. Global Development Solutions,
LLC, 11921 Freedom Drive Suite 550 Reston, VA 20190.Pp.72.

Gezahegn Tadesse, 2001a. Marketing of honey and beeswax in Ethiopia: past, present and
perspective features. In: Proceedings of the third National Annual Conference of the Ethiopian
Beekeepers Association (EBA), September 3-4, 2001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 78-88.

Gezahegn Tadesse, 2001. Marketing of honey and beeswax in Ethiopia: past, present and
perspective futures; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. p 78-88.

60
Gezahegn Tadesse. 2001b. Marketing of honey and beeswax in Ethiopia: past, present and
perspective features: Proceedings of the third National Annual Conference of the Ethiopian
Beekeepers Association (EBA), September 3-4, 2001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 78-88

Gidey and Mekonen, T.2010. Participatory Technology and Constraints Assessment to

Improve the Livelihood of Beekeepers in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia. MEJS 2(1):76-
92.
Haftom, G and Tesfay, B 2012 .Determineing suitable size of stem cutting for
propagating Becium grandflorum. Livestock Research for Rural Development,Volume 24,
Article #175. Retrieved from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/10/haft24175.htm

Hartmann, I., 2004.The Management of Resources and Marginalization in Beekeeping

Societies of South West Ethiopia. Paper Submitted to the Conference: Bridge
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5110e/y5110e0b.htm#TopOfPage

HBRC. 1997. (Holeta Bee Research Centre). Beekeeping Training Manual (unpublished),
HBRC, Holeta, Ethiopia.

Kerealem Ejigu, Nuru Adgaba and Wagayehu Bekele, 2006. Honeybee production systems,
opportunities and challenges in Amaro special District and EnebseSar Medir District.
Proceedings of 1st Research Review Workshop of Agri Service Ethiopia, 27-29 June 2005,Addis
Ababa Ethiopia .pp 65-185.

Kebede Tesfay and Lemma Tesfay, 2007. Study of honey production systems in AdamiTulu Jido
Kombolcha district in mid rift valley of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development
.Volume 19, Article # 11. Retrieved August 20, 2011 from

Kerealem Ejigu, Tilahun Gebey and T. R. Preston, 2009. Constraints and prospects for
Apiculture Research and Development in Amahra region, Ethiopia. Retrieved August 30,
2011 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/10/cont2110htm.

Mammo Gebreyesus, 1976. Practical aspects of bee management in Ethiopia. Proceeding of

the first international conference on apiculture in tropical climates, London UK, pp 69-78.

61
Mato, I; Huidobro,J.F, J.F.; Sanchaze, M.P.; Muniategui, S.; Fernandez-Muino, M.A.;
Sancho,M.T., 1997. Enzymatic determination of total D-gluconic acid in honeys. Agric. Food
Chem.1997, 47, 3550-3553

Mendoza, G., 1995. A primer on marketing channels and margins. P257-275.In G.J. Scott
(Ends). Prices, Products, and people; Analyzing Agricultural markets in Developing
Countries. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, London

MoARD. 2003. Honey and Beeswax marketing and development. In: Development MoAaR,
Editor. Plan 2003. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Ministry of Agriculture and Aural Development (MOARD) (2005/06).Honey and Beeswax,

Development and Marketing Plan.(Amharic).Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), 2007. Livestock Development Master
Plan Study Phase I Report – Data Collection And Analysis Volume N – Apiculture, Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Nicola, B. 2002.Taking the sting out of beekeeping. Arid Lands Information Network-East
Africa (CD-Rom).Nairobi, Kenya

Nuru Adgaba. 2007. Atlas of Pollen Grains of major honeybee flora of Ethiopia. Holeta,
Ethiopia: Holeta Bee Research Centre.

Nebyu.Yemane and Messele Taye, 2013.Honeybee production in the three Agro-ecological

districts of Gamo Gofa zone of southern Ethiopia with emphasis on constraints and
opportunities

Palaniswamy S., 2004. Apiculture - A viable component in Integrated Farming System.

Unpublished document, Centre for Advanced studies in Entomology, Department of
Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore - 641 003. Pp. 1

SPSS (Statistical Packages for Social Science). Programming and Data Management: A
Guide for SPSS and SAS Users, Fourth Edition (2007), SPSS Inc., Chicago Ill.

62
Tessega Belie 2009. Honeybee Production and Marketing Systems, Constraints and
Opportunities In Burie District of Amahra Region, Ethiopia. Ethiopia. MSc Thesis Presented
to the School of Graduate Studies of Bahir Dar University. Pp.131.

Tewodros Alemu, 2010. Assessment of Honeybee Production Practices and Honey Quality in
Sekota Woreda of Waghimra Zone, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate
Studies of Harmaya University.Pp.122.

SC-UK., 2006.Improving Honey Production and Marketing in Sekota District Compiled for
Save the Children UK (SC-UK) by Support Integrated Development (SID) consult, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

SOS–Sahel-Ethiopia, 2006. Smallholders Apiculture Development and Trade Promotion

Project Terminal Report (Submitted to the ANRS Food Security Program Coordination and
Disaster Prevention Office), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Solomon Bog ale, 2009. Indigenous knowledge and its relevance for sustainable beekeeping
development: a case study in the Highlands of Southeast Ethiopia.

Tewodros Alemu, 2010. Assessment of Honeybee Production Practices and Honey Quality in
Sekota Woreda of Waghimra Zone, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate
Studies of Harmaya University.Pp.122.

Vivian, J. 1985. Keeping Bees. Williamson Publishing Co., Charlotte, U.S.A.

Wilson R. T. (2006). Current Status and Possibilities for Improvement of Traditional

Apiculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Vol 18,
No.111. Bartridge House, Umberleigh, UK

Workneh Abebe and Ranjitha P (2011). Beekeeping subsector challenges and constraints in
Atsbi Wemberta District of eastern zone, Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development Vol. 3(1), pp. 8-12. ISSN- 2141 -215

63
Workneh Abebe, Sebisibe Zuber and Enani Bashawurad (2007). Documentation of
indigenous knowledge for the development of improved beekeeping practices. Holeta
Ethiopia.

64
 7. APPENDICE

7.1. APPENDIX 1. ANOVA AND OTHER TABLES

Appendix Table 1 ANOVA test on family size per household among the study areas

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 73.378 2 36.689 8.3636 ***

Errors 776.267 177 4.386

Total 849.644 179

SS= Sum of Squares, MS= Mean Square, DF= Degree of freedom, Sig = Significant value
***P<0.001

Appendix Table 2 ANOVA test on land holding of the respondent’s household

Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 8.541 2 4.271 33.591 *
Errors 22.504 177 0.127
Total 31.045 179

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value;* P<0.05

Appendix Table 3 ANOVA test on the numbers of traditional hives holding/HH.

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 1000.670 2 500.335 9.714 ***
Error 8241.171 160 51.507
Total 9241.840 162

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value***
P<0.001; HH=Household

65
Appendix Table 4 ANOVA tests on the numbers of intimidate hive holding/HH.

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 1.143 2 0.571 0.186 ns
Error 88.857 29 3.064
Total 90.000

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, ns =non-significant

difference
Appendix Table 5 ANOVA test on the numbers of movable hives holding /HH

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 88.948 2 44.474 6.877 **
Error 530.300 82 6.467
Total 619.247 84

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant
value**P<0.01; HH=Household
Appendix Table 6 ANOVA tests on the experiences of beekeeping by the responds.

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 4424.744 2 222.372 35.591 0.000
Error 11002.500 177 62.161
Total 15427.244

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value***
P<0.001
Appendix Table 7 ANOVA test on honey yield from traditional hives (Kg)/hive/HH

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 209.214 2 104.607 31.980 0.000
Error 523.363 160 3.271
Total 732.577 162

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value***
P<0.001; HH=Household

66
Appendix Table 8 ANOVA test on honey yield from intermediate hives (kg)/hive/hh in the
study areas

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 204.029 2 102.220 5.964 **
Error 497.029 29 17.139
Total 701.469

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant
value**P<0.01; HH=Household
Appendix Table 9 ANOVA test on honey yield from modern hives (kg)/hive /hh.

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 940.988 2 470.494 19.478 ***
Error 1980.706 82 24.155
Total 2921.694 84

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value***
P<0.001; HH=Household
Appendix Table 10 ANOVA test on honey yield from all hives (kg)/hh.

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 312191.100 2 156095.550 27.843 ***
Error 992306.650 178 5574.756
Total 1304497.750 180

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value***
P<0.001; HH=Household
Appendix Table 11 ANOVA tests on numbers of bee colony holding /HH

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 1327.244 2 663.622 14.522 ***
Error 8134.150 178 45.697
Total 9461.394 180

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value***
P<0.001

67
Appendix Table 12 ANOVA tests on average annual income earned (birr) form sealing of
honey /hh.

Source of vibration SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 333419005.4 2 2166709502.7 26.439 ***
Error 1122328702 178 6305217.122
Total 1455747707 180

SS= Sum of squares, DF= Degree of freedom, MS =Mean square, Sig = Significant value***
P<0.001; HH=Household

Appendix Table 13 Major bee forage plants and their flowering period in kembata tembaro
zone.

Shrubs
Scientific name Common name Agro ecology Flowerings time
1 Dovyalis abyssinica Koshim Mid/Highland March – June
2 Entadaabyssinica Kontir Mid /High land August –October
3 Millettia ferruginee Birbera Mid /High land January- April
4 Rubu sspp Enjori Mid /High land March – June
5 Sesbania sesban Sesbania Mid land August –October
6 Syzygium guineense Dokima High/Mid land April – June

Herbs
7 Echinope ssp Kosheshila Mid land March – April
8 Bidens sp. Adeyabeba Mid/High land August-Oct
9 Guizotia scabra Mech Mid/High land August –Dec
10 Negetaa zurea Dama-kesi Mid /High land January – Dec.
11 Ocimum basilicum Besobila Mid/High land August-Dec
12 Thymus schimperi Tosign Mid/High land July – Sep.
13 Trifoliumsteudneri/acaule Maget Mid/High land August Dec
14 Pinunus communius Gulo Mid/Lowland December
15 Scheffera abyssinica Gutum Mid/Highland March-May
16 Solanecoangelatus Harege Mid/Lowland January-March

68
17 Hygorophiliaauriculata Amekela Lowland Nov-December
Crop
18 Allium cepa Shenkurt Mid/High May –June
19 Brassica carinata Gomenzer Mid/High land Sept.-October
20 Carica papaya Papaya Mid land Aug-Oct
21 Cicerarietium Shumbura Mid land October-Nov.
22 Coffeaarabica coffee Mid /High land March-April.
23 Guizotiaabyssinica Nuge Mid/High Sep.-October
24 Phaseolusvulgarisl. Boleke Mid /lowland August – Sep.
25 Pisum sativum Pea/Ater Mid/High Sept.-Oct
26 Solanum tubersum Potato Mid/High May-June
27 Viciafaba Bakela Mid/High land August – Sep.
Fruit
28 Perseaamerican Abokato Mid land Jan- Mar.
29 Mangiferaindica Mango Mid land Jan-Mar.
30 Mus x paradisiaca Muze Lowland Year round
Tree
31 Corotonmacrostachy Bisana March –June Midland
32 Cordiaafrica Wanza Augus-Nov Mid land
33 Acacia species Girar March – July High/Mid
34 Acacia saligna Saligna Mid /High land August-Oct
35 Eucalyptus camadulensis Qeyibarzaf Mid land March –June
36 Eucalyptus globules Nechbarzaf High land March –June
37 Grevillearobusta Grevillea Mid /High land August-Nov
38 Hageniaabysica Kosso High land Oct.- Nov.
39 Jacaranda mimosifolia yetebemenjazaf Mid land Jan – Mar

69
 Appendix 3

8. QUESTIONNAIRES

1. Questionnaire Used for the Study

I.General Information from Household

I. General Information

1.1. Name of Enumerator _____________________ 1.2. Date of interview____________

1.3. Kebele ______________________ 1.4. Village (Gote) ________________________

1.5. Altitude of the PA____________1.6. Total Population of the PA_______ (M__F___)

1.7. No. of Households in a PA__________1.8. No. of beekeepers in PA ______ (M_F__)

II. Household Characteristics

1. Name of house hold head_____________________

2. Sex: 1. Male 2. Female

3. Age (yrs): _____

4. Religion of household 1. Orthodox 2.Muslim 3.Protestant 4. Catholic

Other, specify

5. Education: 1. Illiterate 2.Ku’ran 3. Reading and Writing 4. 1-8 grade 5. 9-12 grade

6. Marital status: 1. Married 2. Single 3.Widowed 4.Divorced 5. Polygamous

7. Family size Total_____ Male______ Female_______

8. No of children ________Other family member _______

V. Credit Sources and Availability

15. Do you ever-obtained credit for your farming operations? 1. Yes ___ 2. No_____

16. If yes, for what purposes you get credit? ____________________________

17. Who are / were your sources of credits? (Circle one or more).

70
1. Micro finance institutions (name it): _____________________________

2. Service cooperatives 5. Relatives

3. Ministry of Agriculture 6. Individual lenders

4. NGO 7. Others, specify: _____________________

18. Do you receive credits for your farming activities during this cropping season?

1. Yes __________ 2. No __________

19. If yes, for what activities you are using the credit? _________________

20. .if you received credit for beekeeping during the last five years indicate amount and
purpose

Year Amount Purpose*

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

* Purpose: 1. To buy Frame hive 2. To buy Top bar hive 3. To buy transitional
hive 4.To buy Bee colony 5. Other specify______________________

21. Do capital/ cash or credit is limiting to use improved beekeeping technologies?

1.Yes___ 2. No___4.3.1. If yes, for what activities you are using the credit?
____________________

22. What are the major problems you face to get input on credit?

22.1. Inaccessibility of credit agents 1. Yes __________ 2. No ___________

22.2. Debit collection problem 1. Yes __________ 2. No ___________

22 .3. High interest rate 1. Yes __________ 2. No ___________

71
22.4. Unavailability of credit 1. Yes __________ 2. No ___________

22.5. Others, specify: _____________________________________________

A. Beekeeping Activities and Potentials

23. Honeybee ownership

23.1. Do you keep honeybees? 1. Yes _______ 2. No________

23.2. If yes, when did you start beekeeping? _____________year (s).

23.3. How you start beekeeping? Source of bees and type of technologies used for the
1sttime.

No Movable-
Sources Quantity Traditional Intermediate
frame

1 Gift from parents

2 Catching swarms

3 Buying

Trained

5 Interest

6 NGOS

7 Governments

23.4. If the answer for question 23.3 is buying, does the bee colony sale in yourlocality? 1.
Yes _________ 2. No__________

23.5. If yes, what is the price of one colony? _____________ ETB

72
23.6. How many honeybee colonies you owned?

Traditional Intermediate Movable-frame

No Years
No Produce* No Produce* No Produce*
1 2010
2 2011
3 2012
4 2013
*Total production of honey (kilograms)

24. Where did you keep your bee colonies?

Movable-
No Site or placement of hive Traditional Intermediate
frame

1 Backyard

2 Under the eaves of the house

3 Inside the house

Hanging on trees near

4
homestead

5 Hanging on trees in forests

6 Others (specify)

25. For how many years your colony remains or stays in the hive?

1. Traditional: Minimum ______year (s) Maximum ______years

2. Intermediate: Minimum ______year (s) Maximum ______years

3. Movable-frame: Minimum ______year (s) Maximum ______years

26. Do you have empty beehives? 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

73
27. If yes, list the number of empty hives you have.

No Types of beehives Numbers Reasons (use causes in question 5.1.10.2)

1 Traditional

2 Intermediate

3 Movable-frame

28. What is the trend of your colony number and honey yield (in question 27)?

No Types of beehives No harvest Increasing Stable Decreasing

1 Traditional

2 Intermediate

3 Movable-frame

29. If there is an increase in trend in number of bee colonies and honey yield over the years,
what are the causes?

29.1. Good market price 1. Yes ________ 2. No__________

29.2. Added more bee colonies 1. Yes _____ 2. No________

29.3. Use of new technologies 1. Yes _________ 2. No_____

29.4. Others (specify) ___________________________

30. If there is a decrease in trend in the number of bee colonies and honey yields over the
year, what are the causes in order of importance?

Season of
No Causes Measures taken
Rank occurrence

1 Lack of bee forage

74
2 Lack of water

3 Drought (lack of rainfall)

4 Migration

5 Absconding

6 Pests and predators

7 Diseases

Pesticides and herbicides

8
application

9 Death of colony

10 Decrease in price of honey

11 Increased cost of production

12 Luck of credit

13 Others (specify)

31. Did your colonies abscond? 1. Yes______ 2. No_______

32. What are the reasons for bees absconding hive? ______________

33. If drought is a problem how is its frequency of occurrence? Every____year(s)

34. What are the major pests and predators found in the area that threat your

colonies? List in order of importance.

season they
damage bees
No Pest /Predators Rank Local control methods
and/or bee
products
1 Ants

75
2 Wax moth
3 Bee lice
4 Beetles
5 Spiders
6 Wasps
7 Prey mantis
8 Toads
9 Lizard
10 Snake
11 Monkey
12 Birds
13 Hama got /Shelemetmat/
14 Others (specify)
*Preventive measures 1. No measure 2. Use of insecticides 3.Killing the pests using fire 4.

Cleaning the apiary 5.Use of smooth iron sheet on the hive stand 6. Tin filled with used
engine oil 7. Use mud and ash at hive stand 8. Others (specify)

35. Do you observe any honeybee diseases in your apiary? 1. Yes____ 2.No____

36. If yes, what are the diseases you observed?

Stages of bee affected Incidence Local

Local
No period control
name Adult Symptoms Brood Symptoms
measure/s

37. In which hives your colonies do more likely affected by the diseases?

76
 37.1. Traditional 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

37.2. Intermediate 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

37.3. Movable-frame 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

38. Do you use agrochemicals/chemicals in your locality? 1. Yes __ 2. No___

39. If yes, why do you apply agrochemicals/chemicals?

1. Crop pests control 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

2. Weeds control 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. Malaria control 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

4. Tsetse fly control 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

5. Others (specify): _____________________________________

40. When do you use agrochemicals/chemicals (months)? ________

41. What type of agrochemicals/chemicals are farmers using? _____

__________________________________________________

42. Do agrochemicals/chemicals affect your honeybees? 1. Yes __ 2. No__

43. If yes, how many colonies did you lost due to chemicals? ________When?

(Year and months):_______________________________

44. What is the estimated honey you lose? _____kg..

45. What will be the estimated price? ______ETB

46. What measures do you take to protect your bee colonies from agrochemicals?

/chemicals?
__________________________________________________________________

77
47. What are the sources and costs of the beehives you used?

Movable-
No Items Traditional Intermediate
frame

1 Constructed by himself/herself

2 Constructed locally and bought

3 Bought from market

4 Supplied by governments

On credit basis

Free of charge

5 Supplied by NGO's

On credit basis

Free of charge

6 Price of one hive (ETB)

7 Service time (years)

48. List the types of traditional beehives you used.

No Types of materials made Shape Length Diameter

49. Have you practiced honey hunting? 1. Yes ________ 2. No ________

78
 44.1. If yes, in which month (s) and year (s)? _______________________

B. Vegetation, honey plants and water availability

45. What are the major honeybee floras in your area? List in terms of priority?

Local/ Type of the plant Source Other uses

Common Flowering (nectar,
No (Tree, shrub, time 1. feed
name of the pollen,
herb, cultivated (months)
plant propolis) 2. medicine
crop)

46. Is there honeybee Feed shortage? 1. Yes_____ 2. No_____

47. If your answer for question is yes, in which month(s) of the year it occurs? _________

48. Do you give additional feeds to your bees? 1. Yes 2. No

49. If your answer for question is yes, when do you give additional feeds to your bees___?

50. If your answer for question is No, why? --------------------------------------------

51. What type of feed do you give to your bees?

1. Honey 2. Pea flour 3. Sugar syrup 4. Chick pea flour 5. Barley flour

6. Hot pepper 7.Others (specify)

52. Do you plant bee forage? 1. Yes ____ 2. No.___

79
53. If yes, please list the name of the plants and Total in ha (number of seedling)

No Name of plant Total area(ha) Number of seedling

54. Is there any poisonous plant to bees in your area? 1. Yes_____ 2. No. ___

55. If yes, mentioned these poisonous plants and their flowering time.

Type of the plant Source Effects on

Local/ Common Flowering
(nectar,
No name of the time
(Tree, shrub, herb, pollen, 1. bees
plant (months)
cultivated crop) propolis) 2. human

56. Does water available for your honeybees at all the time? 1. Yes___ 2. No__

57. If yes, where do your honeybees get water? (Circle one or more)

1. Streams 2.Rivers 3. Lakes 4. Ponds 5. Water harvesting structures

6. Others: specify________________________________

80
58. If your response is no, how do you provide water to your bee
colonies?_________________________________________________________

C. Beekeeping equipment’s and protective materials

59. Which of the following beekeeping equipment and protective materials you have or
available to you when ever required?

Price (ETB) Servic

Donate
Locally Provide on e
Home d by rrent purc
No Materials made and credit period
made GO or hase
purchased (purchased) (years
NGO's
)

1 Smoker

2 Veil

3 Gloves

4 Overall

5 Boots

6 Water
sprayer

7 Bee brush

Queen
8
catcher

Queen
9
excluder

10 Chisel

11 Knife

12 Embeder

81
13 Frame wire

14 Honey
presser

Beeswax
15
(pure)

Casting
16
mold

Uncapping
17
fork

Honey
18
extractor

19 Honey
strainer

Honey
20
container

Others

60. What are the smoking materials you are using? (Rank) Dry grass, straw, cow dung

Rank: 1st _________ 2nd ________ 3rd_______ 4th________

D. Management and Honey harvesting

61. Do you visit and inspect your beehives and colonies? 1. Yes___2. No_____

62. If yes, which type of inspection you perform?

62.1. External hive inspection 1. Yes _____ 2. No______

62.2. Internal hive inspection 1. Yes _____ 2. No______

63. Frequency of inspection

82
63.1. External hive inspection: (circle one or more)

1. Frequently 2. Sometimes 3. Rarely

63.2. Internal hive inspection: (circle one or more)

1. Frequently 2 .Sometimes 3. Rarely

64. If no inspection, what is the reason? _______________________

65. Do you clean your apiary? 1. Yes 2. No

If no why? ___________________________________

66. When the following major activities occur in your locality?

Season(s) of occurrence

Major activities September December to March June

to February to May to
No November August

1 Brood rearing period

2 Colony Swarming

3 Colony Migration

4 Colony Absconding

5 Honey flow season

6 Honey harvesting time

7 Dearth period

67. Does swarming occur in your colonies or locality? 1. Yes_2.No__

68. If your response is yes, what is the frequency?

1. Every season 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

83
 2. Every year 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. Once in two years 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

4. Others, specify: _______________________________

69. When does swarming occur more frequently? (Months)

From_________________ to __________________

70. Is swarming advantageous to you? 1. Yes _____ 2. No________

71...If yes, describe the reason(s)

1. To increase my number of colony 1. Yes_____ 2. No___

2. to sale and get income 1. Yes _________ 2.No__________

3. To replace non-productive bee colonies 1.Yes___2.No__

4. Others specify: _________________________________

72. Do you control / prevent/ swarming? 1. Yes_______ 2. No_____

73.1. What methods do you use to control / prevent/ swarming?

1. Removal of queen cells 1.Yes _________ 2. No__________

2. Harvest or cut honey combs 1.Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. Return back to the colony 1.Yes _________ 2. No__________

4. Supering 1.Yes _________ 2. No__________

5. Using large volume hive 1.Yes _________ 2. No__________

6. Others, specify: _____________________________________

74. Do you have swarms catching experience? 1. Yes ______2. No____

74.1 If yes, do you use swarm attractant materials? 1. Yes__2.No_

84
74.2 If your response in question 74.1 is yes, describe what types of attractants and methods
of application you use (rank them).

No Attractant materials Sources Methods of application

75. How many swarms do you catch in this production year? _______

76. What kind of beehive products you produce?

No Products Traditional Intermediate Movable-frame Honey hunting

1 Honey

2 Crude beeswax

3 Propolis

4 Others, specify

77. List the amount of your beehive products and frequency of harvest per annum.

Types of Honey production Crude beeswax Propolis

No beehives
Kg/hive Frequency Kg/hive Frequency Kg/hive Frequency

1 Traditional

2 Intermediate

Movable-
3
frame

85
4 Honey hunting

78. While harvesting does you remove all honeycombs? 1. Yes _____ 2. No___

79. Do you harvest all brood combs? 1. Yes _____ 2. No______

79.1If no how much honey /no of combs/ left? _______

80. While harvesting does your bee colony evacuate? 1. Yes _____ 2. No____

81. List the home use of honey.

1. as a food 1. Yes _________ 2. No_________

2. as a medicine 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. for beverages 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

4. for cultural and ritual ceremonies 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________ 5.others

82. If you collect crude beeswax list the sources.

1. Empty honeycomb during harvesting 1. Yes _______ 2. No__________

2. Discarded, old and broken combs 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. Uncapping and spout beeswax 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

4. From colony absconding hives 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

5. after home utilization of honey 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

6. Others, specify ____________________________________________

83. Why you are collecting crude beeswax?

1. For income generation 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

2. Candle making 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. Foundation sheet making 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

4. Religious and cultural use 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

86
5. Others, specify:_________________________________________

84. If you don’t collect/produce beeswax what is (are) the reason (s)?

1. Lack of market 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

2. Lack of knowledge 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. Lack of processing skills 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

4. Lack of processing materials 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

5. Others specify: ___________________________________________

85. Do you collect propolis? 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

85.1 If yes, for what purpose you are using the propolis?

1. For sale (marketing) 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

2. as a medicine to treat diseases 1. Yes _________ 2. No_______

3. Others specify: ______________________________________

86. If your response is no, what is (are) the reason (s)?

1. Lack of market 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

2. Lack of knowledge 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

3. Others specify: ___________________________________________

87. Describe the utilizations of your beehive products.

Types of Total Percentage of product utilized of

products %
Wages in
HH* consumption Sale Gift Others
No kind

1 Honey

2 Beeswax

87
3 Propolis

*Household

88 .Did they use beeswax 1) yes 2) no

88.1 If yes for what purpose? ..................................................................

E. Post-Harvest Management

89. Do you strain your honey? 1. Yes _________ 2. No__________

89.1. If yes, what materials do you use for straining?

1. Honey extractor 2. Honey presser 3. Cloth 4. Sieve 5. Decantation

6. Using hand

90. If you strain, what is the advantage and price of 1 kg strained honey?

91.1. Advantage: ____________________________________

91.2. Price of 1 kg strained honey: ________ETB

91. If you don’t strain your honey why? (Circle one or more).

1. Lack of materials

2. Lack of knowledge how to strain

3. Consumer do not prefer strained honey

4. The amount of honey will be reduced if strained

5. Others specify: _______________________________

92. For how long do you store your honey? (Circle one or more).

1. I don’t store, I will sale / it will be consumed during harvesting

2. One to six months 3. Seven to twelve months

4. One year to two years 5. More than two years

93. for what reason do you store honey? __________________________________

88
 94. What is the maximum storage year of your honey? _________Years.

95. List the container you have been used to store your honey, price, service years

and problems you have been encounter.

Price Service Problems observed by using

No Types of container used
(Birr) (years) it

1 Gourd /kele/

2 Earthen pots

3 Tin /silver metal/

4 Plastic container

5 Animal skin and hide

6 Others (specify)

96. If your honey is crystallized, did you change it to viscous honey? 1. Yes __ 2. No___

97. If yes, what methods do you use? (Put circle)

1. Direct heating using fire 2. Putting in a boiled water bath 3. Using sunlight

4. Others, specify:____________________________________________

F. Marketing Condition

98. Do you sale your honey? 1. Yes 2. No

99. What is the annual income from sale of hive products?

Types of Unit price Total price When do you

No Quantity
produce (Birr) (Birr) sell**

1 Honey

2 Crude beeswax

89
3 Propolis

4 Bee colonies

**1. At harvesting 2. -------- Month after harvesting

100. What are the factors that govern the price of the honey in your locality?

1. Seasons of the year 2. Colors and taste of the honey

3. Distance from market 4. Traditional ceremonies 5. Others (specify):

101. During this harvesting season what is the price of 1 kg of honey?

Price of honey (Birr/kg) produced from:

No Color of honey Traditional Intermediate Movable-frame hive

hive hive

1 White

2 Yellow

3 Red

4 Brown

5 Mixed

102. Who are your customers?

1. ‘Tej’ houses 2. Middlemen 3.Retailers 4.Wholesalers 5. Consumers

6. Beekeepers co-operative 7. Others /specify/ ______________________

103. How do you evaluate the local market price? 1. High___2. Medium___3. Low___

104. How is the price trend of honey in your locality?

No Price trend Reasons

90
1 Increasing

2 Stable

3 Decreasing

105. How did you fix the price of honey?

1. Consideration labor and other cost incurred 2. Market force (supply and demand)

3. Color of honey 4. Table honey and crude honey 5. Customs and Traditional ceremonies

6. Others (specify_____________

106. Where is your major sell place? (More than one answer is possible)

1. In your home 2. Nearby market place 3. Major honey market place 4. Beekeepers
cooperatives 5. Other (specify)________

107. What is the demand of honey in the market?

1. Very high 2. High 3. Medium 4. Low 5. Very low

108. What is the supply of honey in the market?

1. Excess 2. Enough 3. Not enough

109. Which honey is more wanted in the market?

1. Pure extracted honey from box hives 2. Pure strained honey from KTBH

3. Crude honey from KTBH 4. Crude honey from traditional

110. Do people adulterate honey? 1. Yes___ 2. No ____

111. What sort of additives do people use to adulterate honey? _______________________

112. Does beekeeping profitable to the area? 1. Yes _____ 2. No______

91
G. Constraints of beekeeping

113. What are the major constraints of beekeeping in the area? (Rank them)

No Constraints Rank What measures will be taken?

1 Bee hives

2 Beekeeping equipment’s / materials

3 Honeybee colony

4 Shortage of bee forage

5 Shortage of water

6 Drought (lack of rainfall)

7 Absconding

8 Pests and predators

9 Diseases

10 High temperature

11 High wind

12 High rainfall

13 Pesticides and herbicides application

14 Death of colony

15 Migration

16 Swarming

17 Storage facilities

18 Marketing

19 Others (specify)

92
H. Beekeeping extension

114. Do you have contact with extension agent? 1. Yes_____ 2. No_____

114.1. If yes, how many times do you contact per month? ________per month

115. Who assisted you in improving your beekeeping production activities? Show in rank and
type of assistance provided. (Circle the response(s))

1.Agricultural and Rural development___ 2. Non-Governmental Organization

3. Research Center 4.Neighbour___ 5.Relatives__ 6. Others specify _________

116. Which extension media helped you most to learn about beekeeping? (Circle the
response(s))

1. Extension agent 2. Radio 3. Field day 4. Television 5. Printing materials

6. Co-farmers

117. Did you ever get beekeeping training? 1. Yes ______ 2. No______

118. If yes, from where did you got the training? (Circle the response(s))

1.Researchcentres 2. Agricultural and rural development

3. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) 4. Any other (specify)_________

119. If yes, on what area did you get training? (Circle the response(s))

1. Colony multiplication 2. Bee management 3. Hive products 4. Marketing

5. Any other (specify) _________

120. If yes, did you find the training useful? 1. Yes ______ 2. No______

121. What changes in the training would have made it more useful? (Circle the response(s))

1. Understanding effective way of using beekeeping technologies

2. Understanding improved beekeeping management (feeding, inspecting, supering)

3. Any other (specify)___________

93
 123. If yes, can you apply the training practically? 1. Yes ______ 2. No______

122. If no, what was wrong with the training?

1. It focuses only on theory 2. The training duration is too short 3.Lack of experienced
trainer 4. It was not based on my need 5. Any other (specify) ________

125. If your response for question 120 is no, do you need beekeeping training?

1. Yes ___ 2. No____

Compiler Name: _______________________________

Signature: _____________________

Date: _____________________

Duration: Starting time ______________ Ending time--------------------

94