Bee flora identification, constraints and opportunities of beekeeping in North Wollo, Amhara, Ethiopia

Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to identify honeybee flora species, identify the constraints and opportunities of honey production in three purposively selected districts of North Wollo, Amhara, Ethiopia from September to November 2021. In total, 384 beekeepers were purposively selected for the interview based on accessibility and beekeeping potentials. Structured and semi-structured questionnaires, key informant interview and focal group discussions were used for data collection. Beekeepers indicated that the major source of bee colony was buying, catching swarm and gift from others with decreasing order. Beekeepers kept their bee colony in the backyard area. They keep traditional, movable frame and top bar hive, respectively, in descending order. Majority of the beekeepers follow traditional production systems. Twenty-nine honeybee flora species and twelve poisonous plants are also identified. Use of agrochemicals, lack of beekeeping equipment, diseases, pests and predators were the main challenges to beekeeping identified in the study area. Conversely, the suitability of an environment with different agro-ecology, the availability of diversified honeybee flora and the attractive price of honey are the best-observed opportunities to increase honey production and productivity. In conclusion, great attention should be given to training and extension programs for beekeepers focusing on honeybee management, pest and predator prevention, and/or control methods. Supporting beekeeping equipments, strict rules and regulations on the use of agrochemicals should be necessary. Further research should be done on the abundance of honey bee flora and the level and effect of poisonous honeybee floras in order to increase the productivity and income of beekeepers.

Keywords:

• bee colony
• bee flora
• beehive
• beekeeping
• North Wollo
• Eastern Amhara

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Beekeeping is one of the important agricultural activities in Ethiopia. It is still an untapped sector of agriculture in the country. Beekeeping activities in Ethiopia are mainly constrained by the inability to transform, promote, and scale up to rapid growth, a lack of commercial development of beekeeping and beekeeping technology, limited credit service, a lack of market accessibility and knowledge extension, a shortage of bee forage and pests and predators. North Wollo zone is one of the potential areas in the country. However, there are different challenges in the study areas. It includes improper use of agrochemicals, lack of beekeeping equipment, diseases, pests and predators. The finding of this study enables to search solutions for those challenges and to use the existing opportunities properly that helps to increase the productivity and income of the beekeepers. This study was conducted to identify major honey bee floras and poisonous plants, opportunities and constraints.

1. Introduction

Ethiopia has a long tradition of beekeeping practice, which is one of the important agricultural activities. Despite its long history, beekeeping is still an untapped sector of agriculture in the country. Beekeeping activities in Ethiopia are mainly constrained by the inability to transform, promote, scale up to rapid growth, lack of commercial development of beekeeping and beekeeping technology, limited credit service, a lack of market accessibility and knowledge extension, a shortage of bee forage and pests and predators (Addisu et al., 2021; Kebede & Tadesse, 2014). Moreover, 95.8% of the beekeepers are using traditional hive production system (Central Stastics Agency CSA, 2021).

Recently, the Ethiopian government recognized the contribution of beekeeping to poverty reduction, sustainable development and conservation of natural resources. At different levels, a significant number of people are engaged in trading honey and beeswax and selling local honey wines, “Tej”, that creates job and self-employment opportunities for a large number of citizens (Gidey & Mekonen, 2010).

The total annual honey production of Ethiopia is estimated to be 129 million kg (CSA, 2021), yielding 13% of the agricultural GDP (Demisew, 2016). Beekeeping can significantly contribute to beekeeper’s livelihoods and the country’s economy (Daba & Wolde, 2016). According to Nuru (2002) report, beekeeping is a very long practice in the agricultural communities of the Amhara region and it plays an important role as an additional source of money and food for many farmers. The Amhara region has good potential for honey production. Among many factors, the accessibility of potential flowering plants and a plentiful source of water for bees are the two most important parameters for an area that can be considered as potential honey production (Adebabay et al., 2008).

North Wollo Zone, one of a potential honey producing area in Amhara region, has diversified honeybee floras (Getachew et al., 2022). Its honey production capacity (14.3 kg/hive) and quality are known by local producers and consumers (Asmiro et al., 2017). Furthermore, honey is used as a traditional medicine, for cultural activities and as food in this area. In addition, the area also has many tourist destinations that increase the customers of honey. Due to the presence of diverse agro-ecologies and flowering species of plants in Ethiopia, including North Wollo Zone, several distinctive mono-floral and multi-floral honeys are produced in different seasons. There are various studies conducted in different parts of the country including Kefa, Sheka and Benchi Maji Zone (Awraris et al., 2012), Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia (Teklu & Dinku, 2016), Siliti district Southern region (Alemayehu, 2011), Godere district, Gambella region (Tesfaye et al., 2018) and Eastern Tigray region (Gebreyohans & Gebremariam, 2017), reporting about beekeeping management practice, production systems, constraints and opportunities. These reports are very important for researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders to make and suggest intervention strategies for the improvement of beekeeping practice. Beekeeping research done in the country is encouraging, although it does not address all the potential areas to identify opportunities and constraints for further intervention (Chala et al., 2012). However, there are no detailed scientific findings conducted on honeybee production system, socioeconomic characteristics, constraints and potential opportunities mainly on Meket, Lasta and Bugna districts, which are known as honey-producing districts of North Wollo Zone. Therefore, the objective of this study was to find out information on socioeconomic characteristics of beekeepers, honey production systems, major honeybee floras, constraints and possible opportunities of beekeeping for increasing production and productivity of beekeeping in North Wollo, Amhara, Ethiopia.

2. Materials and method

2.1. Description of the study area

The study was conducted in three selected districts (Lasta, Meket and Bugna) of North Wollo Zone, which are located in the eastern part of Amhara regional state, Ethiopia (Figure 1). North Wollo Zone is one of the eleven zones of Amhara region and geographically located between 11° to 12°N latitude and 39° to 40°E longitude (Eshetu, 2017). Lasta district is geographically located at 12°35’31’’ N latitude and 39°04’30’’ E longitude. The altitude attains up to 3600 m.a.s.l (Kasaye et al., 2020), while Meket district has a latitude and longitude of 11°40′0″N, and 38°48′0″E, respectively, with an elevation of 1699–3502 m.a.s.l (Tegegne & Workineh, 2017). Similarly, Bugna has a latitude of 12°19’60.00”N, longitude 38°44’59.99”E and an elevation from 900 to over 4100 m.a.s.l.

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

2.2. Sampling procedure and data collection

Before starting the main data collection work, exploratory field observation was conducted to know and strengthen the current potential and distribution of honeybees, bee flora (vegetation sources), climatic condition and honey production potential of the districts and their kebeles. Multi-stage sampling technique was employed to select the required households (HH). In the first stage, three honey producing districts were selected purposively based on their accessibility and beekeeping potential. In the second stage, three Kebeles were selected purposively from each of the three districts, and in the third stage, total of 384 honey producers were selected purposively for HH survey.

Direct observation, structured (definite, concrete and pre-determined questions) and semi-structured (open-ended) questionnaire, key informant interview with zonal and district beekeeping experts and focus group discussion with district development agents, elders, village leaders were used to collect data for sociodemographic characteristics like beekeeping practices, honeybee flora species identification, existing constraints and potential opportunities in the study districts. The scientific names of unfamiliar honeybee and poisonous plants were identified using botanical field guides and taxonomic key using flora books of Ethiopia and Eritrea (Hedberg et al., 2003).

2.3. Data management and analysis

Data were encoded in a Microsoft Excel computer program and analyzed using statistical Package for Social Sciences software (IBM SPSS version 24.00). The results were summarized using descriptive statistics of sociodemographic characteristics (mean±SD, range, and percentage) for age, family and land size of the respondents, and honeybee colonies. The summary statistics were also presented by using table, graphs and figures. Ranking index was used to determine constraints and opportunities of honey bee production in the selected districts.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents

As shown in Table 1, from the total respondents, 99.5% were male while only 0.5% were female beekeepers. The low participation of female in beekeeping practice in this study agreed with Amsalu et al. (2020) in East Wollega Zone, Tewodros et al. (2017) in Sekota district and Workneh and Ranjitha (2011) in Tigray region, Ethiopia. This might be due to the culture inherited from families that classify beekeeping as men work, time of management activities, which takes place especially at late evening that might be not convenient for female. The survey result showed that 72.2% of the respondents can read and write, while 27.8% had no formal education. This is higher than Ethiopian’s 2017 literacy rate of 51.77%. The literacy level in the present study is higher than the report of Adebabay et al. (2008) from Amhara region (60%) and Tewodros et al. (2017) from Sekota district (62.5%) and lower than Awraris et al. (2012) report in Sheka, Kaffa and Bench-Maji zones (80.7%). The educational status of beekeepers has direct impact on the adoption of beekeeping practice. These results showed that the majority of respondents can adopt the extension service easily and enable them to access relevant information that will encourage them for honey production. Additionally, out of the HH interviewed, 97.6% were married and the other 1.82% and 0.26% were single and widowed, respectively (Table 1). This result is in line with Adebabay et al. (2008) in Amhara region (97.4%), Tessega (2009) in Burie district (97.5%) and Tewodros et al. (2017) in Waghimra and South Wollo zones (95%) of the respondent were married. Adino and Tessema (2021) reported that the marital status has significant effect on beekeeping adoption.

Table 1. Socio demographic characteristics of bee keepers (N = 384)

Socio demographic characteristics		Districts			Total N (%)
		Meket N (%)	Bugna N (%)	Lasta N (%)
Sex	Male	126 (98.4)	128 (100)	128 (100)	382 (99.5)
	Female	2 (1.6)	-	-	2 (0.5)
Level of education	Illiterate	20 (15.6)	44 (34.3)	43 (33.6)	107 (27.8)
	Read and write	69 (43.7)	19 (14.8)	41 (32)	129 (30.1)
	Primary education	31 (24.2)	48 (37.5)	15 (11.7)	94 (24.4)
	From grade 5–10	21 (16.4)	17 (13.2)	29 (22.6)	67 (17.4)
Marital status	Married	127 (99.2)	124 (96.8)	125 (97.6)	376 (97.6)
	Single	-	4 (3.1)	3 (2.3)	7 (1.8)
	Widowed	1 (0.8)	0	0	1 (0.3)

Beekeepers who were involved in honey production had an average age of 46.7 ± 11 years as shown in Table 2, which was under the class of active and productive age range (Aregawi et al., 2018). The finding is similar with Addisu et al. (2021) report in South Wollo Zone Ethiopia who reported mean age of the respondents was 43.6 years, which lies within the productive age and have advantage to upgrade beekeeping in a modern way by using new technologies. The average family size of the respondents was 5.2 ± 1.4 (mean ± SD), which is similar with Teklu and Dinku (2016) who reported average family size of 5.40 person in Gedeo zone, Ethiopia and lower than Alemayehu (2011) reported average family size of 8.48 people from Siliti, Ethiopia. Large family sizes have a better chance for labor shares in farm activities and hence for beekeeping activities too (Shibru et al., 2016). Average land sizes of respondents in the study area were 1.3 ± 1.18 hectare per HH. This is within the range of national average 1.0–1.5 hectares of land. Furthermore, it agrees with Keralem (2005) who reported 1.25 hectare of land in Amhara region, Enebse district. The respondents from Lasta district showed higher (P < 0.05) hectares of land (1.9 ± 1.6) than Meket (1 ± 0.77) and Bugna (0.86 ± 0.6) districts. Beekeeping does not require large farm size and also not competing with other agricultural activities.

Table 2. Age, family and land size of the honeybee-keeping respondents (mean±SD)

HHs characteristics	Meket	Bugna	Lasta	Total
Age	44.8 ± 8.3	44.2 ± 11.3	51.2 ± 13.5	46.7 ± 11
Family size	5.2 ± 0.9	5.4 ± 1.4	4.9 ± 1.6	5.2 ± 1.4
Land size	1.0 ± 0.77	0.86 ± 0.6	1.9 ± 1.6	1.3 ± 1.18

HHs - households

3.2. Source of bee colony

The sources of honeybee colonies in the study area were described in Figure 2. Among the entire HHs, 33.5% and 28.3% of the respondents get bee colony through buying and from catching swarm colony, respectively. According to this study, beekeepers prefer and use buying as their primary method of obtaining bee colonies because it is riskfree for beginners and does not require queen raising or special handling skills; they can simply buy and take the colony. The other sources were from gift and catching swarm (15.3%), catching and buying (17.1%) and gift and buying (2.8%), respectively. The findings of this study differet from the earlier report by Fikru et al. (2015) in Somali Regional Ethiopia (71.43%) started beekeeping from catching swarm. Similarly, Yemane and Taye (2013) in Gamo Gofa zone reported more than 96% of the respondents started beekeeping by catching swarms. In addition, Gebreyohans and Gebremariam (2017) in eastern Tigray region reported that the obtained colonies were as gift and buying accounting for 38% and 35%, respectively. In addition, Amsalu et al. (2020) in the Diga and Wayu Tuka districts in Oromia region reported 54% of the beekeepers get from catching swarm. Similarly, Aregawi et al. (2018) in the North East dry land areas of Amhara region reported that the major source of bee colony was catching swarms. The present study indicated that there are various sources of honeybee colony.

Figure 2. Sources of honey bee colony in the study area.

3.3. Placement of beehive in the study area

Majority of the respondents (78.3%) kept their bee colony at the backyard and the remaining (21.7%) in the eve of the house, hanging on trees in the forests, inside the house and hanging on trees near homestead (Table 3). This figure is higher than the study conducted in Jigjiga town, Somali region, where 57.75% of the respondents kept bee colony at the backyard area, and higher than the findings of Kebede & Tadesse, 2014 who reported 62.3% of the respondents kept their colonies around the homestead (backyard) in Hadiya zone. Gebrehaweria et al. (2018) in Afar region also reported that 83.3% of the respondents kept bee colony at the backyard of their house. On the other hand, similar findings were reported by Addisu et al. (2021) in South Wollo Zone that stated 80.38% of the respondents keep in the backyard areas. Keeping colony in backyards are easier for frequent inspection and other hive managements (including swarm prevention, pest and predator control and quality honey production) compared to free apiaries (Ejigu et al., 2009). Some beekeepers from Meket district also keep inside the house “kushina” by making hole on the wall of the house and putting the entrance side out of the wall. Meket has relatively cold weather conditions than Bugna and Lasta, which might be the reason for keeping colony under the eve of the house and inside the house.

Table 3. Placement of bee colony in the study area (N = 384)

Variables	Response	Meket N= (%)	Bugna N (%)	Lasta N (%)	Total N (%)
Placement of bee colony	Backyard	60 (46.87)	117 (91.41)	124 (96.87)	301 (78.38)
	Under the eve of the house	40 (31.25)	8 (6.25)	4 (3.13)	52 (13.54)
	Inside the house/kushina/	12 (9.38)	0	0	12 (3.13)
	Hanging on trees near homestead	0	3 (2.34)	0	3 (0.78)
	Hanging on trees in the forests	16 (12.5)	0	0	16 (4.17)
	Total	100	100	100	100

3.4. Honeybee colony holding

The average honeybee colony holding in the study area were 7.2$\pm$11.5, 3.5$\pm$4.07, and 2.3$\pm$2 of traditional, movable frame and intermediate hive, respectively (Table 4). This is in line with the report from Burie district of Amhara region, which indicated that the average honeybee population in the sample participant for traditional, moveable frame and top bar hives were 7.75, 3.73 and 0.17, respectively (Tessega, 2009). Majority of the respondents (89.8%) have traditional hive, which is very closest to CSA (2021), which reported that 95.8% of the honeybee colony is traditional hive in the country. This finding also supported with Yemane and Taye (2013) report in Gamo Gofa zone of Southern Ethiopia, which reported that most of the beekeepers preferred traditional hive over intermediate and movable frame hive. Generally, most of the beekeepers in this study use traditional hive that might be due to availability of raw materials for construction and their strong adaptation for the traditional hive. The previous report by Yemane and Taye (2013) showed that honey yield from movable frame hive is higher than traditional and intermediate hive. In addition, the higher the number of colonies holding, the higher the productivities per year.

Table 4. Honey bee colony holding in the study area

Hive type	Districts	N	Min	Max	Mean$\pm \hspace{0.17em}$ SD
Traditional	Meket	122	1.00	24.00	3.8 $\pm$ 4.2
	Bugna	122	1.00	50.00	9.2 $\pm$ 10.9
	Lasta	101	1.00	80.00	8.8 $\pm$ 16.5
	Total	345	1.00	80.00	7.2 $\pm$ 11.5
Intermediate	Meket	24	1.00	10.00	3.4 $\pm$ 3.9
	Bugna	34	1.00	6.00	1.76 $\pm$ 1.5
	Lasta	62	1.00	3.00	2.2 $\pm$ 0.7
	Total	120	1.00	10.00	2.3 $\pm$ 2.0
Movable frame	Meket	57	1.00	22.00	3.84 $\pm$ 5.7
	Bugna	80	1.00	12.00	4.1 $\pm$ 3.2
	Lasta	61	1.00	12.00	2.4 $\pm$ 2.7
	Total	198	1.00	22.00	3.5 $\pm$ 4.07

3.5. Major honeybee plants in the study area

According to the survey result, 33 honeybee flora species with 18 families were identified. Out of these, 18%, 15% and 12% were Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Lamiaceae families, respectively. This finding is supported with Kerealem et al. (2017) in Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia, which reported that Asteraceae, Leguminoseae, Fabacae and Lamiaceae were the dominant honeybee plant families representing 14.8%, 6.6%, 5.9% and 5.9%, respectively. Even if various plant species give flower in different seasons, majority of them (36%) bloom from September to November (Table 5). Adeyabeba (Bidens pachyloma), Maget (Trifolium Spp), Mentese (Becium grandflorium), Woyira (Olea europaea), Wanza (Cordia africana), Suf (Carthamus tinctorius) and Kushile (Echinops spp) are some of the common honeybee floras. This is consistent with the findings of Kerealem et al. (2017) in Western Amhara, which reported that Bidens species, Trifolium species, Cordia africana, Acacia species, Eucalyptus species, Croton macrostachyus, Vernonia species were identified as major honeybee plants. Similarly, Kebede & Tadesse (2014) reported Girawa (Vernonia amygdalina), Woyira (Olea europaea), Wanza (Cordia Africana) and Bahirzaf (Eucalyptus spp) were common honeybee flora in Hadya zone. In addition, Tewodros et al. (2017) reported Becium grandiflorum, Euclea shimperi, Sorghum bicolor, and Echinops spp. Also, Acacia tortolis, Acacia seyal, Acacia asak, Terminalia glaucescens, Hypoestes trifolia, Ocimum bacilicum, Aloe spp., Bidens spp., Euphorbia spp. and Vicia faba were the other major honeybee flora in the Sekota areas. Furthermore, Getachew et al. (2022) reported that Bidens pachyloma, Cordia africana, Trifolium rueppellianum, Guizotia scabra, Vicia sativa, Croton macrostachya, Euclea racemosa, Acacia abyssinica, Eucalyptus species, Helianthus annuus flowered more than once in a year. Eucalyptus species, Schinus molle, Cordia africana, Ehretia cymosa, Pterolobium stellatum, Lippia adoensis, and Aloe berhana are some of the honeybee floras in the different areas of eastern Amhara, Ethiopia.

Table 5. Major honeybee preferable plants prioritized based on frequency of respondents in the study area

No.	Local name	Scientific name	Family	Rewards	Frequency of respondent	Percentage (%) of respondent
1	Adeyabeba	Bidens pachyloma	Asteraceae	Pollen/Nectar	365	95
2	Mentese	Becium grandflorium	Lamiaceae	Pollen/Nectar	350	91.1
3	Maget	Trifolium Spp.	Fabaceae	Nectar	342	89.3
4	Simiza	Justitia schemperina	Acanthaceae	Pollen/Nectar	340	88.5
5	Menoguaya	Vicia dassycarpa	Asteraceae	Pollen/Nectar	321	83.5
6	Bakela	Vicia faba	Fabaceae	Pollen/Nectar	315	82
7	Meche	Guizotia scabra	Asteraceae	Pollen	310	80,7
8	Saligena	Acacia saligna	Fabaceae	Pollen	280	72.9
9	Tejmatebiya (tiqur telenj)	Hypoestes trifloral	Acanthaceae	Pollen/Nectar	278	72.4
10	Kushile	Echinops spp.	Asteraceae	Nectar	260	67.7
11	Abatimara	Ocimum bacilicum	Lamiaceae	Pollen/Nectar	240	62.5
12	yetebemenja zaf	Jacaranda mimosifolia	Bignoniaceae		235	61.2
13	Nech Girar	Acacia abyssinica	Fabaceae	Pollen/Nectar	210	54.6
14	Anfar	Buddleja polystachya	Loganiaceae	Pollen/Nectar	205	53.3
15	Kenitefa	Pterolobium stellatum	Caesalpiniaceae	Pollen/Nectar	202	52.6
16	Aluma	Achyranthus spp	Amaranthaceae	Pollen/Nectar	200	52
17	Yeset milas/amekela	Hygrophila schulli	Acanthaceae		195	50.7
18	Wanza	Cordia Africana	Boraginaceae	Pollen/Nectar	192	50
19	Qundoberbere	Piper nigrum	Piperaceae	Pollen/Nectar	180	46.8
20	Dedeho	Euclea shimperi	Ebenaceae	Pollen/Nectar	175	45.5
21	Tosigne	Thymus schimperi	Lamiaceae	Pollen/Nectar	171	44.5
22	Sespaniya/shiwushiwuye	Sesbania sesban	Fabaceae	Pollen/Nectar	165	42.9
23	Qega	Rosa abyssincia	Rosaceae	Pollen/nectar	162	42.1
24	Key Bahirzaf	Eucalyptus camaldulensis	Myrtaceae	Pollen/nectar	157	40.8
25	Woyira	Olea europaea	Oleaceae	Pollen/nectar	128	33.3
26	Kuleza	Guizotia villosa	Asteraceae	Pollen/nectar	112	29.1
27	Firtata	Adansonia digitate	Bombacaceae	Pollen/nectar	98	25.5
28	Suf	Carthamus tinctorius	Asteraceae	Pollen/nectar	82	21.3
29	Kitkita	Dodonaea angustifolia	Sapindaceae	Pollen/nectar	60	15.6

3.6. Honeybee poisonous plants

Honeybee can be poisoned by chemical or poisonous plant. The result in Table 6 showed that there are poisonous floras that can kill and damage honeybees. Yeferenj suf (Helianthus annuus), Chiret (Agave spp), Digita (Calpurnia aurea), Eret (Aloe pulcherrima Gilbert), Tinjut (Otostegia fruticosa), Embacho (Rumex nervosus), Azo areg (Clematis simensis), Quliquwal (Euphorbia abyssinica) and Bisana (Croton macrostachyus) are poisonous honeybee floras commonly found in the study area (Table 6). Similarly, Assemu et al. (2013) reported that Quliquwal (Euphorbia abyssinica) and Bisana (Croton macrostachyus) are poisonous honeybee floras with their symptoms in western Amhara region. Other study by Aregawi et al. (2018) in the North East dry land areas of Amhara region reported that Yeferenj suf (Helianthus annuus), Chiret (Agave spp), Azo areg (Clematis simensis), Eret (Aloe pulcherrima Gilbert) are the honeybee poisonous plants. These plants, however, require confirmation through additional laboratory research on their toxicity.

Table 6. Major honeybee plants floral calendar in the study area

		Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug
1	Rosa abyssincia
2	Acacia abyssinica
3	Eucalyptus camaldulensis
4	Bidens pachyloma
5	Vicia dassycarpa
6	Vicia faba
7	Cordia Africana
8	Piper nigrum
9	Euclea shimperi
10	Acacia saligna
11	Guizotia scabra
12	Sesbania sesban
13	Trifolium Spp.
14	Justitia schemperina
15	Becium grandflorium
16	Olea europaea
17	Buddleja polystachya
18	Guizotia villosa
19	Adansonia digitate
20	Carthamus tinctorius
21	Hypoestes trifloral
22	Echinops spp.
23	Dodonaea angustifolia
24	Thymus schimperi
25	Ocimum bacilicum
26	Pterolobium stellatum
27	Achyranthus spp
28	Hygrophila schulli
29	Jacaranda mimosifolia

3.7. Constraints of beekeeping practice

According to the analysis (index ranking method) of the survey data, use of agro-chemicals, lack of beekeeping equipment and existence of disease, pest and predators are the major identified top-listed constraints (Table 7 & 8). It is supported with the report from South Wollo Zone by Addisu et al. (2021) that chemical application was the major reason for colony decline. During our focus group discussions, the participants raised that herbicides have great effect on their beekeeping practice. Similar findings by Amsalu et al. (2020) in Diga and Wayu districts of Oromia regionreported that pest and predators, high price of bee equipment and agro-chemical were the major constraints. Another study by Gidey and Dawit (2012) revealed that disease, absconding, shortage of bee forage pest and predators and lack of beekeeping materials are top constraints of beekeeping practice in northern Ethiopia. Similarly, lack of bee forage, pest and predators, honeybee diseases, application of agro-chemical, such as herbicide and pesticide were common constraints reported by Assemu et al. (2013) in East Wollega, Hadiya zone, Southern region and Western Amhara, respectively. Lack of beekeeping equipment, shortage of bee colony, high cost of modern hive and pests and predators were constraints in Gamogofa zone as reported by Yemane and Taye (2013). All of the constraints in the current study are natural, technical and policy issues that significantly affect beekeeping production and productivity.

Table 7. Poisonous honey bee plants in the study area

No.	Local name	Scientific name	Family	Flowering time	Symptom
1	Azo areg	Clematis simensis	Ranunculaceae	April–June	Weakness
2	Quliquwal	Euphorbia abyssinica	Euphorbiaceae	October	Weakness ad death of bees,
3	Bisana	Croton macrostachyus	Euphorbiaceae	May–June	Weakness and death of bees
5	Endod	Phytolacca dodecandra	Phytolaccaceae	January–March	Weakness
6	Chiret	Agave spp.	Agavaceae	September	Weakness
7	Digita	Calpurnia aurea	Fabaceae	July–September	Weakness and death of bees
8	Yeferenj suf	Helianthus annuus	Asteraceae	September	Death of bees
9	Eret	Aloe pulcherrima Gilbert	Aloaceae	September	Death of bees, disease on feeding persons
10	Tinjut	Otostegia fruticosa	Lamiaceae	September–November	Weakness and death of bees
11	Embacho	Rumex nervosus	Polygonaceae	March	Weakness
12	Astenagirit/ese fars	Datura stramonium	Solanaceae	August– December	Weakness and death of bees

Table 8. Constraints of beekeeping production in North Wollo zone (N = 384)

№	Attributes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Index	Rank
1	Agro-chemicals	260	74	15	6	19	6	0.341	1
2	Lack of beekeeping equipment	112	93	36	15	10	6	0.225	2
3	Disease, Pest and predators	69	48	36	21	17	12	0.151	3
4	Market distance and linkage problem	35	62	17	7	19	14	0.110	4
5	Lack of credit service	12	60	24	8	84		0.109	5
6	Lack of training	10	19	36	14	12	8	0.062	6

Index = sum of (6*ranked 1st + 5* ranked 2nd +4* ranked 3rd + 3*ranked 4th+ 2* ranked 5th +1* ranked 6th) for individual reason/grand total.

3.8. Opportunities of beekeeping production

There are many opportunities that encourage beekeepers to start and promote beekeeping practice. Suitability of environment, presence of honeybee flora and increasing trend of honey price are the top listed opportunities in the study area. Increasing demand and price of honey that leads for good source of incomes from time to time is also another good opportunity (Table 9). This is similar with the findings of Gebrehaweria et al. (2018) in Afar region, which reported that the presence of large number of bee floral species, high demand of hive products and presence of favorable environment with various agro-ecology were the most listed opportunities. Kebede and Tadesse (2014) in Hadiya zone possess similar opportunities, such as availability of many numbers of local hive and suitability of environment with different agro ecology, willingness of farmer to improve beekeeping practice and currently high market demand of bee products. Availability of eager beekeepers to accept new technology, existence of strong bee colonies, availability of adequate apiculture flora and water resource, market access and infrastructure were also good opportunities in Gedeo zone (Teklu & Dinku, 2016). In addition, Sahle et al. (2018) reviewed that abundant bee forage availability with favorable and diversified agro-climatic conditions in Ethiopia were good opportunities for beekeeping.

Table 9. Opportunities of beekeeping production in North Wollo zone (N = 384)

№	Attributes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Index	Rank
1	Suitability of environment	196	87	45	25	17	10	0.317	1
2	Increasing trend of honey price	97	90	83	61	11	15	0.263	2
3	Presence of honeybee flora	81	40	69	41	15	13	0.187	3
4	Becomes Good source of income	31	17	17	18	14	15	0.072	5
5	No minimum cost of management	10	5	25	17	13	3	0.044	6

Index = sum of (5*ranked 1st + 4* ranked 2nd +3* ranked 3rd + 2*ranked 4th+ 1* ranked 5th) for individual reason/grand total.

4. Conclusion

Beekeeping is one of the main sources of income in the North Wollo Zone, particularly in the studied districts. Beekeepers in these areas hold traditional, movable frame and intermediate hives, respectively. Twenty-nine honeybee flora species and twelve honeybee poisonous plants were identified. Use of agrochemicals, lack of beekeeping equipment, disease, pests and predators are major beekeeping constraints. On the other hand, the suitability of an environment with different agroecology, the increase price of honey and presence of diversified honeybee floras are good opportunities for beekeeping. Great attention should be given to training and extension programs for beekeepers focusing on honeybee management, pest and predator prevention and/or control methods. Supporting beekeeping equipments, strict rules and regulations on the usage of agrochemicals should be necessary. Further research should be done on the abundance of honey bee flora, level and effect of poisonous honeybee floras in order to increase the productivity and income of beekeepers.

Author contributions statement

W.T: Software, data collection, validation, formal analysis and writing original draft. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. M.M: Investigation, conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition.

Acknowledgments

The authors highly acknowledge the development agents and respondents for interviewing, filling questionaries, conducting focus group discussions and key informant interviews. They also thank Zelalem Regassa for drawing map of the study area using GIS and remote sensing satellite data.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2292370

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by Woldia University.

Notes on contributors

Wubshet Tefera

Wubshet Tefera is a lecturer at Woldia University, Ethiopia in the department of animal science since 2014. He has taught different courses, such as beekeeping, dairy production, livestock product processing and other animal science course for animal science students. His research areas include aflatoxin contamination in cow milk and feed, physico-chemical properties of honey, honey bee flora identification and honey bee pollen analysis. He has published articles in reputable journals.

Mebratu Melaku

Mebratu Melaku is an Assistant professor, senior lecturer, and researcher in the Department of Animal Science at Woldia University. He has several years of experience in teaching various animal production courses, conducting research, and being involved in community service duties, including serving as head Department for 3 ½ years. His research focuses on sustainable animal production, and has publication records from high-impact journals. He is currently a PhD fellow at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science in Beijing, China.