Advances in Agriculture
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 4106043, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4106043

Research Article

Community Perception on Beekeeping Practices, Management, and Constraints in Termaber and Basona Werena Districts, Central Ethiopia

Abadi Berhe,¹ Abebe Asale,² and Delenasaw Yewhalaw3,4

¹Department of Animal, Rangeland and Wildlife Sciences, College of Dryland Agriculture and Natural Resource, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia
²Department of Biology, College of Natural Sciences, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
³Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences and Pathology, College of Health Sciences, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
⁴Tropical and Infectious Diseases Research Center, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia

Received 16 March 2016; Accepted 27 June 2016

Academic Editor: Ayman Suleiman

Copyright © 2016 Abadi Berhe et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Adequate forage availability coupled with favorable and diversified agroclimatic conditions of Ethiopia creates environmental conditions conducive to the growth of over 7000 species of flowering plants which have supported the existence of large number of bee colonies in the country. Despite its potential of honey production, the contribution of apiculture to state GDP is far below its expectation and not well estimated yet. The objective of this study was to assess community perception in beekeeping management and constraints in central Ethiopia. 384 household heads were randomly selected from eight sentinel kebeles. Semistructured questionnaire, in-depth interview, and focus group discussions were employed to gather data. Chi-square () test was used to determine association. Three beekeeping management systems, namely, traditional, transitional, and modern beekeeping, were documented. Beekeeping was reported to create job opportunity for landless men and women for their livelihood and needs low capital to start. Significant difference () in beekeeping management activities between two districts was reported. Even though honey production is increasing, the trends of transferring traditional beekeeping to modern beekeeping practice showed a decline. Training and building capacity for hive management, colony feeding, and honey harvesting should be put in place in order to improve honey production.

1. Introduction

Adequate forage availability coupled with favorable and diversified agroclimatic conditions of Ethiopia creates environmental conditions conducive to the growth of over 7000 species of flowering plants which have supported the existence of large number of bee colonies in the country [1]. Ethiopia’s wide climatic and geographical variability have endowed this country with diverse and unique flowering plants, thus making it highly suitable for sustaining a large number of bee colonies and the long-established practice of beekeeping. In Ethiopia only honey and beeswax are produced. Despite the suitability of the country for beekeeping and long period of introduction of improved beekeeping to the country, beekeeping expansion was very low and its contribution to honey production and the number of beekeepers participated are very minimum. Apiculture is successfully adopted by all levels of people such as men, women, and youth in many parts of the country yet high value bee products like propolis, pollen grain, royal jelly, bee venom, and others have not started to be exploited [2, 3].

Unlike modern beekeeping method which was only recently introduced, traditional beekeeping practice has been known for long period of time in Ethiopia. There are three different types of hives, namely, traditional, transitional, and modern hives, currently being used in different parts of the country with traditional hives constituting the overwhelming majority [3, 4]. The country remains the leading honey producer as well as one of the largest beeswax exporters in Africa. However, the share of the subsector in the gross domestic production has never been proportionate with huge numbers of honeybee colonies and the country’s potential for beekeeping. Production has been low, leading to low utilization of hive products domestically and relatively low export earnings. Thus, the beekeepers in particular were less benefited and the contribution of beekeeping subsector to the state GDP was limited [5].

Nevertheless, in Ethiopia the total volume of exported honey between 2000 and 2008 has been significantly increasing from 1.5 tons in 2000 to 275 tons in 2010 and more than 730 tons in 2012 [6–8] and the export trade of Ethiopian honey has reached more than 2.43 million USD [7]. The involvement of honey and beeswax processing companies is also increasing with 17 honey and beeswax processing companies registered in 2008 [6]. The major destinations of Ethiopian honey include Sudan, Norway, UK, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and other European countries and USA [8].

Constraints such as diseases, pest and predators, droughts, deforestation, and chemical pesticides were found to be key factors that underestimated beekeeping subsector contribution [9]. Moreover, lack of knowledge, shortage of trained manpower and equipment, and inadequate research and extension service have been well described to reduce the apiculture subsector production [9–11].

Termaber and Basona Werena districts in central Ethiopia are not exceptions to the above facts. The districts are covered with natural vegetation, shrubs and man-made forest, annual and perennial crops. Moreover, it has adequate water resources and large bee colonies which create conducive environment for beekeeping. However, no systematic study has been conducted in the area regarding the beekeeping trends, management, and constraints associated with the sector. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess community perception in beekeeping management and constraints associated with the sector in the study area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of Study Area and Period

This study was conducted starting from March 1 to May 30, 2014. The study area is located in Termaber and Basona Werena districts, Northern Shewa Zone in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia (Figure 1). Termaber is found at latitude of 9°50′60.000′′N and longitude of 39°46′0.120′′E. Its altitude is ranging from 1500 to 3100 m.a.s.l. The average annual temperature is about 15.5°C and the mean monthly rain fall is about 1200 mm [12].

Figure 1: Map of the study area.

Basona Werena is also district in the Amhara Regional State of Ethiopia located in Semien Shewa Zone. The district is found at latitude of 9°30′00′′ and longitude of 39°30′00′′E. The altitude ranges from 1,300 to 3,650 m.a.s.l, temperature (°C) is 6–20, and the mean monthly rain fall ranges from 1200 to 950 mm [9].

2.2. Study Design

The study design was community-based cross-sectional design. This includes interviewing 384 representative beekeepers randomly taken from two districts. Key informants and supervisors also participated in giving important information about the beekeeping management and constraints from the study area. The study design considered the agroecological zones of the study area.

2.3. Sample Size Determination

Sample size of the study was determined using a formula for single population proportion following Cochran [13] and proportional allocation was employed to determine the sample size for each district. Hence,

where , = sample size, = margin of error, = total population, = proportion of population, = level of significance, and = standard calculated sample population.

Thus a total sample size of 384 beekeepers was taken in the two districts, of whom 153 were from Basona Werena and 231 were from Termaber districts.

2.4. Data Collection Instruments

Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used to collect relevant data. Observations, in-depth interviews, semistructured questionnaire, and focus group discussions (FGDs) were used as data collection tool to gather primary data from study participants.

2.5. Data Collection Method

Data was collected by using interview to key informants (satellite agricultural development agents located in each kebele, district agricultural development focal persons, and district administrator) and house to house survey of selected beekeepers. Checklist was prepared in advance consisting of different questions in English language and translated into Amharic language for each category of the key informants that help to conduct key informant interviews.

A semistructured questionnaire was prepared and included questions about beekeeping management, constraints, and comments of beekeepers about beekeeping activities. To conduct the household survey field guide person was selected from the study area. The selected respondents were interviewed through semistructured questionnaire.

In addition to the above two data sources, focus group discussion was carried out purposely which included development agents, supervisors, and model beekeepers. Furthermore, FGD members were carefully selected considering gender, age, religion, and villages that can represent different agroecological setup of the study area to get key information. The beekeepers selected for the focus group discussion were those beekeepers that were not included in the household survey and were known by their beekeeping performance. They were selected with help of development agents.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data was entered into a computer, checked for consistency and completeness, and cleaned. Frequency tables were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and statistical testing was made using SPSS version 16.0 software package. Chi-square () was used to compare categorical data with respect to beekeeping management and constraints. Percentages and frequency distributions were used to describe socioeconomic characteristics and beekeeping management and constraints. The qualitative data collected from interviews, focus group discussions, and direct observations were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents

Of the total respondents, 84% and 82% in Termaber and Basona Werena districts were males, respectively. The modal age of beekeepers was 46 years, ranging from age of 39 to age of 59 years. In terms of marital status, 85% and 84% in Termaber and Basona Werena district, respectively, were married, while 62% and 50% of respondents in Termaber and Basona Werena district, respectively, were illiterate (Table 1).

Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of beekeepers in the two study areas.

Termaber ()
Basona Werena ()

%

%

Sex of respondent

    Male
194
84
126
82

    Female
37
16
27
18

    Total
231
100
153
100

Age of the respondent

    18–60
189
82
128
84

    >60
42
18
25
16

    Total
231
100
153
100

Marital status

    Married
197
85
129
84

    Single
34
15
24
16

    Total
231
100
153
100

Education level

    Illiterate
142
62
77
50

    Literate
89
38
76
50

    Total
231
100
153
100

3.2. Beekeeping Methods Observed in the Study Area

Majority of the beekeepers (92.64% and 79.34% in Termaber and Basona Werena districts, resp.) have little knowledge on the modern beekeeping management, although there was introduction of modern bee hives in the area. Most of the respondents did not know the application of intermediate and frame bee hives in the study area (Table 2). Significant difference () in beekeeping system was observed between Termaber and Basona Werena districts with beekeepers from Termaber mostly depending on traditional system of bee honey production.

Table 2: Types of beekeeping methods in the study area.

Termaber ()
Basona Werena ()
value

%

%

Traditional
214
92.64
122
79.34
0.000

Modern
17
7.36
31
20.64

Total
231
100
153
100

3.3. Beekeeping Knowledge and Necessary Skills Reported in the Study Area

Of the total respondents, 77.5% and 69.3% did not get training to develop their capacity for beekeeping management in Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3: Knowledge and necessary skills training offered to the respondent.

Termaber ()
Basona Werena ()

%

%

Colony split
8
3.5
6
3.9

Honeybee colony management
15
6.5
14
9.2

Processing, handling & storage
2
.9
4
2.6

Market information & networking
6
2.6
3
2.0

Input utilization
4
1.7
1
0.7

Bee forage management
5
2.2
2
1.3

All types of training
12
5.2
17
11.1

No training
179
77.5
106
69.3

Total
231
100
153
100

3.4. Commonly Used Bee Hives in the Study Area

Three types of hives, namely, traditional, transitional, and modern hives, were reported. Of the three reported hive types, 67% and 56% of the hives in Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively, were traditional hives. 14.3% and 15% from Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively, were found to be modern; 3% and 7.8% of the hives from Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively, were of transitional type and the rest were combination of either the three types or two types from the aforementioned hives (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Hive ownership of beekeepers (TTF = Traditional, Transitional, and Frame; TF = Traditional and Frame).

3.5. Materials for Traditional Hive Construction in Study Area

According to the respondents, different locally available materials such as bamboo, climbing plants, and dung were used in order to construct traditional hives. Of these, the most dominant type of hive was reported to be bamboo hive plastered with dung, which accounts for 70% and 56% in Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively (Table 4).

Table 4: Materials for traditional hive construction.

Number of hives made of
raw materials
Termaber ()
Basona Werena ()

%

%

Bamboo
161
70
86
56

Tree branch & tendril
49
21
44
29

Clay
6
3
2
1

Animal dung
15
6
21
14

Total
231
100
153
100

3.6. Status and Trend of Colony Transformation

Figure 3 shows trends of transferring of traditional bee colonies to transitional and frame hives from 2007 to 2013. In 2007 there was the maximum number of colony transfers of traditional bee colonies to transitional and frame hives in both districts. However, the trend of transferring showed a decline from 2007 to 2013 in both districts. The least transformation was reported in 2012.

Figure 3: Status and trend of hive transformation in the study area (source: Termaber and Basona Werena Agriculture Office, 2014).

3.7. Honey Production Season

The peak honey harvesting season of the study area was reported from October to November (76% and 71%) followed by January to February (21% and 17%) in both Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively (Table 5).

Table 5: Honey production period.

Termaber ()
Basona Werena ()

%

%

October-November
175
76
109
71

January-February
48
21
26
17

May-June
8
3
18
12

Total
231
100
153
100

3.8. Trends of Honey Production

Even though the trend of honey production showed fluctuation from 2006 to 2012, there was steady increase starting from 2010 to 2012 and 2011 to 2012 in Basona Werena and Termaber districts, respectively (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Trends of honey production (source: Termaber and Basona Werena Agriculture Office, 2014).

3.9. Disease Control Mechanism

Sixty-seven percent and 71% of the respondents from Termaber and Basona Werena district, respectively, reported that they protect their colonies by simple protective measures, such as using metal or plastic covering to their hives. However, 33% and 29% of the respondents from Termaber and Basona Werena district, respectively, reported that they had no significant means to protect their hives from disease. There was no significant difference in disease control mechanism in both districts in the study area (Table 6).

Table 6: Reported mechanism of disease control.

Termaber ()
Basona Werena ()
value

%

%

Traditional methods
00
00
00
00
0.471

Metal or plastic covering
155
67
108
71

Modern medicine
00
00
00
00

Nothing is used
76
33
45
29

Total
231

153

3.10. Opportunities for Beekeeping Development and Honeybee Flora Source

Beekeeping is a sustainable form of agriculture, which is beneficial to provide economical reasons for increased income and means of food security in Termaber and Basona Werena districts. According to the respondents, there was still huge potential to increase honey production and to improve the livelihood of the beekeepers in Termaber and Basona Werena districts. There were also some NGOs giving more attention to the subsector undertaking important intervention to support the development of beekeeping practice in the study area.

According to the respondents it would give an opportunity to landless peasants to practice beekeeping for their livelihood. As the respondents indicated in the study area beekeeping can create job opportunity in which family members can participate in keeping apiary site and harvesting and selling the products. The respondents also suggested that hive occupies very little space and bees can collect nectar and pollen from anywhere they can get. Therefore, beekeeping subsector can be practiced with small holdings and small capital and with hives made using local materials in a sustainable way. Moreover, respondents indicated that they have the opportunity to benefit by making hives equipment and from value added products such as beeswax and colony.

Table 7 presents the list of flowering plant species used as source of nectar for honeybees reported by the respondents from Termaber and Basona Werena districts at various seasons of the year.

Table 7: Flowering plant species used as nectar source by honeybees and their flowering period.

Plants habits
Local Name
Scientific name
Flowering Period

Trees
Bahr-Zaf
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
May to June

Tiqur Berbere
Schinus molle
Year-round

Weyra
Olea europaea
April to June

Lomi
Citrus aurantifolia
Year-round

Zeitun
Psidium guajava
Year-round

Mango
Mangifera indica
December to March

Kinchib
Euphorbia toritolli
Year-round

Girar
Acacia seyal
August to February

Girawa
Vernonia amygdalina
December to May

Besana
Croton macrostachyus
April to July

Kolqual
Euphorbia abyssinica
September to November

Papaya
Carica papaya
Year-round

Muz
Musa x paradisiaca
Year-round

Gulo
Ricinus communis
Year-round

Anfar
Buddleja polystachya
Year-round

Avocado
Persea Americana
October to December

Wanza
Cordia Africana
October to March

Keshushla
Cirsium schimperi
August to December

Shrubs
Tenjut
Otostegia integrifolia
Year-round

Gesho
Rhamnus prinoides
Year-round

Hareg
Mikaniopsis clematoides
November to March

Agam
Carissa edulis
Year-round

Atiuch
Achyranthes aspera
Year-round

Asta
Erica arborea
Year-round

EKtkttaa
Caesalpinia decapetala
October to January

Dander
Centaurea melitensis
October to January

Bakela
Vicia faba
September to October

Herbs
Ater
Pisum sativum
September to October

Senafch
Esinappis alba
October to December

Tosegne
Satureja spp.
September to December

Baoiela
Vicia faba
September to October

Mashla
Sorghum btcotor
October to December

Telba
Unum usitatissimum
October to November

Adguar
Malva verticillata
Year-round

Shmbera
Cicer arietinum
October–February

Serdo
Eleusine floccifolia
August to November

Kamun
Anethum foeniculum
September to November

Suf
Carthamus tinctorius
November–February

Adey-Abeba
Bidens pachyloma
September and October

Nug
Guizotia abyssinica
September to October

Mech
Guizotia scabra
August–February

Gomen
Launaea cornuta
October to December

Besobla
Ocimum urticifolium
Year-round

Duba
Cucurbita pep o
April to December

Tosgn
Thymus schimperi
Year-round

3.11. Constraints Associated with Beekeeping in the Study Area

Different constraints, associated with beekeeping and apiary products in the study area, were stated below in Table 8. All (100%) of the respondents in Termaber district and 85% of the respondents from Basona Werena district reported that colony absconding problem existed that undermined the beekeeping practice in the study area. Lack of enough space for beekeeping was a problem in both districts. The majority, 94.4% and 88.9% of the respondents from Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively, reported that honeybee is affected by drought. Moreover, 46.3% and 70.6% of the respondents from Termaber and Basona Werena districts, respectively, indicated that honeybee colony is affected by bee diseases.

Table 8: Constraints associated with beekeeping reported from the study area.

Constraints
⁢Basona Werena ()
Termaber ()
value

Yes
%
No
%
Yes
%
No
%

Colony absconding
146
95.4
7
4.6
231
100
—
00
0.001

Lack of enough space
58
38
95
62
108
46.75
123
53.25
0.087

Droughts
136
89
17
11
225
97.4
6
2.6
0.001

Poor society awareness
149
97.4
4
2.6
229
99
2
1
0.176

Pesticides poisoning
129
84.3
24
15.7
182
78.78
49
21.22
0.177

Lack of training
106
69.3
43
30.7
179
77.5
52
22.5
0.000

Honeybee diseases
108
70.5
45
29.5
107
46.3
124
53.7
0.000

Shortage of bee colonies
140
91.5
13
8. 5
228
98.7
3
1.3
0.01

Lack of initial capital
149
97.4
4
2.6
211
91.3
20
8.7
0.176

Shortage of modern bee hives
143
93.5
10
6.5
205
88.7
26
11.3
0.120

Lack of experience sharing visit
141
92
12
8
195
84.5
36
15.5
0.130

Significant at .

4. Discussion

Demographic assessment of peoples who participated in this study has shown that both sexes and all age groups greater than eighteen years of age were involved in beekeeping with the majority of them found to be male. Majority of the beekeepers were married, male, and illiterate in both Termaber and Basona Werena districts. A similar result was reported by Yirga and Ftwi (2010), Awraris et al. (2012), and Chala et al. (2012) from northern and southwestern Ethiopia who reported that both sexes and age have great role in beekeeping management [14–16]. However, in the current study, most of the beekeepers were male and illiterate as compared to females. The involvement of few females and illiteracy factor in beekeeping management could be attributed to the cultural influence existing in the study area. This is also in agreement with the findings of the study by K. Tesfaye and L. Tesfaye (2007) that reported the involvement of few females’ beekeeping management in central part of Ethiopia [17].

Traditional beekeeping practice was the most predominant practice reported from both Basona Werena and Termaber districts. This could be due to lack of knowledge, shortage of experience sharing, and low awareness to adopt the transitional and frame hives. This is in line with the findings of the study by Amssalu et al. (2004) and Workneh (2011) who reported that beekeeping practice in south and southwestern Ethiopia is predominantly traditional [3, 18].

Experience sharing among beekeepers enables them to adopt the use of modern beehives. With regard to this, majority of the beekeepers in the study area were nontrained and mainly depend on indigenous way of managing their beekeeping which may not well match with the findings from other studies undertaken in eastern Tigray, northern Ethiopia, which documented that longer beekeeping experience for those beekeepers enables them to adopt the use of improved box beehives compared to beekeepers with short beekeeping experience [19, 20].

There was a shortage of beekeeping experience in Termaber and Basona Werena districts. Most beekeepers did not get training to build their capacity for beekeeping management. This might be due to less attention to the subsector which resulted in low transfer of skills and inadequate training in the study area. Independent study conducted by Workneh (2011) in order to identify and document the indigenous knowledge in beekeeping in Ethiopia concluded the necessity of training that provides technical competency and more exposure to the subject matter and helps to adopt the improved technologies to the beekeeper [18].

All three types of hives, namely, traditional, transitional and frame types, were recorded with the former being the most widely utilized. Traditional hives were made of bamboo, tree branch and tendril, animal dung, and clay. Of these the most predominant type of hive was the type of hives made of bamboo. Similar hive types were reported from central Ethiopia by Edessa (2005) who reported that all the three types of hives available were commonly practiced in different parts of Ethiopia [21].

Trends and status of transferring traditional hive to transitional and frame hive in the study area did not show much change over time. The possible reason for this could be the high cost of the improved hives and lack of awareness in the community. Most respondents from both districts do not know the advantage of beeswax. This might be due to lack of awareness, lack of processing material, lack of processing skill, and absence of market. Similar reports findings were reported by CSA (2008) that described that wax is mostly left or thrown away in Burie district of Amhara Region, Ethiopia [22].

Harvesting time in both districts in this study ranges from one to three times a year; however, the most productive harvesting season was reported to be from October to November. This might be mainly attributed to the offset of the rainy season which results in the flowering of diverse plant species. This was supported by the report of CSA (2008) and Mathewos et al. (2004) who indicated that the major honey flow season was November to December in different parts of Ethiopia [22, 23].

In this study 6 years of honey production data record was presented and it indicated that even though there existed fluctuation from 2006 to 2012, there was steady increase starting from 2010 from 2000 kg/yr/district in 2005 to 14,000 kg/yr/district in 2012. Similarly reports from Benishangul, western Ethiopia, and review report by Gemechis (2014) showed that honey production in Ethiopia increased in the last decade [24, 25]. This might be due to the introduction of transitional and frame hives and policy guidance. However, the products obtained from this subsector are still low as compared to the potential of the country [26, 27].

In this study beekeepers mainly depend on traditional control methods, such as metal or plastic covering, to protect their hives from pests and significant proportion of farmers expressed lack of any control mechanisms. Similar study was undertaken in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha district, central Ethiopia, and documented that beekeepers had no disease control mechanisms [17].

According to the respondents, there are various flowering plants species used as source of nectar for honeybee. More than 40 plant species including trees, shrubs, and herbs that could be used as potential pollen and nectar sources were recorded with some examples including plants flowering throughout the year such as Schinus molle, Olea europaea, Citrus aurantifolia, Psidium guajava, Buddleja polystachya, Erica arborea, Carica papaya, Carissa edulis, Rhamnus prinoides, and Musa x paradisiaca. Similarly a range of potential sources of pollen and nectar, including plant species in our report, have been documented in expeditions made from different parts in the country [23, 26, 27].

In this study it is reported that lack of skilled manpower, colony absconding, drought, honeybee diseases, and shortage of bee colonies were the major constraints that undermine the beekeeping practice in the study area. This could be mitigated by offering training to farmers in swarm control methods, colony management, and disease detection and prevention. Similar constraints have been documented from Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray regions [11, 28–31] including shortage of bee forage due to population pressure, the high demand for farmlands around mountainous areas, livestock grazing, the existence of pests, and problem of absconding being the factors which endangered the health of local honeybees and production of honey in different agroecology zones.

5. Conclusion

Beekeeping is found to be practiced by all ages in the community starting from late adolescence and both sexes made it as one source of income. Traditional hives mainly made of bamboo, tree branch or “hareg,” animal dung, and clay were the main choices in the study area. Even though the trend of honey production showed fluctuation from 2006 to 2012, there was steady increase starting from 2010 to 2012 and 2011 to 2012 in Basona Werena and Termaber district, respectively.

Lack of skilled manpower and training institutions, low level of technology used, poor quality of honey harvesting, absconding, drought, poor society awareness about beekeeping practice, shortage of bee flora, pesticides poisoning, honeybee diseases, shortage of bee colonies, shortage of modern bee hives, and marketing problems were reported to be the major constraints that undermine the beekeeping practice in the study area. Thus all stock holders in the sector of beekeeping should integrate their effort particularly at the level of both administrative districts in order to modernize the beekeeping farming via training the farmers and encouraging them to shift from traditional to modern way of beekeeping.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Department of Biology, College of Natural Science, Jimma University, for the logistics and research facilities support.

References

T. Beyene and P. David, Ensuring Small Scale Producers in Ethiopia to Achieve Sustainable and Fair Access to Honey Markets, International Development Enterprises (IDE) and Ethiopian Society for Appropriate Technology (ESAT), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.

Z. Abiyu, An assessment of factors that affect development of beekeeping in rural areas: the case of hurumu district, Illubabor zone, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia [M.S. thesis], Addis Ababa University, Institute of Development Studies Center for Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011.

A. Amssalu, B. Nuru, S. E. Radloff, and H. R. Hepburn, “Multivariate morphometric analysis of honeybees (Apis mellifera) in the Ethiopian region,” Apidologie, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 71–81, 2004.

L. Debissa, The roles of apiculture in vegetation characterization and household livelihoods in walmara district, central Ethiopia [M.S. thesis], Hawasa University, Awasa, Ethiopia, 2006.

B. Tsega, Honeybee production and marketing systems, constraints and opportunities in Burie District of Amhara Region, Ethiopia [M.S. thesis], Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 2009.

M. Assefa, Pro-Poor Value Chains to Make Market More Inclusive for the Rural Poor: Lessons From the Ethiopian Honey Value Chain, Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011.

EEPA, Ethiopian Export Promotion Agency (EEPA) 2010: Ethiopian Export Data, Ethiopian Export Promotion Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2010.

Ethiopian Export Promotion Agency (EEPA), Ethiopian Export Data, Ethiopian Export Promotion Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2012.

B. Desalegn, “Some major pests and predators of honeybees in Ethiopia,” in Proceedings of the 3rd National Annual Conference of Ethiopian Beekeepers Association, pp. 59–67, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, September 2001.

SOS-Sahel-Ethiopia, Smallholders Apiculture Development and Trade Promotion Project Terminal Report, ANRS Food Security Program Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2006.

E. Kerealem, G. Tilahun, and T. Preston, Constraints and Prospects for Apiculture Research and Development in Amhara Region, Ethiopia, Andassa Livestock Research Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 2011.

Central Statistical Agency of the District, Termaber and Basona District Population Census, Census, 2012.

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

G. Yirga and K. Ftwi, “Beekeeping for rural development: its potentiality and constraints in Eastern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia,” Agricultural Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 201–204, 2010.

G. Awraris S, G. Yemisrach, A. Dejen, A. Nuru, G. Gebeyehu, and A. Workneh, “Honey production systems (Apis mellifera L.) in Kaffa, Sheka and Bench-Maji zones of Ethiopia,” Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, vol. 4, no. 19, pp. 528–541, 2012.

K. Chala, T. Taye, D. Kebede, and T. Tadele, “Opportunities and challenges of honey production in Gomma district of Jimma zone, South-west Ethiopia,” Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 85–91, 2012.

K. Tesfaye and L. Tesfaye, Study of Honey Production System in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha District in Mid Rift Valley of Ethiopia, Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, Zeway, Ethiopia, 2007.

A. Workneh, “Identification and documentation of indigenous knowledge of beekeeping practices in selected districts of Ethiopia. Ambo University, Ambo, Ethiopia,” Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 8–12, 2011.

A. Assefa, Market chain analysis of honey production: in Atsbi wemberta district, eastern zone of Tigray national regional state [M.S. thesis], Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia, 2009.

A. Workneh, Determinants of adoption of improved box hive in Atsbi Wemberta district of eastern zone, Tigray Region, Ethiopia [M.S. thesis], Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2007.

N. Edessa, “Survey of honey production system in West Shewa Zone,” in Proceedings of the 4th Ethiopian Beekeepers Association (EMA '05), 2005.

CSA, Agricultural Sample Survey of 2007. Volume II Report on: Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2008.

B. Mathewos, T. Alganesh, and K. Gizaw, “Farm animal biodiversity in Ethiopia. Status and prospects,” in Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP '04), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 2004.

E. Bezabih, “Market assessment and value chain analysis in benishangul gumuz regional state, Ethiopia,” Final Report, SID‐Consult‐Support Integrated Development, 2010.

L. Gemechis, “Review of progress in Ethiopian honey production and marketing,” Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2014.

T. Azage, G. Berhanu, and D. Hoeksra, “Institutional arrangements and challenges in market-oriented livestock agriculture in Ethiopia,” in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP '06), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, September 2006.

R. Fichtl and A. Admasu, Honey Bee Flora of Ethiopia .The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa University and Deutscher Entwicklungsdieenst (DED), Mergaf Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1994.

G. Yirga and M. Teferi, “Participatory technology and constraints assessment to improve the livelihood of beekeepers in Tigray region, northern Ethiopia,” Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 76–92, 2010.

A. Gidey, S. Mulugeta, and A. Fromsa, “Prevalence of bee lice Braula coeca (Diptera: Braulidae) and other perceived constraints to honey bee production in Wukro Woreda, Tigray Region, Ethiopia,” Global Veterinaria, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 631–635, 2012.

G. Yirga, B. Koru, D. Kidane, and A. Mebrahatu, “Assessment of beekeeping practices in Asgede Tsimbla district, Northern Ethiopia: absconding, bee forage and bee pests,” African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2012.

E. Muli, H. Patch, M. Frazier et al., “Evaluation of the distribution and impacts of parasites, pathogens, and pesticides on honey bee (apis mellifera) populations in east Africa,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 4, Article ID e94459, 2014.