Beekeeping extension programs as supplementary livelihood support for smallholder farming communities

Introduction

Smallholder farmers rarely depend on a single crop for their survival. Across tropical Asia, households combine rice cultivation with vegetables, livestock, and off-farm labor to manage risk and stabilize earnings [1] . Beekeeping fits naturally into this livelihood mix because it requires little land, modest startup capital, and can run alongside existing farm activities [2] . In Thailand, honey production reached over 10,800 metric tons in 2021, yet most output came from commercial operations rather than smallholders [3] . Extension services in Thailand have traditionally focused on rice, cassava, and rubber, leaving apiculture as a peripheral topic in advisory programming [4] . Where beekeeping training has been offered, results appear promising-several pilot projects in the Isan region showed that farmers who received hands-on hive management training doubled their honey yields within two seasons [5] . But systematic evidence linking extension contact intensity to beekeeping outcomes at the household level remains thin. This research aimed to assess whether extension-supported beekeeping programs contributed meaningfully to household income among smallholder farmers in Khon Kaen Province. The specific objectives were: a) to compare honey yields between extension-supported and self-taught beekeepers, b) to measure the income share attributable to beekeeping across experience categories, and c) to test the association between extension visit frequency and productivity outcomes [6] .

Research area description

The research was conducted in Khon Kaen Province, located in the northeastern Isan plateau of Thailand at approximately 16.4°N and 102.8°E. Five sub-districts with active beekeeping groups registered under the Provincial Agricultural Extension Office were selected. The landscape consists of lowland rice paddies interspersed with fruit orchards and eucalyptus plantations that provide forage for managed bee colonies. Smallholder farm sizes averaged 2.4 hectares. The province supports around 3,200 registered beekeepers [3] .

Climatic and environmental conditions

Khon Kaen has a tropical savanna climate with three seasons: hot (March-May), rainy (June-October), and cooldry (November-February). During the research period, temperatures ranged from 18.4°C to 36.2°C. Total rainfall was 284 mm across the survey months. Flowering patterns of longan, lychee, and eucalyptus trees peak during December-March, which determines the main honey harvest window and shapes extension visit scheduling [7] . [8] .

Material and methods

Material

Methods

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics summarized farmer profiles and production data. Independent-sample t-tests compared honey yields between extension-supported and self-taught beekeepers. One-way ANOVA tested income differences across three experience categories. Pearson correlation measured the relationship between extension visit frequency and annual honey yield per hive. Income from beekeeping was calculated as a percentage of total reported household income [9] .

Results

Table A moderate positive correlation (r= 0.64, p<0.01) confirmed that more frequent extension contact was associated with higher honey yields.

Comprehensive interpretation

The data consistently show that extension involvement boosted both productivity and income from beekeeping. Colony loss rates were cut roughly in half among extensionsupported farmers, and income contributions grew steadily with experience.

Discussion

The nearly twofold difference in honey yield between extension-supported and self-taught beekeepers is consistent with pilot findings from earlier Isan-region projects [5] . The yield gap appears driven largely by differences in hive management practices, particularly colony inspection frequency and disease prevention measures, which extension workers emphasize during on-farm visits [10] . Colony loss rates of 23.7% among self-taught beekeepers point to a specific gap where extension input can make an immediate difference. The progressive rise in income contribution with experience suggests that beekeeping rewards are cumulative-farmers build colonies, refine techniques, and expand market connections over time [11] . Extension programs that support new entrants through the first two years appear especially valuable, since the income jump between the under-twoyear and two-to-five-year groups was substantial. Market access remains a constraint for remote sub-districts, and several respondents mentioned that without extension-linked buyer networks, they would struggle to sell beyond the village [12,13] .

Conclusion

This research confirms that extension-supported beekeeping programs provide meaningful supplementary income for smallholder farming households in Northeastern Thailand. Farmers with regular extension contact achieved higher honey yields, maintained lower colony losses, and derived a greater share of income from bee products compared to selftaught beekeepers. Experience played a clear role, with income contributions rising from 8.3% among beginners to 21.4% among those with over five years of practice. Integrating beekeeping modules into routine extension delivery appears to be a practical and low-cost strategy for livelihood diversification. Programs should prioritize sustained support during the first two years and build market linkages for farmers in less accessible areas. Extension agencies across similar tropical farming regions may find this model adaptable to their own smallholder contexts [14] .

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements Funding sourcesThis research was supported by a faculty research allocation from Khon Kaen University. No commercial funding was received. Institutional supportThe authors thank the Faculty of Agriculture at Khon Kaen University and the Khon Kaen Provincial Agricultural Extension Office for logistical support.

References

1. Ellis F. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
2. Bradbear N. Bees and their role in forest livelihoods. Non-Wood Forest Products 19. Rome: FAO; 2009. P.1194.
3. Department of Agriculture Thailand. Beekeeping statistics and honey production report 2021. DOA Annual Report. Bangkok: DOA; 2022. P.1-38.
4. Cramb RA, Purcell T, Ho TC. Participatory assessment of rural livelihoods in the central highlands of Vietnam. Agric Syst. 2004; 81(3):255-272.
5. Chantawannakul P, de Guzman LI, Li J, Williams GR. Parasites, pathogens, and pests of honeybees in Asia. Apidologie. 2016; 47(3):301-324.
6. Srisomyong N, Meyer D. Political economy of agritourism initiatives in Thailand. J Rural Stud. 2015; 41:95-108.
7. Thai Meteorological Department. Climate data summary for Isan region 2021-2022. TMD Technical Report. Bangkok: TMD; 2022. P.1-24.
8. Israel GD. Determining sample size. University of Florida IFAS Extension Publication PEOD6. Gainesville: University of Florida; 2012. P.1-5.
9. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. 7th ed. London: Open University Press; 2020.
10. Crane E. The world history of beekeeping and honey hunting. New York: Routledge; 1999.
11. Qaiser T, Ali M, Taj S, Akmal N. Impact assessment of beekeeping in sustainable rural livelihood. J Soc Sci. 2013; 2(2):82-90.
12. Affognon HD, Kingori WS, Omondi AI, Diiro MG. Adoption of modern beekeeping and its impact on honey production in the former Mwingi district. J Dev Agric Econ. 2015; 7(12):382-389.
13. Shrestha KK, Bhandary HR. Beekeeping as a source of rural income in Nepal. J Agric Environ. 2007; 8:72-78.
14. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th Ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.