Für neue Kunden:
Für bereits registrierte Kunden:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTS OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
LISTS OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Justification
1.2. Statement of the problem
1.3.1. General objective
1.3.2. Specific Objective
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Evolution of Bees and Beekeeping
2.2. Races and Species of Honeybees
2.3. Important Races of Honeybees
2.4. Geographical Distribution of Ethiopian Honeybees
2.5. Overview of Beekeeping System in Ethiopia
2.5.1. Traditional Beekeeping
2.5.2. Transitional Beekeeping
2.5.3. Modern and Frame box beekeeping
2.6 Opportunity of Bee Keeping In Ethiopia
2.7. Major constraints for Beekeeping in Ethiopia
2.7.1. Lack of skilled manpower and training institutions
2.7.2. Marketing problems
2.7.3. In adequate of rural credit service
2.7.4. Agrochemicals Application
2.7.5. MajorHoneybee pests
2.8. Honeybee Disease
2.8.1. American foulbrood (AFB)
2.8.2 European foulbrood (EFB)
2.8.3 Chalk Brood (CBD )
2.8.4 Stone Brood (SBD)
2.8.5 Amoeba Disease
2.8.6 Nosema Disease
2.9. Parasitic mite
2.10. Honey Bee Disease and pest Status in Ethiopia
Chapter 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Description of the Study Area
3.2. Data sources and methods of collection
3.3. Types of data collected
3.4. Sampling technique and sample size determination
3.4.1. Honeybee and Brood sampling
3.4.2. Field Observation
3.5. Laboratory Examination Procedures
3.5.1. Laboratory Examination of Varroa destructor
3.5.2. Laboratory examination of tracheal mite
3.5.3. Laboratory examination of Nosema and Amoeba diseases
3.5.4. Laboratory examination of chalk brood disease
3.5.5. Examination of American Foulbrood and European Foulbrood using
3.6. Data management and statistical analysis
Chapter 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION.
4.1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent
4.2. Beekeeping Practice
4.2.1. Vegetation type and land holding of beekeepers
4.2.2. Land holding and land use of the respondents
4.2.3. Bee forage farmingpractice
4.2.5. Beekeeping activities and potentials
4.2.6. Sources of honeybee colony
4.2.7 Season of active and dearth period
4.2.8. Trends of bee hives type, colony number and honey productivity
4.2.9. Purpose of beekeeping and Placement of honey bee colony
4.2.10. Trend of honey bee colony and products
4.2.11. Agents of increasing honey bee colony population and products
4.2.12. Cause of honeybee colony and yield decrease
4.3. Major pests and predators in Wayu Tuka and Diga
4.3.1. Types of bee hive and effects of disease
4.4. Agrochemical application and its effects on honeybees
4.4.1. The use of agrochemicals
4.4.2. Types of agrochemicals used by beekeepers
4.4.3. The effect of Agrochemical application on beekeeping
4.4.4. Local control method of agrochemicals
4.5 The prevalent and incidence rate of honeybee disease and parasitic mites
4.5.1. Prevalent and incidence of chalk brood disease
4.5.2. Prevalent and incidence rate of Amoeba disease
4.5.3. Prevalent and incidence of Nosema disease
4.5.4. Prevalence and infestation of Varroa mites
4.5.5. The prevalent and Incidence of bee lice
Chapter 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This is dedicated to my beloved father AtoArega Buli, my much-loved mother Woynitu Limenih, to my brother’s son Tekalign Tameneand all my lovely family members and friends. Finally, I would liketo express my deepest and endless thanks to my wife Ebise Ejeta for her wonderful support and encouragement.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 1. Socio- demographic characteristics of households
Table 2. Vegetation type of Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 3. Land holding and land use of the respondents in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 4. Bee forage farming practice
Table 5. Beekeeping starting time in the Diga and Wayu Tuka
Table 6. Source of honeybee colonies in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 7. Placement of honey bee colony in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 8. Trends of honeybee colony and products in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 9. Cause of honeybee colony and yield decrease in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 10. Honeybee pest and predators in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 11. Effect of honeybee disease on types of hive
Table 12. The effect of agrochemical application on beekeeping in in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 13. Local control method of agrochemicals in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Table 14. Prevalent and incidence of Chalk brood disease
Table 15. The Prevalent and incidence rate of Malpighamoeba mellificae
Table 16. prevalent and Incidence rate of Nosema apis in inspected apiaries and honeybee colonies.
Table 17. The Prevalent of varroa destructor
Table 18. Incidence rate of Varroa destructor
Table 19. Prevalent of bee lice in inspected apiary sites
Table 20. Incidence rate of bee lice
Figure 1. Small hive beetle adult and larvae
Figure 2. Wax moth larvae and adult
Figure 3. Nosema apis infecting the abdomen of bee
Figure 4. World distribution of varroa destructor
Figure 5. Life cycle of varroa destructor
Figure 6. Honeybee trachea infected by Acarapis woodi, Approx. 150 μm in length
Figure 7. World distribution of Acarapis woodi
Figure 8. Map showing the location of the study area
Figure 9. Flow chart of sampling strata of Diga and Wayu Tuka districts
Figure 10. Field examination and laboratory diagnosis procedure and results
Figure 11. Factors affecting bee forage planting in theDiga and Wayu Tuka
Figure 12. Season of active and dearth periods in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Figure 13. Trends of honeybee hive type, colony number and honey productivity
Figure 14. Cause of increasing honey bee colony population and products
Figure 15. Major pests and predators in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Figure 16. Agrochemical application in in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Figure 17. Types of Agrochemicals in Diga and Wayu Tuka Districts
Figure 18. Laboratory result of Ascosphaera spore
Figure 19. Laboratory examination of Nosema apis and Malpighamoeba mellificae
Figure 20. Laboratory examination of brood for Varroa
Appendix Table 1 Local control practices of honeybee pests and predators
Appendix Table 2 Type of sample for laboratory diagnosis of disease
Appendix Table 3 Questionnaire for Beekeepers
Appendix figure 1 Honeybee diseases and pest Laboratory and field examination
The Prevalent and Incidence Rate ofHoney Bee Diseases and Pests in Selected Districts of East Wollega Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia.
Amsalu Arega1, Amssalu Bezabeh2, Hailu mazengia3, 1Bako Agricultural Research center, 2Holeta Bee Research Center, 3Bahr Dar University
The study was conducted in East Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, from December, 2016 up to August, 2017 to determine the prevalent and incidence rate of honeybee disease and pests. Questionnaire survey and laboratory diagnostic methods were used for the study. The questionnaire was administered to 146 beekeepers (97.1% males)andtwo honeybee colony samples from each beekeepertotally (292 honeybee colonies) were collected from transitional and frame box hives for laboratory diagnosis. The honeybee samples collected were examined in laboratory for the prevalentand incidence rate of honeybee disease pathogens and pests. Majority of the respondents started beekeeping after 2010 (28.03%) by catching colonies as honey bee colony source (54.8%). The major dearth period of the area was late march to early may. The trend of beekeepingin the study area was shifting from traditional to modern beekeeping and the trend of honeybee colony and its yield was decreasing due to honeybee health problem of the area (pests, predators, pathogenic disease, high cost of bee equipment and agrochemical application). In the study area the major pests and predators considered as challenges were ants, beetles, wax moth, varroa destructor and some predators like honey badgers, bee eater birds, dead head hawks moth, lizards, wasps and birds respectively. Varroa, Nosema, Amoeba and chalk brood disease were confirmed while tracheal mite, stone brood, Ameriacan and Europian foul brood did not confirmed during the study period. The prevalentand incidence of varroa destructor was higher in dry season than wet season while the prevalent/incidence rate of nosema and chalk brood disease was limited during dry season. Amoeba disease was distributed in both seasons. For the reason of time restraint in this study area, farther study on economic threshold of honeybee disease and pests is suggested by monitoring throughout the year.
Key words : Disease, Honeybees, Infestation, Oromia, Pests, Prevalence,
Beekeeping is a long-standing practice in the rural communities of Ethiopia (Gidey Yirga and Mekonen Teferi, 2010) and the beekeeping sub-sector has been an integral part of agriculture in Ethiopia. It has been contributing to the household income and poverty alleviation and national economy through export. The country has huge apicultural resources that made it the leading honey and beeswax producer in Africa (Gemechis Legesse, 2014). Ethiopia is known for its tremendous variation of agro-climatic conditions and biodiversity which favored the existence of diversified honeybee flora and huge number of honeybee colonies (Nuru Adgaba, 2007).
The country is also one of the four largest beeswax producing countries and this commodity is one of the major exportable products and in 2010/2011, about 620,101 kg of honey was exported (CSA, 2011) and annually an average of 420 million Ethiopian Birr is obtained from the sale of honey (Gidey Yirga and Mekonen Teferi, 2010). The total number or population of honeybee colonies of the country is estimated to be about 10 million, of which about 7.5 million are tamed and the remaining exist as feral colonies in the forest (SNV, 2005).
Like all other insects, honeybees (Apis mellifera) are susceptible to pests and diseases, the majority of which are specific to honey bees. It is important for beekeepers to be aware of these disorders, learn to identify them and effectively manage disorders to maintain healthy colonies. This is particularly important because the health of one beekeeper’s colony can impact another beekeeper’s colony in the surrounding area (FOA, 2006).
The honey population and its products decline from time to time by some factors like, honey bee disease, pests, predators, pesticide, environmental stress and genetic disorder (IIS, 2013). Some of pests and diseases are quite common while others are rarely encountered. It is important for beekeepers to be aware, learn to identify them and effectively manage pests and diseases to maintain healthy colonies. This is particularly important because the health of one beekeeper's colony can impact another beekeeper's colony in the surrounding area (Paul, 2016).
The economic loss associated with the presence of honey bee diseases and pest was estimated in some works and significant loss was reported. In the present time the major honeybee diseases, pests and predators and their rate of distribution was reported in Ethiopia (Haylegebriel Tesfay, 2014).
The current problem of beekeepers isthere is a shortage method for efficient assessment of honeybee health. This makes it difficult to know the severity of losses with any meaningful degree of certainty. This will require increased cooperation by members of the industry with government survey groups such as the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). In addition, growers should be included honeybee colony health in any survey (USDA, 2012).
There should be regular and wide scale diagnostic survey that monitor the occurrences of new one and also that establishes the distributions of the already reported for constraining measures. There are still insufficient evidences on the side effects of pests and diseases. Very importantly, comprehensive strategic response to the recently occurred varroa mite threat in determining its thresholds, economic damages and behavioral attributes with devising control options are very important (DesalegnBegna, 2015).
There are many honey bee diseases (bacterial, fungal, viral, microsporidial), parasites (mites), predators (bears, birds, humans), and pests (beetles, moths) that can adversely affect managed honey bee productivity and survival (Morse and Flottum, 1997). Colony strength and health status are regularly assessed, and samples are taken and checked for disease and parasite loads. Although laborious and cost-intensive, this project has proven useful, because it generates reliable data enabling relationships between risk factors and colony death to be determined (Dennis and Marina, 2010).
Like other living organisms, the life and products of honeybees are affected with harmful diseases, pests and toxic materials. Successful beekeeping requires regular and on time monitoring of any factors that endangers honeybee life and threaten their products. Apart from identifying the occurrences and distributions of endangering factors, regular monitoring helps to think on devising prevention and/or control mechanisms. To these facts, series of field diagnostic surveys and laboratory analysis works has been conducted to identify and characterize honeybee diseases and pests associated with local honeybee of Ethiopia (DesalegnBegna2015).
The adequate methods for defining and assessing the causes of death of honey bee colonies are not well implemented. This makes it difficult to assign annual die-offs to specific causes, and that makes it difficult for beekeepers to know what problems should be demanding their greatest attention. A well-defined list of symptoms for each honey bee pest, parasite, pathogen and predator allows for differential diagnosis of honey bee pathologies. Due to this difficulty in diagnosing a problem, it will be necessary to collect and archive samples of bees for regular basis. Accordingly, in East Wollega Zone there is no research information on honeybee disease and pests with prevalent and incidence ratein the area.Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the prevalent and incidence rate of honeybee disease and pests in the area.
To magnify honeybee pests and diseases by diagnostic survey and determine the prevalent and incidence rate ofhoney bee diseases and pests in selected districts of East Wollega Zone.
- To identify the common infectious disease and pest.
- To determine the prevalent of honeybee disease and pests.
- To determine the incidence rate of honeybee disease and pests.
1. What are major factors affecting honeybee health?
2. What are the common honeybee pests and disease in the area?
3. What is/are the prevalent and the incidence rate of honeybee disease and pests in the area?
According to the common gene pool of the main subfamilies of apidae is “Electrapis” of the Eocene, a rather vague group comprised of individuals with a varying mosaic of meliponoid, bomboid and apinoid characters. The subfamilies evolved in different directions and radiated during different epochs as shown by the rank of taxonomic units: Meliponinae 18 genera (300 species), Bombini 3 genera (290 species), Apinae 1 genus (4 species) (Friedrich, 1987).
The first global analysis of genome variation in honeybees has been revealed by scientists. The findings show a surprisingly high level of genetic diversity in honeybees, and indicate that the species most probably originates from Asia, and not from Africa as previously thought. The honeybee (Apis mellifera) is of crucial importance for humanity. One third of our food is dependent on the pollination of fruits, nuts and vegetables by bees and other insects. Extensive losses of honeybee colonies in recent years are a major cause for concern (Uppsala 2014).
Race in honeybees is a result of natural selection and honeybees have been adapted to different geographical areas of the world for many years without the interference of mankind. In so doing, there has been an environmental effect on the anatomy and physiology of honeybees leading to differentiation (Roubik, 1989).
Honeybees (Apis mellifera) consist of Most of these subspecies have been classified according to their morphological characteristics more than 24 different subspecies exists, and morphological characteristics thus have an important role in the classification aspects of honey bees. Different sets of wing and body morphological characteristics have been used to characterize and classify the subspecies by many authors and for various reasons. Wing venation characteristics have been studied more intensely than other body morphological characteristics (Hossam et al., 2013)
African and European honeybees, even though were from the same species, are differing in behavior, production and on some morphological variables of importance. Hence, quite a large number of subspecies (races) of honeybees are found in the world today. The presence of 23 distinct geographical races using multivariate analysis of the morphometric characteristics of honeybees was reported. In Africa alone, more than 16 subspecies or races are residing in different ecological places (Ruttner, 1986).
The races of Apis mellifera L. have evolved as a result of long periods of geographical isolation and ecological adaptation (Nuru Adgaba, 2002). The races and strains of Apis mellifera are overriding world importance in beekeeping, and are the basis of world’s beekeeping industry. These bees are native to Africa and Europe. They have also been introduced in to almost the whole of the New World (the Americans, Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands) since 1500 where there were no native honeybees (Crane, 1976). European Apis mellifera is the bee first studied, and it still receives by far the most attention.
The races of Apis mellifera, especiallyhoneybee is well distributed over the globe except in the severe cold of the Polar Regions (Adjare, 1990). It has, however, been shown that bees can also be kept in the desert or in urban areas (Vivian, 1985). They are generally less amenable to handling and management, swarm readily; also, the whole colony may abscond as a result of damage and disturbance of their nest or shortage of food. Moreover, the bees are easily alerted to sting and this allows their survival in the African tropics where they were liable to be attacked by many ‘enemies’ (Crane, 1990).
According to recent study done on morph clusters of geographical races of Ethiopian honeybees five honeybee races have been reported to exist in the country. A.m. monticola exist in the northern high mountainous part of the country, A. m. bandasii found in central highlands of the country, A. m. scutellata f ound in the wet tropical forest lands, A. m. jemenitica is the yellowest honeybee but also consists black members and A.m. woyi-Gambella found in the extreme western and southern semi-aired to sub moist low lands found only in Ethiopia (Amssalu Bezabih , 2002).
As far as morphometric analyses of Ethiopian honeybees reported that Apis melliferamonticola from the Ethiopian plateaus (Smith, 1961) and laterthe presence of A.m. scutellata and A.m. jemenitica reported (Ruttner, 1975). Also (Ayalewkassaye, 1990) reported the existence of five honeybee races: Apis mellifera jemenitica (in eastern lowlands), A.m. monticola (in the southern mountains), A.m. litorea (in the extreme western low lands), A.m. adansonii (in the southern mid-altitude areas) and A.m. abyssinica (central plateau and southwestern parts of tropical forest) and (Radloff and Hepburn, 1997) recorded A.m. jemenitica, A.m. bandasii and A.m. sudanensis from Ethiopia.
However, these findings are inconsistent except for A.m. monticola and A.m. jemenitica and none of the results indicated the distribution, behavior and biology of these honeybees for the whole of Ethiopia. The smallest and yellow honeybee, A.m. woyi-gamballa in the western and southern lowlands; the small and yellowest honeybees, A.m. jemenitica in the eastern escarpment; relatively large and dark honeybees, A.m. bandasii in the central and eastern highlands; and dark honeybees, A m. scutellata in the wet tropical forests (Amssalu Bezabih, 2002).
The results of the northern and southern regions were well fitted to each other and multivariate morphometric analysis of the merged data (northern and southern) revealed the existence of five statistically separable morph clusters occupying ecologically different areas: Apis mellifera jemenitic a in the northwest and eastern arid and semi-arid lowlands; A.m. scutellata in the west, south and southwest humid midlands; A.m.bandasii in the central moist highlands; A.m. monticola from the northern mountainous highlands; and A.m. woyi-gambella in south western semi-arid to sub-humid lowland parts of the country (Amssalu Bezabih et. al., 2004).
In Ethiopia, apiculture has been practiced for centuries around the country and its potential is well documented. The beekeeping systems in Ethiopia are classified into four major systems: honey hunting, Traditional, top-bar and movable-frame hives. Honey hunting from habitats like tree cavities, Caves or other natural opening is a feral system of harvesting honey by destroying the whole Colonies and this type of honey harvesting common in few remote west and southwest parts of the country among traditional communities (Nuru Adgaba, 2007).
Ethiopia is blessed with adequate water resources and various honeybee floras, which create fertile ground for the development of beekeeping. Honey hunting and beekeeping have been practiced in the country for the exploitation of honey. In places where wild colonies of bees living in hollow trees and caves are found, honey hunting is still a common practice in Ethiopia (Tessega Belie, 2009). According to (Ayalew Kassaye, 2008), currently in Ethiopia beekeeping is practiced in three types of production systems namely; traditional, transitional and frame beehive beekeeping.
Traditional beekeeping is the oldest and the richest practice, which has been carried out by the people for thousands of years in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has huge potential for honey production which is clearly observed in the last few years with significant increment, even though the subsector is still practicing with traditional low productive systems. Research and extension made so far have tried to improve this scenario in the country. Various investigations in particular have identified the problems in the production and marketing of the Ethiopian honey industry (Gemechis Legesse, 2014).
This beekeeping practice is extensive and closely tied to swarm management: beehives are hung up in trees to catch swarms and are then transferred to the ground. Often, such beehives are placed in a kind of bee house that protects the beehives from the heat and rain. Several million bee colonies are managed with the same old traditional beekeeping methods in almost all parts of the country (Fichtl and Admasu Addi, 1994). Thus, two types of traditional beekeeping are found in the country: forest beekeeping by hanging a number of traditional beehives on trees and backyard beekeeping with relatively better management (Nuru Adgaba, 2002).
This type of beekeeping is one of improved methods of beekeeping practices that can be constructed from timber, mud or locally available materials. Each hive carries 27-30 top bars on which honeybees attach their combs. The top bars have 3.2cm and 48.3cm width and length, respectively. Transitional (intermediate) beekeeping practice has different advantages such as, it can be opened easily and quickly, the bees are guided into building parallel combs by following the line of the top bars, the top bars are easily removable and this enables beekeepers to work fast, the top bars are easier to construct than frames, honeycombs can be removed from the hive for harvesting without disturbing combs containing broods, the hive 7 can be suspended with wires or ropes and this gives protection against pests (HBRC, 2004).
Transitional beekeeping is an intermediate beekeeping system between traditional and frame hive beekeeping practices. Generally, top-bar (Ethio-ribrab) beehive is a single or double story long box with slopping side walls inward the bottom and covered with bars of fixed width; 32 mm for east African honey bees (Sisay Gobessa et. al., 2012). The advantages of top-bar hives include: Each comb can be accessed independently without disturbing the others. This ensures that bees are able to build combs right below each top-bar (Lukas, 2011).
Transitional beekeeping has its own disadvantages such as, top bar beehives are relatively more expensive than traditional beehives, and combs suspended from the top bars are more apt to break off than combs which are building within frames (HBRC, 2004). According to HBRC, transitional beekeeping started in Ethiopia since 1976 and the types of beehives used are: Kenya top-bar beehive, Tanzania top-bar beehive and Mud- block beehives. Among these, KTB is widely known and commonly used in many parts of the country (HBRC, 1997). The top bars are easier to construct than frames, honeycombs can be removed from the beehive for harvesting without disturbing combs containing broods, the beehive can be suspended with wires or ropes and this gives protection against pests. However, as compared to traditional beehives relatively it is expensive in price.
Modern beekeeping includes methods of honey, introductory, life of the honeybee, species of beekeeping, site selection and arrangement of apiary, beehive, food gathering by bees, management of bee colonies, management and diseases pest, extraction of honey & processing, quality of honey, equipment, economics of beekeeping. In the frame box hive beekeeping the frames are so arranged that they can be removed individually without disturbing other combs and without crushing bees, and the sides and bottom of the frame provide very good support for the comb (Adjare, 1990).
The frame hive beekeeping methods aim to obtain the maximum honey crop, without harming bees. It uses different types of frame beehives. Zander, Langstroth, Dadant, Modified Zandar, and foam beehives were existed in the country (Ayalew kassaye, 2001).
Langstroth also found that several communicating hive boxes can be stacked one above another, and that the queen can be confined to the lowest, or brood, chamber, by means of a queen excluder. In this way, the upper chambers (called supers) can be reached only by the workers, and therefore contain only honey-comb. This made hive inspection and many other management practices possible, and turned the art of beekeeping into a full-scale industry. Almost all commercial hives in use today operate on the Langstroth pattern, although they may contain from 10 to 13 frames (Adjare, 1990).
Currently the government is highly supporting self-contained watershed developing program in which beekeeping is part and parcel. Low cost modern hives is being produced using locally available materials and efforts are being made to organize farmers in groups and link them with local carpenters who produce modern bee hive. There is an increasing demand for honey for domestic consumption and export by different customers and organizations. Though scarce in dry seasons, there are many bee forage species throughout the year in most part of the study area. Availability of rich culture and tradition of beekeeping, suitable environment with different agro ecology, availability of farmers having indigenous knowledge, skills and keen interest to adopt improved technologies and to undertake beekeeping as a way of life are among the few to mention(Biressaw Serda et. al., 2015).
Opportunities for beekeeping in the country are the presence of natural resource and human capital, the current attention of the government toward the introduction of different beekeeping technology packages, the establishment of beekeeping association and the presence of government by giving courses of apiculture as science like Bahir DarUniversity and non-government organization who are involved in beekeeping activities and the presence of microfinance institution at grass root level. Still the country has potential with enormous nectar and pollen source that have not yet be exploited and beekeeping could probably be profitable activity to undertake.
Constraints in the beekeeping development of the country are complex and to a large extent vary between agro-ecological zones and production systems. Variations of production constraints also extend in socio-economic conditions, cultural practices, climate (seasons of the year) and behaviors of the bees (Adjare 1990). Technical constraints in beekeeping activities include poor extension systems (absence of coordination between research, extension and farmers), lack of skilled man power and training institution, marketing problem, honeybee health problem, lack of adequate credit services, and lack of records and up-to- date information, shortage of reading materials regarding to beekeeping, and inadequate research centers to address the problems related to apiculture.
Beekeeping is one of the disciplines which suffered and is being suffering from the lack of skilled manpower, appropriately skilled trainers, training materials and training institutions in the region. Majority of the beekeepers lack the knowledge of appropriate methods of beekeeping. In the country there is no concerned college or university which can provide diploma or certificate level course in beekeeping. Holata Bee Research Center is the only center that provides basic trainings to farmers, technicians, experts and Bahirdar University is the only university gives as Apiculture program in master’s degree in Ethiopia. However, this doesn’t meet the ever increasing demand of trained manpower in the country.
It has been observed that in the region the marketing system of honey has many problems. Most of the local markets are far away from the beekeepers and are inaccessible. Beekeepers travel on foot for several hours to sell their honey. The lack of grading systems does not encourage farmers to produce high quality products, thus, the price of honey changes widely based on the good will of buyers. Because of beekeepers have limited knowledge of the preferences of their target market, they do not try to make any changes in the quality of their product. Presentation of quality honey is generally poor. Most honey come to market is un-extracted, unstrained and poorly managed.
The improved hives and working tools to the rural community are beyond the pockets of farmers and not easily available. There is limitation of the credit services for landless youths as well as households. Even if the rural credit service is around they do not easily serve due to limitation of awareness creation (Kerealem Ejigu et al., 2009).
Pesticides are substances used to eliminate unwanted pests. Insecticides rid us of unwanted insects. Unfortunately, honey bees are insects and are greatly affected by insecticides. There are several ways honey bees can be killed by insecticides. One is direct contact of the insecticide on the bee while it is foraging in the field. The bee immediately dies and does not return to the hive. In this case the queen, brood and nurse bees are not contaminated and the colony survives. The second more deadly way is when the bee comes in contact with an insecticide and transports it back to the colony, either as contaminated pollen or nectar or on its body (UGA, 2017).
Most herbicides are not toxic to bees; destroy many plants that are valuable to bees as source of pollen and nectar. The types of chemicals used include Malathione, Sevin, DDT, 2-4 D and Acetone. As it was seen from the beekeeper point of view, poisoning of honeybees by agrochemical has been increased from time to time. Some beekeepers lost totally their colonies due to agrochemical (Kerealem Ejigu et al., 2009, Desalegn Begna 2014) recently reported that there is a growing pesticides grievance on honeybee population and their products decline with considerable economic impacts on beekeepers.
The use of insecticides continues to be a basic tool in pest management, since there are many pest situations for which there are no known alternative management methods. Poisoning of bee pollinators is a serious adverse effect of insecticide use which leads to a decrease in insect population, to reduction of honey yields, to destruction of plant communities, to insecticide residues in food, and to a significant loss of beekeepers' income (Stefanidou et. al., 2003).
Honeybees are attacked by various pests, predators and other enemies. The major bee enemies are wax moths, wasps, birds, ants, hive beetles, mites, mice and bear, which destroy the raised combs, hives and hive parts, catch and kill bees, colony development, eat away the food reserves and cause nuisance to the bees, resulting into reduced colony productivity and returns per colony. Thus, regular monitoring and surveillance of colonies for early detection of diseases and enemies and use of non-chemical methods to keep pest population densities below economic injury level should be adopted for the management of bee diseases and enemies(Yadav et.al., 2017).
Ethiopia, as one of the sub-tropical countries, the land is not only favorable to bees, but also for different kinds of honeybee pest and predators that are interacting with the life of honeybees (Desalegn Begna, 2001). The existence of pests and predators are nuisances to the honeybees and beekeepers. Pests and predators cause devastating damage on honeybee colonies with in short period of time and even overnight. According to (KerealemEjigu et al., 2009) ants, honey badger, bee-eater birds, wax moth, spider and beetles were the most harmful pests and predators in order of decreasing importance. Some studies indicate that Ethiopia appears to be free from various honeybee brood diseases and at the same time at low level of adult bees’ diseases incidences. A major category of diseases which cause economic loss comprises amoeba, nosema and chalk brood.
Honeybees are critical to the success of the agricultural industry within the United States. The insects are credited for up to 80 percent of all insect pollination, a crucial element of fruit and vegetable production. With the exception of Africanized honeybees, the insects are not aggressive by nature; they sting only when provoked or to protect their hives. The animal world presents many predators including arachnids, insects and mammals (Lalaena, 2017).
Honeybee harmful pest and predators listed out by (Guesh Godifey 2015) were Ants, Wax moth, Bee-eater birds, Honey badger, Spiders, parasitic mites, and Dead hawks moth in order of decreasing importance (Table 6).Major honeybee pests are listed as follows;
A) Small Hive Beetle
Small hive beetle (SHB) originally, this beetle (Aethina tumida), was only found in Africa, south of the Sahara. It first appeared in the southern United States of America in 1998 and has continued to spread north as far as Canada. In Africa, the beetle’s original range, only weak colonies or storage combs are affected. On the other hand, the beetle also invades a colony during management activities, e.g. during honey extraction. There is a risk that the beetle may spread to Asia. Cause the beetle Aethina tumida (order: Coleoptera, family: Nitidulidae) is called the small hive beetle (FAO, 2006).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 1.Small hive beetle adult and larvae
Source: Adapted from (Ellis, 2009)
The period of development from egg to adult beetle is at least four to five weeks and also be living in the bee colony because their legs are longer and they have a row of spines on their back and do not spin nets or cocoons. A minor infestation is difficult to recognize because the beetles immediately hide in the dark. The most secure diagnosis is achieved after chemical treatment when the dead beetles can be gathered from the bottom inlay (OIE, 2004). The small hive beetle Aethina tumida (SHB) is an invasive pest of bee hives, originally from sub-Saharan Africa and also reported in Ethiopia (Guesh Godifey 2015).
Various types of ants, from tiny sized pharaoh ants to the large black carpenter ants, can be bee pests. Relatively few ants steal honey or bee brood. The real problem is the ants’ nesting inside the warm dry hive and bothering the beekeeper in colony examination (MAAREC, 2006). Ants are among the most common predators of honey bees in tropical and subtropical Asia. They are highly social insects and will attack the hives en masse, taking virtually everything in them: dead or alive adult bees, the brood and honey. In addition to this destruction, they can also be a nuisance to beekeepers and may sometimes cause pain from their bites.
Ants are most troublesome to honeybees and beekeeping sector. Among the enemies of honeybees registered in Ethiopia, Ants share the greatest grievances in causing serious problems on honeybee colonies. It kills bees, robs their products and forces the honeybee colonies to leave their proper nest which results in reduction of honey production. In Ethiopia ants in colony of 8 honeybees were reported from different regions such as Addis Ababa (Desalegn Begna and Yosef Kebede, 2005), and cause a major problem in the adoption of improved beekeeping technologies.
C) Wax Moths
Wax moth larvae are very destructive and can quickly destroy stored beeswax combs. They tunnel and chew through combs, particularly combs that have contained brood and pollen. Wax moths are two species Greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella) and lesser wax moth (Achroiagrisella). Female moths usually lay 300 to 600 eggs in clusters on comb or in small cracks in hive material. The almost spherical, pinkish to white eggs are about 0.5 mm in diameter. Lesser wax moth (Achroiagrisella) is smaller than the greater wax moth and has a silver-grey to dull-yellow, slender body about 13 mm in length. They feed on combs, pollen and litter found on the hive floor. They are usually solitary, whereas greater wax moth larvae often congregate in large numbers (Russell 2009).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 2. Wax moth larvae and adult
Source: Adapted from (Russell 2009).
Distribution of Wax moth
The wax moths are one of the most important pests of honeybee colony with worldwide distributions and it was identified as one of the serious local honeybee pests (Desalegn Begna, 2001). The wax moths (smaller and larger) in honeybee colonies were reported in the South and South West parts of Ethiopia in the year 2000. Understanding the severe problems due to wax moth, research program that aimed at assessing its prevalence and special effects on honeybees and their products has been conducted in selected three zones of the country (Amsalu Bezabih and Desalegn Begna, 2007).
The greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella) The greater wax moth is often reported to cause damage both to honey bee colonies and to bee products The main reason for very serious infestation of beeswax in the region has been explained to be due to lack of proper seasonal colony management. It is in line with (Adjare, 1990), which states, in the absence of appropriate seasonal honeybee colony management, wax moth becomes a more serious pest of honeybee colonies in the tropical Africa in general.
Ethiopia, as one of the sub-tropical countries, the land is not only favorable to bees, but also for different kinds of honeybee pest and predators that are interacting with the life of honeybees (Desalegn Begna, 2001). The existence of pests and predators are nuisances to the honeybees and beekeepers. Pests and predators cause devastating damage on honeybee colonies with in short period of time and even overnight.
American foulbrood (AFB) is the most devastating honeybee disease. It is caused by the spore-forming, Gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium Paenibacilluslarvae (Dirk et.al, 2012). A Paenibacillus larva, the causative organism, is a bacterium that can produce over one billion spores in each infected larvae. AFB spread from infected colony to non-infected colony through human activity (interchanging brood, feeding pollen and honey from unknown source, extracted honey suppers), and other contaminated bee equipment), between bees (robbing, drifting, swarming) and honey pest and predators.
Europian foulbrood (EFB) disease is a severe bacterial disease of honeybee brood caused by non-spore forming Gram-positive bacterium Melissococcus plutonius. The disease is widely distributed worldwide, and is an increasing problem in some areas (FERA, 2013). EFB affects larvae of the three honeybee castes, workers, drones and queens. The disease is not observed in the pupae and adult bees. Compared to the American foulbrood, the course of the disease is less severe (Otten, 2003) but due to its wide prevalence, it causes considerable economic losses to apiculture.
Infected larvae usually die prior to cell capping due to starvation rather than invasion of the body tissues by the bacterium and in some cases larvae may die after capping or in some cases survive to pupation, producing undersized adults. Secondary invaders such as Paenibacillus alvei, Enterococcus faecalis, Brevibacillus laterosporus and Lactobacillus eurydice may multiply and are commonly found in association with EFB (FERA, 2013). EFB is not a major cause of direct colony death and infections may occur at times of stress (Genersch, 2010).
Generally the two major diseases; European Foulbrood and American Foulbrood that are common in Europe and America have not been located or recorded anywhere in East Africa. In the 2014 survey of hives, in East Africa, scientists did not detect any signs of the disease but some spores have been detected in some hives (Theorganicfarmer,2015).