Indigenous knowledge-based production practices and utilization of stingless bee honey in humid Afromontane Forest zones of the Southwest and Semi-Arid Forest zone of Ethiopia

Abstract

Background

This study investigated indigenous knowledge-based production practices and utilization of stingless bee honey (SBH) among rural communities in Ethiopia’s humid Afromontane Forest zones of the Southwest (Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, Jimma) and the semi-arid Borena Zone in the South. SBH is an important medicinal, nutritional and cultural resource for these communities, yet information on local production systems, species used, harvest practices and threats are limited.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 253 respondents selected from communities identified as potential stingless bee producers and users in the humid Afromontane Forest districts of the Southwest and the semi-arid forest district of southern Ethiopia. Data were collected using a combination of structured interviews and direct field observations to collect comprehensive information on local production practices, species distribution, harvesting techniques, utilization patterns, and the major challenges associated with stingless bee honey (SBH) production.

Results

The findings show that SBH harvesting is primarily conducted by men (93.3%), with most harvesters also engaged in agriculture and livestock production. Traditional ecological knowledge is predominantly passed down from elders (78.7%). Educational levels vary, with primary education being the most common. The majority of SBH is obtained from wild colonies (97.6%), with limited efforts toward domestication (2.4%). In Yabello, honey is collected from three species: Plebeina armata, Meliponula beccarii, and Hypotrigona species, known locally as “Dama Damu Guracha,” “Dama Damu Dimma,” and “Tunale,” respectively, in the Oromifa language. In the Southwest region (Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, and Jimma), M. beccarii and H. trigona are identified as the primary species, each with distinct local names depending on the zone. Communities in the study area possess traditional knowledge and skills that are primarily focused on digging around colonies to create nesting spaces. However, there are significant seasonal variations in harvesting times across different zones. The peak harvesting periods in Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, and Jimma zones occur in April, while in the Borena Zone, it extends from April to June. Colonies are located by observing and tracking the movement of worker bees. Harvesting techniques differ, with the majority (74.3%) employing squeezing methods, while 21.3% use a combination of squeezing and colony destruction. SBH is mainly harvested once a year, predominantly for medicinal purposes (94.9%). There are notable differences in production volume across regions, with the highest estimated yield from Sheka Zone (4.8 ± 8 kg) over the past 12 months and the lowest from Majang (1.2 ± 1.6 kg). The honey is consumed in various ways, often before meals, for its medicinal properties, such as treating asthma, colds, and respiratory diseases. The study also highlights major threats to meliponine colonies, including predators, land-use changes, unsustainable harvesting practices, and agrochemical use, with 83% of respondents concerned about the potential endangerment of these bees. Despite the longstanding tradition of SBH production, only 1.9% of respondents have received training in meliponiculture.

Conclusion

Indigenous knowledge of stingless bee honey production remains a vital component of local culture and livelihoods in Ethiopia. However, the practice faces serious challenges due to limited training, lack of modern meliponiculture practices, and environmental pressures. Strengthening conservation efforts, providing technical training, and integrating traditional knowledge with modern practices are essential for sustaining stingless bee populations and promoting the sustainable production of this valuable honey.

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of indigenous knowledge systems in the sustainable management and utilization of natural resources [1]. Among these, the traditional practices associated with the production and utilization of stingless bee honey (SBH) stand out for their ecological, cultural, and economic significance [2, 3]. Stingless bees (Meliponini) are a diverse group of bees found in tropical and subtropical regions, and they play a crucial role in pollination and biodiversity maintenance {4, 5, 6]. Stingless bee honey (SBH), commonly known as pot honey, is a prized natural product renowned for its distinctive taste, flavor, chemical composition, biological properties, and characteristic sourness [7, 8]. Both raw honey and its derived by-products are highly esteemed, not only for their unique taste but also for their substantial health benefits an[6] d their ability to meet diverse human dietary needs [9].

Ethiopia, known for its rich biodiversity and diverse ecosystems, is home to several species of stingless bees [10], particularly in the Humid Afromontane and Semi-Arid Forest Zones of the southwestern and southern forest zones of the country [3]. The humid Afromontane forests, characterized by high rainfall and diverse flora, provide an ideal habitat for stingless bees. These forests, with their dense vegetation and varied microclimates, offer abundant resources for bee foraging, resulting in high-quality honey production [2]. Conversely, the Semi-Arid Forest Zones, despite their harsher climatic conditions, have witnessed the adaptation of unique beekeeping practices that ensure the survival and productivity of stingless bee colonies [11]. These regions are home to communities with rich indigenous knowledge systems that govern the biology, behavior, and management of stingless bees, as well as the production, harvesting, and utilization of their honey [2, 10]. This deep-rooted connection to the natural environment is reflected in a long history of indigenous beekeeping practices passed down through generations [3].

Globally, research on indigenous knowledge-based production practices for stingless bee honey (SBH) has highlighted the crucial role of traditional ecological knowledge in sustaining bee populations, honey production, and biodiversity conservation [2, 11]. Indigenous practices are vital for managing stingless bee populations and ensuring the sustainable harvesting of honey, which is valued for its nutritional and medicinal properties [12]. In Africa, studies have shown that these methods are deeply rooted in cultural traditions and are essential for maintaining ecological balance and honey production in various forest ecosystems [2, 3, 10].

For example, research in Uganda [14] and Kenya [2] has demonstrated how traditional hive construction and honey harvesting techniques are adapted to local environmental conditions, enhancing the resilience of stingless bee populations. Traditional stingless bee honey harvesting and utilization methods in Africa have also been effective in conserving stingless bee species and supporting livelihoods [15]. However, in Ethiopia, studies on indigenous stingless bee honey production, particularly in the Humid Afromontane and Semi-Arid Forest Zones, are limited. Notable exceptions include a study on the Sheka community’s knowledge of ground-nesting stingless bees and their honey [3]. While Ethiopia has a rich tradition of honey production, most research has focused on widely kept honeybee species, with few studies exploring indigenous knowledge systems related to SBH [3]. This gap highlights the need for further research to document and preserve the unique practices associated with stingless bee honey production in Ethiopia, offering valuable insights into sustainable resource management and rural development.

Despite the well-documented benefits and the extensive indigenous knowledge related to stingless bee honey, there remains a significant gap in the literature regarding the specific production practices and utilization patterns in Ethiopia’s southwest and southern forest zones. Much of the existing research has either concentrated on other regions within Africa or been done outside of Africa. This gap highlights the need for a comprehensive study that documents and analyses the indigenous knowledge-based production practices and utilization of SBH in these Ethiopian regions.

This study aims to fill this gap by providing an in-depth exploration of the indigenous practices associated with stingless bee honey in the southwest and southern forest zones of Ethiopia. By doing so, it seeks to underscore the value of these traditional practices in promoting sustainable beekeeping, enhancing biodiversity, and supporting rural economies. Moreover, this study aims to contribute to the broader discourse on the integration of indigenous knowledge into contemporary natural resource management strategies.

Materials and methods

Study areas

Fourteen districts in Ethiopia were selected for this study based on their known potential for stingless bee honey production and utilization. Although these districts are not the only areas with such potential in the country, they were chosen due to resource and time limitations. Importantly, the selected districts represent diverse agroecological conditions and include areas within Forest Biosphere Reserves, allowing the study to capture variations in production practices and utilization patterns across different ecological settings. These districts are in five zones across three regions: Southwest Ethiopia Region: Kaffa Zone (Adiyo, Bita, Decha, Gawata, Gesha, Gimbo, Sailem, Shishinda, and Talo) and Sheka Zone (Masha and Anderacha); Gambella Region: Godere district in the Majang Zone and Oromia Region; Sigmo district in the Jimma Zone; and Yabello district in the Borena Zone (Fig. 1). These districts belong to different administrative zones of Ethiopia, where a zone represents the administrative level above the district. The study areas fall within three distinct agroecological zones determined by altitude, as presented in Table 1: highland (Masha, Anderacha, Sailem, and Gesha), midland (Decha, Gimbo, Shishonda, Bita, Telo, Gawata, Sigmo, and Adiyo), and lowland (Godere and Yabello).

Fig. 1.

The workflow for studying indigenous knowledge based production practices and their utilization in selected areas of Ethiopia

Table 1.

Annul temperature, rainfall range and altitude of selected zones in southwest Ethiopia and southern Ethiopia

Zones	Temperature (◦C)	Rainfall range (mm)	Altitude (m.a.s.l.)
Kaffa	10–27.5	1200–2000	500–3500
Sheka	15.1–27.5	1800–2200	900–3000
Majagn	17.6–27.5	1401–1800	562–2444
Jimma	7–30	1200–2800	1000–3360
Borena	15.77–32.06	285.19–740.98	909–1709

m.a.s.l.: meters above seas level, ◦C: degree centigrade, mm: millimetre

Located southwest of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital, the Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, and Jimma zones are positioned at varying distances: 450 km, 611 km, 626 km, and 350 km, respectively, while the Borena zone lies 567 km to the south. This study area included the three UNESCO-registered forests: Kafa Biosphere Reserve, Sheka Forest Biosphere Reserve, and Majang Forest Biosphere Reserve.

Farmers in Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, and Jimma specialize in coffee and spices, mixed crop-livestock production, and beekeeping. In Yabello, farmers primarily practice pastoralism but are increasingly involved in crop production and beekeeping. Additionally, these districts have experience in the hunting, production, and utilization of stingless bee honey. A cross-sectional study conducted from April 2023 to June 2024 focused on these zones. The study populations were selected based on their potential for stingless bee honey production and utilization of SBH.

Study design, methods and period

From April 2023 to June 2024, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in the Kaffa, Sheka, Jimma, Majang, and Borena Zones, focusing on selected districts within the study zones. The population focused on farmers with indigenous knowledge and expertise in locating stingless bee honey colonies in the wild. These farmers were experienced in both identifying and harvesting stingless bee honey. in selected districts of the study zones. They belonged to selected districts within the study areas and were well-versed in various aspects of stingless bee honey production, utilization, and the methods involved in locating colonies in their natural habitats. Three kebeles (the smallest administrative units) were purposefully selected from each district based on their potential in producing and utilizing stingless bees and their products. Within each kebele, six respondents were chosen using non-probability sampling techniques, totaling 253 knowledgeable individuals involved in hunting, producing, and utilizing stingless bee honey for documenting indigenous and local ecological knowledge, where the focus is on obtaining in-depth information from experienced practitioners as shown in Fig. 2. The purpose of the study was explained to these respondents, who confirmed their willingness to participate in interviews regarding stingless bee honey production, various uses, and methods for locating and harvesting stingless bee colonies. To make the semi-structured interviews more complete, field observations have been made on how local farmers locate stingless bee colonies in the wild or search for them, how they harvest stingless bee honey from wild colonies, and how they harvest and handle it.

Fig. 2.

A map showing the geographical locations of the study areas of Ethiopia (top left). targeted study zones (bottom left) and selected 14 study districts (shown at right)

Data analysis

The data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 20 software (IBM Corporation, USA). Descriptive statistics, and means, and standard deviations, were utilized to summarize the distribution of the results.

Results

Demographic characteristics, stingless bee products, harvesting practices, and associated challenges

The thematic summary of respondent characteristics, stingless bee products, harvesting practices, and related challenges of respondents from southwest Ethiopia and southern regions, as depicted in Table 2, reveal several notable insights. In terms of gender distribution, males constituted the majority, accounting for 93.3% of respondents. In terms of occupation, crop production was the primary livelihood activity for half of the respondents (50.2%), followed by mixed crop and livestock production (42.7%). A smaller proportion was engaged mainly in livestock production (5.9%), while only a few respondents reported trade (0.8%) or serving as religious leaders (0.4%) as their main occupation.

Table 2.

Thematic summary of respondent characteristics, stingless bee products, harvesting practices, and associated challenges in Southwest and Southern Ethiopia (N = 253

Thematic category	Variables	Categories	Number of respondents (N)	Percent (%)
Demographic characteristics	Sex	Male	236	93.3
		Female	17	6.7
	Occupation	Crop production	137	50.2
		Livestock production	15	5.9
		Crop and livestock production	108	42.7
		Trade	2	0.8
		Religious leader	1	0.4
	Educational level	Illiterate	28	11.0
		Read and write	10	4.0
		Primary school (1–6)	95	37.5
		Junior school (7–8)	49	19.4
		Secondary school (9–12)	69	27.3
		College/University	2	0.8
	Household size	Mean ± SD	2.7 ± 1.4	–
Stingless bee products and harvesting practices	SBH harvesting frequency/year	Once	235	92.9
		Twice	18	7.1
	Stingless bee products	Honey	252	99.6
		Honey and propolis	1	0.4
Stingless bee honey storage practices	Do you store SBH?	Yes	198	78.3
		No	55	21.7
	Storage containers (N = 198)	Plastic containers	105	53.0
		Glass containers	91	46.0
		Tin can	1	0.5
		Bottle gourd	1	0.5
Challenges in SBH harvesting and management	Challenges in harvesting	Yes	146	57.7
		No	107	42.3
	Main harvesting challenges	Loss of bee population	104	71.2
		Difficulty harvesting from honey pots	37	25.4
		SBH mixing with pollen	5	3.4
	Challenges after harvesting	Colony absconding	129	88.4
		Reduction of bee population	17	11.6
Challenges in SBH storage	Storage challenges	Yes	193	97.5
		No	5	2.5
Honey preference	Preferred honey type	Stingless bee honey	83	32.8
		Honeybee honey	61	24.1
		Both	109	43.1

Educational attainment varied across the surveyed zones. Primary education (grades 1–6) was the most common educational level, representing 37.5% followed by secondary school (27.3%) and junior school (19.4%). Illiterate respondents accounted for 11.0%, while 4.0% could only read and write without formal schooling. Only a very small proportion (0.8%) had completed college or university education. The average household size of the respondents was 2.7 ± 1.4 members.

According to Table 2, (92.9%) harvest stingless bee honey (SBH) only once a year, with a smaller percentage (7.1%) harvesting twice a year. The predominant product of stingless bees reported is honey, with 99.6% of respondents indicating its collection. In contrast, there is no reported harvest of beeswax, and only 0.4% of respondents collect both honey and propolis.

As shown in Table 2, the challenges are in harvesting and storing stingless bee honey (SBH) and the preferences and practices of local communities. Among 253 respondents, 78.3% store SBH, whereas 21.7% do not. Plastic containers (53.0%) and glass containers (46.0%) were the most popular storage materials among those who kept honey (N = 198), while conventional containers like tin cans and bottle gourds were used infrequently (0.5% each).

Moreover, challenges in SBH harvesting were reported by 57.7% of respondents, with the key issues being the loss of bee population (71.2%), difficulty harvesting from honey pots (25.4%), and the mixing of honey with pollen (3.4%). The colony absconding (88.4%) was their biggest problem after harvesting, while 11.6% said that the number of bees had decreased.

Postharvest storage problems were widespread: 97.5% of respondents reported challenges, the most common being fermentation of SBH during storage, which degrades its quality. Their preferences between SBH and bee honey varied, with 32.8% preferring stingless bee honey, 24.1% preferring honeybee honey, and 43.1% liking both.

These findings underscore the diverse socio-economic profiles within southwest Ethiopia and the southern regions, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions that consider gender dynamics, diversification of agriculture, predominance of SB products, educational disparities, and the presence of significant challenges related to harvesting, colony sustainability, and honey storage practices. and occupational preferences to promote sustainable development and welfare improvements in these communities.

Indigenous knowledge on stingless bees, products, and utilization of the products

Stingless bee species Nesting behavior, and body features

Through discussions with respondents and observations of local methods for identifying stingless bee species, we documented several species in the study areas, each recognized by its local name as shown in Table 3. In Borena (Yabello), three species were identified: Plebeina armata (locally known as Dama Damu Guracha), Meliponula beccarii (Dama Damu Dimma), and Hypotrigona (Tunale) in the Afan Oromo language. In Kaffa, we recorded M. beccarii (Chela Dofayo), an unidentified species (Aae Dofayo), and Hypotrigona (Shune) in the Kaffi Nono language. Sheka reported M. beccarii (Shaweti Chela), an unidentified species (Shaweti Aae), and H. trigona (Bobbao) in the Shekkacho language. In Majang, M. beccarii (Tazima) and H. trigona (Tinign) were called in the Amharic language, and in the Majang language, M. beccarii (Eneneik) and H. trigona (Mimijo), while in Jimma, M. beccarii (Dama Damu Dimma) was identified in the Oromifa language. Among these zones, only Kaffa demonstrated domestication practices, with four M. beccarii and two H. trigona meliponaries established in the Gesha and Gimbo districts. Species identification and confirmation of the scientific names were carried out with the assistance of an experienced entomologist, using standard taxonomic references.

Table 3.

Stingless bee species identified in relation to domestication

Zones of study areas	Ethnic group-Language	Local name of SB species	SB scientific name	Domesticated SB species
Kaffa in Kafi noonoó	Kaffa-Kafi noonoó	Chela dofayo	M. beccarii	4 M. beccarii meliponary
		Shune	Hypotrigona sp	2 Hypotrigona sp meliponary
		Aae dofayo	Un identified	-
Sheka	Sheka- Shekkacho	Shaweti Chela	M. beccarii	-
		Bobbao	Hypotrigona sp	-
		Shaweti Aae	Un identified	-
Majang	Amhara-Amharic	Tazima	M. beccarii	-
	Majang- Majang	Eneneik	M. beccarii	-
	Amhara-Amharic	Tinign	Hypotrigona sp	-
	Majang- Majang	Mimijo	Hypotrigona sp	-
Jimma	Oromo- Afaan Oromoo/Oromifa	Dama Damu Dimma	M. beccarii	-
Borena	Oromo- Afaan Oromoo/Oromifa	Dama Damu Dimma	M. beccarii	-
		Dama Damu Guracha	P. armata	-
		Tunale	Hypotrigona sp	-

The survey result in Table 4 indicated significant insights into stingless bees and SBH practices. Only 2.4% of respondents domesticate stingless bees in their backyards, while 97.6% do not engage in domestication. All respondents engaged in SBH harvesting, with 97.6% sourcing honey from wild colonies, 2% from domestic colonies, and 0.4% from both. The stingless bee honey is the only product harvested. Knowledge about SBH harvesting predominantly comes from elders (78.6%), followed by relatives (19.4%) and neighbours (2%). Harvesting activities are predominantly male (92.5%), with minimal female involvement (0.8%) and 6.7% reporting participation from both genders. Stingless bees primarily nest underground (96.8%), with other nests found in wall cavities (2%), between rocks (0.4%), and in hanging empty containers (0.8%).

Table 4.

Indigenous knowledge in SBH production and utilization in southwest Ethiopia and southern part of Ethiopia

Variables	Categories	Number of respondents N = 253	Percent (%)
Domestication of SB in the backyard	Yes	6	2.4
	No	247	97.6
Engagement in harvesting SBH	Yes	253	100
	No	0	0
SBH harvested from	Wild colonies	247	97.6
	Domestic colonies	5	2
	Both	1	0.4
SB honey products harvested	Honey	253	100
	Wax	0	0
First time source of knowledge to know SB and its product harvesting and utilization	Relatives	49	19.4
	Neighbours	5	2
	Elders	199	78.6
In the village who participate in SBH harvesting	Males	234	92.5
	Females	2	0.8
	Both male and females	17	6.7
Place of stingless bee nesting	Wall cavities	5	2
	underground	245	96.8
	Cavities between rock	1	0.4
	Hanged empty containers	2	0.8

Table 5 illustrates that the list of diseases that were listed by the respondents considers stingless bee honey medicinal for a range of human and animal diseases. For humans, the reported uses include asthma, abdominal aches, common cold/cough, liver disease, kidney disease, respiratory organ diseases, tonsillitis, and malaria. In animals, stingless bee honey is used to treat conditions such as cough, skin diseases, trypanosomiasis, and black leg. This comprehensive range of applications reflects the deep-rooted belief in the therapeutic potential of stingless bee honey within the local community. The majority (94.9%) of stingless bee honey (SBH) produced in local communities is used for human medicinal purposes, targeting the diseases listed in Table 5. In contrast, 3.1% of the honey is consumed as food, and 1.2% is used for animal medicinal purposes, also for the ailments outlined in Table 5. The least common use of SBH is for income generation, accounting for only 0.8% of total production.

Table 5.

Medicinal Uses of Stingless Bee Honey by the Local Community

Human disease	Animal disease
Asthma	Cough
Abdomen aches	Skin disease
Common cold/cough	Trypanosomiasis
Liver disease	Black leg
Kidney disease
Respiratory organ disease
Tonsillitis
Malaria

The result shown in Table 6 revealed diverse methods of consuming stingless bee honey (SBH) among local communities. The most common method, employed by 33.2% of respondents, is consuming pure SBH before meals. A notable percentage, 17%, reported mixing SBH with a combination of spices and herbs such as black cumin, ginger, mustard, garlic, rue, fenugreek, and garden cress. Other methods included consuming pure SBH at any time (13%) and combining SBH with garlic (6.3%). Less common practices involved boiling SBH with various ingredients, such as milk (1.6%) or mixing it with pollen (1.2%). Additionally, some respondents used SBH in traditional recipes like Atimit (5.9%) or combined it with beverages like coffee (1.2%).

Table 6.

Methods of Stingless Bee Honey Consumption by Local Communities

Ways of Consuming SBH	Number of respondents N = 253	Percent %
Consuming pure SBH before food	84	33.2
Consuming pure SBH at any time	33	13
By mixing Garlic with SBH	16	6.3
Boiling SBH and consuming	10	3.9
SBH Mixed with garlic and ginger	11	4.4
SBH mixed one or more of (black cumin, ginger, mustard, garlic, Rue, garlic, fenugreek, and garden cress).	43	17
Mixture of ginger and garlic boiled and mixed with SBH	8	3.2
Boiling SBH and milk	4	1.6
SBH Mixture of Atimit made of red teff, barley or oat SBH	15	5.9
Mixing SBH with pollen and boiled	3	1.2
At a time of harvesting	7	2.8
Using before anyone consumes/uses	10	3.9
SBH mixed with coffee	3	1.2
SBH Mixed with Butter and raw egg	6	2.4

Stingless bees’ products, locating, production techniques

The survey data shown in Fig. 3 illustrates the distribution of harvesting experience among respondents. Many of the respondents, more than 50%, have over 15 years of experience in harvesting. This is followed by those with 6–10 years of experience, accounting for approximately 20% of the respondents. Individuals with 1–5 years and 11–15 years of experience each represent about 10–15% of the respondents. This distribution highlights a significant proportion of highly experienced individuals engaged in harvesting activities.

Fig. 3.

Local Communities’ Experience in Harvesting Stingless Bee Honey

The data presented in the Fig. 4 illustrates the seasonal activity percentages for different zones: Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, Jimma, and Borena. Each row corresponds to a specific time, with the activity levels indicated for each zone. In April, the Kaffa exhibits a high activity level of 55.6%, closely followed by the Sheka at 50%, Majang at 57.9%, and Jimma at 44.4%. In contrast, the Borena shows no activity during this period. The February-May period highlights significant activity in Kaffa with 30.3% and Sheka Zone at 22.2%, whereas Majang, Jimma, and Borena report no activity during these months.

Fig. 4.

Major harvesting months of stingless bee honey across different zones

From October to December, activity levels drop considerably. Kaffa reports a 6.2% activity level, while Jimma shows a minimal 5.6%. The Sheka, Majang, and Borena report no activity during this period. The combined April and November periods reveal minimal activity in the Kaffa at 2.5% and the Jimma Zone at 11.1%, with the Sheka, Majang, and Borena remaining inactive. For the combined April, October, and.

November periods, Kaffa shows a low activity level of 3.7%, with no activity recorded in the other zones. From January to May, activity is distributed more evenly, with Kaffa reporting 1.8%, Sheka 11.6%, Majang 5.3%, Jimma 22.2%, and Borena 5.6%. In the September-November period, Majang shows a significant activity level of 36.8%, while Borena Zone reports 11.1% and Jimma 5.6%, with Kaffa and Sheka Zones reporting no activity. During April to June, Borena shows the highest activity level at 61.1%, with Jimma at 11.1%, and the other zones reporting no activity. Lastly, from December to January, only the Borena reports activity at 22.2%, while all other zones show no activity. This data highlights the varying seasonal activity across different zones, with peak periods in April for Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, and Jimma Zones, while Borena Zone shows significant activity from April to June. These insights can assist in targeted planning and resource allocation based on seasonal activity trends.

The Fig. 5 shows that the most common honey harvesting time among respondents is a combination of morning, afternoon, and evening, with 45.8% of beekeepers opting for this approach. The next most popular period is morning and afternoon, chosen by 36.8% of beekeepers. Smaller percentages prefer harvesting in the afternoon (7.1%), afternoon and evening (3.9%), evening (3.2%), morning and evening (2.4%), and exclusively in the morning (0.8%).

Fig. 5.

Time of locating of Stingless Bee colonies by Local Communities

Figure 6 presents various methods employed by local communities for excavating SB colonies. The predominant method involves digging around the colonies, accounting for 50.2% of the total. This is followed by digging 50 cm away from the entrance (19.8%) and 30 cm away from the entrance (16.2%). Other methods include digging 40 cm away from the entrance (5.5%), digging to a depth of 1 m (4.7%), digging 20 cm away from the entrance (2.8%), and digging 10 cm away from the entrance (0.8%).

Fig. 6.

Ways of excavating SB colonies by local communities

The various stingless bee honey-harvesting techniques employed by local communities. Many harvesters, 74.3%, use the squeezing method. 21.3% of respondents use combined squeezing with destroying the colony. A smaller number of individuals, 2%, prefer to punch holes in the hive before squeezing out the honey. Punching holes alone is practiced by 1.6% of the community, while only 0.8% rely on destroying the colonies to harvest honey.

Stingless bees’ pests and disease

Indigenous knowledge related to the locating, harvesting, and utilization of stingless bee honey (SBH) in southwest and southern Ethiopia. Most of the respondents (93.7%) reported the presence of predators affecting SBH. Predators listed included honeybees, ants, small hive beetles, wasps, honey badgers, small mites, humans, lizards, and phorid flies. Regarding the effect of these predators on bees, 60.7% of respondents indicated that predators kill stingless bees and cause colonies to abscond, while 29.6% reported that predators kill and paralyze the bees as well as cause colony absconding. In terms of pest and predator management, 67.3% of respondents utilized methods such as cleaning around the colony, burning ants’ nesting places, controlling the area using various techniques, and fencing. Only a small fraction used insecticide chemicals (12.2%) or used engine oil (11.2%) for pest control.

The methods used by the local community to locate wild colonies of stingless bees rank them based on effectiveness. Direct observation of worker bees’ movements was the most preferred and effective method, ranking first. This was followed by attaching threads to bees to track their return to the hive, which ranked second. The third most common method was following predatory birds and wasps, which led to the discovery of bee colonies.

Local communities use different indigenous techniques for locating wild nested stingless bee colonies. Table 7 highlights the indigenous knowledge-based methods used to find wild colonies of stingless bees in southwest and southern Ethiopia. The most common and highly ranked method is direct observation of worker bees’ movements, which involves tracking bees as they leave and return to their nests. The second method, ranked next in importance, is attaching threads to bees to trace their flight paths back to the colonies. Lastly, the third method involves following predator birds and wasps, which are known to prey on bees and can lead to the discovery of wild colonies. These traditional techniques play a vital role in locating stingless bee colonies for honey harvesting.

Table 7.

Indigenous knowledge-based Methods finding wild colonies in southwest Ethiopia and southern part of Ethiopia

Methods finding wild colonies	Rank
Direct observation of worker bees’ movement	1st
Attaching threads	2nd
Following predator birds and wasp	3rd

The result in Table 8 showed that the stingless bee honey (SBH) production across five zones in Ethiopia. The number of colonies varied significantly, with the lowest in Borena (0.17 ± 0.383) and the highest in Kaffa (1.31 ± 1.970) (p = 0.003). SBH collected in the past year was highest in Sheka (4.82 ± 5.726 kg) and lowest in Majang (1.22 ± 1.546 kg) (p = 0.002). The amount of SBH stored for personal consumption was highest in Borena (2.54 ± 2.291 kg) and lowest in Jimma (0.94 ± 0.765 kg) (p = 0.0001). SBH sales were highest in Sheka (2.97 ± 5.054 kg) and almost negligible in Majang (0.03 ± 0.79 kg) (p = 0.015). The average price of SBH varied across study areas, with the highest price in Borena (800 ETB) and the lowest in Majang (350 ETB) (p = 0.033). At the time of the study, the exchange rate was 1 USD = 54.35 ETB. Honey given as gifts over the past year averaged 0.22 ± 0.418 kg, with no significant differences between the zones (p = 0.753).

Table 8.

Summarized results for number of stingless bee colonies, amount of SBH harvested, utilization, sale, and challenges

Variables	Kaffa zone	Sheka Zone	Majang zone	Jimma Zone	Borena Zone	Overall	p-value
Number of colonies available over 12 months	1.31 ± 1.970	0.56 ± 1.081	0.32 ± 0.671	0.67 ± 0.840	0.17 ± 0.383	1.00 ± 1.707	0.003
Average volume of SBH collected in the past 12 months (liters)	2.91 ± 3.572	4.82 ± 5.726	1.22 ± 1.546	1.38 ± 1.207	1.83 ± 2.203	2.88 ± 3.785	0.002
Average SBH stored for personal consumption over 12 months (liters)	0.95 ± 0.818	1.65 ± 1.916	1.45 ± 0.872	0.94 ± 0.765	2.54 ± 2.291	1.17 ± 1.241	0.0001
Amount of sold SBH 12 months (in Liters)	1.76 ± 3.003	2.97 ± 5.054	0.03 ± 0.79	0.62 ± 0.768	0.08 ± 0.289	1.71 ± 3.272	0.015
Honey given as gifts over 12 months (liters)	0.22 ± 0.380	0.17 ± 0.543	0.33 ± 0.624	0.27 ± 0.388	0.13 ± 0.311	0.22 ± 0.418	0.753
Maximum storage duration of SBH (months)	33 ± 27.82	26.61 ± 21.57	42 ± 16.25	48 ± 16.97	59 ± 28.24	35.64 ± 26.831	0.002
Price of SBH per litter (ETB) over 12 months	652.37 ± 381.55	380.56 ± 175.85	350 ± 0.00	791.67 ± 451.23	800 ± 0.00	611.08 ± 368.19	0.033

Table 9 shows that most respondents (83%) believe that stingless bees are endangered, while 17% do not share this view. 98% of the respondents believe that conservation of stingless bees is necessary. According to 94.8% of respondents, the main reason for the conservation of stingless bees is the medicinal value of stingless bee honey. Smaller percentages of respondents also mentioned its role in crop production (2.8%), cultural value (1.6%), and income generation (0.8%).

Table 9.

Endanger of stingless bees, the possible reasons for endangering of stingless bee colonies, and conservation

Variables	Categories	Number of respondents	Percent (%)
Are stingless bees endangered	Yes	210	83
	No	43	17
Necessity of Conservation of stingless bees	Yes	248	98
	No	5	2
Reasons for conservation of stingless bee honey	Medicinal value	235	94.8
	Medicinal value and Contribute crop production	7	2.8
	Medicinal value and cultural value	4	1.6
	Medicinal value and others (increase income)	2	0.8

Table 10 reveals that 57.1% of respondents identified harvesting practices, land use change, and agrochemicals as the primary reasons for the endangerment of stingless bee colonies. Other significant factors include the impact of harvesting practices alone (9.5%) and the combined effects of harvesting practices and agrochemicals (11%). Minor contributions are attributed to honeybee effects, drought, and land use changes.

Table 10.

Endanger of stingless bees, the possible reasons for endangering of stingless bee colonies, and conservation

Reasons for endangering of stingless bees	Number of respondents	Percent (%)
Honeybees effect and harvesting practice	8	3.8
Honeybees effect, harvesting practice, and land use change	3	1.4
Honeybees effect, harvesting practice, land use change, and Agrochemicals	2	1
Honeybees effect, harvesting practice, and Drought	1	0.5
Honeybees effect, harvesting practice, and Agrochemicals	6	2.9
Harvesting practice	1	0.5
harvesting practice, and land use change	20	9.5
harvesting practice, land use change, drought and Agrochemicals	4	1.9
Harvesting practice, land use change, and Agrochemicals	120	57.1
Harvesting practice, land use change, Agrochemicals and others	1	0.5
Harvesting practice, land use change, and others	1	0.5
harvesting practice, and drought	3	1.4
Harvesting practice, and Agrochemicals	23	11
Land use change	7	3.3
Land use change and drought	2	1
Land use change, drought and agrochemicals	1	0.5
Land use change, and agrochemicals	3	1.4
Agrochemicals	4	1.9

The Importance of stingless bees in crop production: pollination benefits

As shown in Table 11, Among the respondents, the majority (81.4%) do not recognize the importance of stingless bees (SB) in crop production, whereas 18.6% acknowledge their importance. Regarding the comparative importance of stingless bees (SB) and honeybees, 6.4% of respondents consider SB more important, 25.5% believe honeybees are more crucial, and 63.8% view both as equally important. The remaining 4.3% are unsure of its relative importance.

Table 11.

Perception and Pollination benefits of stingless bees

Variables	Categories	Number of respondents	Percent (%)
Importance of SB in crop production	Yes	47	18.6
	No	206	81.4
Perception	SB more important than honeybees on crop production	3	6.4
	honeybees more important than SB on crop production	12	25.5
	Both are equally important	30	63.8
	I don’t know	2	4.3

Among the 47 respondents who acknowledged the benefits of stingless bees in crop production, 34% identified improvements in crop yield and seed germination rate as the primary benefits. Other reported advantages include enhancements in crop yield alone (10.6%), seed number (10.6%), and various combinations of yield, fruit size, fruit shape, taste, smell, and seed characteristics, with each combination representing a smaller percentage of responses as shown in Table 12.

Table 12.

Benefits of stingless bee in crop production

stingless bee in crop production	Number of respondents N = 47	Percent (%)
Improve crop yield	5	10.6
Improve crop yield, fruit size and fruit shape	2	4.3
Improve crop yield, fruit size, fruit shape, and fruit taste and smell	3	6.4
Improve crop yield, fruit size, fruit shape, and seeds size	1	2.1
Improve crop yield, fruit size, fruit taste and smell, and seeds germination rate	1	2.1
Improve crop yield, fruit size and seed number	1	2.1
Improve crop yield, fruit size, and seeds germination rate	1	2.1
Improve crop yield, fruit taste and smell and seed size	1	2.1
Improve crop yield, and seed number	1	2.1
Improve crop yield, seed number, and seeds germination rate	5	10.6
Improve crop yield, and seed size	2	4.3
Improve crop yield, seed size and seeds germination rate	1	2.1
Improve crop yield, and seeds germination rate	16	34
Improve fruit size	1	2.1
Improve seeds number	3	6.4
Improve seeds number and seeds germination rate	1	2.1
Improve seeds germination rate	2	4.3

The result in Table 13 showed that the respondents lacked training and awareness. Only 2% of respondents had received training on meliponiculture, while the majority, 98%, had not. Similarly, 8.3% were trained in the proper application of agrochemicals, and 91.7% were not trained. A mere 7.9% reported efforts towards domesticating stingless bees by farmers, government, or NGOs, while 87.4% had not engaged in such activities and 4.7% were unsure. The majority, 96.8%, confirmed the presence of stingless bees in the field during crop flowering, and 95.6% observed a diversity of pollinators during this period.

Table 13.

Training, domestication, and field presence of stingless bees and pollinators among respondents (N = 253)

Variables	Categories	Number of respondents N = 253	Percent (%)
Person trained on stingless bee keeping	Yes	5	2%
	No	248	98%
Person trained on proper application Agrochemicals	Yes	21	8.3%
	No	232	91.7%
Domesticating Stingless bees (farmers, government, and NGO)	Yes	20	7.9%
	No	221	87.4%
	Don’t Know	12	4.7%
Presence of SB in the field during flowering of crops	Yes	245	96. 8%
	No	8	3.2%
Presence Diversity of pollinators in field during flowering of crops	Yes	242	95.6%
	No	11	4.4%

Discussion

In the southwestern and southern regions of Ethiopia, we studied the indigenous knowledge of stingless bees (SB). We got profound indigenous knowledge about stingless bees and extracting honey and using bee products from wild SB nests. This knowledge has been passed down orally from elders, family, and neighbours from one generation to the next generation. To locate the wild SB nests, honey collectors and consumers employed different techniques, including direct observation of nest entrances, bees’ flight and movement, connecting a thread to a foraging worker bee to track its flight back to the nest, and following natural indicators such as predator birds and wasps that interact nearby with stingless bee colonies.

Despite this deep ecological knowledge, constantly destructive honey harvesting of the natural nests is employed. However, a small proportion of respondents, six of the 253 responders, domesticated SB nests in backyard pots and wooden hives, suggesting the emerging potential for meliponiculture in the study areas, specifically the Kaffa Zone (Gesha and Gimbo) districts. The continued transmission of indigenous knowledge highlights the importance of preserving these oral traditions while integrating them with modern meliponiculture practices. Such integration can support sustainable management, maintain natural bee behaviors, and improve domestication strategies. Overall, the study provides important baseline information for the development of sustainable meliponiculture policies in Ethiopia, with implications for both conservation efforts and policy development.

The demographic and occupational data reveals predominant male participation, aligning with broader agricultural trends where men play significant roles [16]. Regionally, crop production dominates in some zones, while livestock is more prevalent in others, reflecting ecological and cultural differences [17]. The average household size of 2.7 ± 1.4 people suggests small family units, impacting labor availability for agricultural activities and necessitating consideration in development planning [18].

The reliance on wild colonies for SBH harvesting possibly limited knowledge about domestication techniques. Elders’ predominant role in knowledge transmission emphasizes the importance of preserving oral traditions and integrating them with modern meliponiculture practices to ensure sustainability [3, 2]. The preference for underground nesting aligns with stingless bees’ natural behaviors and environmental factors, suggesting potential avenues for improving domestication strategies by mimicking natural habitats [3]. Overall, these insights contribute to understanding the socio-cultural dynamics of SBH harvesting and provide a basis for developing sustainable and inclusive meliponiculture.

The predominance of respondents with over 15 years of harvesting experience underscores the deep-rooted tradition and knowledge associated with stingless bee honey harvesting in these regions. This extensive experience is indicative of a well-established practice, likely passed down through generations, reflecting the cultural importance of this activity. The relatively smaller proportions of respondents with 1–5 years and 11–15 years of experience suggest limited new entry into this practice, which could be due to various factors such as economic viability, interest among younger generations, or alternative livelihood options (2;10). The substantial experience levels reported among harvesters play a vital role in ensuring the sustainability and efficiency of stingless bee honey harvesting. Experienced harvesters are more likely to adopt practices that conserve bee populations and enhance honey yield. Therefore, targeted interventions are needed to facilitate the transfer of indigenous knowledge through structured training programs, the development of production and utilization manuals, and the modernization of traditional practices. This can be achieved by domesticating wild colonies using modern hives designed to mimic natural nests and by actively involving younger generations to sustain and advance these traditional practices [17, 2].

The variation in stingless bee honey (SBH) harvesting periods across different zones is influenced by the flowering times of local plants, climate variations, environmental conditions, and the specific bee species present in each area [20]. April emerges as the predominant harvesting month across most study areas, including Kaffa, Sheka, Majang, and Jimma, which likely corresponds to periods of optimal moisture availability and rainfall that stimulate the flowering of diverse plant species. The onset of rainfall during this time promotes abundant floral resources, supporting active foraging and honey production by stingless bees. In contrast, the Borena exhibits a distinct bimodal harvesting pattern, with peaks in April–June and December–January, reflecting the influence of its unique rainfall regime and ecological conditions. These variations suggest that local moisture availability and rainfall patterns play a critical role in determining the flowering phenology of plant species, which in turn governs stingless bee foraging activity and honey yield. The lack of harvests during certain times in specific zones could point to less favorable conditions or differing local practices. Moreover, significant harvest periods in Majang and Jimma from October to December and in Kaffa and Sheka from February to May highlight distinct seasonal cycles that impact honey production. These observations underscore the necessity of localized studies to determine optimal harvesting periods and influencing factors, which are crucial for improving honey production and management practices across regions [17, 19].

Stingless bee honey has a long history of medicinal use due to its potent antimicrobial and antioxidant properties. The high percentage of respondents (94.86%) using SBH for human medicine aligns with findings from various studies highlighting its effectiveness in treating wounds, infections, and other health conditions [6, 20]. Its use as a food source (3.16%) reflects its nutritional value and unique taste, though this is less common compared to its medicinal applications. The minimal use of SBH for animal medicine (1.19%) and income generation (0.79%) suggests that these practices are less established or less recognized in the studied communities. The finding of this study underscores the primary importance of SBH in traditional medicine over other potential applications.

The findings indicate a strategic approach to locating stingless bee colonies, maximizing the chances of successful harvests by utilizing multiple periods of the day [3]. The preference for “morning, afternoon, and evening” and “night” harvesting times suggests that local communities take advantage of the bees’ behavioural patterns and environmental conditions conducive to locating colonies. Studies have shown that stingless bees exhibit different foraging and activity patterns based on the time of day, which can be leveraged by local harvesters for more effective colony location [23]. Additionally, evening harvesting may be preferred due to reduced bee activity, making it easier to locate and collect from colonies without disturbing the bees. This strategic timing aligns with traditional ecological knowledge and practices that have been developed over generations, optimizing the sustainable use of stingless bee resources [2].

The predominance of digging around the entrances of ground-nesting stingless bee colonies (50.2%) suggests that local communities perceive this method as the most effective or accessible. This observation aligns with findings from other studies, which indicate that direct excavation near the nest site increases the likelihood of successfully locating and harvesting the colonies [3]. The lesser-used methods, such as digging 10 cm away from the entrance (0.79%), indicate that precision and proximity to the colony entrance may not be as effective, likely due to the unpredictable spread of the colony underground. The varying preferences for excavation distances, such as 50 cm (19.76%) and 30 cm (16.2%), could reflect adaptations to different environmental conditions or colony structures, as suggested by similar studies in the field [24]. Further research is needed to optimize excavation techniques for harvesting stingless bee colonies, focusing on factors such as nesting behavior, soil type, bee species, and other related variables to improve both efficiency and sustainability.

The findings indicate a strong preference among local communities for squeezing as the primary method for harvesting stingless bee honey, which is consistent with the results reported [3]. This technique’s dominance may be attributed to its simplicity and effectiveness in extracting honey. However, the combined method of squeezing and destroying structures indicates a significant proportion of harvesters may not be prioritizing sustainable practices, potentially affecting bee populations and future honey yields. Similar concerns have been noted in other studies, where non-sustainable harvesting methods have led to a decline in bee populations and a negative impact on the biodiversity (23;24). Promoting more sustainable harvesting practices, such as non-destructive methods, is crucial for maintaining both the ecosystem and the livelihood of communities reliant on stingless bee honey [2].

The results show that honey is the main product obtained from stingless bees, with 99.6% of respondents reporting its collection. This strong focus on honey indicates that local production systems mainly target its immediate nutritional and medicinal benefits rather than promoting a variety of hive products. In contrast, none of the respondents reported harvesting beeswax, and only 0.4% collected both honey and propolis. This suggests that product diversification in current practices is very limited.

The lack of wax collecting may be due to biological as well as logistical factors. Since stingless bees produce less cerumen mixture of wax and plant resins than species like Apis mellifera, it is less practical to gather it from them individually. Additionally, traditional harvesting methods that focus largely on extracting liquid honey do not support wax and propolis as distinct products. The consumption of honey straight from storage pots may result in the intentional chewing of small amounts of cerumen, but this is not considered deliberate use of wax. These results, taken together, show the narrow spectrum of product use [27] and suggest ways to enhance value through better education and knowledge of the variety of stingless bee products.

The variety of SBH consumption methods showed its versatility and cultural significance within local communities. The predominant preference for consuming pure SBH before meals aligns with findings from other studies that emphasize the traditional use of honey as a natural health remedy and dietary supplement. The frequent use of SBH in combination with spices and herbs suggests an integration of medicinal and flavor-enhancing properties, which supports the view that honey often plays a role in traditional medicine practices. The less common methods, such as mixing SBH with milk or incorporating it into specific recipes, reflect regional culinary traditions and suggest a functional aspect of honey in local food systems. These practices underscore the importance of SBH in both dietary and therapeutic contexts within these communities [22].

The medicinal uses of stingless bee honey reported by the local community are consistent with existing literature highlighting its therapeutic properties. Stingless bee honey has been shown to possess anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, which could explain its efficacy against conditions like asthma and respiratory infections in humans [20, 6, 25]. For animals, its application for skin diseases and trypanosomiasis may be attributed to its broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity [29]. This correlation between traditional uses and scientific findings supports the potential of stingless bee honey as a valuable natural remedy for a range of health issues.

The predominance of stingless bee honey as the main product underscores its economic and nutritional significance as a key driver in stingless beekeeping [30].The high frequency of harvesting once a year reflects a typical management practice, possibly related to the bees’ production cycle and honey yield [19]. The high prevalence of reported predators (93.68%) highlights a significant threat to stingless bee populations, which play a vital role in local ecosystems and livelihoods. Predators such as ants and small hive beetles are particularly destructive, confirming findings from studies that identify these species as major pests in beekeeping [26]. The observed management practices, particularly the widespread use of non-chemical methods (67.29%), reflect a strong reliance on traditional knowledge and sustainable practices, which are essential in maintaining the ecological balance and ensuring the health of bee colonies. These indigenous strategies can provide valuable insights into developing integrated pest management approaches that are both effective and environmentally friendly [2].

The indigenous knowledge used by communities in Ethiopia for locating stingless bee colonies is notable for its effectiveness and simplicity. Direct observation of bee movements is a widely recognized method [3]. Additionally, attaching threads to bees is an effective tracking method noted in various indigenous cultures [3] and in the East African context, which is specifically Kenya [31], Tanzania [32], and Uganda[33]. Observing the movements of predators such as wasps and birds is also employed to locate the entrance of stingless bee nests. These traditional techniques highlight the community’s deep understanding of bee behavior and ecology, contributing to sustainable honey harvesting practices [3, 2].

Meliponiculture is rapidly expanding in East Africa, with Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda leading efforts in the production and quality standardization of stingless bee honey. Despite its rich bioactive composition and therapeutic potential, recent data reveal deviations from existing standards, underscoring the need for genus-specific quality benchmarks. Strengthening research, sustainable management, and regional harmonization will be critical for improving product quality, trade, and long-term industry viability [34].

The variations in SBH production and utilization across regions reflect differences from one zone to another. Higher colony numbers and honey yield in Kaffa and Sheka suggest optimal ecological conditions and effective traditional practices. Lower figures in Borena and Majang could be due to harsher environments and less availability of forage for bees throughout the year. The high storage for own consumption in Borena indicates its nutritional significance, while higher sales in Sheka demonstrate a market-oriented approach. Price variations reflect market demand and perceived quality differences across. These findings highlight the need for region-specific strategies to enhance SBH production and market integration.

The findings underscore significant challenges in both the harvesting and storage of stingless bee honey, which impact the sustainability of this practice. The predominant use of plastic and glass containers for SBH storage reflects an adaptation to available resources, though the high rate of storage indicates potential uses these materials. Previous studies have highlighted similar difficulties, noting that improper storage can lead to fermentation and spoilage [28, 35]. The high rate of stingless bee colonies absconding during post-harvest implies that harvesting methods can harm bee populations and cause colonies to abandon their nests. Addressing these challenges through improved storage techniques and sustainable harvesting practices is crucial for maintaining bee populations and enhancing honey production [36]. The community’s mixed preferences for honey types suggest a cultural and economic significance attached to both stingless bee and honeybee products, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions to support both types of beekeeping.

The high perception of endangerment (83%) aligns with global concerns about the decline of stingless bee populations due to habitat loss, pesticide use, and climate change [5]. The overwhelming support for stingless bee conservation (98.02%) highlights the community’s strong awareness of their multifaceted value, encompassing ecological functions, nutritional benefits, medicinal properties, economic contributions, and cultural significance [30, 31, 27, 10]. The emphasis on medicinal value (94.76%) reflects their significant role in traditional medicine and health practices, as highlighted in recent studies [7]. The low mentions of additional roles, such as cultural value and income generation, suggest a need for broader awareness of the multifaceted benefits of stingless bees.

The endangering of the stingless bee population is due to the combined effects of harvesting practices, land use change, and agrochemical usage Land use change often results in habitat loss and fragmentation, which negatively impacts bee populations and Agrochemicals, such as pesticides and herbicides, have been shown to adversely affect bee health and foraging behaviour [32, 39, 5]. The combination of these factors exacerbates the risks faced by stingless bees, highlighting the need for integrated conservation strategies that address multiple threats simultaneously [40]. These findings are consistent with global studies emphasizing the importance of mitigating the cumulative impacts of human activities on pollinator populations [41].

In this study, the limited recognition of stingless bees’ role in crop production suggests a potential gap in awareness regarding their pollination benefits. However, other studies demonstrate a better understanding of the important role stingless bees play in crop production and pollination [30]. Despite their significant ecological contributions, only a small percentage of respondents consider stingless bees more important than honeybees. This suggests a general lack of understanding regarding their agricultural value. Most respondents see honeybees and stingless bees as equally important, which highlights an opportunity for educational initiatives to better highlight the unique benefits of stingless bees’ benefits that are often overshadowed by the more extensively studied honeybees.

Of the respondents who acknowledged the benefits of stingless bees in crop production, the finding illustrates that stingless bees are primarily recognized for their ability to enhance crop yield and seed germination rate, which aligns with existing research highlighting their role in improving plant reproductive success [42]. However, other potential benefits such as fruit size [43], taste, and shape are less frequently acknowledged, suggesting a need for further research and awareness about the full range of advantages provided by stingless bees.

The study reveals a notable gap in training and education on stingless meliponiculture and agrochemical application among respondents, which suggests a need for targeted educational programs to enhance knowledge and practices in these areas. Despite the low training levels, the high presence of stingless bees and diverse pollinators during crop flowering underscores their potential significance in agricultural ecosystems. Encouraging the domestication and proper management of stingless bees could improve pollination services, benefiting crop yields and biodiversity. Future initiatives should focus on increasing awareness and training to leverage the ecological advantages provided by these pollinators.

This study employed a cross-sectional survey and field observations to assess indigenous knowledge related to SBH production and utilization patterns in selected districts of southwestern and southern Ethiopia. However, due to time and resource constraints, it was not possible to include all potential SBH-producing and utilizing districts in the country. The study covered 14 districts, with three kebeles selected from each district and six respondents from each kebele. This sampling approach may limit the generalizability of the findings to other, unstudied areas of Ethiopia.

As this research provides foundational insights and opens avenues for future work, more extensive ecological and ethnobiological surveys across diverse regions of Ethiopia are recommended. Such studies would generate more comprehensive information and deepen understanding of indigenous knowledge related to the production, utilization, and conservation of stingless bees. In addition, future research should evaluate the efficacy of the health benefits of SBH and include laboratory-based species identification and analysis of stingless bees.

Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable indigenous knowledge on locating wild stingless bee colonies, harvesting from natural nests, knowledge transfer systems, and the practices of using, producing, and domesticating SBH in the selected regions. These findings can support stakeholders and policymakers in designing targeted interventions, particularly through improved domestication techniques and technical training, to enhance the management and conservation of stingless bees.

Conclusion

This study highlights the critical role of indigenous knowledge in the identification, harvesting, utilization, and conservation of stingless bees and their honey in Ethiopia’s humid Afromontane and semi-arid forest ecosystems. SBH production is predominantly reliant on wild colonies, with domestication practices remaining minimal (2.4%), occurring only in a few areas of the Kaffa Zone. Although stingless bees are well known among rural communities, their management remains traditional and extractive rather than sustainable, which limits the potential for increased production and conservation efforts that could benefit both the bees and the communities. Most respondents acquire their knowledge from elders, underscoring the oral nature of knowledge transfer and the need for formal training and documentation to prevent the erosion of this valuable traditional wisdom.

The findings of the study reveal that SBH is widely valued as a functional food, primarily for its medicinal applications. The honey is used to treat human and animal health ailments, reflecting strong ethnomedicinal beliefs and practices. However, despite its recognized medicinal value, commercialization remains minimal due to small harvest volumes, inadequate postharvest handling, and weak market linkage. Harvesting is predominantly conducted from underground nests using destructive methods such as squeezing and excavation, which contribute to colony loss and population decline.

The study also identified challenges affecting stingless bee populations and honey production; these are unsustainable harvesting, land-use changes, agrochemical exposure, and limited colony management practices, all of which negatively affect stingless bee populations and productivity. Issues such as colony absconding and honey fermentation further limit the benefits derived from this resource. While 98% of respondents acknowledged the importance of conserving stingless bees, a practical solution to increase the volume of stingless bee honey harvesting is to implement conservation efforts through the domestication of stingless bee colonies using various hive designs.

To ensure sustainable utilization and conservation, there is a pressing need to promote community-based meliponiculture through capacity building, improved hive technologies, and the integration of indigenous knowledge with modern scientific approaches. Enhancing postharvest management, supporting value addition, and strengthening market systems could significantly improve livelihoods while reducing pressure on wild stingless bee populations. In addition, policy recognition of stingless bees as essential pollinators, alongside habitat protection through responsible land-use planning and reduced agrochemical use, is crucial.

In conclusion, this study underscores the richness of indigenous knowledge and its potential contribution to sustainable stingless bee management and biodiversity conservation. Harnessing this knowledge through scientific support and community empowerment offers a promising pathway to develop SBH into a culturally relevant, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable sector in Ethiopia.

Abbreviations

SBH

Stingless bee honey

SB

Stingless bee

ETB

Ethiopian birr

USD

United States Dollar

Author contributions

Belay Gezahegn Gebreyes: Conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, manuscript drafting, and editorial revision.Zewdu Ayalew Abro and Menale Kassie: Data collection, supervision, study design, and critical review of the manuscript.Yetenayet Bekele Tola and Nkoba Kiatoko: Supervision, technical guidance, critical review, and editorial support.All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. However, as acknowledged, the individuals and institutions listed in the Acknowledgements section provided support in various ways to facilitate data collection.

Data availability

All relevant data are included in the main manuscript, which provides comprehensive information for the presented research work.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.