Content uploaded by Bahame Barihahwenki Davidlivingstone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bahame Barihahwenki Davidlivingstone on Sep 27, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Sciences:
Basic and Applied Research
(IJSBAR)
ISSN 2307-4531
(Print & Online)
http://gssrr.org/index.php?journal=JournalOfBasicAndApplied
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
Bee Keeping and Coffee Production as Potential
Alternative Livelihoods for Coffee Farmers in Sheema
District
Nicodemus Bamuhangainea*, Edward Ssemakulab, Davidlivingstone B
Bahamec, Ferdinand Ained
aBishop Stuart University, P.O.BOX 09 Mbarara, Uganda
a,b,c,dFaculty of Agriculture, Environmental Sciences and Technology, Bishop Stuart University, Mbarara,
Uganda
aEmail: bamuhangainen@gmail.com, bEmail: essemakula@gmail.com
cEmail: dbahame@faest.bsu.ac.ug, dEmail: aineferdinand@gmail.com
Abstract
To ensure sustainable living standards for coffee farmers, integrating coffee plantations with bee keeping would
be a potential alternative livelihood option since beekeeping contributes additional incomes from the sale of
honey and other bee products without compromising coffee production. Therefore, the study aimed at assessing
the contribution of integrating coffee and bee keeping to coffee farmers’ incomes, attitude and perception of
farmers on integrating coffee with bee keeping, technologies coffee farmers use while integrating coffee with
bee keeping and the challenges farmers face while integrating bee keeping. The study utilized a cross section
research design and a sample of 210 respondents was chosen using simple random sampling and questionnaire,
interviews and observation were used to collect primary data from the respondents. It was established that
adoption of bee keeping integration resulted in an improvement in income from 6.7% in 2020 to 7.1% in 2021
and this was statistically significant (P<0.05). Farmers had a positive perception of integrating bee keeping with
coffee and majority perceived it as source of additional income, require few resources to commence, the
necessary skills can be quickly transferred, hives are made from local resources and not labour intensive 210
(100%). The study findings also established that most farmers were not using innovative technologies and the
major technologies farmers were using included; possession of top bar or Langstroth p=0.022, provision of
supplemental feeds p=0.04 and engaging in bee pollination services and pollen collection p=0.046 as compared
with the time spent while integrating bee keeping in coffee plantations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Corresponding author.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
101
The study further established the challenges farmers face while integrating coffee with bee keeping as; poor
management skills, shortage of honey forage, diseases pests and predators, lack of awareness about valuable
contribution of bees, lack of trainers and training opportunities, lack of new research information, inadequate
bee keeping equipment, price fluctuations and lack of grading system, bee hive theft, weak producer
organizations and lack of clear policies to protect the producers from pesticide poisoning. The study
recommended provision of constant trainings, formulation of participatory policy that would encourage
conservation of pollinators and farmers to be equipped with knowledge and tools to enable them to make
informed decisions.
Keywords: Bee keeping; livelihoods; integration.
1. Introduction
Dependence on subsistence agriculture has depleted the natural vegetation and has been less effective in
improving the living standards of communities. Implementation of livelihood activities through a strategic mix
of community participation in conservation is very essential. Improved beekeeping is identified as strong
profitable economic incentive to promote conservation and rehabilitation in the face of demand for cultivated
land [1]. Beekeeping is taken into account when the economic importance of trees is being calculated [2,3]
Beekeeping preserves nature, agriculture, sustains livelihoods, and provides food security through, increasing
beekeepers participation in regeneration of different bee forage species and at the same time increasing
flowering plant and crop pollination [4]. Despite its important roles, the potential of beekeeping is apparently
not exploited and quantified as economic incentive in forestry, plantation farming and watershed conservation
through harvesting of organic bee product. Bee products provide health, high-nutrient food, safe medicines and
raw material for pharmaceutics and cosmetics industries [5]. It is proved as a reliable source of income
generation for small and marginal farmers, women and other vulnerable society who are depending on charcoal
production. When beekeepers are supported with improved beekeeping technologies and have access to good
markets for their products, they are motivated to support local conservation efforts.
Beekeeping offers direct and indirect benefits to the rural people. Directly, beekeeping substantiates household
income from hive product sales, provides food, safe medicines, and raw materials for industries [6]. These
income benefits have been reported to have high impact among marginalized and small income earners such as
women, orphans, and other vulnerable groups within the society [7]. Indirectly, beekeeping contributes to water
shed-management, forest conservation and crop pollination. Reference [8] found that bees are responsible for
one third of food crops produced for human consumption. Honeybee pollination improves quality, quantity, and
market value of food crops [9]. Thus, honeybees are central in ensuring food security. With all the above
benefits, it is believed that beekeeping can improve living standards of the rural poor. Yet productivity and
beekeeping adoption remains low among rural farmers in Uganda.
Small scale coffee farmers livelihoods are shrinking as farmers only access income during harvesting season,
limited yields due to use of poor management practices, low prices and poor marketing channels and this limits
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
102
them to continuously access basic needs when the coffee season if off. Therefore, adopting integration with
alternative enterprise would bridge this gap hence bee keeping would be one of the best alternatives since bees
helps in coffee pollination hence increasing yields and provides additional incomes from the sale bee products.
The income provided from the sale of bee products would be used by farmers to access basic needs during
coffee off season and acquiring different inputs like fertilizers pesticides and fungicides that would enhance
yields. Therefore, there are few studies that have clearly documented on the contribution of integrating coffee
and bee keeping as a potential alternative for diversified coffee farmers’ livelihoods and it’s against this
background that the current study is geared towards ascertaining the contribution of integrating coffee and bee
keeping as a potential alternative for diversified coffee farmers’ livelihoods in Sheema district.
The study findings will provide an exciting opportunity to advance our knowledge on potential areas of
intervention for policymakers and other interested stakeholders (both public and private) to understand the
functioning of integrating coffee with bee keeping besides establishing ways to improve farmers livelihoods
along the coffee value chain.
The study findings will offer some important insights into the extent to which the coffee actors are aware of the
contributions of integrating coffee and bee keeping as entrenched in the process and use the information to
enhance the incomes and livelihoods of households.
2. Statement of the problem
In Uganda, approximately 20% of foreign revenues come from coffee which therefore makes it the most
eminent agricultural crop in the nation [10]. Coffee is mostly produced on small farms. There are about 1.7
million coffee farmers in the country [11]. In Uganda, the coffee industry is vital, but it is facing many
challenges and is distinguished by restricted access to land and knowledge [10]. Furthermore, there are few and
low farm investments. These limitations have led to coffee farmers buying uncertified planting materials and
input with bad quality [11, 12]. Other challenges faced are low post-harvest involvement, inadequate technical
improvement, managerial issues, and lack of youth entering the profession. This always discourages small scale
farmers to perform different agronomic activities since the income from coffee is seasonal. In order to bridge
this gap, farmers need to integrate some enterprises that would provide some incomes when the season of coffee
is off, and bee keeping would be the alternative potential enterprise.
Although coffee farmers are earning considerably good incomes from coffee sales, this income is seasonal,
yields are low, price fluctuate due to unstable forex exchange market and a small market share where the local
market is largely influenced by seasonal production performance of external big players like Brazil, Vietnam,
Colombia, and this has limited farmers from continuously accessing basic needs, hence they experience low
standards of living. Therefore, to ensure sustainable living standards for coffee farmers, integrating coffee
plantations with bee keeping would be the potential alternative since Beekeeping contributes additional incomes
from the sale of honey and other bee products. This can be facilitated by the shade trees planted in the coffee
plantations/gardens which would acts as forage. It is from this basis that this research will be conducted to
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
103
assess the effect of integrating coffee and bee keeping as a potential alternative for diversified coffee farmers’
livelihoods in Sheema district.
According to [13] 70% of farmers in Sheema district are involved in the coffee farming industry. Coffee is
susceptible to high degree of fluctuation in its prices, leaving a tremendous number of those people vulnerable.
Part of the solution to this may be diversification. Diversification can give farmers a steadier income, as well as
helping to make the coffee industry more stable. When coffee farmers carefully manage the ways, multiple
crops are planted together (intercropping) and properly manage multiple enterprises on farm (Mixed farming),
this also promotes biodiversity, as certain other crops release byproducts complementary to the growth of other
crops. Therefore, adopting the integration of bee keeping in coffee farming in an age where the continued use of
sprayed chemicals in weed and pest control has dramatically reduced bee population than have been ever before,
the introduction of bee keeping along coffee agribusiness is timely.
3. Methodology
Description of the study area
The study was conducted in Sheema district. Sheema District is bordered by Buhweju District to the
north, Mbarara district to the east, Ntungamo District to the south, Mitooma District to the southwest
and Bushenyi District to the west. Kibingo, where the district headquarters are located, lies approximately 33
kilometres (21 mi), by road, west of Mbarara, the largest city in Ankole sub-region [14]. The coordinates of the
district are: 00 32S, 30 24E [14]. The main economic activity in the area is farming where banana and coffee are
the main enterprises where people derive a living. The area was selected for the study because most of the
farmers were involved in coffee production; hence, they had accurate and reliable information about the
contribution of integrating coffee with bee keeping as alternative source of livelihoods. The District experiences
a bi-modal pattern of rain seasons, which normally occurs from March to May and mid-August to October. On
average the annual rainfall is about 900 mm.
Study design and sampling frame
A cross section study was conducted to collect data on the contribution of integrating coffee and bee keeping as
a potential alternative for diversified coffee farmers’ livelihoods and the study was conducted between January
to July 2022. Sheema district was purposively selected for being among the highest coffee producing district in
Ankole region. The district was also selected for the reason that the farmers of the district have adopted
integrating bee keeping in coffee plantations compared to other districts in the region. In order to get an
understanding of the contributions of integrating coffee and bee keeping to coffee farmer’s livelihoods, coffee
farmers were randomly sampled and data was collected using questionnaire and interview were conducted with
17 key informants who were purposively selected. Four sub-counties of Kakindo, Kigarama, Masheruka, and
Kyangyenyi were purposively selected from the district because of being the highest coffee producing sub-
counties in the district and farmers have adopted integrating bees in their coffee plantations. The sampling frame
therefore included all coffee growing households in the four selected sub counties.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
104
Sample selection and sampling technique
To obtain the desired sample, a simplified formula for the proportions by [15] that assumed a 95% of confidence
level and precision of 0.05 was adopted for this study that gave a sample size of 193 respondents distributed in
the four selected sub counties.
In addition, 17 key informants were identified since they were the ones responsible for disseminating
information on the role of integrating coffee and bee keeping to farmer’s livelihoods and these provided
qualitative data and they included local leaders and sub-county agriculture extension workers. Walks along
community routes/roads and household coffee plantation visits were also made in the study areas and
observations were made in those communities.
A standard structured questionnaire was self administered to a total of 193 respondents who were randomly
selected, including all households that had adopted integrating bee keeping in their coffee plantations from the
four of the study sub-counties to collect quantitative data.
For this purpose, a list of coffee farmers was prepared in consultation with the sub-county agriculture extension
personnel and local leaders of the each respective sub-county and villages and questionnaires were administered
to the selected farmers separately.
Data analysis
Qualitative data was obtained through key informants’ interviews and observations was organized and
meaningfully reduced into themes and contents that were in line with the objectives and the concept of the study
according to [16]. Quantitative data was edited, coded, entered in the computer and cleaned to ensure accuracy,
consistency, uniformity and completeness.
The data was then analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 20 to generate
descriptive statistics and regression analysis.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to determine significant relationships. Regression analysis was used to
examine the relationship between a set of independent variables as the factors that influence the probability of
integrating bee keeping with in coffee plantation and the technologies used.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents
The demographic characteristics of respondents included gender, age, education level and marital status.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
105
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents.
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
-2.178
1.322
-1.647
.105
Gender of respondents
1.604
.359
.606
4.471
.000
Age of respondents
-.104
.361
-.032
-.288
.0.02
Education level of education
.384
.317
.148
1.212
.008
Marital status of respondents
.910
.573
.176
1.589
.118
a. Dependent Variable: time spent while growing coffee
Gender is very crucial in determining the different roles and responsibilities performed by different gender
groups in the adoption and implementation of different activities in the enterprise. A p-value less than 0.05 were
obtained when gender of respondents was regressed with the time taken when growing coffee. This implies that
integrating coffee with bees would be significantly influenced by gender since men owned most of coffee
plantations compared to women. Although it was established that most of the agricultural activities and field
practices like; land preparation, planting, weeding, and decision on crop rotation cycle were carried out by
females, males were the ones responsible in making decisions concerning which enterprises that could be
integrated in coffee plantation. Age of an individual determines the number of years spent by an individual
while practicing an enterprise and hence their experience. A p-value less than 0.05 was obtained when age of
respondents was regressed with the time spent while growing coffee. This implies the time spent while growing
coffee would provide an experience on the role of integrating other enterprises in coffee plantations. This is
because farmers would opt to increase their incomes after integrating the bees in their coffee plantations.
Decisions taken at household levels on the adoption of different technologies are determined implemented by all
the members within the household especially husband and wife who are the top most decision makers in the
household. A p-value greater than 0.05 was obtained when marital status of the respondents and time spent
while growing coffee. This implies that coffee growing would be adopted by different people with different
marital status and even integrating it with bee enterprises could not depend on the marital status but on the
favorable willingness and perception about such farming system. The level of education of the farmer indicates
the degree at which a farmer can adopt a technology or technologies. This is because a higher level of education
motivates the farmer to adopt different technologies used in coffee production. A p-value less than 0.05 was
obtained when education level of the respondents was regressed with time spent while growing coffee. This
implies that technically, information acquisition, as well as the capacity to process, understanding and using the
technical aspects and returns related to alternative and complementary technologies, is largely determined by
formal education and indigenous knowledge. Hence, educated farmers are often more likely to adopt a new
technology including integrating bees in coffee plantations and improve on the productivity levels than
uneducated. This means that respondents were able to fully adopt the different field management practices
responsible in ensuring a sustained coffee- bee integration system and methods that would result in increased
yields hence increased incomes among the farmers.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
106
4.2 Contributions of integrating coffee and bee keeping to coffee farmers’
The contributions of integrating coffee and bee keeping to coffee farmers were assessed basing on the level of
yields and incomes attained by farmers before and after integrating bee keeping in their coffee plantations.
Yields in kilograms obtained from coffee plantation before integrating bees for the last two years
Table 2: Yields in kilograms obtained from coffee plantation before integrating bees for the last two years.
Responses
Year 2020
Percent
2021
Percent
1 - 100
14
6.7
12
5.7
101 - 200
17
8.1
21
10
201 - 300
29
13.8
32
15
301 - 400
15
7.1
6
2.9
401 and above
5
2.3
9
4.3
Missing values
130
62
130
62
Total
210
100
210
100
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022
The study findings established that 29 (13.8%) and 32 (15%) of the respondents obtained between 201-300
kilograms before integrating bees in their coffee plantations (Table 2). This is because coffee plantations were
managed using conventional methods which did not ensure increased yields.
Yields in kilograms obtained from coffee plantation after integrating bees for the last two years
Table 3: Yields in kilograms obtained from coffee plantation after integrating bees for the last two years.
Responses
Year 2020
Percent
2021
Percent
1 - 100
9
4.3
12
5.7
101 - 200
4
1.9
13
6.2
201 - 300
20
9.5
18
8.6
301 - 400
33
15.7
22
10.5
401 and above
14
6.7
15
7.1
Total
80
80
Missing values
130
62
130
62
Total
210
100
210
100
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022
The study findings established that coffee yields increased slightly after integrating bees in coffee plantation and
33 (15.7%) and 22 (10.5%) of the respondents obtained between 301-400 Kilograms of coffee in 2020 and 2021
respectively (Table 3). This slight increase was brought about by farmers adopting some of the conservation
practices especially mulching and application of organic manure after integrating bees in their coffee plantation.
Although support for any production systems should be oriented towards solving farmers’ problems that inhibit
productivity, the transformational change occurs with the adoption of some innovative technologies including
integrating bees in coffee plantation by farmers but a new challenge is created since majority of the farmers lack
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
107
necessary skills and knowledge to establish and maintain good bee infrastructures in coffee farming. Therefore,
farmers need support to understand new concepts and principles, enable an intellectual change in mind-set,
commit to a longer-term process of change in their production system, test and adapt new practices, and change
equipment and machinery.
Amount earned in a year before integrating bees in coffee plantation
Amount of money earned before integrating bees in coffee plantation indicates that coffee sales after selling
coffee products only.
Table 4: Amount earned in a year before integrating bees in coffee plantation.
Amount earned in year before integrating bees in coffee plantation in
shillings.
Frequency
Percent
100,000 - 200,000
5
2.4
210,000 - 400,000
34
16.2
410,000 - 600,000
20
9.5
610,000 - 800,000
11
5.2
810,000 - 1,000,000
4
1.9
1,000,000 and above
6
2.9
Total
80
38.1
Missing value
130
61.9
Total
210
100
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022
The study established that out of 80 respondents who were integrating bees in their coffee plantation, majority
of them 34 (16.2%) were earning between Shs 210,000 - 400,000, 20 (9.5%) were earning between Shs. 410,000
- 600,000, 11 (5.2%) were earning between Shs. 610,000 - 800,000, 4 (1.9%) were earning between Shs.
810,000 - 1,000,000, and only 6 (2.9%) were 1,000,000 and above.
Amount earned in a year after integrating bees in coffee plantation
Amount of money earned after integrating bees in coffee plantation indicates that coffee sales after selling both
coffee products and bee products.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
108
Table 5: Amount earned in a year after integrating bees in coffee plantation.
Amount earned in year after integrating bees in coffee plantation in
shillings.
Frequency
Percent
100,000 - 200,000
3
1.4
210,000 - 400,000
14
6.6
410,000 - 600,000
19
9.1
610,000 - 800,000
30
14.3
810,000 - 1,000,000
3
1.4
1,000,000 and above
11
5.2
Total
80
38.1
Missing value
130
61.9
Total
210
100
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022
The study established that 3 (1.4%) of the respondents were earning between Shs.100,000 -200,000, 14 (6.6%)
mentioned between Shs. 210,000 - 400,000, 19 (9.1%) mentioned between 410000 - 600000, 30 (14.3%)
mentioned Shs. 610,000 - 800,000, 3 (1.4%) mentioned 810,000 - 1,000,000 and only 11 (5.2%) mentioned Shs.
1,000,000 and above. The study from table 5 and 4.8 above indicates that there was a slight increase on the
earnings of farmers after integrating bees in coffee plantations since additional income was acquired from the
sale of both coffee and bee products. The incomes acquired were used in acquiring both basic needs and basic
assets.
It was established that in Sheema District, integrating bees was not statistically significant on coffee yields since
p was greater than 0.05 (P>0.05) For example, in Kakido Town Council integration of bees in coffee plantations
was estimated to result in a reduction of coffee yields among farmers who were using it on small plots of land
from 9.5% in 2020 to 8.6% in 2021 (Table 5). Positive results were observed where adoption resulted in an
improvement in the 6.7% in 2020 to 7.1% in 2021 and this effect was statistically significant
(P<0.005). Possible reasons for the insignificant of integrating bee keeping in coffee plantation impact on yields
could include the small land areas currently and the failure to implement the full complement of practices
necessary to set off the biophysical process that are expected to drive yield increases.
4.3 Attitude and perception of farmers on integrating coffee with bee keeping
Farmers perceive integrating coffee with bee keeping different and their attitude and perceptions determines
their level of adopting the technology.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
109
Table 6: Attitude and perception of farmers on integrating coffee with bee keeping.
Attitude and perception of farmers on
integrating coffee with bee keeping
Strongly
agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Beekeeping can be practiced as an additional
source of income for small scale coffee
farmers
154 (73.3%)
56 (26.7%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
Require few resources to commence
109 (51.9%)
101 (48.1%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
The necessary skills can be quickly
transferred from one generation to another
20 (9.5%)
190 (90.5%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
Traditional be hives are made from local
resources
60 (28.6%)
150 (71.4%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
It is not labour intensive and harvesting takes
lean time
195 (92.9%)
15 (7.1%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
Bee keeping can be used in the development
of other activities
33 (15.7%)
177 (84.3%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022
Coffee farmers perceived beekeeping as an additional source of income as mentioned by 154 (73.3%) and 56
(26.7%) who strongly agreed and agreed respectively and also were aware that integrating bee keeping in coffee
require few resources to commence as revealed by 109 (51.9%) and 101 (48.1%) who strongly agreed. The
acquired income from the sale of such products would be used in acquiring different resources required to
enhance coffee yields like fertilizers that would ensures increased coffee yields. This implies that coffee farmers
would have to sources of income using the same plot of land and this enable them improve on their standards of
living. This can be compared with [17] who pointed out that beekeeping can provide enough income to the
coffee farmer, as well as does not require the cost of feed (feed zero cost) when integrated with coffee, honey
can be harvested every two weeks or seven months of the year. Chances are very high that the market demand of
honey in the country per year still has not been fulfilled so as to meet the shortage of honey and this gap can be
eliminated by integrating bee keeping and this can enable small scale coffee farmers enjoy improved livelihoods
especially when coffee seasons are off. Coffee farmers perceived integrating bee keeping in coffee as a
technology that required few resources to commence as mentioned by 109 (51.9%) and 101 (48.1%) who
strongly agreed and agreed. integration of bee keeping in coffee plantations require majorly the hives which can
be placed in some coffee trees hence the only costs are for hives. However, farmers perceive integrating bees in
coffee as a disastrous practice since bees would limit the farmers while carrying out different practices like
coffee pruning and thinning. This is in line with [4] who pointed out that bee-reserves can be established in
different small-scale coffee plantation using few resources. Beekeeping can also be introduced in shade trees,
paying special attention to the use of native shade trees that provide a rich and varied source of nectar and
pollen. Beekeeping can also be promoted as an alternative activity for communities engaged in coffee
production hence facilitating the rehabilitation and restoration of neglected coffee plantations. Coffee farmers
revealed that bee keeping is not labour intensive and harvesting takes lean time as revealed by 195 (92.9%) and
15 (7.1%) of the respondents who strongly agreed and agreed. Different bee keeping tasks do not required heavy
labour hence it not labour intensive. This is implying that even both women and men can practice such
enterprise hence the enterprise being gender sensitive. Beekeeping can be practiced by both men and women
and it can quickly be taken up again after a crisis period. The necessary beekeeping skills are easily transmitted
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
110
from one generation to another. Traditional hives are made from locally available material such as hollowed-out
tree trunks or clay pots and, in general, are easily stocked with bees during swarming periods, especially in
tropical areas and in forest areas where bees are still abundant in their natural habitat. This can be compared
with [18] who pointed out that beekeeping is not a labor-intensive activity and honey harvesting generally takes
place during lean periods in agriculture (when most farmers have reduced pressure from farm work). The
collected bee products can be sold to generate additional income to pay for school fees or health expenses,
especially during periods of reduced income from agriculture. Beekeeping can eventually also lead to the
development of other activities within the community such as making of protective gear, smokers, and beehives;
or the production of value-added products such as honey beer, beeswax candles or wood polish. On the other
hand coffee farmers knew that traditional bee hives were made from local resources as revealed by 60 (28.6%)
and 150 (71.4%) of the respondents who strongly agreed and agreed respectively. Different local resources like
local timber, populous lids and cow dung can be used in making local hives. The use of such locally available
resources would motivate different farmers to construct such hives. However, due to limited skills farmers do
not use such materials hence discouraging them from adoption. In addition coffee farmers perceived that bee
keeping is not labour intensive and harvesting takes lean time as revealed by 195 (92.9%) and 15 (7.1%) who
strongly agreed and agreed. Different bee keeping tasks do not required heavy labour hence it not labour
intensive. This is implying that even both women and men can practice such enterprise hence the enterprise
being gender sensitive.
4.4 Technologies coffee farmers use to successfully integrate coffee with bee keeping
For farmers to have an effective integration system, different technologies have to be adopted and these depends
on level of knowledge and skills farmers have to enable them incorporate such technologies in the coffee- bee
cropping system.
Table 7: Technologies coffee farmers use to successfully integrate coffee with bee keeping.
Technologies used
VHU
HU
MU
LU
NUAA
MS
Provision of
supplement feeds
00(00%)
00(00%)
00(00%)
10(4.7%)
70(33.3%)
0.43
Engaging in bee
pollination services
and pollen collection
00(00%)
00(00%)
00(00%)
33(15.7%)
47(22.4%)
0.54
Possession of top bar
or Langstroth hives
00(00%)
00(00%)
63(30%)
17(8.1%)
00(00%)
1.07
Using assorted bait
materials
00(00%)
00(00%)
00(00%)
43(20.5%)
37(17.6%)
0.59
Using pests and
disease control
technologies
00(00%)
00(00%)
48(22.9%)
20(9.5%)
12(6.0%)
9.3
Engaging in
laboratory services
00(00%)
00(00%)
00(00%)
00(00%)
80(38.1%)
0.4
Processing and
packaging of bee
products
00(00%)
80(38.1%)
00(00%)
00(00%)
00(00%)
1.5
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
111
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022; VHU very highly used, HU highly used, MU
moderately used, LU least used, NUAA not used at all, MS Mean Score.
The study findings established that most of the respondents who had adopted integrating bee keeping with
coffee were using almost conventional methods. It was established that out of 80 coffee farmers who were
integrating bees in their plantations, majority of them 70 (33.3%) of the respondents were not providing the
supplement feeds at all, 47 (22.4%) had not engaged in bee pollination services and pollen collection, 63 (30%)
mostly used top bar or langstroth hives, 43 (20.5%) were using assorted bait materials least, 48 (22.9%) had
moderately adopted pests and disease control technologies, 80 (38.1%) had not engaged in laboratory services at
all and 80 (38.1%) highly adopted processing and packaging of bee products. This can be compared with [19]
who pointed out that due to a lack of improved skills and knowledge on artificial queen rearing, still, bee colony
swarm catch by hanging bait hives on long trees is a major means of colony obtaining. Unwise use of
agrochemicals, seasonal shortage of bee forage, bee pests and undesirable characteristics of the bees
(absconding, swarming), and lack of adequate and appropriate extension services are identified as major
challenges of beekeeping development in the areas. Great emphasis should be given to training and extension
programs for the beekeepers focusing on the practical aspects of general beekeeping and more specifically on
honeybee management, pest and predator prevention, and/or control methods.
Relationship between time spent while integrating bee keeping with in coffee plantation and the
technologies used
Table 8: Coefficient results showing the relationship between time spent while integrating bee keeping with in
coffee plantation and the technologies used.
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
6.604
2.176
3.035
.003
Provision of supplemental
feeds
-.499
.241
-.177
-2.070
.040
Engaging in bee pollination
services and pollen
collection
-.495
.246
-.155
-2.010
.046
Possession of top bar or
langstroth hives
.483
.209
.191
2.314
.022
Using assorted bait
materials
.448
.245
.136
1.825
.069
Using pests and diseases
control technologies
-.034
.135
-.019
-.252
.801
Processing and packaging
of bee products
-.113
.206
-.043
-.551
.582
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022; a. Dependent Variable: time spent while
integrating bees in coffee plantation
A p-value of less than 0.05 (p-value=0.000) was obtained when possession of top bar or langstroth p=0.022,
provision of supplemental feeds p=0.04 and engaging in bee pollination services and pollen collection p=0.046
was compared with the time spent while integrating bee keeping in coffee plantations. This implies that for
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
112
sustainable integration of bee enterprise in coffee these technologies have to be adopted and implemented hence
ensuring increased yields and incomes as they are significant in sustaining the coffee - bee cropping system.
From Table 8 above the findings indicate that a p-value great than 0.05 was obtained when using assorted bait
materials p=0.069, processing and packaging of bee products p=0.582 and using pest and disease control
technologies. This implies that coffee farmers would even integrate bee in their plantation irrespective of the
access and availability of such technologies.
Relationship between time spent while integrating bees and using different bee keeping technologies
Table 9: ANOVA for the relationship between time spent while integrating bees and using different bee
keeping technologies.
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
29.943
6
4.991
2.962
.009b
Residual
341.981
203
1.685
Total
371.924
209
a. Dependent Variable: time spent while integrating bees in coffee plantation.
b. Predictors: (Constant), processing and packaging of bee products, provision of supplemental feeds,
engaging in bee pollination services and pollen collection, using assorted bait materials, using pests and
diseases control technologies, possession of top bar or langstroth hives.
A p-value of less than 0.05 was obtained.
This implies that for farmers to continue integrating bees in their coffee plantations, information on different
innovative technologies like provision of supplement feeds, engaging in bee pollination services and pollen
collection, using assorted bait materials, using pest and disease control technologies and possession of improved
bee hives like top bar hives have to be accessed and adopted.
This can be full achieved when farmers access different information from different source especially through
agriculture extension officers.
4.6 Challenges farmers face while integrating coffee with bee keeping
There are different challenges farmers face while integrating coffee with bee keeping and these are categorized
as production, institutional, economic, technical and social challenges. Respondents were asked about the
challenges farmer face while integrating coffee with bee keeping and the responses were recorded in Table 10
below;
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
113
Table 10: Challenges farmers face while integrating coffee with bee keeping.
Challenges farmers face while integrating coffee
with bee keeping
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
Poor management skills
193 (91.9%)
10 (4.8%)
2 (0.9%)
Shortage of honey forage
197(93.8%)
00 (00%)
13(6.2%)
Diseases pests and predators
204 (97.1%)
00 (00%)
6 (2.9%)
Lack of awareness about valuable contribution of
bees to life
210 (100%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
Lack of trainers and training opportunities
210 (100%)
00(20%)
00 (00%)
Lack of dissemination of new research information
210 (100%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
In adequate bee keeping equipment
210 (100%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
Price fluctuations and lack of grading system
Bee hive theft
Weak producer organisations and lack of policies to
protect the producers
Pesticide poisoning
183(87.1%)
160 (76.2%)
210 (100%)
155 (73.8%)
27 (12.9%)
50 (23.8%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
00 (00%)
55 (26.2%)
Source: Authors‟ computation from field survey data 2022
The study findings established poor management skills among the challenges farmers face while integrating
coffee with bee keeping as agreed by 193 (91.9%) of the respondents. Most of the farmers lack enough skills on
site selection, the type of hives to be used and routine practices necessary in management of hives. This
discourages them from integrating bee keeping in their coffee plantations. In connection to the above results
anumber of key informants said that
“Farmers lack skills of integrating bees in the coffee plantation and how different hive management practices
are carried out to ensure increased productivity”
This can be compared with [20] who pointed out that bee production system experiences many challenges that
reduce production and productivity of the subsector and among this is poor management skills. Therefore, many
efforts should be made in generation, modification and dissemination of beekeeping technologies that increase
production and productivity and maximize benefit from beekeeping in line with sustainable natural resource
conservation. This can be facilitated by different actors especially agriculture extension workers who would
disseminate different information on technologies that would improve the management of both bee and coffee
enterprises integrated together.
The study findings also established shortage of honey forage among the challenges farmers face while
integrating coffee with bee keeping as agreed by 197 (93.8%) of the respondents. Majority of the farmers do not
acquire high yields from the bee enterprise after harvesting. This is because of lack of honey forage and lack of
supplemental feeds provided to the bees. This further reduces the income acquired hence affecting farmers
livelihoods. In addition to the above a number of key informants said that;
“Most farmers do not provide supplemental feeds to bee enterprise. This is because farmers have a negative
perception that bees usually search for their own feeds and providing supplementary feeds is wastage of
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
114
resources. Due to this most of the harvests are negatively affected hence resulting into low incomes achieved
from the enterprise”
This can be compared with [20] who pointed out that the annual crude honey yield per traditional bee keeping
methods is 5-7kg. It is very low in quantity and quality compared to national average of improved box hive
coupled with improved management practices including feed supplementation which is and 20-25kg. To reduce
this gap employing improved beekeeping technologies with its accessory and full packages enable the beekeeper
to produce surplus honey.
Research findings also established diseases pests and predators among the challenges farmers face while
integrating coffee with bee keeping as agreed by 204 (97.1%) of the respondents. It is difficult for most of the
farmers to identify the symptoms of bee diseases and this limits the level of prevention and control of such
disease. In connection to the above a number of key informants said this;
“Most of the farmers have the perception that bees are not affected by different diseases hence they do not take
any prevention and control measures of both diseases and even pests. This sometimes limits the level of harvests
farmers get from the bee enterprise hence discouraging the level of investing in bee keeping enterprises” This
can be compared with [19] due to a lack of improved skills and knowledge on artificial queen rearing and poor
control measures of diseases and pests that leads to bees absconding, swarming reduces the level of productivity
of bee enterprise.
The study findings also established lack of trainers and training opportunities, lack of dissemination of new
research information and lack of awareness about valuable contribution of bees to life among the challenges
farmers face while integrating coffee with bee keeping as agreed by 210 (100%) of the respondents. There is
limited information dissemination about the contributions of integrating bees in coffee by both government and
non-government extension workers because most of them concentrate on disseminating information concerning
crop production and livestock production. This creates a death of knowledge by farmers since such sources do
not provide information about bee keeping management practices. In addition to this key informants said that;
“Most trainings organised by agriculture extension workers concentrate on the adoption of major crops
management practices and livestock practices neglecting those concerning bee keeping. This limits farmers to
acquire different technologies and skills of integrating bees in the coffee plantations. Such knowledge gap also
discourages farmers to take up the enterprise or use improved technologies and practices hence limiting the
harvests”
This can be compared with [21] who pointed out that most beekeepers lacked knowledge on the use of modern
hives and how to determine the right time for harvesting. Although beekeeping does not require high technology
in practice, capacity building is required to train beekeepers on relevant management practices. Capacity
building is usually impended by high illiteracy levels of beekeepers. Illiterate beekeepers are also unable to keep
proper records per colony while this is vital for proper management of apiaries.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
115
Research findings also established inadequate bee keeping equipment among the challenges farmers face while
integrating coffee with bee keeping as agreed by 210 (100%) of the respondents. There is limited access to
different equipment like modern hives and harvesting equipment by farmers and this discouraging them from
adopting such enterprise. Even though local materials can be used while making some hives, farmers lack skills
of making such hives and yield capacity is also low for such hives. This also discourages farmers while adopting
bee keeping enterprise. This can be compared with [1] who pointed that most farmers lack access to different
modern technologies and equipment necessary in bee keeping and this discourages the farmers to quickly adopt
the enterprise.
The study findings also established weak producer organisations and lack of policies to protect the producers
among the challenges farmers face while integrating coffee with bee keeping as agreed by 210 (100%) of the
respondents. Bee farmers are not organised in strong organisation and this limit the level of marketing and
development of the enterprise. Lack of organised organisations would limit farmers’ access different services
and access equipment at subsided prices. In connection to the above a number of local leaders said that;
“Due to uncoordinated nature of the bee producers, different financial and government institutions have failed to
recognize these stakeholders in facilitating them with different equipment and financial support and this
discourages the rate of adoption of bee enterprise”
This can be compared with [22] who pointed out that availability of this information would attract and give
confidence to potential investors and guide preparations of bankable beekeeping programs and projects. This
would also facilitate the provision of credit to beekeepers, processors, traders and manufacturers of beekeeping
equipment and products. Progressive beekeepers’ associations were also found to face institutional challenges
that included lack of commitment by the group members and difficulty in maintaining partnership with various
agencies.
The study findings also established price fluctuations and lack of grading system among the challenges farmers
face while integrating coffee with bee keeping as agreed by 183 (87.1%) of the respondents. Lack of proper
packaging materials and harvesting materials limits the quality of bee products produced by different farmers
and this result in price variation in different markets. This is in line with [23] who pointed out that market
inaccessibility, price fluctuations and lack of grading systems that deny beekeepers an incentive to produce good
quality products. Additionally, the same study reported that bee products’ prices widely varied based on
goodwill of various buyers. Other marketing constraints reported by other studies included absence of organised
market channels, transportation problems, low involvement of the private sector in market development and lack
of appropriate technologies for processing and packaging bee products.
5. Conclusions
It was concluded that there is a positive relationship between integrating coffee and bee keeping on farmers’
incomes since additional incomes could be acquired from the sale of different bee products in combination with
coffee sales. The income acquired would be used to acquire basic needs like food, education and assets and
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
116
basic assets like plots of land, motorcycle, solar products and building commercial houses. This enables farmers
to improve on their standards of living.
It was concluded that coffee farmers perceived integrating coffee with bee keeping as, additional source of
income for small scale coffee farmers, required few resources to commence, the necessary skills can be quickly
transferred from one generation to another, traditional beehives are made from local resources not labour
intensive and harvesting takes lean time and that it can be used in the development of other activities.
It was concluded that although farmers were not using different technologies to successfully integrate coffee
with bee keeping, A p-value of less than 0.05 (p-value=0.000) was obtained when possession of top bar or
langstroth p=0.022, provision of supplemental feeds p=0.04 and engaging in bee pollination services and pollen
collection p=0.046 was compared with the time spent while integrating bee keeping in coffee plantations. This
implies that for sustainable integration of bee enterprise in coffee these technologies have to be adopted and
implemented hence ensuring increased yields and incomes as they are significant in sustaining the coffee- bee
cropping system. However, a p-value greater than 0.05 was obtained when using assorted bait materials
p=0.069, processing and packaging of bee products p=0.582 and using pest and disease control technologies.
This implies that coffee farmers would even integrate bees in their plantation irrespective of the access and
availability of such technologies.
Therefore it was also concluded that maintaining coffee- bee cropping system requires understanding of
different innovative technologies that would be economically optimal.
It was concluded that farmers face different challenges while integrating coffee with bee keeping and among
these included; poor management skills, shortage of honey forage, diseases pests and predators, lack of
awareness about valuable contribution of bees to life, lack of trainers and training opportunities, lack of
dissemination of new research information, in adequate bee keeping equipment, price fluctuations and lack of
grading system, bee hive theft, weak producer organizations and lack of policies to protect the producers and
pesticide poisoning.
6. Recommendations
Providing constant trainings to bridge knowledge gaps among farmers and improve understanding of the
relationship between management activities and integration in crop production.
There is a need for farmers to be equipped with knowledge and tools to enable them to make informed decisions
about their farm management practices and be empowered with information about better alternatives for
incomes that they can employ on farm. Both farmers and beekeepers need to understand the major role of bees
in crop production rather than focusing only on honey production and related hive products. Meanwhile, their
role as pollinators in improving crop production is largely neglected at a policy level.
Formulation of participatory policy would encourage conservation of pollinators at national level since it will
enable circulation of information among communities of coffee farmers and beekeepers.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
117
Acknowledgement
I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Management and Board of Ankole Coffee Producers Cooperative
Union Limited (ACPCU LTD) for offering me a scholarship to study a Masters Degree of Agriculture and Rural
Innovations. I wish to extent my thanks in Particular to Mr. John Nuwagaba the General Manager ACPCU for
all the support and encouragement in my academic carrier.
References
[1]. Mujuni, A., Natukunda, K., & Kugonza, D. R. (2012). Factors affecting the adoption of beekeeping and
associated technologies in Bushenyi District, Western Uganda. Development, 24(08), 1-19.
[2]. Albers, H. J., & Robinson, E. J. (2011). The trees and the bees: using enforcement and income projects to
protect forests and rural livelihoods through spatial joint production. Agricultural and resource economics
review, 40(3), 424-438.
[3]. Debisa, L. (2006). The roles of apiculture in vegetation characterization and household livelihoods in
Walmara District, central Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, M. Sc. Thesis. Wondo Genet College of
Forestry, Hawasa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia).
[4]. Bradbear, N. (2009). Bees and their role in forest livelihoods: a guide to the services provided by bees and
the sustainable harvesting, processing and marketing of their products. Non-wood Forest Products, (19).
[5]. Lietaer, C. (2009). Impact of beekeeping on forest conservation, preservation of forest ecosystems and
poverty reduction. In XIII World Forestry Congress (pp. 18-23).
[6]. Christy, E. M. L., & Anna, M. C. (2011). An overview of honey: Therapeutic properties and contribution in
nutrition and human health. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 5(8), 844-852.
[7]. Gemeda, T. K. (2014). Integrating improved beekeeping as economic incentive to community watershed
management: the case of Sasiga and Sagure Districts in Oromiya Region, Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries, 3(1), 52-57.
[8]. Chaplin-Kramer, R., Dombeck, E., Gerber, J., Knuth, K. A., Mueller, N. D., Mueller, M., ... & Klein, A. M.
(2014). Global malnutrition overlaps with pollinator-dependent micronutrient production. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1794), 20141799.
[9]. Klatt, B. K., Holzschuh, A., Westphal, C., Clough, Y., Smit, I., Pawelzik, E., & Tscharntke, T. (2014). Bee
pollination improves crop quality, shelf life and commercial value. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 281(1775), 20132440.
[10]. MAAIF, (2013). National Coffee Policy. Kampala: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries.
[11]. Technoserve, (2013). Uganda: A business case for sustainable coffee production. An industry article.
[12]. ICO, (2015). International Coffee Organisation. Sustainability of the coffee sector in Africa. ICC 114-5
Rev. 1.
[13]. Ankole Coffee Producers Cooperative union report (2018). Sustaining farmer’s livelihoods through
producing organic and quality coffee in Uganda with ready markets.
[14]. Globefeed.com, 2014. Map Showing Mbarara And Kibingo With Distance Marker.
[15]. Anderson, D.R., 2008. Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence (Vol. 31). New
York: Springer.
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2023) Volume 67, No 1, pp 100-118
118
[16]. Galvan, J. L. (2013). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences.
Glendale, CA: Pyrczak
[17]. Sihombing, D. T. H. (2005). Ilmu Ternak Lebah Madu, Yogyakarta.
[18]. Chishala, M. (2010). Conservation of woodlands Through Beekeeping Technologies. Times of Zambia.
COLOSS: Prevention of honeybee colony losses. COST Action FAO 803. European Cooperation in
Science and Technology, Brussels.
[19]. Kimaro, J., Liseki, S., Mareale, W., & Mrisha, C. (2013). Enhancing rural food security through improved
beekeeping in Northern Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25(12), 1-13.
[20]. Gebretsadik, T., & Negash, D. (2016). Honeybee production system, challenges and opportunities in
selected districts of Gedeo zone, Southern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Research Granthaalayah, 4(4), 49-63.
[21]. Namwata, B. M. L., Mdundo, K. J., & Malila, M. N. (2013). Potentials and challenges of beekeeping
industry in Balang’dalalu Ward, Hanang’District in Manyara, Tanzania. Kivukoni Journal, 1(2), 75-93.
[22]. Singh, B., & Sekhon, M. K. (2014). Economics of honey production in Punjab. Journal of Agricultural
Development and Policy, 24(1), 85-94.
[23]. Ejigu, K., Gebey, T., & Preston, T. R. (2009). Constraints and prospects for apiculture research and
development in Amhara region, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 21(10), 172.
