Honeybee Production in the Three Agro-Ecological Districts of Gamo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AGRICULTURE AND BIOLOGY JOURNAL OF NORTH AMERICA ISSN Print: 2151-7517, ISSN Online: 2151-7525, doi:10.5251/abjna.2013.4.5.560.567 © 2013, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/ABJNA Honeybee production in the three Agro-ecological districts of Gamo Gofa zone of southern Ethiopia with emphasis on constraints and opportunities 1*Nebiyu Yemane., 2Messele Taye, 1College of Agriculture, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia 2College of Agriculture, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia *corresponding author email: [email protected] ABSTRACTS The study was conducted in Gamo Gofa zone of southern Ethiopia to assess the honey bee production systems, constraints and opportunities. Cross-sectional types of studies were used to collect data . Using a purposive sampling technique, 156 households were included in the survey. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 15 software. The main purpose of keeping honey bees were for both income generation and home consumption. The main sources of the foundation colony were catching swarm (96.2%) and buying (3.8%). Most (87.8%) of the beekeepers in the study area have owned only traditional hives. Beekeepers in the study area prevent the incidence of swarming by transferring incidental swarms (69.2%), removal of queen cell (19.2%) and cutting of combs (10.9%). The average amount of honey harvested per hive per year from traditional hive, transitional and modern hive was 5.88 kg, 14.07 kg and 20.64 kg, respectively. There was (p<0.05) variations in the three agro ecological representing woredas in honey yield/hive/year particularly in traditional and modern hives. Whereas the honey yield in transitional hive in the three woredas was not different (p>0.05). The major factors that govern the price of honey in the study area are color and test of honey (59.6%) and season (40.4%). There was (p<0.001) differences on the price of 1 kg honey in the three study woredas. The most important constraints of beekeeping in the study area were lack of beekeeping equipment’s (1st), shortage of bee colony (2nd), high cost of modern hive (3rd), Pests and predators (4th), lack of training (5th), shortage of bee forage (6th), shortage of water (7th) and absconding (8th). However, the study area has huge opportunities and potentials so as to boost the honey and wax production Key words: beekeepers, colony, honeybee, honey, hives INTRODUCTION this in mind the general and specific objectives of the study were to assess the honey bee production Ethiopia, having the highest number of bee colonies systems, constraints and opportunities in the area. and surplus honey sources of flora, is the leading producer of honey and beeswax in Africa. Ethiopia MATERIALS AND METHODS produces around 23.6% and 2.1% of the total African Study area: This study was conducted in Gamo Gofa and world’s honey, respectively. It is the leading zone of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and honey producer in Africa and one of the 10 largest People Regional State, located 505 km South of honey producing countries in the world (Ayalew, Addis Ababa, about 278 km southwest of the 1990). Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region’s Even though the Gamo Gofa zone is endowed with (SNNPR) capital, Hawasa. diversified type of vegetation and horticultural crops Study design: Cross-sectional types of studies were and expected to be potential for beekeeping activities conducted to collect data using questionnaire survey, so far there is no compiled and reliable information observation and group discussion. The sampling on the opportunities and constraints of honeybee units were households keeping honey bees. production in the area. Hence, study of the existing Beekeepers in the three Woreda represented the honey production systems, major constraints and study population. opportunities will help to give important and feasible recommendation for further improvement of the Sampling procedure and sample size honeybee production in a sustainable way. Having determination: The sampling units were households 560 Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2013, 4(5): 560-567 keeping honeybee colony. The sample size required Table 1. Purpose of keeping, source of for the study was determined by the formula foundation colony and hives owned recommended by Arsham (2007) for survey studies: n= 0.25/SE2 Variables Demba Boreda Chencha Overall Gofa With the assumption of 4% standard error, a total of (N=52) (N=52) (N=52) (N=156) 156 households were sampled. Thus, a total of 156 households were included. % % % % A purposive sampling procedure were applied for the Purpose study, a total of three woredas namely Chencha, Only for 30.77 17.31 - 16 Boreda and Demab Gofa were selected purposively income generation from high-land, mid-land and low-land areas, Only for Home - - 26.92 9 respectively. Using purposive sampling technique two consumption kebeles from each woreda were selected. Therefore, Both for 69.23 82.69 73.08 75 a total of six representative kebeles were selected income & HH based on agro-ecology representation, honey bee consumption production potential and accessibility. Finally, 26 Source of households owning bee colony were purposively foundation selected from each kebeles that make a total sample colony size of 156 households; Comprising 52 households Catching 100 88.5 100 96.2 from each agro ecology or woredas. swarm Buying - 11.5 - 3.8 Data collection: Information about the type of hives Types of hive used, the number of bee colonies owned, the owned purpose of keeping honey bees, the marketing Only 86.50 92.30 84.60 87.80 system of honey and other hive products, the rate of traditional absconding and swarming and harvesting and Only 3.80 3.80 7.70 5.10 processing of hive products and major constraints of traditional and transitional beekeeping were collected through interviews using a Only 7.70 3.80 5.80 5.80 semi structured questionnaire. To identify traditional and opportunities of honeybee production in the study modern area a group discussion were made with model All the three 1.90 0.00 1.90 1.30 beekeepers, kebele leaders and woreda experts. types of hives N= number of household Statistical analysis: All collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2007 and descriptive statistics such as mean, standard error; frequency, percentage Placement of hives and beekeepers preference of and one way ANOVA were used to analyse the data hives: Most (57.7%) of the Beekeepers in the study using SPSS (version 15.0, 2006). area kept the traditional bee hives at the back yard of the house, 21.2 % kept inside a simple shed built for RESULTS hive placement, 13.5% kept under the eaves of the Purpose of keeping honey bees and Source of house, 5.1 % kept on trees in forests and 2.6% kept foundation colony: The main purpose of keeping on trees near home stead. Most of (74.4%) the honey bees were for both income and household beekeepers of the study area preferred traditional consumption, only for income generation and only for hives over transitional (11.5%) and modern hives home consumption according to their importance (14.1%) (Table 2). (Table 1). According to the respondents the main source of the foundation colony were catching swarm (96.2%) and buying (3.8%) (Table 1). 561 Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2013, 4(5): 560-567 Table 2. Hive placement and preferred type of hives Variables Demba Gofa Boreda Chencha Overall (N=52) (N=52) (N=52) (N=156) % % % % Hive placement Back yard of the house 51.9 28.8 92.3 57.7 Inside a simple shelter 32.7 30.8 - 21.2 Under the eaves of the house - 38.5 1.9 13.5 Trees in forests 13.5 1.9 - 5.1 Trees near home stead 1.9 - 5.8 2.6 Preferred hives by the beekeepers Traditional 55.8 84.6 82.7 74.4 Transitional 26.9 1.9 5.8 11.5 Modern 17.3 13.5 11.5 14.1 N= number of household Swarm prevention and absconding of honey bee to April. Majority of (84%) the respondents replied colony: According to the present result the frequency that they do not use any swarm prevention or control of absconding of honey bee colonies in the study mechanism whereas the rest of the respondent area were every season (28.8%), every year (54.5%) replied that they prevent or control the incidence of and once in two years (16.7%). According to the swarming by transferring incidental swarms (69.2%), beekeepers of the study area incidence of swarming removal of queen cell (19.2%) and cutting of combs occurred when there is enough availability of honey (10.9%) (Table 3). bee forages particularly during the months of October Table 3. Frequency of swarming, absconding and control methods Variables Demba Gofa Boreda Chencha Overall (N=52) (N=52) (N=52) (N=156) % % % % Occurrence of absconding yes 98.1 56.1 76.9 78.6 no 1.9 43.9 23.1 21.4 Frequency of absconding Every season 19.2 30.8 36.5 28.8 Every year 63.5 48.1 51.9 54.5 Once in two years 17.3 21.2 11.5 16.7 Frequency of swarming Every season 57.7 82.7 63.5 67.9 Every year 36.5 13.5 34.6 28.2 Once in two years 5.8 3.8 1.9 3.8 562 Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2013, 4(5): 560-567 Swarm prevention Yes 11.5 21.2 15.4 16 No 88.5 78.8 84.6 84 Swarm control Return back to the colony 75 61.5 71.2 69.2 Removal of queen cell 19.2 26.9 13.5 19.9 Cutting of comb 5.8 11.5 15.4 10.9 N= number of household indicated that the average amount of honey Trends of Honey yield and amount harvested: harvested per hive per year from traditional hive, Most of (66%) the respondents in the study area transitional and modern hive was 5.88 kg, 14.07 kg responded that the honey yield is decreasing over the and 20.64 kg, respectively.