Identification of smoking materials used during colony inspection and harvesting, the case of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia; implication for conservation

Tesfay Atsbha¹, Gebreamlak Bezabih², Desta Hagos³, Hagos Kidane⁴ and Rahel Kiros⁵

¹ Tigrai Agriculture Research Institute, Mekele Bee Research and Training Center Tigray, Ethiopia
atsbhatesfay@gmail.com
² Tigrai Agriculture Research Institute, Tigray, Ethiopia
³ Tigrai Agriculture Research Institute, Mekele Bee Research and Training Center, Tigray, Ethiopia
⁴ Tigrai Agriculture Research Institute, Socioeconomics and Research Extension Tigray, Ethiopia
⁵ Tigrai Agriculture Research Institute, Mekele Bee Research and Training Center, Tigray, Ethiopia

Abstract

The Tigray Region is blessed with a diverse range of plant habitats, a temperate climate, and distributed rainfall. Consequently, the Region is potential for honeybee colonies production and, there are many experiences on beekeping sector as compared to other parts of the Ethiopia. Practically, beekeepers use different types of smoking materials to operate their colonies. . However, to the researchers’ knowledge there is no adequate evidence on honeybee smoking fuel materials that are currently in use. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the honeybee smoking fuel materials available in the Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia. Data was gathered through focus group discussions of experienced beekeepers of the region. The results of the study indicated that, Olea europeae was the most dominant smoking material used by all beekeepers in the study area. Carissa edulis and Plectranthus lanunginosus were most commonly used and preferred smoking material in the Ahferom, Endabatsahima, Tahtay-koraro districts during colony inspection. In addition, Terminalia glaucescens and Croton macrostachyus were also available at Ahferom and Endabatsahima district only, respectively. The study conclude that, the availability of the smoking materials and its preference were varies across the selected districts. Hence, it will necessary to conduct further research on the effect of smoking materials on honey quality analysis in agro ecological base to the area.

Keywords: beekeeping, colony inspection, harvesting, smoking

Introduction

Understanding the annual colony cycles and implementing seasonal bee management techniques is critical for productive beekeeping to develop colonies and ensure the highest possible return (Brown 2001; Thomas et al 2002). Plans for seasonal colony management are essential for the transformation of the beekeeping industry (Kumar et al 2013; Tesfa et al 2013). Seasonal colony management techniques would significantly enhance honey yield and colony performance (Haloua 1989). An important aspect of seasonal bee management is ensuring the availability of adequate forage for bees. This involves providing a diverse range of flowering plants that can supply nectar and pollen throughout the year (Kumsa and Takele 2014). In addition to forage availability, beekeepers must monitor the health and well-being of their colonies. This includes regular inspections (internal and external inspections) to check for signs of disease or pests as well as maintaining proper hygiene within the hive (Wakgari and Yigezu 2021).

Smoking is used to cover alarm pheromones, such as isopentyl acetate, which is used to move bees from the honeycomb during harvesting and a floral scent, indicating that smoke momentarily impairs overall smell perception (Visscher et al 1995). As it impairs their sense of smell and sets off their survival response, it disrupts honeybee colony defenses during hive opening and harvesting (Gage et al 2018). Beekeepers started smoking when the honeybee populations became too large. This interferes with the ability of bees to smell, making it impossible for them to detect low pheromone concentrations (Gage et al 2018), and also reduces their tendency toward aggression (Babarinde et al 2011). According to Gage et al (2018), smoke reduces defensive behavior and makes it possible for beekeepers to handle bee frames without being stung.

In beekeeping, smoking materials are used during colony inspection and harvesting to calm bees and make the process safer for both the beekeeper and the bees themselves. Smoke disrupts the communication mechanisms of bees, calms them, and reduces the chances of aggressive behavior (Gage et al 2018). It is important to use materials that produce cool smoke and do not harm bees or contaminate the honey. Traditionally, beekeepers use materials such as dried pine needles, burlap, or untreated wood shavings as smoking agents. These materials produce cool white smoke that effectively calms bees without causing harm (Morrison 2013). Some beekeepers also use commercially available smoking materials, such as compressed cotton or cardboard pellets (Flottum 2018). It is essential to avoid using materials that produce toxic smoke or residues that could harm bees or contaminate honey (Nowak and Nowak 2023).

In the context of colony inspection and harvesting, smoking materials are commonly used to manipulate and manage honeybee colonies. The use of smoke during these activities has been a long-standing tradition in beekeeping. Smoking materials are typically composed of a variety of natural substances, such as dried leaves, twigs, or pine needles, which are burned to produce smoke. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no adequate evidence on the Tigray region’s current use of smoking materials. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the type of smoking material used for colony inspection and harvesting in selected districts of the Tigray region in Northern Ethiopia. Such knowledge is also useful in selecting and screening honeybee smoking materials for further multiplication in the production of honey, as well as in raising awareness of the need to preserve and protect them in the study districts and beyond in the surrounding areas.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

This study was conducted in the Tigray Regional State of Northern Ethiopia. Beekeeping has great potential in Tigray in general and in the East, Southeast, Northwest, and Central zones of the region in particular. These regions have climates that are ideal for high densities of honeybees, and backyard beekeeping is very common. The beekeeping subsector in Tigray is dominant among small-scale farmers and is considered a cash crop. It is estimated that about 10 % of the honey produced is consumed by the households as food and medicine, and the remaining 90 % is sold for income generation (Amare 2018). It provides employment opportunities for many young, old, and female beekeepers, as well as other rural and urban communities. Beekeeping practiced by many of the rural farming communities for honey and beeswax production, and “Meas” (local honey wine) making, which are their main source of income, food, nutrition and medicine. Tigray’s white honey has a premium price in Ethiopia (Dong et al 2016) and thus, its economic value is significant.

In the east, southeast, northwest, and central zones, beekeeping is an essential component of local farming communities and is maintained by the majority of households as a means of earning honey for sale. Five potential beekeeping districts (Kilte-Awlaelo, Enderta, Tahtay Koraro, Ahforom and Endabatsahma) were included in the study (Figure 1). These districts were selected on the basis of their potential for honey production. Second, from each district, 11 kebeles (one to three kebeles per district) were selected based on their suitability for beekeeping operations.

Figure 1. Map of study area

Sampling techniques and determination of smoking materials

The list of smoking materials for honeybees was identified using 18 experienced beekeeper research group (BRG) individuals who lived for many years in the area and who were assumed to have adequate knowledge of their locality (Table 1). They consisted of elders, religious leaders, youths, and women. In addition to beekeeping, honeybee experts and Development Agents participated in the discussions. Preference ranking was used to select the best honeybee smoking material type in the study area. Preference ranking was performed using ten selected key informants for the most important smoking materials on the basis of the degree of use by the beekeepers.

All procedures in this study were conducted in accordance with the Tigray agriculture research institute of ethics committee’s (Zelealem Tesfay (PhD), Teklay Abebe (PhD) and Mr. Ykuno Gebrewahd). Prior to data collection, representatives of the Tigray agriculture research institute (Gebreamlak Bezabih) was visited and informed about the objectives of the research study and to get their verbal consent (participants were voluntary) for data collection and publication. After the participant agrees to participate in the study, the participant's verbal consent was recorded in the researcher’s notes. Ethical consent was taken individually from all the respondents by ensuring them that their traditional knowledge would be protected. This was done in order to acknowledge informants’ cooperation in preserving the traditional knowledge of the study area and builds their confidence for providing reliable information.

Data management and analysis

All collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel, filtered for invalid entries and coded properly. The collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 20. The results were presented using tables, charts, and frequency distributions.

Results and discussion

Identification of honeybee smoking materials

The study results showed that different honeybee smoking materials were used in order of their importance and availability in the locality for controlling honeybees when inspecting the colony and harvesting honey. As The study result showed that the common honeybee smoking materials used during honey harvesting and inspection in the study area were Otostegia integrifoli (27.97 %), Olea europeae (24.75 %), Teffstraw (17.71 %), at Enderta district (Table 2). The Kilte-awlaelo district had a similar trend related to the availability of honeybee smoking materials. In this district, there is a low availability of honeybee smoking materials. Olea europeae (38.24 %), Lavandula dentata (37.65 %), dried cattle dung (24.12 in Kilte-awlaelo district (Table 2).

Among the districts, Ahferum and Endabatsahima had the highest honeybee smoking materials, followed by Tahtay-koraro district (Tables 3). Beekeepers of the Endabatsahima district used Plectranthus lanunginosus, Olea europeaeand Taffstraw to smoke beehives during colony inspection and honey harvesting in Ahferom district (Table 3). According to the beliefs of the beekeepers of the study area, the smoke of Taffstraw makes the colony strong, active, and productive for the incoming season. Similarly, Tolera et al (2022) reported that beekeepers use smoking materials during the harvesting of honey and inspections, such as Teff straw and animal dung, to manage and drive away bees in Horo District, Horo Guduru Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. In addition, beekeepers in Sekota district, northern Ethiopia, use Olea africana , Terminalia glaucescens and cattle dung during colony inspection (Tewodros et al 2015). The most common smoking material in the Ada’a-Liben Woreda, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia is the burning of dried cow dung, and the intensity of smoking causes unwanted odor and reduces the quality of honey (Girma et al 2008). Nine honeybee smoking materials were identified as the major honeybee smoking materials in Endabatsahima district (Table 3). Among the identified major smoking materials, Plectranthus lanunginosus and Olea europeae were ranked first to second in this district.

Carissa edulis and Plectranthus lanunginosus were the most commonly used and preferred smoking materials in the Ahferom,Endabatsahima, Tahtay-koraro districts during colony inspection. In addition, Terminalia glaucescens and Croton macrostachyus were also available in Ahferom and Endabatsahima districts, respectively (Tables 3). Gefeta wuhij (accumulation of flood sediments refers to the deposition of litter materials that occur as a result of flooding events) is the most commonly used and preferred smoking material in the Endabatsahima andTable 3. Preference ranking of selected smoking materials in Ahferom district, Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia Tahtay-koraro districts during honeybee colony fumigation (Tables 3).

The proportion distribution of honeybee smoking materials were 62.50 % shrubs, 25.00 % trees, and 12.50 % others in Endabatshama district (Figure 2). On the other hand, the proportion distribution of honeybee smoking materials were 50 % shrubs, 33.33 % trees, and 16.67 % others in Tahtay-Koraro district. The proportion of trees in the Endabatshama, Ahferom and Tahtay-Koraro districts was 62.5, 44.44 and 50 %, respectively (Figure 2). Shrub (44.44%) was the most commonly used habit of the plants by beekeepers, followed trees (33.33 %), and herbs (22.22 %) in Ahferom district (Figure 2). This finding indicated the abundance of shrubs and trees, which could be due to their survival to rainfall fluctuation and recurrent drought compared to seasonal herbs and climbers in the study area.

Figure 2. Proportion of smoking materials in the selected districts

Various smoking materials can be used, but the choice of smoking material depends on availability, effectiveness, and safety considerations. Because of favorable climatic conditions, a wide range of honeybee smoking materials were available in the present study districts. Based on the survey results obtained from eight districts of the Tigray region, a total of 17 honeybee smokers were identified (Table 4). However, these materials are not equally available in all the districts. Olea europeae was the most dominant smoking material used by all the respondents in the study area (Table 4).

Several studies conducted in different parts of the country have also revealed the presence of diversified honeybee smoking materials (Tewodros et al 2015; Tolera et al 2022). The common smoking materials in the Horo District, Horo Guduru Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia were Ekebergia capensi, Olea europaea, cow dung, Karabicho, Beeswax and Gari (Tolera et al 2022). Similarly, Nurie (2020) reported that beekeepers use smoking materials during honey harvesting and inspection, such as Teff straw, Vernonia amegdalina leaves, and animal dung to manage and drive away the bees. Additionally, Chala (2010) reported that the major smoking material in order of importance in Gomma Woreda, South Western Ethiopia were Bark of Juniperus procera, old cloth, and Hasufe ranked first, second, and third, respectively. During colony inspection, beekeepers in Sekota district in northern Ethiopia used Olea africana, Terminalia glaucescens,, corn comb, Juniperus procera, seeds of Guizotia abyssinica, old cotton cloth, and cattle dung for smoking (Tewodros et al 2017). The differences observed in type may be associated with changes in geographical location and climatic conditions (Tewodros et al 2017).

In this study, the highest number of plant species with honeybee smoking material values was found in Lamiaceae (33.33%), followed by Fabaceae (13.33%), and Euphorbiaceae (13.33%) (Figure 3). lavandula dentate, Plectranthus lanunginosus, Otostegia integrifoli, Meriandra dianthera and Becium Grandiflorum were species of plants belonging to the Lamiaceae family utilized for honeybee smoking materials in the study area (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Proportion of family of honeybee smoking materials

Parts of honeybee smoking materialsused for the harvesting and inspection

Traditionally, various materials have been used for honeybee smokers. Dry leaves of various plants are commonly used as smoking materials. They produce cool, thick smoke that helps to calm the bees. The results of study illustrated that the majority part of the smoking materials were whole parts, leaves, leaves, bark, and bark, with proportions of 47.06%, 5.88%, 17.65%, and 29.41%, respectively, in the study area (Figure 4). Some beekeepers combine dried leaves with pieces of bark from trees, such as eucalyptus or hickory. The combination of leaves and bark can create a mix of scents and smoke properties, which are believed to be effective in calming bees. Tree bark has also been used as a smoking source. This can produce a hot, smoky flame that provides good smoke coverage. Analysis of abundance of honeybee smoking materials revealed that 17.65%, 35.29 %, 17.65%, and 29.41% were encountered rare, moderate, seasonal, and common respectively (Table 4).

Figure 4. Parts of the honeybee smoking materials used in Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia

Conclusions

Common smoking materials in the study area included dried cattle dung, Carissa edulis, Olea europeae and Plectranthus lanunginosus. Beekeepers used different smoking materials to smoke during colony inspections and harvesting in the study area. Notably, the choice of smoking material can vary among beekeepers based on personal preferences, availability of materials, and regional practices. The goal is to generate a steady stream of cool smoke that gently permeates the hive, reducing the bees' defensive response, and allowing the beekeeper to work with the colony more easily. Nevertheless, it is unknown how these smoker materials affect the honey quality. In order to advise beekeepers on which smoking materials are used and thereby reduce quality deterioration of honey produced in the study area, identifying and documenting the existing smoking materials is important.

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our thanks to the Woreda Agricultural Office for their assistance during data collection. The research team was also grateful to the participants for their collaboration, enthusiasm, and willingness to share information.

Reference

Amare Y 2018 Review of the Role of Honey Sub-Sector in Ethiopian Economy, Agricultural and Food Sciences

Babarinde G, Babarinde S, Adegbola D, and Ajayeoba S 2011 Effects of harvesting methods on physicochemical and microbial qualities of honey. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 48(5), 628–634.

Brown C 2001 Responding to deforestation: Productive conservation, the World Bank, and beekeeping in Rondonia, Brazil. Profess. Geog., 53(1): 106-119.

Chala K 2010 Honey production, marketing system and quality assessment in Gomma District, South Western Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, M. Sc. thesis, Jimma University, Ethiopia).

Dong Y, Frimpong K, Haile R, Liu M, Schaffer A and da Costa L 2016 Final Report for WEEMA International. Final Report for WEEMA International.

Flottum K 2018 The backyard beekeeper: An absolute beginner's guide to keeping bees in your yard and garden. Quarry Books.

Gage S, Ahumada F, Rivera A, Graham H and DeGrandi-Hoffman G 2018 Smoke conditions affect the release of the venom droplet accompanying sting extension in honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of insect science, 18(4), 7.

Girma M, Ballo S, Alemayehu N and Belayhun L 2008 Approaches, methods and processes for innovative apiculture development: Experiences from Ada’a-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. 48 pp

Haloua F 1989 Strategy for development of beekeeping in developing countries. In Proceeding of the fourth international conference on apiculture in tropical climates, pp 176-181, Egypt.

Kumar R, Rajput G, Mishra R, Agrawal O 2013 A study on assessment of duration of dearth period for honeybees in Haryana. Entomol. Zool., 8(1): 434-437.

Kumsa T and Takele D 2014 Assessment of the effect of seasonal honeybee management on honey production of Ethiopian honeybee (Apis mellifera) in modern beekeeping in Jimma Zone. Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management, 3(5), 246-254.

Morrison A 2013 Homegrown Honey Bees: An Absolute Beginner's Guide to Beekeeping Your First Year, from Hiving to Honey Harvest. Storey Publishing, LLC.

Nowak A and Nowak I 2023 Review of harmful chemical pollutants of environmental origin in honey and bee products. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 63(21), 5094-5116.

Nurie Y 2020 Factors Affecting bee Colony Absconding and Prevention Mechanism in Ethiopia. Int. J. Agric. Innov. Res, 9, 111-119.

Tesfa A, Ejigu K and Kebede A 2013 Assessment of current beekeeping management practice and honey bee floras of Western Amhara, Ethiopia. Int. J. Agric. Biosci, 2(5): 196-201.

Tewodros A, Eyassu S, and Amsalu B 2015 Postharvest handling, opportunities and constraints to honey production in northern Ethiopia, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 27 (5)

Tewodros A, Eyassu S and Amsalu B 2017 Honeybee production practices in Sekota district, northern Ethiopia. African Journal of Rural Development (AFJRD), 2(2), 263-275.

Thomas D, Pal N, Subba R 2002 Bee management and productivity of Indian honeybees. Apiacta 3.

Tolera A, Begna D and Betsha S 2022 Characterization of Beekeeping System in Horo District, Horo Guduru Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. culture, 6(1), 44-59.

Wakgari M and Yigezu G 2021 Honeybee keeping constraints and future prospects. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 7(1), 1872192