On farm evaluation of Kenyan Top bar hive (KTBH) for honey production in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia

Haftom Gebremedhn and Awet Estifanos*

Mekelle Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box 258, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia
haftush@yahoo.com
* Tigray Agricultural Research Institute, P. O. Box 492, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia

Abstract

With high adoption of the modern beehive in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia, there is shortage of beeswax for preparation of the foundation sheet. Thus there is high demand of beeswax by the beekeepers and its cost has been increasing dramatically from time to time. Hence a study was designed to familiarize alternative new technology, Kenyan top bar hive (KTBH) and to evaluate its honey productivity under farmers’ condition. A total of 15 honeybee colonies which had similar strength were selected for comparison of KTBH with Modern beehive (MH) under farmers’ condition. Honey yield data from each hive per harvesting season was recorded immediately after harvest.  The collected data were analyzed using GLM analysis of variance procedure.

There was significant difference between modern and Kenyan top bar hive for honey yield. The potential productivity of the modern hive (22.8 kg/hive) was higher than the KTBH (17.8 kg/hive). In Begasheka honey yield from the modern hive (25.7 kg/harvest) was significantly higher than the Kenyan top bar hive (17.8 Kg/harvest). While, in Debrekidan there was no significant difference between both hives. It is therefore recommended to use the KTBH as an alternative technology in areas like Debrekidan watershed for farmers with little skill in modern hive management and to minimize the shortage of beeswax. 

Key words: kenyan top bar hive, modern bee hive, honey yield

Introduction

Ethiopia has a huge natural resource base for honey production and beekeeping is traditionally a well-established household activity in almost all parts of the country (Admasu 1996; Fitchel and Admasu 1994; Gezahegn 2007; Gidey and Mekonen 2010; Gidey et al 2011).  Beekeeping is one of the most important income-generating activities in the rural communities and it provides an employment opportunity for many Ethiopians (Ejigu et al., 2009; Gidey et al 2011). Tigray region of northern Ethiopia is one of the potential beekeeping areas. In this region apiculture is a good source of income for smallholder farmers (Haftom and Tesfay 2012). To improve yield and quality of honeybee products, the regional government and nongovernmental organizations have been introducing a lot of modern beehives and accessories for the past few decades (Gidey and Mekonen 2009). Especially in the eastern zone of the region adoption of the improved box hive (Zander type)  reaches 75.3% (Gidey and Mekonen 2010). This has been done by transferring large numbers of honeybee colonies from traditional hive to modern hive.  

High yield and other quality, ease of inspection and, ease of product harvesting are the major relative advantages of  modern hives. On the other hand, high cost, high skill requirement need of accessories and unavailability of the box hive are the main relative disadvantages of modern hives (Werkneh et al 2008). Wax foundation used in the framed hive and the accessories that it requires are expensive (Patricia and David 2007). Although movable frame hives are recommended for experienced beekeepers that want to optimize honey production, the Kenya top-bar hive (KTBH) has been proved to be most suitable because of its low cost and the fact that the beekeepers or local carpenters can easily construct it, significantly cheaper and easier to use (Tessega 2009; FAO 1990). Also a modern hive costs three times as much as a Kenyan top-bar hive and the beekeeper has to install a wired comb foundation which is scarce and expensive. For Kenyan top bar hive, all materials required can be obtained locally and more beeswax can be produced (FAO 1990). About 8 percent beeswax per kilogram of honey can be obtained from the Kenyan top bar hive (Tessega 2009). While, the amount of beeswax produced from the modern hive is 0.5-2% of the honey yield (Melaku et al 2008). Hence, with high adoption of modern hive or framed hive in this region, demand of beeswax by the beekeepers has increased and leading to shortage of beeswax.  

In the light of these serious problems, it is advisable to look into other options which would optimize the honey and beeswax productivity like the Kenyan top-bar hive. Hence this study was designed to familiarize alternative new technology, Kenyan top bar hive and to evaluate it for its honey production under farmers’ condition. This would have a paramount importance of minimizing the shortage of beeswax in the region and gives poor farmers an affordable opportunity to start honey bee production as a new business. Sales of beeswax also increase the beekeeper's earnings and solve a great regional problem with wax shortage. 

Materials and Methods

 Study Area

The study was conducted in Begasheka and Debrekidan watersheds. Begasheka is found in Kolatemben district, a central zone of Tigray region. It is situated at an altitude ranging from 1600 to 1750 m.a.s.l and between 13^o45’N and 13^o40’N longitude and 38^o55’E and 39^o00’E latitude. Debrekidan watershed is found in Hawzen district, eastern zone of Tigray region. Which is located between 13^o53’N and 13^o50’N longitude and 39^o26’E and 39^o29’E latitude. It is situated at an altitude ranging from 2060 to 2450 m.a.s.l with an annual average rainfall of 479mm. 

Treatments 

To compare the honey yield of Kenya top bar hive with Modern hive or framed hive under farmers condition a total of 15 honeybee colonies which had similar colony strength were selected. For the Kenyan top bar hives, honey bee colonies were transferred from traditional hives. During transferring, all the materials (pollen, nectar, brood and bees) were transferred from the traditional hive to the Kenyan top bar hive. For maintenance and to have similar strength with honey-bee colonies in the framed hive feeding of these honeybee colonies was done after transferring. This was done to minimize the stress of the colonies due to comb damage during transferring. This was demonstrated on a total of 15 farmers from both watersheds. For each farmer one framed hive and one Kenya top bar hive were demonstrated. The farmers were selected based on their interest to demonstrate or evaluate the Kenyan top hive and who had honeybee colonies in traditional hives. Hive type (Modern hive and Kenyan top bar hive) was considered as a treatment and the colonies were assigned randomly to . This study was conducted for two consecutive years in 2010 and 2011, respectively.

Figure 1: Honeybee colonies in the modern hive (left) and Kenyan top bar hive (right) in Debrekidan watershed

Training

Since the Kenyan top bar hive was new to beekeepers of both watersheds, training was arranged before conducting the study. The training was given to the selected farmers, bee experts and bee technicians of the two watersheds about the importance of Kenyan top bar hive, honey bee colony transferring from traditional hive to Kenyan top bar hive, honey harvesting and routine honey bee colony management and inspection. This was done before honey bee colony transferring to the Kenya top bar hives.

Variables and statistical analysis  

Data related to honey yield from each hive per main harvesting season was recorded directly after harvest from each honeybee colony. The collected data were statistically analyzed using GLM analysis of variance procedure. Multiple Comparisons  of means for honey yield as a function of hive type and location was statistically analyzed using Turkey analysis with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to identify a significant difference between the treatments using SPSS 16^th version statistical software.

Result and discussion

The result of variance analysis showed that hive type had significant effect on honey yield per hive (Table 1). There was a significant difference  between the KTBH and modern hive in relation to honey yield per hive (Table 2). The productivity of the modern beehives (22.8 kg/hive) was higher than the KTBH (17.8 kg/hive). The mean honey yield from the modern hive in this study area is similar to the national average, which is 20-25 kg/year (Werkneh et al 2008). It is higher than the yield indicated by Tessega (2009) in the modern hive (15.6 kg per hive) and lower than the result indicated by Gidey and Mekone (2010). In an ideal condition KTBH can yield about 50 kg of honey per year (FAO 1990). The mean honey yield observed in this study area from the KTBH was higher than the yield indicated by Tessega (2009) in KTBH (10.7 kg/hive). It is also above the national average of KTBH, which is a 10-15Kg / hive (Werkneh et al 2008). It is also higher than the mean yield of traditional hive indicated by Gidey and Mekonen (2010), which is 8-15 kg/hive and Jacobs et al (2006), which is 5-6 kg /hive. The difference in honey yield between KTBH and modern hive might be due to the difference in the time of honey bees spent for building comb in the Kenyan top bar hive, while in the modern hive the foundation sheet prepared and given by the beekeepers. This might have helped the honey bee colonies in modern beehives to spend their time and energy on collecting nectar for honey than building new combs.  

Although location and season of harvest had no significant effect on honey yield/ hive (Table 1), more honey yield per hive was recorded in Debrekidan (21.71kg/hive) than Begasheka (18.92kg/hive) watersheds. This is probably attributed to the natural flora of the localities. Haftom et at 2011 also indicated that as there is a variation in the seasonal availability of honey bee forages between the two watersheds. The existence of more bee forage is directly related with higher honey production (Gidey et al 2011). 

Location and hive type interaction had significant effect on honey yield per hive (Table 1). In Begasheka there was a significant difference between the honey yield of modern hive and KTBH (Table 2). While, in Debrekidan there was no significant difference between honey yield of the modern hive and KTBH. In Begasheka more honey yield/hive were recorded in the modern hive (25.67Kg/hive) than the KTBH (17.76Kg/hive). This is higher than the national average honey yield from improved box hive and KTBH and lower than the average yield indicated on the Atsbi Wonberta district from the framed hive (Werkneh et al 2008).  This might be due to the variation in the seasonal availability of honey bee forages. The significantly higher honey yield from the modern hive was indicated in Debrekidan than Begasheka watershed. While related to honey yield of KTBH there was no significant difference between the two watersheds (Table 3). Different studies also indicated that as there is similarities and variation in honey yield of the same hive type (KTBH or/and modern hive) across different locations (Gidey and Mekone 2010; Tessega 2009; Werkneh et al 2008). This indicates that environment or location and hive type interaction has an effect on honey yield per hive. This is most probably due to differences on the type and availability of honeybee plants, management of bees and from exogenous factors such as climate changes, pests and diseases. This is similar with Gidey and Mekonen (2010).

Conclusions

• Overall we came to the conclusion that the modern beehive or framed hive had better performance in terms of  honey yield compared to the Kenyan top bar hive. While, location and hive type interaction had an effect on honey yield of the Kenyan top bar hive and the modern hive. In Debrekidan watershed the Kenyan top bar hive and the modern hive had similar honey yields. While, in Begasheka the modern hive had higher honey yield than the Kenyan top bar hive. Season of honey harvesting had no effect on honey yield per hive. It is therefore recommended to use the KTBH as an alternative technology in areas like Debrekidan watershed for farmers with little skill in modern hive management and to minimize the shortage of beeswax.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Tigray Agricultural Research Institute, operational research project and Mekelle Agricultural Research Center for the grant to conduct this study. We are also very grateful to Dr. Emiru Birhane of Mekellle University for his very kind support on SPSS statistical soft ware operation and manipulation.

References

Admasu A 1996 Preliminary investigation on the taxonomy of Ethiopian honey bee flora. April 18-19, 1996. Proceedings of the 4^th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP): held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp181-186. 

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) 1990 Beekeeping in Africa. Agricultural Services Bulletin 68/6 Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the United Nations Rome.ISBN 92-5-102794-3.96pp. 

Fitchel R and Admasu A 1994 Honeybee flora of Ethiopia. The national herbarium, Addis Ababa university, DeutscherEntwicklungsdienst (DED). Margrafverlag, Germany.519pp.  

Gezahegn T 2007 Adaptation trial of honey plants: adaptability trials of temperate honey plants in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Beekeepers Association newsletter Vol.5, NO.1, pp 16-17. 

Gidey Y and Mekonen T 2010 Participatory Technology and Constraints Assessment to Improve the Livelihood of Beekeepers in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia. CNCS Mekelle University. Volume 2 (1): 76-92.  

Gidey Y, Bethelhem K, Dawit K and Alem M 2012 Assessment of beekeeping practices in AsgedeTsimbladistrict, Northern Ethiopia: Absconding, bee forage and bee pests. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 7(1), pp. 1-5 .DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.1071. ISSN 1991-637X.  

Haftom G and Tesfay B 2012 Determining suitable size of stem cutting for propagating Beciumgrandflorum. Volume 24, Article #175. Retrieved from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/10/haft24175.htm   

Haftom G N, Zelealem T G and Girmay M W 2012 Honeybee flora and floral calendar of Northen Ethiopia. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH and Co.KG and licensors. ISBN: 978-3-8473-7729-0. 89pp.   

Jacobs F J, Simoens C, Graaf D. C. de and Deckers J 2006 Scope for non-wood forest products income generation from rehabilitation areas: focus on beekeeping. Journal of the Drylands 1(2): 171-185          

Ejigu K, Gebey T and Preston T R 2009: Constraints and prospects for apiculture research and development in Amhara region, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 21, Article #172. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/10/ejig21172.htm

Melaku G, Shifa B, Azage T, Negatu A and Lulseged B 2008 Approach, Methods and processes for innovative apiculture development: Experience from Adaa-liben woreda, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Improving productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 8. ILRI ( International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 48pp. 

Patricia H and David H 2007 Beekeeping For All. 158pp.

Tessega B 2009 Honeybee Production and Marketing Systems, Constraints and Opportunities in Burie District of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis. Department of Animal Science and Technology. Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia. 

Werkneh A, Ranjitha P and Ranjan S K 2008 Adopting improved box hive inAtsbi Wemberta district of Eastern Zone, Tigray Region: Determinants and financial benefits. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers project working paper 10. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.30pp. 

Received 27 March 2013; Accepted 12 April 2013; Published 1 May 2013

Go to top