The Contribution of Honey Production to Income of Rural Households: the Case of Dangila Woreda, Ethiopia

DSpace Institution DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

Geography and Environmental Studies Thesis and Dissertations

2021-02-10 THE CONTRIBUTION OF HONEY PRODUCTION TO INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF DANGILA WOREDA, ETHIOPIA

BIRLEW MELKIE http://ir.bdu.edu.et/handle/123456789/11873 Downloaded from DSpace Repository, DSpace Institution's institutional repository

BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

THE CONTRIBUTION OF HONEY PRODUCTION TO INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF DANGILA WOREDA, ETHIOPIA

BY:

BIRLEW MELKIE DERSOLIGN

AUGUST 2019

BAHIR DAR, ETHIOPIA

THE CONTRIBUTION OF HONEY PRODUCTION TO INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS: THE CASE OF DANGILA WOREDA, ETHIOPIA

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ART IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

BY:

BIRLEW MELKIE DERSOLIGN

ADVISOR:

MEHRETIE BELAY (PhD)

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

AUGUST 2019

BAHIR DAR, ETHIOPIA

DECLARATION

First, I declare that this thesis is my real work and that all sources of materials used for the thesis have been properly acknowledged. I seriously declare that this thesis has never been presented to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate.

Name: - Birlew Melkie Dersolign

Signature ______Date______

BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

FACULITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

As thesis advisor, I have read and evaluated this thesis is prepared under my guidance by Birlew Melkie Dersolign, entitled “The Contribution of Honey Production on Rural Households’ Income: The Case of Dangila Woreda, Ethiopia”. I recommend that it can be submitted as fulfillment of the thesis requirement.

______

Advisor Signature Date

Examiners’ Approval Sheet

As a member of board of examiners of the M.A. thesis open defense examination, we certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Birlew Melkie Dersolign entitled “The Contribution of Honey Production on Rural Households Income: The case of Dangila Woreda, Ethiopia” and examined the candidate. We recommended that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Art in Geography and Environmental Studies.

______

Chairman Signature Date

______

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______

External Examiner Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank the Almighty GOD for His endless protection and adoration. Next to GOD a number of people have contributed to the completion of this thesis without them its completion would not have been possible.

I am highly grateful to my Adviser Dr. Mehretie Belay for his invaluable advice and guidance, positive and attractive approach throughout the thesis work. I sincerely thank him for his advice and guidance in all areas of this thesis, from reviewing the original proposal, editing the survey questionnaires, and reading and commenting on the draft submitted thesis. Next to my advisor, I want to express my best thanks to Dangila Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office workers who provided me all the information that I need openly. Thank you very much indeed.

I am very thankful to my father Melkie Dersolign, my mother Tiruye Dessalew and all my sisters and brothers for the encouragement and support you gave me financially and morally. Thank you so much indeed. My deepest gratitude also extends to Wolela Asaye and Destayehu Adela for your contribution in caring mine baby daughter.

I would like to thank heartily all my close friends Biralgash Agazhe and Abere Simachew who stood by me in providing their personal computer; the Addis Kidam General Secondary and Preparatory School director and vice-directors for their support in printing and copying of working papers from the start up to the final submit thank you very much indeed for all other supports.

Dr. Mesfin Anteneh, no word can express my feeling for what you were supporting me in my third and fourth year University registration problems after my withdrawal and academic termination due to official transcript case, hope you GOD will give you the return! Thank you very much.

Finally, I am grateful to all people, who are many to mention here, for their cooperation and time in providing me with valuable information, material, technical and moral support.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... ix ABSTRACT ...... x CHAPTER ONE ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ...... 3 1.3. Objectives of the Study ...... 5 1.3.1 General Objective ...... 5 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ...... 5 1.4 Research Questions ...... 5 1.5. Scope of the Study...... 5 1.7. Significance of the Study ...... 6 1.8 Organization of the Study ...... 6 1.9 Definition of Terminologies ...... 7 CHAPTER TWO ...... 8 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 8 2.1 The Origin of Beekeeping ...... 8 2.2 World Honey Production ...... 8 2.3 African Beekeeping Practices ...... 9 2.4 Beekeeping in Ethiopia ...... 10 2.5 Honeybee Production Systems in Ethiopia ...... 10 2.5.1 Traditional Beekeeping System ...... 11 2.5.2 Transitional System of Beekeeping ...... 11 2.5.3 Modern/Frame Hive System ...... 12 2.6 Products of Beekeeping and Their Benefits ...... 12

2.7 Beekeeping and Its Contribution for Environmental Sustainability ...... 15 2.8 Major Constraints in Beekeeping ...... 16 2.9 Conceptual framework of the study ...... 16 CHAPTER THREE ...... 18 RESEARCH METHODS AND MATERIALS ...... 18 3.1 Description of the Study Area ...... 18 3.1.1. Climate...... 19 3.1.2. Vegetation ...... 21 3.1.3 Soil ...... 21 3.1.4 Topography ...... 21 3.1.5 Population Size of the Study Area ...... 21 3.1.6 Economic Activities ...... 22 3.2. Research Methods ...... 23 3.2.1. Research Design ...... 23 3.2.2. Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination ...... 23 3.2.3. Data Sources and Data Collection Techniques ...... 25 3.2.4. Methods of Data Analysis ...... 26 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 32 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 32 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ...... 32 4.1.1 Sex of Sample Household Heads...... 32 4.2 Socio-economic characteristics of Respondents ...... 34 4.2.1 Saving Habit ...... 34 4.2.2 Land Ownership ...... 34 4.3 Initial Source of Beekeeping ...... 35 4.4 The Contribution of Honey Production to Households Income ...... 36 4.4.1 Sources of Households Income ...... 36 4.4.2 Annual Income from Cereal Crops Sells ...... 37 4.4.3 Annual Income from Livestock and Its Products Sells ...... 37 4.4.4 Annual Off-farm Income ...... 38 4.4.5 Annual Income from Wood (Eucalyptus) Tree Sells ...... 38

4.4.6 Annual Income from beekeeping Production Sells ...... 39 4.5 Sources of Income from Beekeeping ...... 39 4.6 The Purpose of Honey Production ...... 41 4.7 Harvesting of honey from the three types of hives ...... 41 4.8 Factors Affecting Income Obtained from Beekeeping ...... 42 4.8.1 Accessibility of Bee Forage ...... 44 4.8.2 Access to Credit ...... 44 4.8.3 Accessibility of Extension Service/Training ...... 44 4.8.4 Age of the Respondents ...... 45 4.8.5 Educational Status of Households ...... 46 4.8.6 Experience in beekeeping ...... 46 4.8.7 Habit of Saving Money ...... 47 4.8.8 Modern beehives price...... 47 4.9 Beekeeping Constraints According to the Perceptions of Beekeeper Households ... 48 4.9.1 Applications of Pesticides and Herbicides ...... 49 CHAPTER FIVE ...... 51 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 51 5.1 CONCLUSIONS ...... 51 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 52 REFERENCES ...... 54 APPENDICES-1 ...... 64 APPENDICES- 2 ...... 70 APPENDICES- 3 ...... 70 APPENDICES-4: ...... 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1 Global average annual production of honey for the last twenty years (1990- 2012) ...... 9

Figure 2. 2 Conceptual framework of the study……………….…………………………..17

Figure 3.1 Location map of the study area ...... 18

Figure 3.2 Temperature graph of Dangila Woreda (1987-2017) ...... 20

Figure 3.3 Average annual rainfall of Dangila Woreda (1987-2017) ……………………..20

Figure 4.1 Ownership of farmland ……………………………………………………...... 35

Figure 4.2 Bee colonies marketing in Dangila woreda ……………………………………40

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. 1 Rural sample Kebeles, total beekeepers and sample households by Kebele ...... 25

Table 4. 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ...... 33

Table 4. 2 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents ...... 34

Table 4. 3 Initial sources of beekeeping ...... 36

Table 4. 4 Total annual rural households’ income ...... 37

Table 4. 5 Products of beekeeping in the study area ...... 39

Table 4. 6 Purpose of honey production ...... 41

Table 4. 7 Amount of honey harvested in kg/hive/year from the three types of hives in Dangila Woreda ...... 42

Table 4. 8 Factors that influence income from honey production ...... 43

Table 4. 9 Ranks of major constraints facing beekeeping in Dangila Woreda ...... 48

Table 4. 10 Applications of pesticides and herbicides ...... 49

viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AAURTM Addis Ababa University Research Team Member AMP Apiary Management Plan ARSD Apiculture Research Strategy Document BoA Bureau of Agriculture CAP Center for Agricultural Policy CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CSA Central Statistics Authority DAs Development Agents DWARDO DangilaWoreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office EARO Ethiopian Agriculture Research Organization EFSA European Food Safety Authority EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research EMAARB Ethiopian Meteorological Agency Amhara Region Branch ETB Ethiopian Birr FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ha hectare HBRC Holeta Bee Research Center IJPBR Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Research ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem IPMS Improving Productivity and Market Success JAICAF Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry KTB Kenya Top Bar MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development mts metric tons

ABSTRACT Beekeeping is one of the agricultural activities, which is the maintenance of honeybee colonies, commonly in hives for the production of honey and other purposes. However, in the present time this activity is affected by different factors. Therefore, this study was conducted in Dangila Woreda, Ethiopia to evaluate the contribution of honey production on rural households’ income, to assess the honey production performance of the traditional, transitional and modern/frame beehive types of honey production systems in the study woreda, and to identify the factors that determines the income of rural beekeeper households from beekeeping activity. In order to obtain the required information to meet the objectives of the study, mixed (purposive and random) sampling techniques were employed. Accordingly, from 29 rural kebeles four sample kebeles were purposely selected based on their high honey production potentials. For this study beekeeper households were purposely selected as sampling frame. From those kebeles a total of 121 sample rural beekeeper households were selected for data collection. Sample respondents were proportionally selected by using simple random sampling technique from selected kebeles. Data obtained from the mentioned households were then analyzed using descriptive statistics such as mean, median, Standard Deviations, frequency and percentage; and inferential statistics such as multiple linear regression models. The survey result found out that beekeeping contributed 10.2% of the total annual income of the rural beekeeping households with a mean annual income of 3001.85ETB. The honey production performance of each type of hive in kilogram was from the traditional, transitional and modern hives the average amount of honey produced was 4.9, 11.9 and 20.3kg/hive/year respectively. Farm experience, level of education, availability of credit, access to extension training, access to market information, saving habit, bee forage potentials of the area and the high modern hives price were found significant determinants of beekeeping activity. In addition, according to the perceptions of respondents’ pesticides and herbicides, shortage of bee forage, pests and predators, honeybee disease, shortage of honeybee colonies, and low level of extension training were identified as major beekeeping constraints in their order of importance. Therefore, program designers, government and funding agents should focus on these factors to improve the beekeeping activity in the study area.

Key words: Beekeeping, Honeybee, Honey production, Dangila Woreda, Ethiopia.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Agriculture is the art and science of growing plants and other crops and the raising of animals for food, other human needs or economic gain. According to (Belay, 2004) it is the foundation of the economy of our country Ethiopia, accounting for half of gross domestic product, 83.9% of exports and 80% of total employment. Therefore, agriculture plays a significant and crucial role in the Ethiopian social and economic development. However, natural and manmade causes made the nation has not properly benefited from its abundant natural resources and good agricultural development and failed to register the desired economic development to enable its people pull out of poverty (Spielman, 2008). Recently, agricultural production and productivity increases in a sustainable basis necessitate large scale adoption and diffusion of new technologies (Mehumud et al., 2009).

Beekeeping is one of the agricultural activities, which is the maintenance of honeybee colonies, commonly in hives, by humans (Crosby, 2004). Bees are probably more important to the welfare of modern mankind than any other insect or animal species on the planet, so today the hottest topic is the dwindling of bee population worldwide, “More than Honey” talks about their lives and about ours, (ApiExpo Africa, 2014). Albert Einstein was also said to have stated, “If the bee disappeared from the surface of the Earth, man would have no more than four years left to live” (Iryani, 2016). This statement reflects the major role played by bees in conserving the ecosystem and thereby sustaining human life. However, only a few realize the importance of bees, apart from the simple fact that they produce honey. In fact, bees perform a major function in indicating and maintaining a balanced ecosystem, as a natural pollinator, and consequently in supplying and securing food for humankind.

Beekeeping in Ethiopia is a long-standing agricultural practice. However, there is no documented evidence that indicates when and where beekeeping practice started but it is

generally believed that it was started between 3500–3000 B.C (Kassaye, 1978; Melaku et al., 2008; cited in Lulseged, 2014) stated apiculture in Ethiopia has been an old practice.

Owing to its varied ecological and climatic conditions, Ethiopia is home to some of the most diverse flora and fauna in Africa, making it highly suitable for sustaining a large number of bee colonies (Nuru, 2007). As the same author also explained that, the country has the largest bee population in Africa with over 10 million bee colonies, out of which about 7.5 million are confined in hives and the remaining exist in the forest. This makes Ethiopia the leading producer of honey and beeswax in Africa (Ayalew, 2001; Nuru, 2002 cited in Sahle et al., 2018).

Beekeeping directly and indirectly contributes to the income of households and the economy of the nation (Gemechis, 2015). The direct contribution of beekeeping includes the value of the outputs produced such as honey, beeswax, queen and bee colonies, and other products such as pollen, royal jelly, propolis for making cosmetics and medicine. The indirect, but very important contribution of beekeeping is through plant pollination and conservation of natural environment (Fenet and Alemayehu, 2016).

Eventhough, Ethiopia has immense natural resources for beekeeping activity; this sub sector has been seriously devastated by complicated constraints. According to (Kerealem et al., 2009) this is due to constraints that affect beekeeping sub-sector in Ethiopia such as: ‘lack of beekeeping knowledge, shortage of skilled man power, shortage of bee equipment, pests and predators, pesticides and herbicide threats, poor infrastructure development, shortage of bee forage and lack of research extension’.

Dangila Woreda is one of the Woredas of Amhara Region with a high potential for beekeeping development. It has 13,989 honeybee colonies, making it one of the high potential areas for developing beekeeping in the region as well as in the country. The beekeepers of the Woreda are using 12,507 traditional beehives, 380 transitional hives and 1102 modern frame beehives (DWARDO, 2018). Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the contribution of honey production to household’s income, to identify the major constraints of beekeeping in the study area, and to identify the factors that predicts the income of rural beekeeper households generating from beekeeping activities in the study area.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The struggle to achieve food security at the household level in rural areas of Ethiopia dated back to a longer period. Yet it remained a challenging goal. This is due to the fact that the struggle is performed by small holding agriculture characterized by low productivity in quantity and poor quality. On the other hand smallholder agriculture is the main and the only supplier of staple food crops in the country (Birhanu et al., 2017). In addition to the production of staple food crops, to achieve food security, beekeeping enhances food accessibility through direct income generation which can be used for purchasing other nutritious foods that reduce the prevalence of protein, iodine, vitamin and iron deficiencies’ (Wilson, 2006). Beekeeping has also additional nutritional benefits as an extensive source of food.

Beekeeping is a very long-standing practice among the farming communities of Ethiopia. It is a sustainable form of agriculture, which is beneficial to the environment and increases yield of food and forage crops through the pollination action of bees. Kenesa (2018) explained that investment in the apiculture sector means diversifying income source, enhancing agricultural yield of smallholder farmers, and creating employment opportunities for the youth, women and conserving biodiversity, mitigating climate change and improves exchange of foreign currencies. Msalilwa (2016) also explained it as; beekeeping contributes for poverty reduction and employment opportunity especially in areas where there is population pressure on the land and infertile soil. This helps households to manage economic shocks hence it reduces vulnerability among these households. Honey production is one of the direct contributions of beekeeping practices (ARSD, 2000). In terms of economic contribution and exports commodities, honey is one of the marketed livestock products of Ethiopia. As a result, there is an increased demand for honey production (EIAR, 2017).

The production, productivity and quality of honey in Ethiopia are very poor in general and the production is below the national potential (Gezahegn, 2001b; Fikru, 2015). Currently it is produced mainly by the smallholders who have limited access to market due to low level of productivity; poor product quality and market barriers, such as poor infrastructure, lack of favorable trade policy and shortage of finance and lack of collective bargaining power (Melaku

et al., 2008). In addition to these, sound utilization of honeybees for economic development cannot take place in the absence of information and knowledge of important beekeeping resources. FAO (2012) reported that the present increasing use of pesticides and herbicides is severely threatening bee colonies implying conflicts of crop and honey production.

Eventhough, Ethiopia has comfortable environment and good potential to produce a large amount of honey and bee wax, the country nowadays produces only a very low amount of honey and bees wax per year. Therefore, the national regional state of Amhara gives emphasis to beekeeping activity as a means of expanding households’ income generation.

Many studies were conducted on the issue of beekeeping and honey production. For example; Nebiyu and Messele (2013) conducted a research on Honeybee production in the three Agro- ecological districts of Gamo Gofa zone of southern Ethiopia with emphasis on constraints and opportunities. Teklu and Dinku (2016) in Gedeo Zone SNNPR, Ethiopia, and (Tesfa, 2012) in Ada'a district of Oromia Region, Ethiopia also conducted a research on the Honeybee Production System, with much focus on beekeeping challenges and opportunities. The study conducted by (Addis, 2016) also focused on value chain analysis of honey at Basona Worena, Woreda Amhara Region Ethiopia, with a great emphasis on assessing the role of gender at the farm level and identifying the major opportunities and constraints in honey value. However, these studies did not see the contribution of honey production for rural beekeepers households’ income at the households level and they did not identifying the major factors that can affect (determine) income generating from honey production.

Therefore, this study gave in-depth analysis on the contribution of honey production on rural households’ income, and to investigate and fill the information as well as methodological gaps by using multiple linear regression models analysis, to identify those influential factors (determinants) of income generating from honey production for the rural beekeepers’ in Dangila Woreda, Ethiopia.

1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective The overall objective of this study is to assess the contribution of honey production to households’ income in Dangila Woreda, Northwest Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives The specific objectives are intending to:

1. evaluate the contribution of honey production to household income in Dangila Woreda.

2. assess the honey production performance of the traditional, transitional and modern/frame beehive types of honey production systems in the study woreda. 3. identify the factors that influence the income of rural households from beekeeping.

1.4 Research Questions 1. How honey production contributes to household income in Dangila Woreda?

2. How is the production performance of traditional, transitional and modern/frame beehive types of honey production systems?

3. What factors influence the income of rural households generated from beekeeping?

1.5. Scope of the Study

This study was designed to assess the contribution of honey production to household income and the major factors affecting beekeeping activity in Dangila district, Northwest Ethiopia. For reasons of financial, time and other constraints, studying all areas is very cumbersome. Therefore, studying some specific area is paramount significance for thorough investigation of the problem under study and is feasible both in terms of available money and time. The scope of the study is therefore limited in terms of coverage and it is confined to Dangila Wereda of Awi Administrative Zone, Ethiopia. Four kebeles of the Woreda were selected in order to make it more manageable.

1.6. Limitation of the Study

The study deal with the contribution of honey production to household income by taking the sample from four kebeles within one Woreda and this may not represent the whole beekeeping activities of the country. This hindered generalization about total beekeeping situation in the country. Reference materials were not adequately available in the study area to get detail background information on the issue.

1.7. Significance of the Study

This study generates useful information in order to formulate beekeeping development projects and guidelines for interventions that will improve the efficiency of honey production system. The potential users of this finding will be farmers (producers), government and Non-Government organizations (NGO), that have an interest to intervene in the contribution of honey production to household income.

1.8 Organization of the Study

This thesis is organized into four chapters. In the first chapter, it starts with the introduction, which includes background, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, scope, and limitation of the study as well as the significance of the study and definition of terminologies. The second chapter reviews literature that deals with concepts and past studies and information related to the study. The third chapter explains about research methodology including description of the study area research design, sampling techniques, methods of data collection and tools for data analysis. The fourth chapter presents the analysis of collected data by applying SPSS version 20 application software. The last chapter draws conclusions and recommendations based on the findings of the study.

1.9 Definition of Terminologies

Household: is defined as a number of people living and eating together in the same dwelling and shares the same income.

Woreda: An administrative unit in Ethiopia larger than kebele

Kebele: The smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia in administrative hierarchy of Ethiopia.

Tej: is an indigenous Ethiopian honey wine. It is prepared from honey, water and leaves of Gesho (Rhamnus prenoides).

Apiary: is a place where bees are kept.

Apiculture: is an art and science of rearing, breeding, managing, and maintaining honeybees for getting economic and environmental gains.

Bee forages: those plants that supply both nectar and pollen for bees abundantly when in bloom and these are often called honeybee plants.

Bee hives: a hollow container for bees to live inside.

Colony: means a hive containing bees or a queen bee with the necessary number of drones and worker bees.

Pest: includes, moth, ant, bird or other living creatures which are injurious to the honey bee.

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 The Origin of Beekeeping

Humans have collected honey from wild bee nests for more than 8,000 years, as shown in Mesolithic rock paintings dating from 6000 B. C to 2500 B. C (Sofi et al., 2017).

There is no well-documented evidence that indicates when and where bee-keeping started in Ethiopia. However, of all the countries in the world, no country has a long tradition of beekeeping than Ethiopia. Despite its long history, beekeeping in Ethiopia is still an undeveloped sector of agriculture (Oxfam, 2008). According to the Ethiopian Beekeepers Association (EBA, 2005; cited in Abadi et al., 2016), formally organized bee-keeping extension started in 1978 and the honeybee colonies in the country are estimated to be about 10 million.

Of all the regions under consideration, tropical Africa has the oldest tradition of beekeeping and still with primitive hives (FAO, 1986). The earliest known evidence of honey hunting scenes was a painting made in a rock shelter in the mountains of Eastern Spain in Mesolithic times, probably dated to about 5000 BC (Dams, 1978 cited in Crane, 1990). Africa has many rock paintings about honey hunting than any other continent and some of the countries, which can be mentioned, are South Africa, Zimbabwe, Morocco, Libya and Tanzania (HBRC, 1997).

Beekeeping is an activity in which man rears honeybees and acquires their products (Jun et al., 2009). According to the study of (Bradbear et al., 2002), beekeeping is often promoted as being a pro-poor income generating activity because it is accessible to marginalized members of communities, has low startup costs and requires little land or labor.

2.2 World Honey Production

Almost all countries in the world produce honey; however, the production varies in quantity and quality dramatically. Based on the available data, for the last twenty years China has been the leading producer of honey with an average 279,000mts honey per annum which constituted 34%

of the total production in the year, 2012. The second producer is USA with an average annual production of 85,000mts. The third largest producer is Argentina with an average annual production of 75,600mts. The other top producers include Turkey, Mexico, Ukraine, India, Russia, Ethiopia, Iran and Brazil (AAURTM, 2015) (see fig. 2.1 below).

Countries

Figure 2. 1 Global average annual production of honey for the last twenty years (1990-2012) Source: FAOStat, (undefined year), cited in (Addis Ababa University Research Team Members, 2015).

2.3 African Beekeeping Practices

Beekeeping in Africa is mostly carried out using traditional methods. In these methods, beehives are made out of logs, bark, reeds, bamboos and pots among other materials. Most of African honey is harvested by smallholder farmers and the selling of bee products is one of the feasible practices which contribute to get out of poverty. Beekeeping can add to the livelihoods of many different sectors within a society including village and urban traders, carpenters who make hives and stands, tailors who make veils, clothing and gloves and those who make and sale tools and containers (Bradbear, 2003).

2.4 Beekeeping in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, beekeeping has been a tradition since long before other farming systems (Gezahegn, 1996). Even though it is one of the important and the oldest farming activities in the country, there are no available records, which confirm when and where beekeeping was first started. However, the Hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt refer to Abyssinia (ancient name of Ethiopia), as source of honey and beeswax`s and Abyssinia has been known for its beeswax export to Egypt for centuries when other items were not exported. It is, thus, assumed that the keeping of bees in baskets may have started about 5000 years ago in the northern regions along with the early settlements. No countries in the world may have ancient beekeeping as Ethiopia; the oldest basket hive in the International bee museum is from Ethiopia (Fichtl and Admassu, 1994; Gezahegne, 2001b).

In terms of its production performance, Ethiopian annual honey production was estimated about 43,373mts which is shared with about 23.5 percent and 2.35 percent of African and world’s honey production, respectively. This makes the country rank 1st in Africa and 10th in the world (HBRC, 2007).

2.5 Honeybee Production Systems in Ethiopia

Ethiopia is blessed 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. In places where wild colonies of bees living in hollow trees and caves are found, honey hunting is still a common practice in Ethiopia. According to (CSA, 2011) the major honey and beeswax producing regions in Ethiopia are Oromia 41%, SNNPR 22%, Amhara 21% and Tigray 5% however, the country is suffering from the ecological degradation of its natural resources and this means the basis for any honey production is threatened and affected in many regions of the country, beekeeping is considered as one of the income-generating activities for resource-poor farmers including women, youth and the unemployed sectors of the community. In Ethiopia there are three types of beekeeping systems, and they are discussed as follows:

2.5.1 Traditional Beekeeping System

In Ethiopia, traditional beekeeping is the oldest and the richest practice, which has been carried out by the people for thousands of years. Several million bee colonies are managed with the same old traditional beekeeping methods in almost all parts of the country (Mammo, 1973; Fichtl and Admasu, 1994). Traditional beekeeping is of two types: forest beekeeping and backyard beekeeping. In some places, especially in the western and southern parts of the country, forest beekeeping by hanging a number of traditional hives on trees is widely practiced. In other most parts of the country backyard beekeeping with relatively better management is common (Nuru, 2002).

During the year 2013-2014, the number of the traditional hives found in the country was 4,768,103 and total production from this type of hive was 39,831.7 tons with an average production of 8kg/hive/season. But currently, it is estimated to be 5,706,959 hives with average production of 7kg/hive/season (CSA, 2013/14; CSA, 2016/17).

2.5.2 Transitional System of Beekeeping

A transitional system is a system between traditional and frame hive or modern system (Sisay et al., 2012). Transitional system had started in Ethiopia in the year of 1976 and the types of beehives used are: Kenya top-bar beehives, Tanzania top-bar beehive, Mud-block beehives and Ethio-ribrab hive. But Ethio-ribrab is commonly used in many parts of the country (Abebe,

2017). The total honey production from this type of hive was 612.7 tons with an average production of 13kg/beehive/season between the years of 2013 and 2014 (CSA, 2013/14).

2.5.3 Modern/Frame Hive System

Modern beekeeping methods aim to obtain the maximum honey crop, season after season, without harming bees (Nicola, 2002). Modern movable- frame hive consists of precisely made rectangular box hives (hive bodies) super imposed one above the other in a tier. The number of boxes is varied seasonally according to the population size of bees. Practical movable- frame hive was invented in 1851 by Lorenzo Lorraine Langstroth in U.S.A. (Crane, 1976). In Ethiopia, about five types of movable frame hives were introduced since 1970 (HBRC, 1997) and the most commonly used are: Zander and Langstroth 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 yield and quality honey but are likely require high investment cost and trained man power.

2.6 Products of Beekeeping and Their Benefits

Honey: Bee products provide for improved nutrition and consequently better health for farm families and others in local communities. Honey is a useful source of high-carbohydrate food, and commonly contains a rich diversity of minerals, vitamins and others, adding nutritional variety to human diets (FAO, 2009). Honey provides for improved physical performance, resistance to fatigue and improved mental efficiency (FAO, 2006a). Honey production in rural Ethiopia is important for the control of malnutrition in children (Hussien, 2000).

Honey is a natural substance with many medicinal properties such as antibacterial, hepatoprotective, hypoglycemic, reproductive, and antihypertensive and antioxidant (Bhalchandra and Yahya, 2016). Ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Chinese, Greeks and Romans also employed honey for wounds and diseases of the intestine (Al-Jabri, 2005).

About 80% of honey consists of sugars that are readily absorbed by the body, and it is therefore an extremely suitable food for children, sick people and for those who perform heavy manual labor. It is a pleasant-tasting food and a sweetener for food and drinks as well as an effective medicine for treating superficial wounds and throat complaints (Leen et al., 2005). According to (Singh, 2012) honey is normally used in our daily life for treatment of hearing loss, bad breath, fatigue, weight loss, pimples, influenza, ingestion, heart diseases, toothache, hair loss, bladder infections, infertility etc. Beside this, commercially honey is used as moisturizer, hair conditioner, laxative, aphrodisiac, rooting hormone, cleansers.

The bee products like honey, supply income that contributes to the improvement of the livelihood of the rural people. There is also a strong, local demand for honey, due to its use for the production of traditional beverage ‘Tej’ and from the selling of it those people who are engaged on are generating income.

Beeswax: is the material that bees use to build their nest. It is produced by young honeybees that secrets. It is valued according to its purity and color. Light colored wax is more highly valued than dark colored wax which is likely to have been contaminated or overheated (Fichtl and Admasu, 1994). The annual beeswax production of the country is estimated at about 3,658tones (AMP, 2007). This makes Ethiopia the fourth largest beeswax producing country in the world next to China, Mexico and Turkey. Beeswax supports the national economy through foreign exchange earnings. Presently, beeswax is one of the major exportable agricultural products. Ethiopia is the third largest beeswax exporter in Africa and the annual average value of bees wax is estimated at about 125 million Birr (Nuru, 2002).

Crop Pollination: Bees are essential parts of the agricultural system. Although the value of honeybees in crop pollination is under estimated, it has a significant role in increasing national food production and regeneration of plant species. Honeybees are the prime pollinating agents in the world. Their service in pollination is estimated to be worth over 15 times the value of all hive products together, although it is much more difficult to quantify their benefit (EARO, 2002; cited in Tessega, 2009).

Honeybee is also believed to play a significant role in the economy of Ethiopia through pollination services. Pollination is one of the most important factors that affect seed production in agricultural crops. In Ethiopia, an experiment was conducted to determine the effect of pollination on Niger (Guizotia abyssinica) and the result showed that honeybees increased the seed yield of Niger by about 43% (Admasu and Nuru, 2002) and Onion (Allume Cepa) by two fold (Admasu et al., 2008).

Source of Immediate Cash Income: Many bee products have a good value on local markets and are easily tradable. Honey for example, requires few inputs, and has a good cash value related to weight. Honey is also easy to transport to distant markets, such as export markets. Honey, if appropriately extracted and processed can become a non-perishable, providing sales of the product well beyond the main harvest times. This can provide a more constant and regular income for the farm family (Hussien, 2000).

Beekeeping is also carried out by small farmers, and it is particularly suitable for under- privileged landless and low-income, low-resource individuals and groups. In addition to the direct income from bee products, beekeeping enterprise stimulates various sectors within a society like hive carpentry, honey trading, renting and hiring of bee colonies for pollination, and other bee value addition (Chazovachii et al., 2013). Beekeeping does not require large size of land and fertile land to produce as hives can be located on poor land, on top of trees, and rocky areas.

Farmers growing crops that depend on pollination can rely on local pollinators or pay beekeepers to provide honeybees. Over the past decade, the pollination services market has grown, such that beekeepers now receive a larger share of their income from providing pollination services than from producing honey (Ferrier et al., 2018).

In areas where honey production is not attractive, beekeepers can sale their colonies in the market. In this regard honeybees serve as ‘near cash’ capital which generate attractive money. According to (Workneh, 2011) an average of 420 million Ethiopian Birr is obtained annually from the sale of honey, both in local and world markets. On the other hand, some beekeepers in Amhara region that are involved in beekeeping technology package were reported to earn up to 3000 birr annually from sale of honey (BOA, 2003b), making up for the large portion of their

annual income. This indicates the high potentiality of beekeeping as a source and means of diversification of income for the rural communities.

2.7 Beekeeping and Its Contribution for Environmental Sustainability

Not only do bees provide the means for many foods, they also contribute to the fight against global climate change. When bees pollinate, plants grow, the planet is cooler for the vegetation and greenhouse gases are reduced. Beekeeping can help to increase the honeybee population and promote a healthy environment and chemical free food. In a time in which bee colonies are decreasing, keeping bees is more important than ever, If not for bees, a host of crops would fail, food shortages would follow (Nicola, 2009).

The greatest added value of beekeeping lies in the fact that bees pollinate agricultural and horticultural plants. About one third of all plants or plant products eaten by humans depend directly or indirectly on bees for their pollination (Bradbear, 2009). Crops pollinated by bees have been proven to produce higher yields and better quality, often at no extra cost for the farmer, rather crop seed yield increment. Yet, many farmers consider bees and other as harmful insects (Berenbaum, 2007).

The special quality of apiculture is the fact that apiculture is both a means and an end of the watershed management, enclosure, reforestation programs, and promotion of the protected areas. As an end, the apiculture industry is beneficiary of the recovery and rehabilitation of the vegetation system. As a means, honeybees should and could be taken as pollinators to enhance the success of the land and forest reclamation efforts (Tsegabirhan et al., 2015).

The Agricultural Sector Support Project (ASSP) of Ethiopia has identified priority issues to improve the management of watersheds through categorization of land-use patterns involving beekeeping projects (Kumsa, 2014). Supporting beekeepers with improved beekeeping technologies and providing access to market corridors encourages local efforts of biodiversity conservation and watershed protection (Holzschuh et al., 2007; Paraïso et al., 2012).

2.8 Major Constraints in Beekeeping

Different researchers for example, (Tessega, 2009; Tesfa, 2012; Nebiyu and Messele, 2013; Tariku and Mechthild, 2013) identified major constraints to the development of apiculture were pests and predators, bee forage, beekeeping equipment, absconding, honeybee colony, pesticides and herbicides, death of colony, water shortage, honey storage materials, swarming and marketing in their order of importance. Moreover, (Mengistu, 2010) identified lack of skilled human powers (apicultural extension staffs), absence of national training center and lack of standard training materials, high cost of beekeeping materials, absence of medium and long term credit institutions in rural areas and technological problems as a major constraints.

2.9 Conceptual framework of the study

Conceptual framework refers to an abstract idea or a theory used to develop new concepts or to interpret existing ones (Kothari, 2004).The following framework shows the relationship between those factors that can affect income of rural beekeeper households generated from beekeeping. The independent variables such as demographic, institutional, socio-economic and habitat in general affect rural household income from beekeeping either positively or negatively depending to the condition. On the other hand, the dependent variable (Predicted variable) here is ‘income generated from beekeeping’ that can be affected by the under mentioned independent factors.

Socio-Economic Factors

- Land ownership Demographic factors - Experience in beekeeping - Sex - Age - Saving habit - Educational Status - Access to Market

information

- Application of pesticides Total annual and herbicides households

- Beehives prices income from honey production

Habitat Institutional Factors

- Training/extension - Accessibility of bee service forage

- Access to credit service

Figure 2. 2 Conceptual framework of the study Source: Own computation (2019) and adapted from (Kuboja, 2017)

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1 Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in Amhara Region, Awi- Zone, Dangla Woreda, Ethiopia. It is located in Northwest Ethiopia, 478 kms far from Addis Ababa and 78 kms Southwest of Bahar-Dar. Dangla Woreda has the latitude and longitudinal extension of 11016ʹ N-11025’N and 360 00ʹ E- 37045’E with an average elevation of 2065m above sea level. The total area of the district is 772.3 km2. The district is bounded with Fageta Lekoma Woreda to the Northeast, Mecha Woreda to the East, Jawi Woreda to the West, South Achefer Woreda to the North and Guangua Woreda to Southwest direction (DWARDO, 2018).

Figure 3. 1 Location map of the study area

3.1.1. Climate The study area is located in the moist sub-tropical (locally known as Weina-Dega) agro- ecological zone of the north-western highlands, it is endowed with favorable conditions for agriculture: relatively fertile soils and high annual rainfall (Mehretie and Woldeamlak, 2013).

Based on (EMAARB, 2018) data the mean annual temperature of Dangila Woreda is 170c. The last thirty years (1987-2017) temperature data of the study area shows minimum and maximum temperature of 80c during 1987, and 25.90c during 2012 and 2015 respectively. As we see on the graph below, the trend of temperature increases through time.

The Rainfall distribution in the study area is seasonal. Most of the rainfall falls during the "summer" season from June to September (it is most intense during July and August). There is short rainy season called "Belg" which falls during the months of March-May (DWARDO, 2019). Based on (EMAARB, 2018) the thirty years (1987-2017) climate data of the study area has the average; maximum and minimum rainfall was 1619.3, 2025 and 1200mm respectively. Minimum and maximum rainfalls were recorded during years of 1995 and 2017 respectively (figure 3.3 below).

Years Figure 3. 2 Temperature graph of Dangila Woreda (1987-2017) Source: Ethiopian Meteorological Agency Amhara Region Branch, (2018)

Average annual Rainfall of Dangila Woreda (1987-2017)

Rainfall Amount (mm)

2500

2000

)

1500

1000

500

Amount of Rainfall (mm Rainfallof Amount 0

Years Figure 3. 3Average Annual Rainfall of Dangila Woreda (1987-2017) Source: Ethiopian Meteorological Agency Amhara Region Branch, (2018)

3.1.2. Vegetation

In the Woreda vegetation (forest cover) only accounts 2.43% of the total land area of the Woreda. Its forest cover has been removed, and replaced by cultivation fields, grazing land and plantation of eucalyptus species (DWARDO, 2018).Thus, like other parts of the country, natural vegetation of the area has been victim of the influence of man and its domestic animals. The remnant tree species in the study district witness the land cover/land use change that occurred because of the impact of human activities (DWARDO, 2018). According to (DWARDO, 2018), the most important foraging plants for bees are: “Simiza (Justitia schemperina), Girawa (Vernonia spp), Bissana (Croton macrostachy), Bahirzaf (Eucalptus spp), Cheba (Acacia nilotica), Girar (Acacia spp), Kusheshle (Acanthus sennii), Serdo (Eleusine floccifolia),” etc. Dangila Woreda is one of the districts of Amhara Region with a high potential for beekeeping development. The Woreda has a total of 13,989 honeybee colonies (DWARDO, 2018) making it one of the high potential areas for developing beekeeping in the region as well as in the country. The beekeepers of the district were using 12,507 traditional beehives, 380 transitional hives and 1102 modern frame beehives.

3.1.3 Soil According to (DWARDO, 2018) the soil type of Woreda is red soil (nitosols group) which accounts 12%, the black soil (vertisols group) which is 8.5% and brown soil (luvisols group) 79.5%. In general the soil of Dangila Woreda is fertile and most productive.

3.1.4 Topography According to (DWARDO, 2018) the altitude of Dangila Woreda ranges from 1980-2150ms above sea level. The major topographies of the Woreda are; mountain 18.9%, plane 79%, cave and valley 1.38% and others 0.72%.

3.1.5 Population Size of the Study Area Based on the demographic data organized by (DWFEDPO, 2018), Dangila Woreda has an estimated total population of 154,876 of whom 75,622 are males and 79254 females and 5% of its population is urban dwellers. With an estimated area of 772.3 square kilometers, the Woreda has an estimated population density of 198.9 persons per square kilometer.

3.1.6 Economic Activities The major economic activity of the population of the Woreda is Agriculture. Thus, crop production and animal rearing are collectively carried out as economic importance. In short, mixed- agriculture is the basic economy. The major crops grown in the area include cereals (wheat, Maize, barley and Dagussa), pulses (beans, vetch, chickpea, pea), and root crop like potatoes (DWARDO, 2019). To the part of livestock production, the most common domestic animals in the study area are oxen, cow, sheep, goat, donkey and mule which serve as source of asset, and means of transport, and beekeeping also contributes its share (DWARDO, 2018).

The current land use can be categorized broadly into three categories: arable land covering the largest proportion of the district with about 76.73%, grazing land covering 20.84% and forest 2.43% (DWFEDPO, 2018).

3.2. Research Methods

3.2.1. Research Design Hakim (2000) observes that research design is primarily concerned with “… aims, uses, purposes, intentions and plans within the practical constraint of location, time, money” and the availability of the researcher. Broadly speaking, there are three distinct approaches to connecting research—quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.

This research was conducted using mixed type of research design, because it combined elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques). Qualitative methods were used to capture data related to the contribution of honey production to household income using observation and structured interviews. On the other hand, quantitative data about households’ demographic, socio-economic, institutional characteristics, and biophysical (vegetation) aspects were collected from sample respondents using structured questionnaire.

3.2.2. Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination

Dangila Woreda has twenty nine rural Kebeles. All these Kebeles are practicing beekeeping activity. As all Kebeles are beekeepers, only four Kebeles were selected purposely for the study based on their high potential of honey production than the rest kebeles. These sample Kebeles were Ligaba, Jibana Giworgis, Abadra, and Girargie Warkit. From these four Kebeles beekeeper households were purposely selected, and which is the sample frame of this study. Simple random sampling technique was used to select sample respondents from the sample frame of beekeeper households in the selected Kebeles which was found in beekeeping development office of Dangila Woreda.

The (Cochran, 1977) formula of sample size determination was used to obtain the total sample size from the four Kebeles and to know the total number of sample households in each sample Kebeles. This formula is used with the assumption that sample elements were normally distributed.

The formula is given as:

Where, no = the desired sample size, when the population is greater than 10,000 n = the desired sample size, when the population is less than 10,000

Z = the desired confidence level (95% of confidence i.e.1.96)

P = 0.1 i.e. (Population proportion to be included in the sample i.e.10%) q = 1-p (1- 0.1, i.e. 0.9)

N = total number of population e = the maximum allowable error

= = 138, = = 121

Therefore, using proportional sampling method, 36 respondents from Ligaba, 28 respondents from Jibana Giworgis, 26 respondents from Abadra and 31 respondents from Girargie Warkit Kebele were selected proportionally depending on the total numbers of beekeeper households in each sample Kebeles.

Table 3. 1 Rural sample Kebeles, total beekeepers and sample households by Kebele

Sample frame/beekeepers Sample sizes randomly (purposely selected) and proportionally No Sample kebeles No of beekeeper households selected)

from each kebele 1 Girargie Warkit 245 31 2 Ligaba 280 36

3 Jibana Giworgis 214 28 4 Abadra 206 26 Total 945 121

Source: Dangila Woreda Beekeeping Development Office (2018)

3.2.3. Data Sources and Data Collection Techniques In order to achieve the specific and general objectives of the study, the researcher gathered data from both primary and secondary data sources.

Primary Data Sources

The researcher collects primary data through questionnaire, key informant interview, and observation.

Questionnaire: structured questionnaire was prepared to those randomly selected 121 sample rural beekeeper households. The questionnaires included various issues about: demographic and socio-economic characteristics of respondents, the biophysical features of the study area including, factors that constraints beekeeping activities and factors influencing (determining) income generated from beekeeping. After the questionnaires were translated into Amharic language the households filled questionnaires assisted by trained enumerators. For administering the questionnaire, enumerators (DAs) who have minimum diploma, and able to speak local language of the study area (Amharic); selected and trained on how to approach and handle the respondents and fill the questionnaires. Thereby, all 121 questionnaires were filled and returned

back for analysis. Data were collected from a survey of 121 rural beekeeper households from March to end of April 2019.

Key Informant Interview: structured interviews were also used to collect information. These kinds of interviews allow the researcher to obtain rich, detailed information. To this end the researcher select key informants purposely including Woreda agricultural beekeeping experts (one), development agents (four), and model honey producers (four). The total numbers of key informants were nine. Interviews were held around the homesteads. Observation: It was the gathering of primary data by the researcher’s direct observation of relevant people, actions and situations without asking the respondents. In addition to interviews and questionnaires the researcher used observation method to get some sort of information and deeper understanding of the problems under study. The observation also provide information that was not include in interviews, and it was also helping to decide what to focus of interviews, or it was used as a technique to select relevant informants.

Secondary Data Sources: Secondary data sources were used in this study. Reports were used both before and during the fieldwork, and during the organization of the research report.

3.2.4. Methods of Data Analysis

The study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis. The qualitative data were collected through in-depth interview and field observation and analyzed textually. This could support the data collected through questionnaire. On the other hand, the data which need numerical computation were analyzed and presented in quantitative form. The data were coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS version-20). The data collected from household survey through questionnaire presented and analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics.

Both the first and the second objectives of the study namely: to evaluate the contribution of honey production to household income and to assess the honey production performance of the traditional, transitional and modern/frame beehive types of honey production systems in the study area respectively, were analyzed by generating descriptive statistics. The descriptive

statistics with the help of tables and graphs used minimum and maximum values, mean, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages analyzed the data. The third objective i.e. identifying the factors that influence the income of beekeeper rural households which is generating from beekeeping activity was analyzed by multiple linear regression models. Because, multiple linear regression models were recommended for analyzing continuous dependent variable in this case income generating from beekeeping is the dependent variable.

Multiple regression models

The study employed multiple linear regression models to determine factors contributing to income difference of households. The dependent variable was the total income of the households obtained from beekeeping activities. The household income is continuous variable and hence it is the dependent variable of this study. The independent variables are composed of demographic, socio-economic, institutional and biophysical factors.

Model specification

The multiple linear regression model equation is presented as follows;

Y= Bo+B1X1+B2X2+------+BnXn

Where, Y= a predicted value which is dependent variable=household income from beekeeping

Bo= the ‘Y’ intercept which means the value of ‘Y’ when the value of ‘X’ is equal to zero

Multicollinearity checking

Multicollinearity refers to a situation where it becomes difficult to identify the separate effect of independent variables on the dependent variable because there is strong relationship among them. Tolerance (TOL) and variance inflation factor (VIF) are methods used to detect multicollinearity among variables.

VIF= 1/TOL and

TOL= 1/VIF

As a rule, when the VIF rate greater than 10 shows high collinearity and if tolerance closes to zero also indicates high collinearity among independent variables.

Goodness of fit

The goodness of fit of the model measures with R2 statistics explain in predictor variable. This explains how many percent of the variation in the dependent variables are explained by the explanatory variables.

ANOVA: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) consists of the calculation that provides information about the level of variability within a regression model and form a basis for test of significance as well as degree of freedom are adjusted to reflect the number of explanatory variables.

Factors that Affect Rural Households’ Income

Identifying the major factors that determine rural beekeeper households’ income is the other objective of this study. Multiple linear regression models were employed to identify significant factors that affect beekeeper households’ income. This is because regression analysis has the advantage of identifying the strength of relationship between variables. The following are the main assumptions to use multiple linear regression models.

Dependent variables should be continuous in the case household income is a continuous variable which is measured in terms of ETB.

Independent variables could be two or more continuous categorical

Independent observation

Multicollinearity

Linear relationship between dependent variable and each independent variable

Description of Variables

Educational Status of Household Heads

It is a categorical variable which take (1-illitrate), (2-able to read and write), (3-primary school), (4-secondary school) and (5-diploma and above). Formal education enhances farmer’s ability to perceive, interpret and respond to new events in the context of risk. More over education enables farmers to search for new farming practices. It also enhances household income by widening production opportunities and rendering better knowledge. Literacy of the household heads has

positive relationships with the use of modern farming practices including beekeeping household income (Getaneh, 2011). This study expected as there is a positive relationship between educational status of farmers and participation in beekeeping activities and household income from honey production.

Age of Household Heads

Age is also a continuous variable. It represents the age of household heads in years. The older the household the more experiences she/he got in farming. Moreover, older persons are more risk averters, and mostly they intensify and diversify their production activity. As the age of the household increases the farm experience of the household is expected to increase. Thereby, it accelerates productivity and increases household income.

Access to Extension Services

It is categorical independent variable like

1=Yes 2= No

It refers to the availability and existence of technical advices, trials and demonstration to small holders. It is important that extension services can widen the household heads knowledge with regard to the use of improved beekeeping technologies, and other agricultural technologies. A study conducted by (Tessega, 2009) has showed that training can bridge technical gaps and equip the beekeepers with basic knowledge on how to operate improved hives and bee equipment’s , basic bee biology, manipulate honeybee colonies, record keeping, grow appropriate bee forage plants, new processing techniques for production of higher quality products and its marketing. Therefore, this study expects significant positive relationship between access to extension services and beekeeper households’ income from honey production.

Access to Credit Service

It is a dummy variable (1= yes 2= no) which is used to measure whether the household heads has access to credit or not. It refers to the major ingredient in startup capital or running any business by agricultural or non-agricultural activities. This study supposed that there is a positive relationship between access to credit and households income from beekeeping.

Farm Experience

This is a continuous variable which is measured in years. It also refers how many years the household experienced in farming. This study hoped that the years of experience of the households has positive relationship with household income from honey production.

Saving Habit

This is a dummy variable (1= yes, 2= no) which is used to measure whether the household heads has the habit of saving money or not. It offers a capacity in startup capital for running beekeeping activities. This study supposed that there is a positive relationship between the presence of saving habit and household’s income from beekeeping.

Access to Market Information

This is a dummy variable (1= yes, 2= no) which is used to measure whether the household heads has an access to market information or not concerning honey products. Getting market information at the proper time allows beekeeper households to sale their bee products with better market prices. This study supposed that there is a positive relationship between access to market information and household’s income from beekeeping.

Application of Pesticides and Herbicides

It is a categorical variable which take

1=yes 2=No Pesticides and herbicides are chemical substances that are used to kill pests and herbs, for agricultural purpose; commonly found in agricultural areas where honeybees are active. Many of these pesticides and herbicides are toxic to honeybees and can kill them. Therefore, this study expects significant negative relationship between income from honey production and application of pesticides and herbicides in the study area.

Accessibility of Bee Forage

This is a dummy variable (1= yes, 2= no) which is used to measure whether the household heads has a better access to bee forage or not. Having a better and sustainable access to bee forage means, expecting an attractive product from beekeeping, as if it encourages an income generating from honey production. So, the expectant result supposed to have a significant positive relationship between access to bee forage and household’s income from beekeeping.

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

4.1.1 Sex of Sample Household Heads Of the total 121 beekeepers respondents, 88.4% were male headed and the remaining 11.6% were females. This result shows that, beekeeping activity in the study area was dominated by male respondents. In the district beekeeping activity is mostly practiced with the traditional method of honey production by using local bee hives. In order to capture the bee colonies, the traditional hives are hanging on big tree branches in which some of trees are as long as 50 meters and above. Females are not encouraged to climb up such a big tree to do beekeeping activity and as a result, they were fewer participants in beekeeping activity. Thus, this activity is traditionally male dominated and marginalizing females in the study area (See Table 4.1 below). This result is similar with the result of (Haftu et al., 2015) who stated that most of the interviewee household heads were male 89% and the rest were female headed households 11 %. Addis, (2016) also explained that due to some inherited cultural perceptions and influences, the workload at home, women have low mobility to get information and to use alternative markets. The workload of women as household heads, mothers and producers affects their efficiency in the beekeeping sector.

Table 4. 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Responses Frequency %

Male 107 88.4

Female 14 11.6

Total 121 100

Sex

18-30 years 35 28.9

31-40 years 32 26.4

41-50 years 30 24.8

51-64 years 18 14.9

65+ 6 5.0 Age Total 121 100

Median age 40 years

Minimum age 23 years

Maximum age 68 years

Illiterate 29 24.0

Can Read and Write 33 27.3

Primary Education (1-8) 53 43.8

Secondary Education(9-12) 6 5.0

Total 121 100

Educationalstatus Source: Own survey (2019)

4.2 Socio-economic characteristics of Respondents

4.2.1 Saving Habit The survey result of sample respondents of the study area (table 4.2 below) shows that 81.1% of the respondents have the habit of saving money and the rest 18.9% did not have this habit. Having the habit of saving money can encourage those beekeepers to practice the apiary sector because it allows them to afford easily those beekeeping equipment’s and related accessories.

Table 4. 2 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents

Question Responses Frequency %

Yes 98 81.0

Habit of saving money No 23 19.0

Total 121 100.0

Experiences in 1-5 years experiences 7 5.8 beekeeping? 6-10 years experiences 54 44.6

11-15 years experiences 30 24.8

16-20 years experiences 27 22.3

21 and above years experiences 3 2.5

Total 121 100.0

Source: Own survey (2019

4.2.2 Land Ownership The space requirement for beekeeping is quite small compared with other industries, be it livestock or cereal production. The honey bee does not graze the grass nor does it compete for cultivable land. Whatever agriculture is required the honey bees do not compete for soil or water or for grazing, rather apiculture can be promoted as an integrated business (AAURTM, 2015). And it reconciles the existing conflict of interest between the present and future generations by rehabilitating the natural environment.

The survey result revealed that 22.0% of the respondents have not their own farmland and the rest 78.0% of respondents have their own farmlands (Fig 4.1). This shows that at this small scale level farmland was not a significant factor for adopting beekeeping activities at this small scale level, that’s why it is one of the main income sources for these landless and unemployed people. This result is strongly related with (FAO, 1990) which expresses beekeeping as, it is a non-land- based activity, does not compete with other resource demanding components of farming systems.

Figure 4. 1 Ownership of farmland Source: Own survey (2019)

4.3 Initial Source of Beekeeping

With regard to the initial sources of bee colonies to start beekeeping in (Table 4.3 below), 92.6% of the respondents replied that they have got their establishing colonies by purchasing, 13.2% of the respondents were replied by gift from their parents and 81% were replied from swarm capturing. Furthermore, during interview with respondents, it was discovered that the capture of natural swarms is a traditional and common technique which was practiced almost by all beekeepers in the study area as a source of colony for colony expansion. This finding is disagree with (Tessega, 2009; Chala, 2010) reports that majority of beekeepers initiated beekeeping

through swarm catching in Burie district of Amhara region and Gomma district of Oromia Region, respectively.

Table 4. 3 Initial sources of beekeeping

Multiple Responses

Frequency % (%) of cases

Sources of Catching the Swarm of bee colonies 98 43.4% 81.0% honeybee colony a Gift of bee colonies from parents 16 7.1% 13.2% Purchasing of Honeybee colony 112 49.6% 92.6% a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Note: The total is not from 100% because of multiple responses Source: Own survey (2019)

4.4 The Contribution of Honey Production to Households Income

The contribution of beekeeping to livelihood in the study area was focused on the level of income a household earn from beekeeping. Therefore, the proportion of income earned by a household from beekeeping to the total household income was computed to determine the contribution of beekeeping to the total household income. The total income for beekeepers was computed from the data on income which a household earn from honey, beeswax and bee colony selling plus income earned from sells of the most commonly grown crops by almost all the households which mainly was maize, teff, dagussa, wheat, barley and the most commonly kept livestock by almost all the household plus income earned from non-farm income sources in the study area.

4.4.1 Sources of Households Income Households’ gross income is derived from the sale of agricultural products like cereals, honey production, vegetables, livestock and its products sells, and wood (eucalyptus) sells. The off- farm income was also computed as part of rural households’ gross income. As we can see from

(table 4.4 below) the total mean annual income of sample rural households in the study area is 29,490.47ETB.

Table 4. 4 Total annual rural households’ income

& &

sells

sells sells

sells

/ /

farm farm

annual annual

Statistics

livestock livestock

wood

sells

ncome of of ncome

Income from from Income

beekeeping from Income crop income Total from eucalyptus income Total vegetables from sells income Total fruits from From itsproducts income Total off from activities Average i households Mean 3,001.85 7,160.33 6,836.13 1,544.82 121.48 6,995.70 3,830.16 29,490.47

S.D 3,966.92 4,410.28 8,280.85 2,101.92 616.19 10,604.41 5,473.94 35,454.51

% Share 10.20% 25% 23.10% 5.20% 0.50% 23.70% 12.80%

Source: Own survey (2019)

4.4.2 Annual Income from Cereal Crops Sells

Cereal crop income is the mean annual income of households obtained from the sale of crops such as teff, maize, wheat, barely, dagusa…etc. Since Dangila Woreda is one of the known fertile lands in Amhara region, it produces the most significant amount of cereal crops in the region. As indicated in (table 4.4) the mean annual income of sample households from cereal crops sales in the study area is 7,160.33 ETB per year. This is the first and the leading income contributor, and its share was 25% of the total annual income of rural beekeeper households in the study area. The result of this study is similar with the study of (Ahikiriza, 2016) from Uganda showed that, crop production contributed the highest proportion 48% to the household income, followed by livestock 41% and non-farm activities 11%.

4.4.3 Annual Income from Livestock and Its Products Sells

The type of agriculture which is more dominantly practicing in the study area is mixed in type which involves the growing of different crops and the raring of animals together. Hence,

livestock income is income obtained from livestock sales such as ox, cow, sheep, goat, horse, mule and donkey which are dominantly roared animals in the study area and from the sale of their products such as milk, egg, butter etc. As indicated in (table 4.4 above) the mean annual income of households both from livestock sale and from its products selling of the mean annual income is 6995.70ETB and their percentage share is 23.7%.

4.4.4 Annual Off-farm Income Off-farm activities are important part of total income of rural households. They are significant for improving purchasing power and food security. There are different types of off-farm activities undertaken by some farmers to supplement their household income. As it is shown in (table 4.4 above) the total mean annual income of off-farm activity by beekeeper sample respondents is 3830.16 ETB and it shares are 12.8% of the total annual incomes of sample beekeepers. The survey result shows that half of the sample respondents were engaging on the off-farm economic activities such as trade, mule-cart, handcrafting, char-coaling etc. In the study area, cattle trading and mule-carting are the most profitable types of off-farm activities. The major reasons for involvement in non-farm activities were for income generation. The minimum and maximum amount of money gained from non- farm activities is 1450 and 25,000 ETB per annum, respectively. This indicates that beekeeping can be performed side by side along with on- farm and other off- farm activities.

4.4.5 Annual Income from Wood (Eucalyptus) Tree Sells

Wood sales income is the mean annual income of households obtained from the sell of eucalyptus tree. As can be noted in (table 4.4 above) the mean annual income of sample households from eucalyptus wood sales in the study area is 6,836.13ETB. This is the third income contributor, and its share was 23.10% of the total annual income of rural beekeeper households in the study area. The result of this study is similar with the study of (Zerga and Woldetsadik, 2016) Eza Woreda Gurageland, explained that 3% and 60% of the surveyed farmers have ranked income from eucalyptus tree sells as first and second source of their income respectively. Starting from the near past the selling of eucalyptus tree for construction and fuel wood is becoming one of the means of livelihood and sources of income for the rural

communities in Dangila Woreda. However, the rapid expansion of growing of eucalyptus tree as one source of income severely computing the fertile cropping land in the study Woreda. Since its expansion diminishes the potential cereal crop production of food staffs. This is one of the hot agenda of the present time.

4.4.6 Annual Income from beekeeping Production Sells

Beekeeping is playing a crucial role in improving the income of the rural beekeeping community. As indicated in (table 4.4 above), in the study area, the average annual income obtained from honey sale is 3001.85ETB, which is 10.2% of the total annual income of rural households, followed by income from vegetables and fruits 5.2% and 0.5% respectively. This shows that honey production is one of the main income contributors of those rural (agrarian) beekeeping communities in the study area. However, this economic sector currently facing with a seriously challenging factors that hinders beekeeping activities in Dangila Woreda. Specially, the application of pesticides and herbicides on the farmland makes those beekeeper households to be frustrated on this income sector.

4.5 Sources of Income from Beekeeping The major beekeeping income sources of the study area are the production of honey and bee wax and the selling of bee colony.

Table 4. 5 Products of beekeeping in the study area

Beekeeping products Total annual income Total annual income Total annual Total annual from sale of from sale of bee income from sale of income Statistics honey(ETB) wax(ETB) bee colonies(ETB)

Mean 2027.2 67.46 907.19 3001.85

Minimum 2600.00 0 0

Maximum 10600.00 500.00 1800.00

(%) 67.5% 2.3% 30.2%

Source: Own survey (2019)

According to the results of the survey (table 4.5 above), shows the major products of beekeeping sold to market in Dangila woreda were honey 67.5%, bee colony 30.2% ( see figure 4.2) and bee wax 2.3%. The total mean annual income from sale of honey, bees wax and bee colony selling is 2027.2, 67.46, and 907.19 in ETB respectively. Their minimum and maximum mean annual income is also 2600.00 and 10600.00, 0 and 500.00, and 0 and 1800.00 ETB in their respective order. From this survey result we can deduct that there is too low amount of beeswax production. Therefore, the DAs and the Woreda’s beekeeping experts should give due emphasis on solving this raised problems by giving necessary training on how to produce beeswax.

Figure 4. 2 Bee colonies marketing in Dangila woreda Source: Photo captured in the field (2019)

4.6 The Purpose of Honey Production

Those beekeeper households have their own general and specific purposes to produce beekeeping products. From the total respondents 98.3% of the beekeepers engaged on beekeeping activity primarily for income generation and the rest 1.7% of beekeepers produce honey for home consumption. The majority of beekeepers used their income generated from beekeeping is 26.4%, 18.2%, 14.9% and 13.2% for purchasing of beekeeping equipment’s, for school fees, for buying of house equipment’s and related expenditures, and for hospital payments respectively (table 4.6 below).

Table 4. 6 Purpose of honey production

Questions Responses Frequency % For what general For income generation 119 98.3 purpose do you For home consumption 2 1.7 produce honey? Total 121 100.0 For what For school fees 22 18.2 specific purpose For house construction 10 8.3 do you use the For purchasing of beekeeping 32 26.4 honey equipments’ produced? For buying of clothes 12 9.9 For buying of house equipment 18 14.9 For hospital payments 16 13.2 For buying of livestock 9 7.4 Total 119 98.3 Source: Own survey (2019)

4.7 Harvesting of honey from the three types of hives

With regarded to the amount of honey (table 4.7 below) show in each type of hives in kilogram was from the traditional hives the average amount was 4.9 kg/hive/year, from the transitional hives the average amount of honey produced was 11.9 kg/hive/year and from modern hive the

amount of honey was 20.3kgs/hive/year. The minimum and maximum amounts of honey in kg/hive/year were 3 and 8kgs, 6 and 18kgs, and 8 and 28kgs in traditional, transitional and modern hives respectively. The result of this study is in line with the result of (HBRC, 2003) which showed that the average production of honey/hive/year from traditional, transitional (intermediate) and modern (frame) hives were 5kgs, 13kgs and 15-20kgs respectively. In general, according to the result of this study, there was a significant difference in amount of honey produced between those mentioned hives. This variation might be due to the result of beekeeping management differences of individual beekeepers and the types of hives themselves (in terms of comfortably to manage them). Therefore, as we see modern (frame) and transitional hives have better performance in production potentials than the traditional hives. So, to enhance the honey production in the study area the Woreda agricultural beekeeping experts and rural development agents should give due attention for the problem to be solved through the training of beekeepers about how to prepare transitional hives by themselves and facilitate the credit access to have modern beehives and offering them with a long term debit returns.

Table 4. 7 Amount of honey harvested in kg/hive/year from the three types of hives in Dangila Woreda

Sample respondents n=121 Statistics Traditional Transitional Modern hives hives hives Mean 4.92 11.9174 20.2942 Minimum 3.00 6.00 8.00

Maximum 8.00 18.00 28.00

Source: Own survey result (2019)

4.8 Factors Affecting Income Obtained from Beekeeping

This section provides the analysis of the impact of different factors on the income of the income earning from beekeeping.

In this analysis the dependent variable is the annual income of households derived from honey production. The multiple linear regression analysis indicates that, the predictor variables in the model are not equal to each other and can be used to affect the dependent variable i.e. income of

beekeeper households from honey production, it is indicated (table 4.8 below) at p <0.01, ( F (9,111) =19.765; p=0.000). The goodness of fit (model summery) explained by independent variables R2 is 0.616, which indicates that 61.6% of the variance in the income of households is explained by the independent variables in the model. The ANOVA result showed that it is statistically significant at p<0.01, with the ( df=9/111, F=19.765 and p=0.000) indicating that the independent variable is good predictor of the dependent variable. So, the model is fitted to run the regression.

Table 4. 8 Factors that influence income from honey production Coefficientsa

Predictor variables Standardized Coefficients T Sig.

Beta

Age .031 .206 .837

Level of Education .380 4.624 .000***

Farm experience .261 2.162 .033*

Habit of saving money .177 2.741 .007***

Access to market information .120 1.995 .048*

Access to credit service .476 7.102 .000***

Bee forage potentials of the area .140 2.190 .031*

Extension Service/Training .135 2.252 .026* Received from DAs

Modern beehives price -.003 -.032 .049*

Dependent Variable: Income from honey production

N= 121 R2 = 61.6% , ANOVA=0.000b ,

Note: *** and * indicates statistically significant at 1% and 5 % significant level, respectively Source: Own survey (2019)

4.8.1 Accessibility of Bee Forage

As indicated in (table 4.8 above), the multiple linear regression result clearly indicates that having a better access to bee forage determines the income of beekeeper households earning from honey production with a t-value of 2.190. Keeping all other independent variables constant, a unit increases in the amount of accessibility of bee forage increases the income of beekeeper households from honey production by a factor of 0.140. The regression result indicates that the accessibility of bee forage in beekeeping activity determines the income of beekeeper households significantly significant at p<0.05(df=9/111, t=2.190, p=0.031). Therefore, from this result it can be concluded that getting a good potential (access) to bee forage is the most significant predictor of income from honey production to those beekeeper households. As (Rucker et al., 2002) explained that Production of honey and other products depend on availability of floral resources (bee forage) and is a very important field for most beekeepers in the world.

4.8.2 Access to Credit

The regression result at (table 4.7 above) indicated that other determinant variables remain unchanged, those households who do not have access to credit less likely to have more income as compared to households that have access to credit service by a factor of 0.476 and significant at 1% significant level. Therefore accessibility of credit has a significant impact on the income of household. This study also coincides with the study of (Desta, 2004) household that has access to credit service have higher income than the counterpart. But in the study area farmers are less accessible to credit service. From the total sample respondents 79.3% of the farmers are not using credit service due to shortage of credit giving institutions in the Woreda; Amhara Credit and Saving Institute is the only single credit offering institution. Besides this the interest rate demanded by this credit institution is high (19%) which is making the interest of the farmers towards credit is low.

4.8.3 Accessibility of Extension Service/Training

As indicated in (table 4.8 above) the multiple linear regression result clearly indicates that getting extension service and training in beekeeping activities determines the income of

beekeeper households with a t-value of 1.995 keeping all other independent variables constant, a unit increase in frequency of the amount of training increases the income of beekeeper households from honey production by a factor of 0.120. The regression result indicates that the accessibility of extension service in beekeeping activity influencing the income of beekeeper households significantly at (p<0.05, i.e. p=0.048). Therefore, from this result it can be concluded that getting of extension service from DAs and other agricultural experts is the most significant determinant of income from honey production to those beekeeper households. The result of this study is in line with (Kuboja, 2017) training and extension services the beekeepers receive tend to strengthen beekeepers’ technical know-how thereby improving their beekeeping performance. The same author also explained that, exposure to training and extension services allow beekeepers to acquire new insights into beekeeping. Muluken and Sassi, (2017) have found that the average effect of training on farm income of trained farmers is positive and significant.

4.8.4 Age of the Respondents

The regression result (table 4.8 above) indicates that age which is a continuous variable is not statistically significant at p>0.05(df=9/111), t=0.206 and p=0.837) significance level. To confirm this fact, regarding to the age of beekeepers their age groups with their level of participation are the highest share is from 18-30 years old (28.9%) and followed by 31-40 years (26.4%), 41- 50 years (24.8%), 51- 64 years (14.9%), 65 and above (5%). This result showed that beekeeping can be performed by active youth age groups in the study area. This trend indicates that the youth groups are more involved in beekeeping as one of the income generation activities and employment opportunities compared to the adult and the elderly groups. In addition it is difficult for those elderly segments of population to climb up on the long trees for hanging their beehives especially during bee colony catching. The minimum, maximum and average age of beekeeper respond.

4.8.5 Educational Status of Households

In many research workings it is indicated that educational level of households can increase and improve the attitude of farmers towards the application of modern agricultural systems and technologies that enhances efficiency and effectiveness. There by, it maximizes the profit and income of households. For instance, (Beyan, 2016) indicated that educational status of households positively influence farmers total income indicating that relatively more educated farmers recognize the advantages of farm technology than farmers with less educated. This is because of the fact that education enhances farmers’ ability to perceive, interpret, and respond to new technology. It also enables farmers to be more aware of the improved technology. In the same manner (Aikaeli, 2010) stated that the higher the level of education of the household head, the higher the household per capita income. He also added that education leads to proficient household management and, crucially, improves economic performance of the household as a whole. In addition to agricultural activities, household heads with relatively higher education are more likely to have skills and opportunities to successfully diversify into other, more lucrative, income-generating activities. Moreover, the productivity of individuals with higher levels of education who are engaged in agricultural activities is also likely to be higher than that of less educated farmers.

It is also similar in the findings of this research, the regression result (table 4.8 above) indicates that educational status predicts income of households at significance level of p<0.01(df=9(111), t=4.624, p=0.000). Making all other independent variables fixed, as educational background of households increases by a unit income of the same households increases by a factor of 0.380. This implies that educated rural households are more likely to generate more income than those less educated households. So, educating the farmers is one of the basic tools to maximize their income.

4.8.6 Experience in beekeeping

Beekeeping experience is a continuous independent variable that has the ability to affect the productivity of beekeeping system. As experience increases the knowledge and skill of

households towards beekeeping also increases. Therefore, experience is a source of knowledge. The multiple linear regression result (table 4.8 above) indicates that taking other factors constant as beekeeping experience in years increases by a unit, the income of rural households’ also increases by a factor of 0.261 and it is statistically significant at 5% significant level (p=0.033). Hence, from this finding it is possible to conclude that farmers having more experience in beekeeping are more likely to generate more income from it.

4.8.7 Habit of Saving Money

As indicated in (table 4.8 above) the multiple linear regression result indicates that having the habit of saving money affects the income of beekeeper households earning from honey production. This is because those beekeepers that save money before can serve as a startup capital and support them to attain beekeeping equipment and also can create a better potential to expand their beekeeping activities. So here is keeping all other independent variables constant, a unit increases (develops) in saving habit that increases the income of beekeeper households from honey production by a factor of 0.177. The regression result indicates that the habit of saving money influences the income of beekeeper households significantly at p<0.01(df=9/111, t=2.741, p=0.007). Therefore, from this result it can be concluded that habit of saving money is one of the most significant determinant of income from honey production to those beekeeper households.

4.8.8 Modern beehives price

Beehives price is a continuous independent variable that has the ability to affect honey production negatively. As the price of modern beehives increase the purchasing capacity of beekeeper household decreases. The multiple linear regression result (table 4.8 above) indicates that taking other factors constant as modern beehives price increases by a unit, the income of rural households from honey production decreases by a factor of .003 and it is statistically significant at p<0.05 (df=9/111, t=-.032, p=0.049). Hence, from this finding it is possible to conclude that farmers facing with high and increased price of modern beehives are less likely to generate more income from beekeeping.

4.9 Beekeeping Constraints According to the Perceptions of Beekeeper Households

In order to develop the beekeeping sub sector, identifying the current constraints and searching for solution is important. As a result, prioritization of the problems was made to identify the most important constraints that hinder the development of beekeeping sub sector in the study area. Based on the result of this study, beekeepers also much suffered from a number of difficulties and challenges that are opposed to the success desired in honey production. After identifying the major problems facing the beekeeping activities, beekeepers were requested to list their priority in their order of rank. According to the response of the beekeepers the first constraint of honeybee production is the application of pesticides and herbicides (table 4.9 below).

Table 4. 9 Ranks of major constraints facing beekeeping in Dangila Woreda No. Constraints Rank Frequency % 1 Pesticides and herbicides application 1st 111 91.7 2 Shortage of bee forage 2nd 95 78.5 3 Pests and predators 3rd 47 38.8 4 Diseases of bees 4th 51 42.1 5 Shortage of honeybee colony 5th 38 31.4 6 Shortage of beehives and high prices 6th 66 54.5 7 Shortage of beekeeping equipment / materials 7th 71 58.7 8 Market problem of honey production 8th 49 40.5 9 Lack of beekeeping training & professional support 9th 49 40.5 10 Shortage of water 10th 70 57.9 11 Others Note: The total is not from 100% because of multiple responses

Source: Own survey (2019)

Table 4.9 shows the major constraints encountered by respondent beekeepers. From the total respondents 91.7% responded pesticides and herbicides are to be the first most important constraints that affect honey production. As 78.5% respondents replied, in the second rank shortage of bee forage affect honey production and in the third rank pests and predators 38.8% and in the fourth rank diseases of bees are the most important challenging constraint that affects honey production in Dangila Woreda. Shortage of Honeybee colony, shortage of beehives and high prices, shortage of beekeeping equipment’s/materials, market problem of honey production, lack of beekeeping training and professional support, and shortage of water are also the major challenging constraints of beekeeping in the study area according to their order of importance. In addition to these beekeepers were also indicating another additional constraints such as absence of credit institutions, lack of skill and technological gaps of beekeepers. The result of this study is in line with (Kerealem et al., 2009) who reported that agro-chemical poisoning; honeybee pest and predators, and shortage of bee forage were reported as the major beekeeping constraints in Amhara regional state, Ethiopia.

4.9.1 Applications of Pesticides and Herbicides

Table 4. 10 Applications of pesticides and herbicides

Do the agro-chemicals like Responses Frequency % pesticides and herbicides are Yes 121 100 used in your area? No - - Purposes to use Agro- For weed control 113 93.4 chemicals For crop pest control 6 5.0 For malaria control 2 1.7 Total 121 100.0 The time of using these agro- May and June 5 4.1 chemicals July and August 114 94.2 September and October 2 1.7 Total 121 100.0 Source: Own survey (2019)

As can be seen from the (table 4.10) concerning the use of agro-chemicals all (100%) the respondents replied that pesticides and herbicides are used in the study area. The application of

these bee poisonous chemicals causes a devastating damage on honeybee colonies with a short period of time. This result is strongly supported by (Kenesa, 2018) he stated that in Ethiopia, insecticides and herbicides had been reported as major causes of the death of the colony and absconding in Amhara region.

According to the households’ response the major purpose for using these agro-chemicals are , 93.4% replied that for weed control, 5% of households answered as for crop pest control and the remaining 1.7% of them are for malaria/ mosquito prevention. The vast majority 94.2% of households replied that July and August are the two critical months on which farmers are exhaustively using these chemicals. 4.1% and 1.7% of respondents correspondingly answered that May and June, and September and October respectively are also another time periods on which those chemicals are used. The time of using these chemicals was unfortunately coincides with the flowering periods of most bee foraging plants. This coincidence exposes the honeybee colonies for their mass death at the time of working on the field. Sometimes, this leads to the occurrences of conflicts in between beekeepers and those non-beekeepers.

Similarly, those Key Informants also explained that: “we beekeepers now are facing a conflict with our non-beekeepers neighbors due to their agro-chemicals spraying near to our bee farm area and others caused by bee bites of the neighboring farmers” This result is in line with (Tessega, 2009) which is stated that, these days, the application of agro-chemicals is becoming a social problem due to the conflict of interest between the beekeepers and non-beekeepers during its application.

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS Beekeeping is playing a crucial role in improving the income of the rural beekeeping community. Dangila Woreda has adequate natural resources and a long tradition and culture of beekeeping. The survey result of this study showed that

 The study area’s average annual income obtained from beekeeping products sale is 3001.85ETB, which is contributing 10.2% of the total annual income of rural beekeeping households.

 The honey production performance of each type of hive in kilogram was from the traditional hives the average amount was 4.9 kg/hive/year, from the transitional hives the average amount of honey produced was 11.9 kg/hive/year and from modern hive the amount of honey was 20.3kgs/hive/year. The minimum and maximum amounts of honey in kg/hive/year were 3 and 8kgs, 6 and 18kgs, and 8 and 28kgs in traditional, transitional and modern hives respectively.

 In Dangila Woreda rural beekeeping households’ income from apicultural activity is determined by different factors. Factors such as farm experiences, level of education, availability of credit, access to extension service, access to market information, saving habit and bee forage potentials of the area are a significant factors which are determining (influencing) beekeeping activity. Whereas, ownership of farmland does not have a significant impact on farmers decision on the participation of beekeeping activity and income earned from this sector.

 In addition, according to perceptions of beekeeper households the ranks of major constraints which are challenging from exploiting the available potential of beekeeping activity in the Woreda are the increasing usage and application of herbicides and pesticides, the depletion of bee foraging plants, pests and predators, bee disease, shortage of honeybee colony, shortage of beehives, lack of beekeeping training and professional support, and shortage of water are according to their orders of influence.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

According to the result of this study some of the suggested issues that require consideration by any development organizations are listed below:

Increasing the productivity and production of honey by improving the management of beekeeping activities, increasing the productiveness of bee colonies by improving bee forage and introducing bee plants is very important.

 Measures should be taken to alleviate the main constraints that hindered beekeeping development in the Woreda. Therefore, there is a great need for attention in providing beekeeping equipment’s, minimizing of the effect of chemicals with involvement of regional government by developing strategies, and planting multipurpose and drought resistant honeybee flora, conservation of existing vegetation, integrating beekeeping with agro-forestry and crop production is important.

 Focus should be given to those chemicals which are harmful to honeybees and, at least application time should not match with flowering seasons so as to minimize the poisoning effect on honeybees.

 Credit facility should be available to individuals who are willing to be involved in the production of honey and other hive products. Generally, provision of credit was found statistically influence households income. This could imply that households largely needed external financial sources to solve their financial constraints to meet their production expenses. Hence, to sustainably increase agricultural output and households’ income, farming household should get sufficient amount of money to purchase the necessary agricultural inputs such as beekeeping equipment’s and materials. Therefore, to fill capital deficiency the rural financial institutions should be encouraged and strengthen. There by, their number as well as capacity of these institutions shall be promising.

 The educational status of households was statistically significant in influencing households’ income in beekeeping activity. This means educated households are better to accept modern beekeeping technologies that have the potential to maximize beekeeping

productivity and household income. Education and training might make households open minded and logical to accept the advice coming from concerned bodies. In addition to this educational status increases the knowledge and awareness of farmers about sustainable utilization of resources. Therefore they can be fit to use resources such as time, labor and money wisely. So, to make sure the above statement the administrators should extend education mainly adult education for farmers and ensuring it more accessible to them is very important.

 Establishing and supporting regular training programs to develop experienced and skilled experts, development agents and farmers in beekeeping management and marketing should be the major concern.

 The extension service either by DA’s or experts is very important to help farmers to appropriately use modern and local farming systems. As farmers got extension services more frequently their efficiency to adopt modern beekeeping systems also increases and so as to productivity increases. Therefore, to increase beekeeping productivity and households’ income, DA’s and other agricultural experts shall render their extension service more frequently.

Among many issues come across, it is suggested that the following are important areas that requires future further research and major areas of intervention.

 The effect of agro-chemicals application on honeybees and means of minimization their effect should be addressed.

 Honeybee diseases which were expressed locally by farmers should be confirmed by further scientific research.

REFERENCES

AAURTM. (2015). Strategic Plan to Develop a Globally Competitive Honey Industry in Ethiopia. Submitted to Ministry of Industry, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Abadi B., Abebe A., & Delenasaw Y. (2016). Community Perception on Beekeeping Practices, Management, and Constraints in Termaber and Basona Werena Districts, Central Ethiopia: Advances in Agriculture. Volume, Article ID 4106043, p. 9

Abebe. (2017). Characterization of Beekeeping System and Evaluation of Honey Quality in Tehulederie District of South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Bahir Dar University, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Graduate Program, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Addis N. (2016). Value Chain Analysis of Honey: In Smien Shewa Zone of Amhara Ethiopia; Case of Basona Worena Woreda. (M.B.A. Thesis) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Admasu A. & Nuru A. (2002). Effect of honeybee pollination on seed yield and oil content of Niger (Guizotia abyssinica): Proceedings of the first National Conference of Ethiopian Beekeepers Association, June 7-8, 1999, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp.67- 73.

Admasu A., Gizaw E., Amsalu B. & Debisa L. (2008). Effect of honeybee pollination on seed Allium cepa: Holeta Bee Research Center, Holeta, Ethiopia.

Ahikiriza E. (2016). Beekeeping as an alternative source of livelihood in Uganda: (M.A Thesis), Ghent University, Uganda.

Aikaeli, J. (2010). Determinants of Rural Income in Tanzania: An Empirical Approach’ Research Report 10/4, Dar Es Salaam, REPOA

Al-Jabri A. (2005). Honey, milk and antibiotics. African Journal of Biotechnology; 4 (13): 1580-1587.

AMP. (2007). (Apiary management plan).Operational policy management beekeeping on Environmental protection agency.Pp:1-9

Amsalu B, Alemayehu G, Gemechis L, Kibebew W. (2010). Diagnostic Survey of Honeybee Diseases and Pests in Ethiopia. Annual Report of Holeta Research Center.

ApiExpo Africa. (2014). Beekeeping for economic empowerment in Africa. African Honey Magazine Issue 012 Harare, Zimbabwe

Belay, K. (2004). Resettlement of peasants in Ethiopia, Journal of Rural Development. 27(2)

Berenbaum M R. (2007). The Birds and the Bees-How Pollinators Help Maintain Healthy Ecosystems. Testimonial before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives

Beyan, A. (2016). What factors contribute to the smallholder farmers’ farm income differential? Evidence from East Hararghe, Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 2016, 6(7): 112-119.

Bhalchandra W. & Yahya A. (2016). Biological Properties and Uses of Honey: Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Research (IJPBR). A Concise Scientific review. 4(3) ISSN: 2320-9267 Pp: 58-68

Birhanu G., Tegene Z. , Genene T., Endegena A., & Misganaw W. (2017). Farmers Traditional Knowledge on Teff (Eragrostistef) Farming Practice and Crop Rotation in Microbes Enhancement for Soil Fertility in West and East Gojam. Computational Biology and Bio-informatics.Vol. 4, No. 6.

BOA. (2003b). Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) Bureau of Agriculture, Special report on technology packages. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Pp:4-6.

Bradbear N. (2009). Bees and their role in forest livelihoods: A guide to the services provided by bees and the sustainable harvesting, processing and marketing of their products.

Bradbear, N., Fisher, E. & Jackson, H. (2002). Strengthening livelihoods: Exploring the role of beekeeping in development. Bees for Development, UK

Bradbear, N. (2003). Beekeeping and Sustainable livelihoods. Agricultural Support Systems Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Challa K. (2010). Honey production, Marketing and Quality assessment in Gomma Woreda, Southwestern, Ethiopia. pp.1-102.

Chazovachii B., Chuma M., Mushuku A., Chirenje A., Chitongo L. & Mudyariwa, R. (2013). Livelihood Resilient Strategies through Beekeeping in Chitanga Village, Mwenezi District, Zimbabwe. Sustainable Agriculture Research; Vol. 2 (1):124- 132

Cochran. (1977). Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition

Crane E., (1976). The world’s beekeeping - past and present: Dadant and Sons (ed.), The Hive and the Honeybee. Dadant and Sons, Inc, Hamilton, Illinois, U.S.A. pp:1- 38

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

Crosby, A. W. (2004). Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900– 1900. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521546184

CSA. (2011). Agricultural sample survey 2010/11, 2: 15.

CSA. (2013/14). Central Statistical Agency: Agricultural Sample Survey 2013/2014. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA. (2016/17). Central Statistical Agency: Agricultural Sample Survey 2016/17. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Dereje, A. (2016). Determinant factors affecting the level of income on farmers in Irrigation project: unpublished master’s thesis, Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia.

Desta, B. (2004). Impact of community managed irrigation schemes in farm production efficiency and household food security: the case of Woliso and Wonchi district of Oromia region, (master’s thesis), Haramya University, Ethiopia.

DWARDO. (2018). Dangila Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office. Unpublished annual report, Dangila, Ethiopia.

DWARDO. (2019). Dangila Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office. Unpublished annual report, Dangila, Ethiopia.

DWBDO. (2018). Dangila Woreda Beekeeping Development Office. Unpublished annual report, Dangila, Ethiopia.

DWFEDPO. (2019). Dangila Woreda Finance and Economic Development Plan Office. Unpublished annual report, Dangila, Ethiopia.

EIAR. (2017). Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research: Livestock and Fisheries Research Strategies. Poultry, Fisheries, Apiculture and Sericulture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 153-224.

EMAARB. (2018). Ethiopian Meteorological Agency Amhara Region Branch, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Etenesh M. (2016). Characterization of Honey Production and Marketing Systems, Challenges and Opportunities in Ada Berga District, West Shoa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia.( M.Sc. Thesis), Bahirdar University, Ethiopia.

FAO. (1986). Tropical and Subtropical Apiculture. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 68, FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO. (1990a). Beekeeping in Africa, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 68/6, Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2006a).Value-added products from beekeeping, by R. Krell, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 124, Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2009). Bees and their role in forest livelihoods: Non-wood forest products No. 19, Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2012). Agricultural Development Economics Division. Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2014). Adopting climate change through land and water management in Eastern Africa: Results of pilot projects in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

Fenet B. & Alemayehu O. (2016).The Significance of Honey Production for Livelihood in Ethiopia. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.

Ferrier, P.M., Rucker, R.R., Thurman, W.N. & Burgett, M. (2018). Economic Effects and Responses to Changes in Honeybee Health. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Fichtl, R. & Admasu A. (1994). Honeybee Flora of Ethiopia. Margraf Verlag, Germany.

Fikru. (2015). Review of Honeybee and Honey Production in Ethiopia: College of Dryland Agriculture, Department of Animal and Range Science. J AnimSciAdv, 5(10): 1413-1421 DOI: 10.5455/jasa.20151019083635

Gemechis L. (2015). Honey Production and Marketing in Ethiopia. American Journal of Life Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 42-46.

Getaneh, K. (2011). The impact of selected small scale irrigation schemes in household income and likelihood poverty in the Lake Tana basin of Ethiopia, (Master’s thesis), Cornell University. USA.

Gezahegn T. (2001a). Apicultural Development Strategies, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Gezahegne T. (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). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp: 78-88.

Gezahegne T. (1996). Zooming in on Ethiopia. The journal for sustainable beekeeping: Beekeeping and Development. pp: 40:11.

Haftu K. & Gezu T. (2015). Survey on Honey Production System, Challenges and Opportunities in Selected Areas of Hadya Zone, Ethiopia, Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology and Sustainable Development, 6(6): 60-66

Hakim, C. (2000). Research Design: Successful designs in social and economic research. Abingdon: Routledge.

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

HBRC. (2003). Annual Progress Report 2002/2003. Holeta, Ethiopia.

Holzschuh A., Steffan-Dewenter I., Kleijn D., Tscharntke T. (2007). Diversity of flower- visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. J Appl Ecol.; 44:41–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01259.x.

Hussein M. (2000). Beekeeping in Africa: North, East, and West African Countries. Plant Protection Dept., Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, p 32 -48

Iryani Wan Ismail. (2016). A Review on Beekeeping in Malaysia: History, Importance and Future Directions: Journal of Sustainability Science and Management. Volume 11 No. 2, pp- 70-80.

Jun, Nakamura & Thomass. (2009). Development of Beekeeping in Developing Countries and Practical Procedures Case Study in Africa, Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry, Tokyo, Japan.

Kenesa T. (2018). Status of Beekeeping in Ethiopia. A Review: Journal of Dairy & Veterinary Sciences, Mekelle University, Ethiopia.

Kerealem E., Tilahun G., & Preston T. (2009). Constraints and Prospects for Apiculture research and Development, in Amhara Region, Ethiopia.

Kothari, C. (2004). Research methodology second edition, university of Rajasthan, India. Kuboja. (2017). Economic Efficiency of Beekeeping and its Implications on Household Income, Among Beekeepers in Tabora and Katavi Regions, Tanzania. 59

Kumsa T. (2014). Integrating improved beekeeping as economic incentive to community watershed management: the case of Sasiga and Sagure Districts in Oromiya Region, Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 3(1):52–7. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140301.19.

Leen V., Willem-Jan B., Marieke M., Piet S. & Hayo V. (2005). Beekeeping in the tropics: (NECTAR) Netherlands Expertise Centre for (sub) Tropical Apicultural Resources.

Lulseged. (2014). Contribution of Modern Beekeeping Technology on the Income of Household in Tolay Area, Institute of Agriculture and Development Studies St. Mary’s University, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

Mammo G. (1973). Ethiopia: a potential beekeeping giant. American Bee Journal.113 (1) Pp: 89

Mehretie B. & Woldeamlak B. (2013). Farmers’ livelihood assets and adoption of sustainable land management practices in north-western highlands of Ethiopia, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70:2, 284-301, DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2013.774773

Mehumud Y, Menale K, & Gunnar K. (2009). Risk Implications of farm technology adoption in the Ethiopian Highlands Working paper. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia/Ethiopian Development Research Institute. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Melaku G., Shifa B., Azage T., Negatu A., Lulseged B. (2008). Approaches, Methods and processes for innovative Apiculture Development; Experience from Ada’a Liben Woreda, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Farmers project working paper No 8 ILRI, Nirobi, kenya . 48 pp

Mengistu A. (2010). Improving market access and income of small-scale beekeepers through value chain analysis: a case study from Gera District in South West of Ethiopia. MSc thesis presented at Copenhagen University, Faculty of Life Sciences. 60

Msalilwa G. ( 2016). Performance and Contribution of Beekeeping Enterprises to Livelihood in Songea District, Tanzania. (M.A Thesis) in Agricultural and Applied Economics of Sokoine University of Agriculture. Morogoro, Tanzania.

Muluken, G. & Sassi, M. (2017). Impact of farmers training centers on household income. Evidence from prospensity score matching in eastern Ethiopia. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 4.

Nebiyu & Messele, (2013). Honeybee production in the three Agro-ecological districts of Gamo Gofa zone of southern Ethiopia with emphasis on constraints and opportunities. Agriculture and biology journal of North America ISSN Print: 2151- 7517, ISSN Online: 2151-7525, doi:10.5251/abjna.2013.4.5.560.567.

Nicola B. (2002). Taking the sting out of beekeeping. Arid Lands Information

Nicola B. (2009). Bees and their Role in Forest Livelihoods: A guide to the Services

Nuru A. (2002). Geographical races of the Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) of the Northern Regions of Agriculture Research Organization, Animal Science Research Directorate.

Nuru A. (2007). Atlas of Pollen Grains of Major Honey Flora of Ethiopia, Holata Bee Research Center, Holata, Ethiopia.

Oxfam. (2008). Partner Progress Report. The honey produced in traditional hives is often mixed with wax, pollen, dead bees, and extraneous matter. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Paraïso A., Sossou A., IZ-haquou D., Yegbeme YR., Sanni A. (2012). Perceptions and adaptations of beekeepers and honey hunters to climate change: the case of the communes of Natitingou and Tanguieta in Northwest of Benin. Afr Crop Sci J.; 20(2):523–32.

Rucker. R, Walter, N. & Michael, B. (2002). The economics of honeybee pollination markets. Montana State University .USA, PP1-4.

Sahle H., Enbiyale G., Negash A., Neges T. (2018). Assessment of Honey Production System, Constraints and Opportunities in Ethiopia: Pharm Pharmacology Int. J 6(2): 00153. DOI: 10.15406/ppij.2018.06.00153

Singh M. (2012). Honey as Complementary Medicine: A Review Article. Bio Pharmaceutics. International Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences, V 3/Issue 2

Sisay G., Eyassu S. & Amsalu B. (2012). Physicochemical Properties of Honey Produced in the Homesha District of Western Ethiopia. Haramaya University. Journal of Apicultural Science, p. 33-40.

Sofi, Muneer & Pathania. (2017). Traditional beekeeping for the restoration of degraded Agro ecosystem under Himalayan conditions of Jammu and Kashmir. Internat. J. Forestry & Crop Improv., 8 (1) : 78-85, DOI: 10.15740/HAS/ IJFCI/8.1/78-85.

Spielman, D.J. (2008). Encouraging economic growth in Ethiopia: Perspectives on agricultural input markets, agricultural extension and advisory services, and agricultural education and training. Briefing note. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Washington, D.C.

Tariku O. & Mechthild R. (2013). Circumstances, Constraints and Prospects of Honey- Bee (Apis mellifera) Conservation: The Case of Dale District, Sidama zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Teklu G. & Dinku N. (2016). Honeybee Production System, Challenges and Opportunities in Selected Districts of Gedeo Zone, Southern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State, Ethiopia: International Journal of Research – Granthaalayah, Vol. 4, No. 4 pp: 49-63.

Tesfa A. (2012). Beekeeping systems, opportunities and challenges in honey production and marketing in Ada'a district of Oromia region, Ethiopia: A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Animal production studies to Addis Ababa University College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Ethiopia.

Tessega B. (2009). Honeybee Production and Marketing Systems, Constraints and opportunities in Burie District of Amhara Region, Ethiopia: (M.A Thesis), Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia.

Tsegabirhan W., Teklehaimanot H. & Ashenafi M. (2015). Strategic Plan to Develop a Globally Competitive Honey Industry in Ethiopia: Submitted to Ministry of Industry, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 62

Wilson R., (2006). Current status and possibilities for improvement of traditional apiculture in sub- Saharan Africa. Sierra; 550:77.

Workneh A. (2011). Financial Benefits of Box Hive and the Determinants of Its Adoption in Selected District of Ethiopia: American Journal of Economics, Ambo University,

Ethiopia. Vol. 1(1): 21-29 DOI: 10.5923/j.economics.20110101.03. W

Yetimwork G. (2015). Characterization of Beekeeping Systems and Honey Value Chain, and Effects of Storage Containers and Durations on Physico-Chemical Properties of Honey, in Kilte Awlaelo District, Eastern Tigray, Ethiopia: A dissertation , Addis Ababa University, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.

Zerga B. & Woldetsadik M. (2016). Contribution of Eucalyptus Tree Farming for Rural Livelihood in Eza Wereda, Ethiopia. PJ Palgo Journal of Agriculture ISSN 2476 - 8359 V3 Issue 1, pp 111 - 117

APPENDICES-1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SAMPLE RESPONDENTS

Title: The contribution of honey production on rural Household income (The Case of Dangila Woreda, Amhara, Ethiopia)

Dear Respondents: I, Birlew Melkie, am prospective graduate of Masters of art in geography and environmental studies in Bahir Dar University, faculty of social science , dealing with my Master‘s thesis. So I would like to assure you that this questionnaire is used only for the academic purposes.

Thank you for your cooperation!

General Instructions to Enumerators i. Make brief introduction to the respondent before starting the interview (greet them, tell your name, get her/his name, and make clear the purpose and objective of the study that you are undertaking). ii. Please ask the question clearly and patiently until the respondent understands. iii. During the process put the answers of each respondent both on the space provided and encircle the choice or tick mark as required

PART ONE

Household Demographic Characteristics

1. Sex of household heads 1= male 2= female 2. Age of household------3. Educational level of households 1= illiterate 2= read and write only 3= primary education (1-8) 4. Secondary education (9-12) 5= diploma and above

PART TWO Socio-economic factors I. Land ownership 4. Do you have your own plot of farmland? 1= yes 2= no 5. If your answer is yes, what is the total plot of land in hectare? ------hectare II. Farm experience 6. For how many years you have experienced in farming? ------year (s). III. Saving habit 7. Do you have the habit of saving money? 1=yes 2=no 8. If your answer is ‘no’, what do you think the reason behind it?

1=lack of awareness 2= no money to be saved

3= lack of willingness to save 4= specify if others------

9. Did you have an access of market information about honey production?

1. Yes 2. No

10. If your answer for question number ‘9’ is ‘yes’, what are your main source of information?

------

PART THREE Institutional factors I. Access to credit 11. Is there any credit facilitated for you? 1= yes 2= no

12. If your answer is ‘yes’ for question number ‘11’ from which institution did you get the credit? 1. Commercial Bank of Ethiopia 2. Amhara Credit & Saving Institution 3. Farmers Unions and Cooperatives 4. If others specify------

13. If your answer is ‘no’ for question number ‘11’, why? 1. No need of credit 2. High interest rate 3. If others specify ------

PART FOUR Habitat 14. Does the current bee forage potentials of your area is increasing? 1. Yes 2. No 15. If your answer for question number ‘14’ is ‘no’ what are those reasons behind? ------PART FIVE Sources of income for rural beekeeper households I. On farm income 16. What is your Main livelihood? 1=crop cultivation 2=animal rearing 3= mixed farming 4= Beekeeping 5= if others specify------II. Total income 17. How much money did you earn from the following sources of income during 2010/2011 E.C harvesting season?

Miscellaneous categories of income Source of money Income in ETB Cereal crop sale Honey production sale Vegetables sale Fruits sale Livestock sale Livestock products sale Wood(Eucalyptus) selling Off-farm activities Total income

PART SIX I. Questions Related to Beekeeping/Honey Production/ Activities 18. Do you have your own honeybee colonies? (1) Yes (2) No 19. For how many years you are keeping bees? ------Year (s). 20. How did you start beekeeping? (1) by training (3) learning from family . (2) Learning from neighbors’ (4) other specify----- 21. What is your source of bee colonies when you start beekeeping? ( Multiple Response is possible) 1. By catching the swarm 2. By purchasing the honeybee colony 3. Gift from parents 4. If others specify ------22. If the answer for question ‘21’ is ‘purchasing’, what is the price of one colony? ------ETB 23. Where the site (place) you are keeping your bee is hives? 1. In the backyard 3. Hanging near the house on the trees 2. By making their Own separate house 4. Hanging on the forest 24. How much amount of honey did you harvest in kg/hive/year from traditional hives? ------25. How much amount of honey did you harvest in kg/hive/year from transitional/ top- bar hives? ------26. How much amount of honey did you harvest in kg/hive/year from modern/frame hives? ------27. What is the price of one (single) modern hive with no bee ------in ETB? 28. How did you see the price of one modern hive without bee? 1. Cheap 2. Very cheap 3. Expensive 4. Very expensive 29. What is the main contribution of honey production to your households? 1. For income generation 2. For home consumption 3. If others specify 30. If your answer for question No. ‘29’ is ‘for income generation’, for what specific purpose do you use that gained income? 1. For school fees 5. For buying of house equipment’s 2. For house construction 6. For hospital payments 3. For purchasing of beekeeping equipment’s 7. For buying of livestock 4. For buying of clothes’ 8. If others specify ------

31. What is the annual income from sale of hive product and bee colonies? Total annual No Types of products income (ETB) 1 Honey 2 Beeswax 3 Bee colonies(in numbers)

32. Does beekeeping profitable to the area? (1) Yes (2) No, reason______

II. Beekeeping extension linkage 33. Did you receive training about beekeeping management practice from DAs? 1. Yes 2. No

III. Constraints of beekeeping 34. What are the major constraints of beekeeping in the area? (Rank them) No . Constraints Rank them 1 Shortage of Bee hives 2 Shortage of Beekeeping equipment’s / materials 3 shortage of Honeybee colony 4 Shortage of bee forage 5 Shortage of water 6 Pests and predators 7 Diseases 8 Pesticides and herbicides application 9 Market problem 10 Lack of beekeeping training & professional support 11 Others (specify)

35. Do the agro-chemicals like herbicides and pesticides are used in your area? 1. Yes 2. No 36. If ‘yes’ for question number ‘35’what is the reason to use these agro-chemicals? 1. For weed control 3. For malaria control 2. For crop pest control 4. If others specify ------37. When is the time using these agro-chemicals? 1. May and June 2. July and August 3. September and October

38. Do you face a conflict in relation to beekeeping activity? 1. Yes 2. No 39. If ‘yes’ what is the causes of conflicts? 1. Because of the bite of bees at neighboring farmers 2. Because of the spraying of agro-chemicals near to your bee farm area by neighboring farmers. 3. If others specify ------

APPENDICES- 2 Interview checklists

a) For Woreda Agricultural Experts and Development Agents (DAs)

1. What is the main source of income of the rural households in the Woreda? 2. What is the general perspective of beekeeping activities in the Woreda? 3. Did you give professional support for rural beekeepers? If yes, what kind? 4. Do you think that honey production contributes to the rise in rural households’ income in this area? 5. What are the major factors constraint beekeeping activities in this area? 6. What should be done by the government and stakeholders in order to boost honey production and to minimize those constraints affecting beekeeping activity?

b) Interview checklists for Beekeepers 1. What is the main source of income for rural households in the Woreda? 2. Do you think that honey production contributes to the rise in rural households’ income? 3. What is the general perspective of beekeeping activities in the Woreda? 4. How did you explain the trends of honey production in your area? 5. What are the major factors constraint beekeeping activities in this area? 6. What should be done by the government and stakeholders in order to boost honey production and to minimize those constraints affecting beekeeping activity?

APPENDICES- 3 Observation checklist

1. Activities of farmers on beehive placements 2. The way how beekeepers practice beekeeping activity 3. Observing the physical environment/ mainly bee forage coverages 4. Observing the biophysical and human induced constraints affecting beekeeping activity

APPENDICES-4: Multiple Linear Regression Model Results

Model Summary b

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .785a .616 .585 1311.74938

a. Predictors: (Constant) Age, Educational status, Total land size (ha), Farm experience of respondent, Saving habit, Access to market information on honey production, Credit access of respondent, Bee forage potentials of the area, Level of education of sample household heads, Farm experience of respondent, Modern beehives price.

b. Dependent Variable: Income generated from honey production

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 306090304.662 9 34010033.851 19.765 .000b

Residual 190996195.752 111 1720686.448

Total 497086500.413 120

Predictors: (Constant) Age, Educational status, Total Land size (ha), Farm experience of Respondent, Saving habit, Access to market information on honey production, Credit access of respondent, Bee forage potentials of the area, Modern beehives price

Dependent Variable: Income generated from honey production

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta Lower Upper TOL VIF Bound Bound

1 (Constant) 2903. 2059.259 1.410 .161 1176.887 6984.22 671 9

Age 6.050 29.426 .031 .206 .837 52.260 64.361 .150 6.674

Level of 867.2 187.561 .380 4.624 .000*** 495.581 1238.91 .513 1.948 Education 46 2

Farm 435.1 201.292 .261 2.162 .033* 833.987 36.239 .238 4.206 experience 13

Habit of 915.3 333.953 .177 2.741 .007*** 1577.076 253.576 .828 1.207 saving money 26

Access to 739.5 370.629 .120 1.995 .048* 1473.937 5.085 .953 1.049 market 11 information

Access to 2383. 335.563 .476 7.102 .000*** 1718.148 3048.02 .770 1.298 credit 088 7

Bee forage 1029. 470.039 .140 2.190 .031* 97.882 1960.71 .849 1.178 potentials of 296 0 the area

Training - 262.884 .135 2.252 .026* 1113.055 71.210 .969 1.032 Received 592.1 from DAs 32

Modern 738.7 351.629 -.003 -.032 .049* 2473.937 6.085 .853 2.049 beehives 64 price a. Dependent Variable: Income generated from honey production

Note: TOL – TOLERANCE, VIF- VARIANCE INFLIATION FACTOR