Constraints and suggestions of beneficiaries of Mahabaleshwar Madhotpadak Sahakari society in beekeeping enterprise

Introduction

Beekeeping has emerged as an important subsidiary enterprise contributing significantly to rural livelihoods, income diversification, and agricultural sustainability. Despite its immense potential, the development of the beekeeping sector, particularly within cooperative frameworks, is constrained by several technical, economic, institutional, and environmental challenges. These constraints limit the efficiency, productivity, and overall impact of beekeepers' cooperative societies on the socioeconomic conditions of their members. One of the major constraints faced by beekeepers is the lack of adequate technical knowledge and adoption of scientific management practices. A significant proportion of small and marginal beekeepers continue to rely on traditional methods, which results in low productivity and poor quality of hive products (Kumar & Singh, 2020) [7] . Limited access to training programs and extension services further aggravates this issue. In addition, the limited availability of quality bee colonies such as Apis mellifera and Apis cerana indica, along with modern beekeeping equipment, restricts the adoption of improved technologies (Kebede et al., 2019) [6] . Pest and disease infestations, particularly those caused by Varroa destructor, also pose a serious threat to colony health and honey production (Rosenkranz et al., 2010) [9] . Economic and marketing constraints further hinder the growth of beekeeping cooperatives. Inadequate access to institutional credit, lack of proper storage and processing infrastructure, and price fluctuations due to the involvement of market intermediaries reduce profitability (Chauhan & Sharma, 2016) [2] . Moreover, issues such as honey adulteration and the absence of standardized quality control mechanisms adversely affect market competitiveness, particularly in export markets (APEDA, 2023). Environmental challenges, including climate change, declining floral resources, and indiscriminate use of pesticides, also negatively impact bee populations and productivity (Goulson et al., 2015) [5] . To overcome these constraints, several strategic interventions are necessary. Strengthening extension services and capacity-building programs can significantly enhance the technical knowledge and skills of beekeepers (FAO, 2013) [3] . Promotion of improved bee colonies and modern equipment through subsidies and institutional support can increase productivity. Establishing adequate infrastructure for processing, storage, and value addition, along with ensuring quality standards and certification, can improve market access and income levels (National Bee Board, 2020) [8] . Furthermore, strengthening cooperative-based marketing systems can reduce the role of intermediaries and enhance the bargaining power of beekeepers. Environmental sustainability can be promoted through awareness programs focusing on pollinator-friendly practices and reduced pesticide usage. Therefore, the present study aims to identify the major constraints faced by the beneficiaries of the beekeepers' cooperative society and to suggest suitable measures for improving its effectiveness and sustainability.

Methodology

The present study was conducted using an ex-post facto research design. The study area was Mahabaleshwar, Wai, and Jaoli tehsils of Satara district, Maharashtra, where the Mahabaleshwar Madhotpadak Sahakari Society operates. A total of 320 respondents were selected, comprising 160 members and 160 non-members, using a proportionate random sampling method. The data were collected through a structured and pre-tested interview schedule by personal interview method. The variables included personal, socioeconomic, and psychological characteristics as independent variables, while the impact of the cooperative society was considered as the dependent variable. The collected data were classified and analysed using frequency, percentage, range method, correlation coefficient, and z-test.

Constraints faced by the members of beekeepers of cooperative society

The member and non-member beekeeper respondents were asked whether they faced any difficulties related to production, management, and marketing of honey and other bee products. The constraints experienced by the respondents were identified and recorded accordingly. A total score for each constraint was calculated and expressed in terms of frequency and percentage to facilitate proper analysis and interpretation. This helped in drawing meaningful inferences regarding the major problems encountered by the beekeepers associated with and outside the cooperative society.

Suggestions made by the members of beekeepers of cooperative society

Suggestions were obtained from the member beekeepers of the cooperative society to overcome the problems faced by them in beekeeping activities, including production, management, and marketing of honey and other bee products. The respondents were encouraged to share their practical opinions and recommendations based on their experience. The suggestions provided by the members were grouped according to the nature of constraints faced by them and were systematically organized. These were then presented in terms of frequency and percentage to facilitate analysis and to draw meaningful inferences for the study.

Results and Discussion

The findings of the study as well as relevant discussion given below:

Constraints faced by beekeepers' cooperative society members in beekeeping enterprise

In this study, 'constraints' refer to the limitations or restrictions experienced by members of beekeepers' cooperative societies while managing beekeeping activities with available resources. Additionally, factors influencing their actions, capabilities, and decision-making were identified. Data was collected through open-ended questions and are presented in Table 2. The study revealed that all (100.00%) beekeeping farmers reported difficulty in controlling contagious and parasitic diseases of honeybees as the most critical constraint, indicating that disease management is the primary challenge in beekeeping. A majority (96.00%) highlighted the high cost of premium bee colonies and hives, reflecting the capital-intensive nature of the enterprise. Similarly, 94.00 per cent of respondents reported negligence toward beneficiaries' opinions during the implementation of new schemes, indicating weak participatory planning. Further, 92.00 per cent of respondents faced problems related to low and fluctuating market prices of honey and bee products, affecting income stability. Lack of land availability for establishing apiaries was reported by 88.00 per cent of beekeepers. Increased expenditure on inputs such as feed, medicines, and equipment was expressed by 85.00 per cent of respondents, while 84.00 per cent faced inadequate access to institutional credit and subsidies. Additionally, 80.00 per cent of respondents reported that small-scale operations limited the adoption of advanced technologies.

About three-fourths (75.00%) indicated lack of assured market linkages and organized marketing facilities, along with poor coordination between cooperative officials and members. Further, 71.00 per cent reported inadequate training programs, while 53.00 per cent faced lack of information regarding recent beekeeping technologies. The major constraints were related to disease management, high initial investment, weak institutional support, and market uncertainties, whereas constraints related to information and technology access were found to be moderately significant.

Suggestions given by beekeeper's cooperative society members in beekeeping enterprise

To address the constraints in beekeeping and enhance efficiency and profitability, members of beekeepers' cooperative societies provided several practical suggestions. These recommendations were collected through structured interviews and analyzed based on the percentage of respondents supporting each suggestion, as presented in Table 3.

Conclusion

The study concludes that beekeepers associated with Mahabaleshwar Madhotpadak Sahakari Society face significant constraints related to disease management, high input costs, inadequate access to credit, and market instability. Institutional challenges such as limited beneficiary participation and insufficient training further aggravate these issues. The suggestions provided by beneficiaries emphasize the need for strengthened training and extension services, financial support, insurance coverage, and improved market regulation. Furthermore, the adoption of ICT tools and promotion of value-added products can enhance the sustainability and profitability of beekeeping enterprises. Therefore, addressing these constraints through effective institutional interventions, policy support, and capacity-building initiatives can significantly improve the socio-economic conditions of beekeepers and ensure sustainable development of the apiculture sector.

Implications

The findings collectively imply that strengthening beekeeping as a sustainable and resilient livelihood requires an integrated approach that combines risk mitigation measures (such as insurance), institutional support through cooperatives (including subsidized inputs and organized marketing), effective use of ICT-based information dissemination, and need-based skill-oriented training, along with participatory planning involving beneficiary feedback; together, these interventions can enhance productivity, income security, and overall socio-economic empowerment of beekeepers while ensuring long-term sustainability of the sector.

References

1. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority. Honey export statistics. Government of India; 2023.
2. Chauhan MS, Sharma V. Economic analysis of beekeeping in India: A case study. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2016;71(3):345-356.
3. Food and Agriculture Organization. Beekeeping and sustainable livelihoods. FAO; 2013. https://www.fao.org
4. Food and Agriculture Organization. The importance of bees and other pollinators for food and agriculture. FAO; 2018.
5. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science. 2015;347(6229):1255957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255957
6. Kebede F, Bekele T, Tadesse Y. Adoption of improved beekeeping technologies in Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2019;14(20):850-860.
7. Kumar A, Sharma P. Participation of rural households in beekeeping enterprises. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2020;56(3):102-107.
8. National Bee Board. Status of beekeeping in India. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2020.
9. Rosenkranz P, Aumeier P, Ziegelmann B. Biology and control of Varroa destructor. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2010;103(Suppl 1):S96-S119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.016