Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia

*Elias Bojago*

### **Abstract**

Ethiopian farmers have a variety of livelihood alternatives, including beekeeping. This book chapter discusses the extent to which farmers have adopted modern Hive Beekeeping Technology as well as the factors that influence adoption. Better beehive technology has a significant positive impact on honey output. Farmers are encouraged to adopt or continue using the technology because the return on investment, that is productivity increases, has been realized. Because improved beehive technology adoption has multiplier effects ranging from increased beekeeping productivity to economic growth and poverty reduction, the study's findings highlight the importance of appropriate policy implementation that promotes the adoption of productivity-enhancing technologies in general and improved beehive technology in particular. As a result, it is recommended that policies be developed to take advantage of the factors influencing farmers' adoption of improved beehive technology. Furthermore, efforts should be made to increase access to improved beehives by introducing substitutes that can be built from locally available materials while lowering production costs, such as *chefeka*.

**Keywords:** adoption, beekeeping practices, beekeeping technology, modern hive

### **1. Introduction**

Ethiopia, with its diverse biological and climatic circumstances, is one of Africa's leading honey producers [1]. Ethiopia has some of the most diverse flora and wildlife in Africa, providing surplus nectar and pollen to foraging bees, and the country has more than 10 million beehives, and around 2 million individuals involved in honey production [2, 3]. This massive disparity is attributed to the country's conventional production methods, which result in low output. The favorable climatic conditions of the country and the wide range of floral resources allow it to sustain approximately 10 million colonies of honeybees, 7 million of which are kept in local bee hives by farmers [4].

Furthermore, in all parts of the country, several million colonies of bees are managed using traditional beekeeping methods [5]. Traditional beehives are basic cylindrical containers in which bees and their combs are housed. They are hives with permanent honeycombs that are typically housed in hollow logs or clay or Wicken vessels. Traditional beekeeping does not use contemporary equipment or practices [6]. As a result, collecting fruits and vegetables kills or seriously weakens the colony.

The Ethiopian government attempted to offer alternative beekeeping technologies to beekeepers after discovering the potential of the apiculture subsector and the problems related to conventional beehives [7]. For example, in 1965, demonstration stations of beekeeping were established in various areas, such as Holleta, Nekemte, and Jimma to introduce improved beekeeping technologies (box hives, casting molds, honey extractors, honey presser, smokers, water sprayers, veils, gloves, etc.) imported from abroad to beekeepers and to offer beekeeping training for farmers and experts [8].

However, in recent years, the well-known type of movable frame hive, the modern hive (MH), has been introduced and is now actively advocated. It is a modern beekeeping technique that provides an alternative system for frame hives [9]. The main claimed benefits of a moveable frame hive are that it is significantly more productive and easier to manage bee colonies than a regular hive, which requires people to examine. Furthermore, it is easier to open, remove, and harvest than a regular hive.

Furthermore, despite efforts by numerous organizations to increase the adoption and production of beekeeping, some social, ecological, and climatic aspects have been identified as barriers that prevent farmers from adopting existing beekeeping technologies [10, 11]. However, there are no comprehensive data on the adoption status and determinants of modern beehive technology.

### **2. Adoption of modern hive beekeeping technology**

### **2.1 Definition and concept of adoption**

Romanelli et al. [12] defined adoption as a farmer's degree of use of new innovation by a farmer after receiving complete knowledge of the new innovation and its potential. The individual and aggregate adoption of new technologies was classified by the authors. Individual adoption was described as the farmer's decision to incorporate new technology into the production process, while aggregate adoption was defined as the process of dissemination of new technology within an area or population.

The first type of adoption is discussed in the study of enhanced hive adoption. At the farm level, the adoption pattern of technology development in agriculture is not uniform. It is a complex process driven by numerous socioeconomic elements [13]. Farmers' socio-psychological systems, as well as their level of readiness and exposure to improved practices and ideas, that is, changes, such as farmers' awareness and attitudes toward improved agricultural technologies, institutional factors that act as incentives/ disincentives to agricultural practices, and farmers' resource endowments, such as land holding size and labor, are all important factors in bringing about technological change.

Adoption is a mental process that an individual farmer (a decision maker or a group of family members of the decision maker) goes through to decide [14]. Specific economic, technological, and institutional conditions must be met to accept new innovations. Farmers should find that the new technology is more profitable than the previous options. Furthermore, smallholders must have access to the new technology and all other necessary inputs at the proper time, place, quantity, and quality [15].

### **2.2 Background of the adoption study**

Technology creation and development are collaborative efforts, and the demand for new technologies must be driven by user demand. The following are some of the reasons why adoption studies are important: to quantify the number of technology

### *Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106890*

users over time to assess impacts or determine expansion requirements; to provide information for police reform; and to provide a foundation for analyzing the impact [16]. Rural sociological research on the diffusion of agricultural innovation began in the United States in the 1920s when the United States Department of Agriculture started to evaluate the process of adopting improved agricultural practices among farmers [17].

In the 1950s and 1960s, the sociological study of agricultural innovation spread rapidly in the United States, influencing the start of similar studies in other countries [18]. The adoption of agricultural technology has attracted the interest of development economists because the majority of the population of developing countries relies on agricultural produce for their living, and new technology appears to offer opportunities to improve production and productivity [19].

Adoption research in Ethiopia began three decades ago. In terms of the adoption of beekeeping technology, the study is mostly limited to the adoption of agricultural, livestock, and soil and conservation technologies [20]. As a result, this research contributes significantly to the lack of knowledge about the adoption of beekeeping technology.

### **2.3 Farmers' adoption decision**

Adoption is a decision-making process in which a person goes through a series of mental processes before deciding to adopt new technology [21–23]. The process by which an individual progresses from first learning about an invention to developing an attitude toward it, making a decision to adopt or reject it, putting the new concept into action, and receiving confirmation of the decision is known as decision-making.

The first was a lack of awareness of the technology or its potential benefits, which could include misunderstandings about the associated costs and benefits [24]. The second issue was that the technologies were not profitable, given the complicated decisions that farmers have to make about how to distribute land and labor between agricultural and nonagricultural enterprises [25]. This could be because farmers selected traits found only in local varieties or because acceptable varieties for their agro-ecological settings were unavailable. It could also be attributed to institutional variables, such as the policy environment, which have an impact on the availability of inputs (land, labor, seeds, and fertilizer), as well as credit and production markets [26].

These institutional considerations also have an impact on input prices. It is also possible that enhanced technologies could raise production risks: if crops fail, the financial losses will be greater. Specific economic, technological, and institutional criteria must be met to effectively use technology [27]. From the perspective of farmers, the new technology should be more profitable than the old options. Smallholder farmers should be able to use the new technology as it is technically possible and easy to administer, as well as flexible to the surrounding sociocultural settings. Similarly, smallholders should have access to new technologies and all other necessary inputs at the correct time and location, in the right quantity and quality [28, 29].

### **2.4 Beekeeping in Ethiopia**

The diverse agro-climatic conditions of the country generate a climate that supports the cultivation of more than 7000 types of flowering plants, the majority of which are bee plants [30]. Demissew et al. [31] also confirm that Ethiopia is home to several indigenous flowering plant species. The ideal environment of the country allows the existence of approximately 10 million honeybee colonies, of which 7 million are housed in various man-made hives and the rest are wild colonies [32].

In Ethiopia, beekeeping has a long history. As a result, beekeepers have developed indigenous technical knowledge on traditional hive construction from a variety of locally available materials, as well as honey bee management practices, such as honey season identification, swarm catching and attracting ant methods, swarm control, honeybee enemy protection, and traditional sting protection and pain reduction methods [33]. Traditional forest, traditional backyard, transitional, and enhanced or modern hive beekeeping are the four types of beekeeping techniques in Ethiopia, according to Holeta Bee Research Center [34].

Traditional Forest Beekeeping: It involves the establishment of hives in the woods on very tall trees to catch swarms. It is often practiced in areas of the country where there are large populations of honeybees [35]. The benefit of forest beekeeping is that bees do not hurt domestic animals or humans, and they have access to a variety of forage plants in their immediate surroundings. Its downsides include a lack of close monitoring and injury to the honey bee colony when the beekeeper removes the hive from the tree during honey harvesting. Climbing a tall tree at night is extremely dangerous for the beekeeper [36].

Traditional Backyard Beekeeping: It is done in a protected environment for honey bees, usually in a homestead. The advantages of such practices are that they are simple to construct, do not require improved beekeeping equipment, and do not require skilled manpower; on the other hand, they are inconvenient to conduct internal inspection and feeding, in some cases the size is too small and causes swarming, there are no superpositions options, and there is no partition to differentiate the brood chamber from the honey chamber [35, 37].

Transitional Beekeeping: It is one of the most advanced beekeeping techniques. The Kenyan Top Bar Hive (KTBH) and Tanzanian Top Bar Hive (TTBH) are the two types of hives (TTBH). The hives can be built from wood, mud, or other locally accessible materials. Honeybees attach their combs to 27–30 top bars in each hive [38]. The top bars are 3.2 cm wide and 48.3 cm long, with a width and length of 3.2 cm and 48.3cm, respectively.

The hive can be opened easily and quickly, the bees are guided to build parallel combs by following the line of the top bars, the top bars are easily removable, and this allows beekeepers to work quickly, honeycombs can be removed from the hive for harvesting without disturbing combs containing broods, the hive can be suspended with wires or roosts, the hive can be suspended with wires or roosts, the transitional beekeeping has its own drawbacks, such as the fact that top bar hives are more expensive than traditional hives, and that combs dangling from the top bars are more likely to fall apart than combs built within frames [39–42].

Modern Hive Beekeeping Practices: It uses different types of frame hives. The Zandar and Langstroth hives are the most common that exist in the country. Dadant, Revised Zandar, and foam hive are uncommon. The number and size of frames in these hives vary. In Ethiopia, the most common type of hive is type. The Zandar Brood chamber, the super (honey chamber), the inner, and exterior cover are all components of improved beekeeping hives. The improved hive has an advantage over the others in that it produces a high quality and quantity of honey. Another advantage of upgraded hives is their ability to prevent swarming by transporting bees from one location to another in search of honeybee flowers and pollination services [43, 44]. On the other hand, its downsides are that the equipment is somewhat expensive, that professional labor is required, and that the equipment requires extremely precise precautions.

### **2.5 Overview of modern hive beekeeping technology development**

According to the Holeta Bee Research Center, the cornerstone of current beekeeping technology development can be traced back to Langstroth's practical use of the bee space concept in 1851 [45]. Four significant discoveries have contributed to the rapid development of contemporary beekeeping:


### **2.6 Role of beekeeping**

### *2.6.1 Central role of beekeeping*

Beekeeping is a sustainable form of agriculture that benefits the environment, provides economic reasons for the preservation of native habitats, and can increase food and forage crop yields [49].


resources. Equipment can also be built locally, and bees rarely require the help of beekeepers [55].


### *2.6.2 Economic participation of beekeeping*

Since ancient times, beekeeping has been an essential part of Ethiopia's agricultural system. It has been a tradition for a long time, long before other farming systems were developed. Beekeeping is a long-standing and deeply ingrained tradition in rural communities throughout the country, with an estimated one million farmers keeping bees [63]. Beekeeping has played and continues to play an important role in the country's national economy, as well as in smallholder farming [64]. Although difficult to quantify, the contribution of bees and hive products is likely one of the most important small-scale income-generating activities for hundreds of thousands of farmer beekeepers [65].

Beekeeping has a number of benefits that help farmers improve their quality of life [66–69]. The following is a summary of the socioeconomic impact of beekeeping, as well as the primary hive products and the relevance of beekeeping.

### *2.6.3 Honey production*

Honey, a natural product of the honeybee, has been dubbed "man's sweetest food" on numerous occasions. It is a great energy source because it is made up of simple sugars that are ready to absorb as soon as they enter the intestine. Honey comprises around 180 components and has a variety of applications [70]. Honey is in high demand in the area since it is used to make the traditional "Tej" (honey) mead. Furthermore, beekeepers are expected to earn approximately 360–480 million Birr per year from the total honey produced in the country [42, 45].

*Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106890*

### *2.6.4 Bees wax production*

Beeswax collecting is insignificant in some parts of the country, and beeswax generated by bees, which could be retrieved by beekeepers, is wasted. Because wax has no practical utility for beekeepers, it is typically left or discarded by beekeepers [71]. Ethiopia is now the world's fourth largest producer of beeswax, behind China, Mexico, and Turkey. Beeswax contributes to the national economy by earning foreign exchange. Beeswax is currently one of the most important agricultural exports. Ethiopia is Africa's third largest exporter of beeswax, with annual beeswax exports valued at around 125 million Birr [72]. Beeswax, like honey, is a multifunctional natural bee product that is used in the production of over 300 different products. Honey and beeswax also play an important role in the cultural and religious life of the country [73].

### *2.6.5 Crop pollination*

Bees play an important role in the agricultural system. Although the importance of honeybees in agricultural pollination is undervalued, they play an important role in enhancing the national food supply and the regeneration of plant species. Honeybees are the world's most important pollinators [74, 75]. Although it is far more difficult to calculate their usefulness, its pollination service is estimated to be worth almost 15 times the value of all hive products combined [64, 76].

### *2.6.6 Source of immediate cash income*

Beekeeping is believed to play an important role and is one of the solutions available to small farmers to sustain their livelihood. It is not just a source of additional money, but a large number of individuals rely exclusively on beekeeping and honey sales for their living [77]. Honeybees and their products generate direct cash income for beekeepers, according to Amulen et al. [78]. Beekeepers can sell their colonies to the market in locations where honey production is not profitable. Honeybees, in this case, serve as "near cash" capital that generates attractive money [50].

Because one of the goals of this study is to identify the characteristics that influence the adoption of improved hive beekeeping technology, and because studies on this topic are scarce, a review of studies on technology adoption in the agricultural area, in general, is offered. This proved to be useful in hypothesizing determinants of technology adoption in beekeeping and in developing models for in-depth research of the postulated components. Adoption, according to Ugochukwu et al. [79], is defined as the long-term incorporation of innovation into farmers' usual farming practices. Adoption was divided into two categories by the authors: farm-level adoption and aggregate adoption.

The degree of use of new technology in long-term equilibrium when the farmer has full information on the potentiality of new technology is described as the final adoption at the farm level of the individual farmer [79]. The diffusion process is described as the spread of technology within an area by the same authors in the context of aggregate adoption behavior. Some ideas have received widespread acceptance, while others have been rejected or embraced by a limited number of farmers.

Although the OECD [80] has a similar notion, it emphasizes the value of information. He stated that few early adopters obtain complete knowledge due to the fear of the hazards associated with the introduction of new technologies. Munguia et al. [14] define the adoption process as a series of mental phases that an individual goes through after first hearing about innovation and ultimately selecting whether to adopt or reject it. There are

five stages to the process: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. The time between being aware of an innovation and adopting it is known as the adoption period, and it varies not only from person to person but also from practice to practice [14, 81].

### *2.6.7 Technology adoption*

The contribution of new technology to economic growth can only be appreciated when it is extensively disseminated and utilized. According to Mwangi [82], decisions to begin using new technology are often the result of a comparison of the uncertain benefits of the new invention with the uncertain costs of adopting it, while in the case of consumers, the benefits are the increased utility of the new good, but may also include such "noneconomic" factors as the pleasure of being the first on the block with a new good, the availability of complementary skills and inputs, and the strength of the new technology. The authors pointed out that knowing the reasons that influenced this decision was critical for both economists investigating growth determinants and designers and producers of such technologies. Various scholars have conducted several empirical technology adoption studies during the last few years. In this section, we will try to demonstrate the reviews that have been done and the inferences that have been made based on the findings of the studies.

Feder et al. [81] looked at theoretical and empirical research on agricultural innovation adoption in developing nations. They demonstrated that the observed diffusion patterns depend on complicated interactions between elements, such as new technology risks, farmer attitudes toward risk, fixed adoption costs, and financial availability. Farm size, risk and uncertainty, human capital, labor availability, credit restrictions, and landownership and rental arrangements are among the characteristics that have been theorized by a number of empirical researchers to influence farmers' adoption decisions.

Munguia et al. [14] and Batz et al. [83] conducted a study in Kenya's Meru district to assess the influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption of dairy technologies and found that relative investment was less influential than relative complexity and relative risk, despite the fact that the strong influence of relative complexity and relative risk of technologies on adoption can be explained by the characteristics of farmers and farming circumstances. The study concluded that the development of low complexity risk reduction technologies would be preferable to the technologies that should be replaced.

According to Adesina et al. [84], the farmer's sex extension contacts, farmers' group participation, and places facing fuel wood scarcity all showed higher adoption of alley farming, whereas locations with very high population pressure showed lower adoption. On the other hand, farmer household characteristics are rarely observed to have a significant impact on adoption. Importantly, household income did not appear to be a factor in adoption, implying that minimum tillage is a low input technology acceptable for resource-poor households. They stated that the findings of research like this are valuable in identifying low-input technologies and strategies that promote them among agricultural households.

### **2.7 Factors affecting adoption**

The introduction of the new technology to smallholder farmers does not guarantee that it will be widely adopted and used efficiently. Farmers' adoption decisions are influenced by a variety of factors. Farmers' decisions about the adoption of agricultural innovation can be influenced by factors, such as economic, institutional,

*Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106890*

demographic, and physical aspects. Some demographic and socioeconomic characteristics that influence the adoption of different technologies among small farmers in developing countries have been identified in previous research.

 The plot size, previous experience with fertilizer, fertilizer supply, farm size, amount of rainfall, household size, and the ratio of the price of the main crop to the cost of fertilizer, as well as access to credit, were identified as factors that restrict the demand for fertilizer among arable crop farmers by ref. [ 67 ] in Ethiopia and [ 85 ] in Sub-Saharan Africa. Credit, farm size, risk, labor availability, human capital, land tenure, and education, according to Feder et al. [ 81 ] in their research report, are the main determinants determining technological adoption. Personal, economic, institutional, and intervening (psychological) factors of the family are variables recognized as having a relationship with adoption for the simplicity of grouping [ 46 ].

 The size of the farm, the area of the potato farm, extension contact, and attitudes toward improved practices were found to be strongly associated with the adoption of improved potato practices in the research conducted by ref. [ 57 ] using correlation analysis in Bangladesh. However, adoption was not related to the farmer's age, education, or organizational involvement. Honeybee pests, which harm honeybees and hive products, can stymie the adoption of improved beekeeping technology. This is not to say that pests do not affect traditional beekeeping methods ( **Figure 1** ) [ 86 ].

### *2.7.1 Personal factors*

 Age is an essential household feature that influences the adoption behavior of subsistence farmers. It is commonly assumed that older farmers will have greater farming expertise and skill, allowing them to more quickly appreciate the technology's benefits than younger farmers. According to the research conducted by Gebiso [ 87 ], the increase in technology adoption with age may be related to the fact that

 **Figure 1.**  *Honeybee pastes [ 86 ].* 

most resources are in the hands of older people and most young farmers do not have adequate backyards for beekeeping and live in the town.

Farmers with large families may be more likely to use technology to meet the needs of their families. As a result, households with large families were expected to be more likely to adopt technology [33]. The ability of a farmer to receive, understand, and use knowledge related to the adoption of new agricultural technologies should improve as a result of exposure to education. According to Zegeye et al. [88], education level influenced the adoption of improved wheat cultivars and chemical fertilizers. Technical applicability is important for improving the use of box hive technology usage; Feder et al. [81] stated that education improves decision making, and thus, influences the level and/or composition of the input.

As a result, education is expected to improve the understanding of technology and, as a result, adoption. Literate farmers are more exposed to the outside world and information, which makes it easier for them to connect to technological sources [79]. Similarly, educational attainment and technological adoption have a strong and direct association [58]. Another major element related to the household that has an impact on adoption is the experience of farming. Longer farming experience means acquired farming knowledge and ability, which contributes to adoption [89]. These farmers' characteristics, such as participation in field days and demonstrations, confirmed that farm technology adoption is aided by participation in field days and demonstrations. Visiting other beekeepers' apiaries or demonstration locations might help a beekeeper have a better understanding of beekeeping. Visits between farmers to share their experiences also help establish a positive attitude toward an invention or new technology [79].

Training is critical to increasing beneficiary productivity, while also raising knowledge of technology. According to Wodajo [90], the training may have instilled technical competencies, increased exposure to the subject, and persuaded farmers to embrace new agriculture technologies. The participation of beekeepers in demonstrations and training of modern beehives was one of the most important predictors of adoption [87]. The proportion of adopters who were trained was substantially higher than those of nontrained adopters [77], indicating that farmer training on the technology presented in this case on the current beehive technology has a favorable influence on adoption. Farmers' adoption decisions were likely to be influenced favorably by the acquisition of technical skills and knowledge of beekeeping through training [47].

### *2.7.2 Economic factors*

The amount of livestock a family owns is a good indicator of their financial situation. Livestock is also major source of income for farmers, allowing them to invest in the adoption of modern agricultural methods. It has varied effects on different people in different regions in regard to adopting improved technologies. It has a beneficial impact on the adoption of agricultural technologies by households in most cases [88]. Many adoption studies have found that having livestock has a beneficial impact on adoption [58, 66].

Farmers' adoption behavior is influenced by land-related characteristics, as land holding is an important unit where agricultural operations occur. Many adoption studies found that the size of a farm was positively associated with the adoption of upgraded technologies [47, 67]. Another element is the availability of credit for the acquisition of agricultural technologies. Those farmers who have access to financing will be able to purchase contemporary beekeeping equipment at a lower cost than those who do not. Farmer participation in off-farm/non-farm occupations will alleviate financial constraints, allowing them to purchase inputs like contemporary beehive equipment. As a result, financing has a beneficial and considerable impact on the adoption of current beehive technology [30].

### *2.7.3 Institutional factors*

Extension agents offer farmers with information on agricultural technology on a regular basis, based on the frequency with which they interact with them. Extension efforts, according to Feder et al. [81], raise the likelihood of new technology by growing the store of information about current production increases. Extending the use of improved box hive technology requires close monitoring by extension personnel. Many adoption studies have found that farmers who have access to extension services are more likely to embrace improved agricultural technologies [34, 57].

Attendance in extension activities such as demonstrations, training, and field days are also important to improve farmers' experience, capacity, and confidence in the benefits of better agricultural technologies. Yigezu et al. [91] found that participation in field days had a positive and significant impact on the adoption of agricultural technology. On the other hand, ref. [77] reported that farmers' adoption decisions were positively influenced by participation in demonstrations and training on farms. Participation in extension activities was found to have a favorable and substantial link with adoption in other research [88].

Equipment for honeybees is available: Improved hives and working tools for the rural community are beyond the reach of most farmers, and even for those who can afford them, they are not readily available [27]. Smallholders should have access to new technology and all other relevant inputs at the right time and location, in the right amount and quality [47]. Other key issues include the lack of cash and lack of modern beehives and their accessories (honey harvesting and processing equipment, such as wax scrubbers, queen excluders, honey extractors, bee smokers, and others) available to beekeepers [87]. To operate the hive with honey, beekeepers must wear protective clothing (overall suit, bee veil, and gloves) and use equipment, such as a smoker. The availability of these materials influences the adoption of the technology [15].

### *2.7.4 Psychological factors*

Beekeeper Perceptions: Farmers' opinions on innovation features influence adoption rates [33]. The positive attitude of beekeepers toward technology influences their decision to adopt it. Beekeepers' positive attitude about technology influences their desire to adopt it. The respondent's perception of technological characteristics, such as (I) grasp of relative advantages and (II) awareness of or concern about disadvantages. The package's overall perceived attribute is then determined by the differences between the two [58, 92].

Knowledge of technology: Knowledge is the process by which a person is made aware of the existence of innovation and a comprehension of how it works. Knowledge of technology is essential to be effective and efficient.

### **3. Conclusions**

Since ancient times, beekeeping has been an essential part of Ethiopia's agricultural system. It has been a tradition for a long time, long before other farming systems were developed. Beekeeping is a long-standing and deeply ingrained tradition in rural areas throughout the country, with an estimated one million farmers keeping bees.

Several factors, including the educational level of the respondents, the size of the land, extension contact, access to funding, and the market, had a significant impact on the adoption of modern hive beekeeping technology.

It is advised that the Livestock and Fish Resource Development office adopt ways to help illiterate people of the community benefit more from modern hive beekeeping technologies, and should develop a strategy to benefit farmers with large land holdings with modern hive beekeeping technology; extend contact with farmers prior to technology innovation leads to better adoption of technology; strongly advised to link a strategy with a microfinance institution, so that farmers who do not have access to credit can benefit more from technology adoption; and must develop strategies to promote technology adoption among farmers with no market access. Promotional operations focused on respondents' lack of market access, which necessitated their active participation in adoption.

The adoption of contemporary beehive technology has a substantial impact on hive productivity, as beekeeping may be used as a source of income diversification or even as the primary activity for most rural residents. However, the number of beekeepers who have switched to contemporary beehives (adopters) are small and continues to use traditional beekeeping methods. Despite the fact that practically all beekeepers are aware of the existence of current beehive technology, they have chosen not to accept it for a variety of reasons, including personal, economic, institutional, and psychological issues. The frame size, form, and color are the most important considerations, and they should be differentiated according to the agro-ecological conditions. It is tough for bees to adjust and generate their goods, while remaining alive because most beekeeping hives are the same across the country.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Notes/thanks/other declarations**

Thank you, God! And I had like to thank my father, Ato Bojago Dado, for his advice and sharing of evidence, and I'd like to add, "Thank you for being there; I honestly don't know what I would have done without you."


*Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106890*

## **Author details**

Elias Bojago Department of Environmental Science, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia

\*Address all correspondence to: eliasboja77@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Tarekegn K, Ayele A. Impact of improved beehives technology adoption on honey production efficiency: Empirical evidence from Southern Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security. 2020;**9**(1):1-13

[2] Anand S, Sisay G. Engaging Smallholders in Value Chains: Creating New Opportunities for Beekeepers in Ethiopia. India: Oxfam; 2011

[3] Chala K et al. Opportunities and challenges of honey production in Gomma district of Jimma zone, Southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. 2012;**4**(4):85-91

[4] Gebru N, Gebretsadik H, Welderufael S. Assessment of honey bee flora in eastern zone of Tigray, North Ethiopia. Assessment. 2015;**5**(1):53-56

[5] Gratzer K et al. Challenges and perspectives for beekeeping in Ethiopia. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2021;**41**(4):1-15

[6] Mulatu A, Marisennayya S, Bojago E. Adoption of modern hive beekeeping technology: The case of Kacha-Birra Woreda, Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture. 20 Dec 2021;**2021**:1-20

[7] Bihonegn A, Begna D. Beekeeping production system, challenges, and opportunities in selected districts of South Wollo Zone, Amhara, Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture. 2021;**2021**:1-10

[8] Devkota K. Beekeeping: Sustainable livelihoods and agriculture production in Nepal. Modern Beekeeping-Bases for Sustainable Production. 26 Aug 2020:1-11

[9] Serda B et al. Beekeeping practices, production potential and challenges

of bee keeping among beekeepers in Haramaya District, Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Veterinary Science & Technology. 2015;**6**:1-5

[10] Mujuni A, Natukunda K, Kugonza DR. Factors affecting the adoption of beekeeping and associated technologies in Bushenyi District, Western Uganda. Development. 2012;**24**(08):1-19

[11] Tadesse B et al. Factors influencing organic honey production level and marketing: Evidence from southwest Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2021;**7**(9):e07975

[12] Romanelli TL, Muñoz-Arriola F, Colaço AF. Conceptual framework to integrate economic drivers of decision making for technology adoption in agriculture. Engineering Proceedings. 23 Jan 2022;**9**(1):1-5

[13] Kebebe KE. Understanding Factors Affecting Technology Adoption in Smallholder Livestock Production Systems in Ethiopia: The Role of Farm Resources and the Enabling Environment. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research; 2015

[14] Munguia O, Pannell DJ, Llewellyn R. Understanding the adoption of innovations in agriculture: A review of selected conceptual models. Agronomy. 2021;**11**(1):139

[15] Stringer LC et al. Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers. Environmental Science & Policy. 2020;**104**:174-189

[16] Strom K. Research on the Impact of Technology on Policing strategy in the 21st century. Washington DC: US Department of Justice; 2017

[17] Boon KF. A Critical History of Change in Agricultural Extension and *Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106890*

Considerations for Future Policies and Programs (Doctoral dissertation). 2010. pp. 1-408

[18] Maat H. The history and future of agricultural experiments. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2011;**57**(3-4):187-195

[19] Kassie M et al. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2013;**80**(3):525-540

[20] Andaregie A, Astatkie T. Determinants of beekeeping adoption by smallholder rural households in Northwest Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2021;**7**(1):1954817

[21] Viatte G. Adopting technologies for sustainable farming systems: An OECD perspective. In: Adoption of Technologies for Sustainable Farming Systems Wageningen Workshop Proceedings. 2001. p. 14

[22] Osteen C, Gottlieb J, Vasavada U. Agricultural resources and environmental indicators. USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin. 1 Aug 2012;**98**:1-48

[23] Aynalem Abejew T, Mekuriaw Zeleke Z. Study on the beekeeping situation, the level of beekeepers knowledge concerning local honeybee subspecies, their productive characteristics, and behavior in Eastern Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture. 29 Mar 2017;**2017**:1-7

[24] Veisten K, Elvik R, Bax C. Assessing conceptions of cost-benefit analysis among road safety decision-makers: Misunderstandings or disputes? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 2010;**28**(1):57-67

[25] Doss CR. Women and agricultural productivity: Reframing the Issues.

Development and Policy Review. 2018;**36**(1):35-50

[26] Andaregie A, Astatkie T, Teshome F. Determinants of market participation decision by smallholder haricot bean (phaseolus vulgaris l.) farmers in Northwest Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2021;**7**(1):1879715

[27] Liliane TN, Charles MS. Factors affecting yield of crops. Agronomyclimate Change & Food Security. 2020;**9**:9-24

[28] Grote U et al. Food security and the dynamics of wheat and maize value chains in Africa and Asia. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2021;**4**:617009

[29] Giovannini E. et al. The role of science, technology and innovation policies to foster the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Report of the Expert group "Follow-up to Rio 20. 2015

[30] Fikru S. Review of honey bee and honey production in Ethiopia. Journal of Animal Science Advances. 2015;**5**(10):1413-1421

[31] Demissew S, Friis I, Weber O. Diversity and endemism of the flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea: State of knowledge and future perspectives. Rendiconti Lincei. Scienze Fisiche e Naturali. 2021;**32**(4):675-697

[32] Negash D, Mengeste B. Assessment of honey production system, constraints and opportunities in selected kebeles of Hawassa City administration, Ethiopia. International Journal of of Research Granthaalayah. 2019;**7**(8):78-87

[33] Workneh A. Identification and documentation of indigenous knowledge of beekeeping practices in selected districts of Ethiopia. Journal

of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. 2011;**3**(5):82-87

[34] Ababor S, Tekle Y. Beekeeping practice, opportunities, marketing and challenges in Ethiopia. Dairy & Veterinary Sciences. 2018;**5**(3):555-531

[35] Bradbear N. 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; 2009;**19**:1-194

[36] Endalamaw TB. Dynamics in the Management of Honey Production in the Forest Environment in South West Ethiopia. Wageningen: Wageningen University; 2005

[37] Gebretsadik T, Negash D. 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. 2016;**4**(4):49-63

[38] Amsalu A. The Prevalent and Incidence Rate of Honey Bee Diseases and Pests in Selected Districts of East Wollega Zone. Ethiopia: Oromia National Regional State; 2019

[39] Abeje A et al. Adoption and intensity of modern bee hive in Wag Himra and North Wollo zones, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal. 2017;**3**:5-26

[40] Fikadu Z. The contribution of managed honey bees to crop pollination, food security, and economic stability: Case of Ethiopia. The Open Agriculture Journal. 31 Dec 2019;**13**(1):175-181

[41] Nweze AJ, Olovo CV, Nweze EI, John OO, Paul C. Therapeutic properties of honey. Honey. 2020;**332**:1-21

[42] Sahle H, Enbiyale G, Negash A, Neges T. Assessment of honey production system, constraints and opportunities in Ethiopia. Pharmacy & Pharmacology International Journal. 2018;**6**(1):42-47

[43] Wakjira K et al. Smart apiculture management services for developing countries—The case of SAMS project in Ethiopia and Indonesia. Science. 2021;**7**:e484

[44] Al-Ghamdi AA et al. Comparative analysis of profitability of honey production using traditional and box hives. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2017;**24**(5):1075-1080

[45] Lijalem T, Zereu G, Tebeje M. Opportunities and constraints of beekeeping in Wolaita and Dawro zones, southern Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2017;**12**(18):1587-1592

[46] Zurbuchen A et al. Long foraging distances impose high costs on offspring production in solitary bees. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2010;**79**(3):674-681

[47] Pywell RF et al. Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: Evidence for ecological intensification. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2015;**282**(1816):1740

[48] Seanbualuang P. Basic knowledge of beekeeping. Naresuan University Journal: Science and Technology (NUJST). 2013;**20**(2):93-100

[49] Ramadani V, Hisrich RD, Dana LP, Palalic R, Panthi L. Beekeeping as a family artisan entrepreneurship business. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 20 Nov 2017;**25**(4):717-730

[50] Belie T. Honeybee Production and Marketing Systems, Constraints *Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106890*

and Opportunities in Burie District of Amhara Region. Ethiopia: Bahir Dar University; 2009

[51] Ejigu K, Gebey T, Preston TR. Constraints and prospects for apiculture research and development in Amhara region, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 1 Oct 2009;**21**(10):172

[52] Berhe A, Asale A, Yewhalaw D. Community perception on beekeeping practices, management, and constraints in Termaber and Basona Werena districts, central Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture. 1 Jan 2016;**2016**:1-10

[53] Wakjira K, Negera T, Zacepins A, Kviesis A, Komasilovs V, Fiedler S, et al. Smart apiculture management services for developing countries—The case of SAMS project in Ethiopia and Indonesia. Peer Journal of Computer Science. 2021;**7**:e484

[54] Power AG. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences. 2010;**365**(1554):2959-2971

[55] Elzaki E, Tian G. Economic evaluation of the honey yield from four forest tree species and the future prospect of the forest beekeeping in Sudan. Agroforestry Systems. 2020;**94**(3):1037-1045

[56] Peters KA. Keeping bees in the city-disappearing bees and the explosion of urban agriculture inspire urbanites to keep honeybees: Why city leaders should care and what they should do about it. Drake Journal of Agriculture. 2012;**17**:597

[57] Peter L. Socio-Economic Factors influencing Apiculture in the Eastern Cape Province. South Africa: University of Fort Hare; 2015

[58] Belete YM, Ayele ZA. Bee-keeping for women empowerment: Case of new business model in honey value chain development project's beneficiaries in Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2020;**32**:1-8

[59] Desalgne P. Ethiopian honey: Accessing international markets with inclusive business and sector development. SNV/Ethiopia. 2012;**2011**:1-7

[60] Vaziritabar S, Esmaeilzade SM. Profitability and socio-economic analysis of beekeeping and honey production in Karaj state, Iran. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2016;**4**(4):1341-1350

[61] Cane D, Dawe M, Ostrowski J, Rivard A. Value Added Products for Beekeepers in Albania. 2014. pp. 1-149

[62] Durazzo A, Lucarini M, Plutino M, Pignatti G, Karabagias IK, Martinelli E, et al. Antioxidant properties of bee products derived from medicinal plants as beekeeping sources. Agriculture. 2021;**11**(11):1136

[63] Godifey G, Tassew A. Importance of integrating beekeeping with closure areas in Ethiopia: Status and future prospects. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2016;**6**(3):30-41

[64] Beyene T, Verschuur M. Assessment of constraints and opportunities of honey production in Wonchi District South West Shewa Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia. American Journal of Research Communication. 2014;**2**(10):342-353

[65] Fenet B, Alemayehu O. The significance of honey production for livelihood in Ethiopia. Journal of Environment and Earth Science. 2016;**6**(4):46-53

[66] Alton K, Ratnieks F. Can beekeeping improve mental wellbeing during times of crisis? Bee World. 2022;**99**(2):40-43

[67] Etxegarai-Legarreta O, Sanchez-Famoso V. The role of beekeeping in the generation of goods and services: The interrelation between environmental, socioeconomic, and sociocultural utilities. Agriculture. 2022;**12**(4):551

[68] Epiz RS. Good farming practices in apiculture. Review Science and Technology. 2019;**38**(3):2

[69] Tlak Gajger I, Mañes AM, Formato G, Mortarino M, Toporcak J. Veterinarians and beekeeping: What roles, expectations and future perspectives?-a review paper. Veterinarski arhiv. 2021;**91**(4):437-443

[70] Genersch E. Honey bee pathology: Current threats to honey bees and beekeeping. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2010;**87**(1):87-97

[71] Eshete Y, Eshetie T. A review on crude beeswax mismanagement and lose: Opportunities for collection, processing and marketing in Ethiopia. Research Journal of Food and Nutrition. 2018;**2**(4):4-12

[72] Mussida C, Patimo R. Women's family care responsibilities, employment and health: A tale of two countries. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. Sep 2021;**42**(3):489-507

[73] Tesfay H. Honey Bee Diseases, Pest and Their Economic Importance in Ethiopia. 2014. pp. 1-18

[74] Gebru E, Berhanu A, Hayal L, Solomon A, Tsehaye A. Honey bee flora diversity and their impact on honey production in Tigray region of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2016;**28**(7):1-20

[75] Nel E, Illgner P. The contribution of bees to livelihoods in southern Africa. In: Rights Resources and Rural Development. Routledge; 11 Jan 2013. pp. 142-149

[76] Teklu G. Enhancing rural food security and conserving natural environment through improved beekeeping in Asano Koto watershed, Ethiopia. European Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Research. 2017;**5**(1):35-48

[77] Chanthayod S, Zhang W, Chen J. People's perceptions of the benefits of natural beekeeping and its positive outcomes for forest conservation: A case study in Northern Lao PDR. Tropical Conservation Science. Mar 2017;**10**:1-11. DOI: 10.1177/1940082917697260

[78] Amulen DR, D'Haese M, D'Haene E, Okwee Acai J, Agea JG, Smagghe G, et al. Estimating the potential of beekeeping to alleviate household poverty in rural Uganda. PLoS One. 2019;**14**(3):e0214113

[79] Ugochukwu AI, Phillips PW. Technology adoption by agricultural producers: A review of the literature. In: From Agriscience to Agribusiness. 2018. pp. 361-377

[80] OECD. Adoption of Technologies for Sustainable Farming Systems. 2001. pp. 1-149

[81] Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1985;**33**(2):255-298

[82] Mwangi M, Kariuki S. Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development. 2015;**6**(5):208-216

*Adoption of Modern Hive Beekeeping Technology: Evidence from Ethiopia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106890*

[83] Batz FJ, Peters KJ, Janssen W. The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption. Agricultural Economics. 1999;**21**(2):121-130

[84] Adesina AA, Mbila D, Nkamleu GB, Endamana D. Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2000;**80**(3):255-265

[85] Naseem Akthar M, Sivarama Sastry K, Maruthi MP. Biosorption of silver ions by processed Aspergillus niger biomass. Biotechnology Letters. 1995;**17**(5):551-556

[86] Tulu D et al. Improved beekeeping technology in Southwestern Ethiopia: Focus on beekeepers' perception, adoption rate, and adoption determinants. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2020;**6**:1814070

[87] Gebiso T. Adoption of modern bee hive in Arsi Zone of Oromia Region: Determinants and financial benefits. Agricultural Sciences. 2015;**6**(03):382

[88] Zegeye T, Tadesse B, Tesfaye S. Determinants of adoption of improved maize technologies in major maize growing regions in Ethiopia

[89] Massresha SE, Lema TZ, Neway MM, Degu WA. Perception and determinants of agricultural technology adoption in north shoa zone, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Cogent Economics & Finance. 1 Jan 2021;**9**(1):1956774:1-19

[90] Wodajo WA. Financial benefits of box hive and the determinants of its adoption in selected district of Ethiopia. American Journal of Economics. 2011;**1**(1):21-29

[91] Yigezu YA, Mugera A, El-Shater T, Aw-Hassan A, Piggin C, Haddad A,

et al. Enhancing adoption of agricultural technologies requiring high initial investment among smallholders. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018;**134**:199-206

[92] Semahegn Y et al. Farmers' preferred traits and perceived production constraints of bread wheat under drought-prone agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security. 2021;**10**:1-13

## Section 3
