EFFECT OF PESTICIDES USE ON HONEYBEE (Apis mellifera L.

) MORTALITY AND

HONEY PRODUCTION IN TRANSMARA WEST SUB-COUNTY, NAROK COUNTY,

KENYA

BY

RICHARD KIPKEMOI KANDA

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND EARTH SCIENCES

MASENO UNIVERSITY

©2016
 DECLARATION

Declaration by Student

This thesis is my original work and has not been submitted for any degree or any other academic
award in any other university

………………………………………… Date…………………………
Richard Kipkemoi Kanda
PG/MSC/6031/2011

Declaration by Supervisors
This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as University Supervisors

………………………………………… Date…………………………
Dr. Paul Abuom (PhD).
School of Environment and Earth Sciences,
Maseno University

………………………………………… Date…………………………
Dr. Oscar E. Magenya (PhD).
Agro-Entomologist and Ecologist,
KALRO

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Special thanks go to my supervisors; Dr. Paul O. Abuom of Maseno University and Dr. Oscar E.

Magenya of KALRO for their invaluable guidance, direction and encouragement throughout this

study until the work was accomplished. Very special thanks also go to the Ford Foundation that

funded this study through the Pro-poor project.

I thank the former Director KARI; Dr. Ephraim Mukisira and the Assistant Director; Human

Resource Development (Mr. Martin Kivui) for authorizing my part time studies. In addition I

would like to thank the Assistant Director Socioeconomics and applied statistics; Dr. Festus

Murithi, Pro-poor project coordinator, Dr. Immaculate Maina and the entire project team

members for their support and encouragement during the study.

I sincerely thank; Mr. Stanley Bett of KALRO-Transmara for technical and logistical support

during the study, the survey enumerators who helped in data collection and the respondents who

provided information that greatly assisted in the production of this thesis. I also honestly thank

the Societe General De Surveillance team for analyzing my matrices and Mr. Nelson Kidula,

KALRO Kisii Biometrician for his contribution in data analysis and interpretation, my lecturers

and classmates; Mr. Luke Lukaria and Mr. Joseph Ngeno for their technical and moral support.

I would like to express deep appreciation to my family particularly my wife Joan, Sister Sophie

and brother Pius for their encouragement and moral support during my studies. Finally, I wish to

thank all those who supported this work from its inception to the final production of the thesis

and may not have been mentioned above. God bless you all.
ii
 DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my dear children; Laura, Michelle, Angela and Mercy who have been

a source of happiness to me throughout this study.

iii
 ABSTRACT
The honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) produces honey and cross pollinates plants for improved
socioeconomic wellbeing. However its colony populations globally and locally have been
declining. In Transmara West Sub-county, hive colonization and honey yields have been low,
which is due to the decline in honeybee population believed to be caused by pesticides use and
pests attack. Although their relative contributions are unknown, Beekeepers suspect pesticides
use hold a key role in colony population decline. This scenario has impeded optimal honey
production. Previous studies in the study area focused on beekeeping suitability and potential and
little on effect of pesticide use. The main objective of this study was to establish the effect of
pesticides use on honeybee mortality and honey production. The specific objectives were: to
analyze the effect of pesticide use on honeybee mortality and honey yield, examine pesticide
residue levels in honeybee, honey and pollen and determine pesticide use patterns. The study
adopted experimental and descriptive survey design. Sixteen apiaries were selected and two
strong colonies in Langstroth hives identified per apiary and replicated thrice totaling to 94
colonies which acted as control and treatments. Traps were fixed at hive entrances and number of
dead bees recorded at weekly intervals in March-October 2015. Pollen, honeybee and honey
samples from the colonies were analyzed for Amitraz, Chlorfenvinphos, Cypermethrin,
Deltamethrin and Malathion residues at SGS laboratories, using Queshers method. A population
of 2500 beekeeping households was targeted and a sample of 330 respondents randomly drawn
and administered with a questionnaire. Honeybee mortality rate and honey yields data among
experimental sets were analyzed by one way ANOVA and mean separation using Turkey HSD
test. Pesticides use data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results indicated that
mortality rate in treated colonies (229±5.1) was significantly higher than in control colonies
(73±11); MSD=4.6791, p=0.01. Honey yield in control colonies (16.0±1.0Kg) was significantly
higher than in treated colonies (8.7±1.2Kg); (MSD=4.8425, p=0.024. Pests were controlled using
pesticides (91%) mainly; pyrethroids (50%), formamidine (25 %) and organophosphorous
(25%). Most farmers applied pesticides weekly (79%) during morning hours (93%) with 66%
applying pesticides cocktails for efficacy purposes. About 83% disposed pesticides
inappropriately. No residues were detected in all matrices thus honeybee products are safe for
consumption. Pesticides use increased honeybee mortality rate hence reduced honey yields.
Pesticides were handled haphazardly in the study area. Farmers should be sensitized on safe
pesticides handling. This information will guide the development of proper pesticides handling
strategies.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION ........................................................................ vii
DEFINITION OF TERMS .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background to the study ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem statement ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Objectives of the study.............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Research hypotheses ................................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Justification of the study ........................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Scope of the study ..................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 8
LITERARURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality and honey production .................................... 8
2.2.1 Classes and formulations of pesticides .................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Exposure of honeybee and hive products to pesticides ......................................................... 9
2.2.3 Mode of action of pesticides ................................................................................................ 10
2.2.4 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality rate ............................................................ 12
2.2.5 Effect of pesticides use on honey yields .............................................................................. 14
2.3 Pesticide residue dynamics in honey, honeybee and pollen ................................................... 15
2.3.1 Pesticides residue limits ....................................................................................................... 16
2.3.2 Analysis of pesticides residues ............................................................................................ 17

v
2.4 The pesticides use patterns...................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 23
MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 23
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Description of the study area .................................................................................................. 23
3.3 Study Design ........................................................................................................................... 25
3.4 Monitoring honeybee Mortality rate and honey yields ........................................................... 28
3.5 Sample collection .................................................................................................................... 29
3.6 Pesticides residue analysis ..................................................................................................... 30
3.7 Study population ..................................................................................................................... 34
3.8 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size .................................................................................... 34
3.9 Validity and reliability of research instruments and methods ................................................ 36
3.10 Data analysis and presentation .............................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 38
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 38
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 38
4.2 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality and honey yields .......................................... 38
4.2.1 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality ................................................................... 38
4.2.2 Effect of pesticides use on honey yields .............................................................................. 41
4.3 Pesticides residues in honeybee, honey and pollen ................................................................ 43
4.4 Survey results on pesticide use patterns among farmers in Transmara West Sub-County..... 46
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 67
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 67
5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 67
5.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 67
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 68
5.4 Suggestion for further study.................................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 70
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 82

vi
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION
ANOVA – Analysis of Variance
AOAC – Association of Official Analytical Chemists
CCD – Colony Collapse Disorder
EU – European Union
GoK – Government of Kenya
HOAc - Acetic Acid
ICIPE – International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology
KALRO – Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization
Kg - Kilogram
KNBS - Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
KTBH – Kenya Top Bar Hive
LC-MS/MS- Tandem Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry/Mass Spectrometry
LD50 – Median Lethal Dose
LOD – Limit of Detection
LOQ – Limit of Quantification
MeCN – Acetonitrile
MgSO4 – Magnesium Sulfate
mL - millilitre
MPH – Metres Per Hour
MRL – Maximum Residue Limit
NaOAc – Sodium Acetate
NBS – National Beekeeping Station
PAN – Pesticide Action Network
PCPB – Pest Control Products Board
PSA - Primary Secondary Amine
SGS – Societe General De Surveillance
SPE - Solid-Phase Extraction
SPSS – Statistical Package for Social Scientists
USA – United States of America
USD – United States Dollar
vii
 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Acaricide: A pesticide used to control external livestock parasites

Apiary: A place where bees are kept either for domestic or commercial purposes and ranges

from a single hive to several hives

Chromatography: A technique for separation of mixture by passing it in solution or suspension

through a medium in which components move at different rates

Colony: A group of honeybees comprising a queen, drones and worker bees living in a hive or

swarming.

Forage: A wide search over an area by a bee in order to gather nectar, pollen and water

Tandem mass spectrometry: An analytical technique consisting of two mass spectrometers in

series linked via a collision cell that is used for quantitative determination of molecules in a

mixture upon separation by a chromatograph

Matrix: A material or component sampled for pesticide residue studies. In this study, honeybee,

pollen and honey are the matrices for pesticides residue analysis

Mortality rate: It is the number of dead honeybees per station per week (The maximum

threshold is 250 dead honeybees per station per week)

Pattern: a sequence discernible in the way in which something happens or is done. In this study,

nature of pesticide, storage, time and frequency of use and disposal constituted use pattern.

Senescence: It is an age-specific decrease in physiological performance accompanied by an

increase in mortality rate

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Experimental study sites location in the Transmara Sub-County study area .............. 25

Table 3.2. Summary of sites, treatments, sampling units and matrices in Transmara West Sub-
county............................................................................................................................................ 33

Table 4.1. Honeybee mortality rate on selected colonies in Transmara West Sub-County.......... 39

Table 4.2. Honey yields on selected colonies in 2015 in Transmara West Sub-County .............. 42

Table 4.3. Analytical results of honey, pollen and honeybee samples in Transmara West Sub-
County ........................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 4.4. Farmers‟ profile: Age and education level in Transmara West Sub-County............... 47

Table 4.5. Livestock kept and crops grown in Transmara West Sub-County .............................. 48

Table 4.6. Importance, mobility and grazing of livestock in Transmara West Sub-County ........ 49

Table 4.7. Livestock parasites and crop pests in Transmara West Sub-County ........................... 50

Table 4.8. Pesticides used by livestock and crop farmers in Transmara West Sub-County ......... 53

Table 4.9. Pesticides use intensity among livestock farmers in Transmara West Sub-County .... 54

Table 4.10. Pesticides use intensity among crop farmers in Transmara West Sub-County ......... 55

Table 4.11. Farmers‟ information sources on pesticides in Transmara West Sub-County........... 58

Table 4.12. Pesticides‟ suppliers and use patterns in Transmara West Sub-County .................... 59

Table 4.13. Pesticides quality control and safety measures in Transmara West Sub-County ...... 60

Table 4.14. Beekeeping practices in Transmara West Sub-County.............................................. 61

Table 4.15. Colony strength dynamics in Transmara West Sub-County...................................... 63

Table 4.16. Distance of pesticides use and effect on honeybees in Transmara West Sub-county 65

Table 4.17. Mitigation measures of pesticides use effects on bees in Transmara West Sub-County
....................................................................................................................................................... 66

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Relationship among pesticides use, honeybee mortality and production (Author, 2015) ........ 22

Figure 3.1. Transmara West Sub-County map indicating the study area (GOK, 2008). ............................ 24

Figure 4.1. Pests control methods used in Transmara West Sub-County (%) ............................................ 51

Figure 4.2. Severity of pesticides to honeybees in Transmara West Sub-County ...................................... 57

Figure 4.3. Importance of beekeeping enterprise in Transmara West Sub-County .................................... 62

x
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

The honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) is very important in production of honey, pollen, propolis, wax,

royal jelly and bee venom besides cross pollination of plants (Klein et al., 2007 and Gallai et al.,

2009). The global honey production stands at 1.4 million tons annually with China producing 20

%, while Turkey, Argentina and USA each producing 6 % of global honey. The rest is produced

from other regions around the globe (FAO, 2010). In Africa; Ethiopia, Tanzania and Kenya are

the leading honey producers with 41,233, 28,678 and 25,000 tons annually in that order

(Wainwright, 2005). Crops pollinated by honeybees have greater returns (Kasina et al., 2010).

An economic evaluation of the pollination service provided by bees on the main agricultural food

crops was about USD 208 billion i.e. 9.5% of the total value of the global food production

(Mutuku et al., 2013). However, the realization of this potential is being impeded by constraints

such as; climate change, inappropriate pesticides uses, pests and diseases that act synergistically

(Sanford and Jamie, 2011). Pesticides use is suspected by Scientists and beekeepers to hold a key

role in honeybee colony population decline (Henry et al., 2012). This was because they induce

behavioral changes that result in high honeybee mortality, honey and pollen contamination

(PAN, 2012; Mutuku et al., 2013).

Global honeybee populations have been declining with North America and European beekeepers

routinely reporting a 30 % loss of their managed colony populations over the last 30 years

(VanEngelsdorp and Meixner, 2010). However no single factor has strongly been linked to

colony losses (Alaux et al., 2010). It is believed that several factors act synergistically to reduce

1
colony survival, with pesticides playing a key role in colony decline (Vidau et al., 2011). This

was because pesticides impair bee homing ability, learning and memory, reduced foraging, travel

and olfactory distortion (PAN, 2012 and Whitehorn et al., 2012). For instance up to 32 % of

honeybees exposed to sub-lethal levels of pesticides in France failed to return to the hive,

effectively doubling the natural loss rate of foraging workers (Henry et al., 2012). Furthermore,

beekeepers near flower farms and tea estates in Uganda and Kenya have complained of decline

in honeybee colony populations and attributed it to pesticides poisoning (Kajobe et al., 2009).

Thus although pesticides exposure even at sub-lethal doses impact negatively on honeybees, and

given its important role in crop production through cross pollination, no study has been done to

understand the role of pesticides use on honeybee mortality rate in the sub-county.

In Kenya honey production has been declining with the national average annual yields in 2005,

2006 and 2007 being 20.28 kg, 15 kg and 9.3 kg/colony in that order (NBS, 2007). In Transmara

West Sub-County, the average 2009 honey yield for a langstroth hive was 13.2 Kg compared to

18 Kg in the past (Honey Care Africa, 2010). This yield decline was attributed to pesticides use

and habitat modification (Carroll, 2002; Mutungi et al., 2003; MacOsore et al., 2005). While

these studies illustrate important highlights on effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality rate

and yields. The studies nevertheless could not consistently link a single factor to colonies

decline. Therefore they concluded that the factors act synergistically with pesticides playing a

key role in the decline. However despite continuous pesticides use in the study area no empirical

information was available that links use and effects of pesticides on honeybee mortality rate and

yields. Therefore this study determined the contribution of pesticides use on honeybee mortality

rates and honey yields, components that have been missing in past studies in the region.

2
Contamination of honeybee products by pesticides is widespread, for example, over 129 different

pesticide residues were detected in 90% of honeybee colonies in the USA (Mullin et al., 2010).

Further organochlorine pesticides were found in most Portuguese and Spanish honey samples

(Cristina et al., 2003) while organohalogens and organophosphorous residues were detected in

Brazilian honey (Sandra et al., 2007). In Switzerland, no pesticide residues were detected in 27

honey samples (Bogdanov et al., 2003). Furthermore only four pesticides residues mostly at low

levels were detected while screening honey samples from 24 apiaries across Kenya (Muli et al.,

2014). Analysis of honey samples collected from across 13 beekeeping zones in Kenya detected

no residues (Orina, 2012). The high pesticides residues incidences in some areas were attributed

to high pesticides application rates (Reus and Leendertse, 2000).

Due to safety concerns arising from inappropriate pesticides use that generate considerable

amount of residues often higher than their MRL, the Codex Alimentarius established MRLs for

pesticides. The MRL for Cyhalothrin, is 0.01 mg/Kg while Amitraz, Cypermethrin, Deltamethrin

was 0.005 mg/Kg (FAO/WHO, 2010). Whereas these studies provide important insights on the

extent of pesticides contamination on honeybee products, they reported mixed results. Pesticides

residues were detected in some products in some areas while in others very low or no pesticides

residues were detected. However despite pesticides use in Transmara West Sub-County and

given that MRL is a key measure of quality and safety, honey and pollen pesticides residue

information was notably missing. Therefore this study screened honey, pollen and honeybee

matrices for pesticides residues to assure product quality and safety for the markets. This will

help boost consumer confidence of the regions honey raising the residents livelihood.

3
About 4.6 million tons of chemical pesticides, worth USD 40.5 billion are annually applied to the

environment globally with Europe being the largest consumer. Asia is second while Africa

accounts for only 4 % of this volume (WenJun et al., 2011). China, USA, France, Brazil and

Japan economies are the leading pesticide consumers globally accounting for 1.5, 0.4, 0.12, 0.12,

and 0.065 million tons in that order (FAO/WHO, 2010; WenJun et al., 2011). South Africa

consumes 0.10 million tons accounting for half of Africa‟s pesticides consumption (FAO, 2010).

Sadly only one percent of sprayed pesticides effectively hit their targets while 99 % are released

to non-target environment and finally absorbed by almost every organism (FAO, 2010) causing

extensive damage to biodiversity. Further the annual average pesticides application rate in Latin

America is 7.17 kg a.i./ha compared to 3.12 kg a.i./ha for Asia and 1.23 kg a.i./ha for Africa

(WenJun et al., 2011). Thus it can be concluded that since pesticides use in Africa‟s agriculture

was low, their risks and impacts must also be correspondingly lower (Ebenebe et al., 2001;

Waichman et al., 2007). However this depends on ecosystem tolerance and hazards arising from

inappropriate storage and applications (Waichman et al., 2007). Use of extremely harmful

pesticides even at low rates is quite detrimental to the environment (Macharia et al., 2009). This

is compounded by poor disposal of pesticides, containers and extent of use (Otieno et al., 2010;

Mutuku et al., 2013). Many developing countries including Kenya have adopted pesticides use

without farmer education and with limited extension services. Thus many pesticides are often

used injudiciously without clear direction hence impacting negatively on non-target organisms

such as honeybees; hence cross pollination. This in turn lowers crop yields threatening

livelihoods. This observation was equally supported by that of Kolankaya et al., (2002).

4
Studies indicate that Transmara West Sub-County is an agro-pastoral area with the main pest

control method being pesticides (Magembe et al., 2014). Further it has a varied edaphic and

climatic conditions ideal for a range of plant vegetation with nectar and pollen for sustaining a

large number of honeybee colonies (Kiyiapi, 2000; Ogweno et al., 2009). These studies have

illustrated important disparities regarding pesticides handling. While they indicate significantly

higher use intensities in developed countries, in developing countries their effects are highly

negative on bee colonies due to extremely harmful pesticides used here. However save for

pesticides classes used and beekeeping potential, empirical information on pesticides use patterns

was missing in the study area. Thus this study determined the pesticide use patterns whose findings

will help in guiding pesticides handling policy formulation in the sub-county and beyond.

1.2 Problem statement

Despite the varied edaphic and climatic conditions in Transmara region supporting a range of

plant vegetation, that provide nectar and pollen making it suitable to sustain a large number of

bee colonies, hive colonization and honey yields have been low. Honeybee colony populations

have been declining probably due to haphazard pesticides use by farmers. Although pesticides

use increase crop and animal productivity by controlling harmful insects, they inadvertently

threaten the honeybee by inducing behavioral malfunctions that jeopardize colony survival.

Further, they compromise the quality and safety of honeybee products. Nevertheless information

on their effects on the honeybees` mortality rate and ability to pollinate plants and gather nectar

is scanty. Likewise, analysis of honeybee and its products for pesticide residues in the area has

not been done despite their potential detrimental risks on human health. In addition pesticide use

intensity, timing, frequency and disposal in the area have not been documented. It was thus
5
imperative to establish pesticide use patterns among farmers and pesticide effects on the

honeybees` colonies population, honey and pollen production in Transmara West Sub-County in

order to help address current challenges such as biodiversity loss, food insecurity and

malnutrition in the region considering the ecological role of honeybee.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The main objective of this study was to establish the pesticides use patterns and their effect on

honeybee mortality rate and honey production in Transmara West Sub-County.

The specific objectives were;

1. To analyze the effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality rate and honey yields in

Transmara West Sub-County

2. To examine pesticide residue levels in honeybee, honey and pollen in Transmara West

Sub-County

3. To determine pesticide use patterns among farmers in Transmara West Sub-County

1.4 Research hypotheses

1. H0: Pesticides use has no significant effect on honeybee mortality rate and honey yields in

Transmara West Sub-County

2. H0: There are no significant pesticides residues in honeybee, honey and pollen in Transmara

West Sub-County

3. H0: There are no discernible patterns of pesticides use among farmers in Transmara West

Sub-County

6
1.5 Justification of the study

The increased use of pesticides in agriculture has raised a number of ecological concerns such as

poisoning of non-target organisms (Kevan, 1999). Hence pesticides use patterns assessment

needs to be conducted to develop strategies that effectively control pests while safeguarding

honeybees and maintaining environmental integrity (Chan et al., 2006). Since Chlorfenvinphos,

(Amitraz, Deltamethrin, Malathion and Cypermethrin) pesticides belong to toxicity classes Ib

and II respectively (WHO, 2010), monitoring honeybee mortality rate, is very important to

understand their potential honeybee poisoning risks. Due to its wide area of patrol and intense

foraging activity, the honeybee can also be used as a bio-indicator to determine the degree of

environmental contamination due to pesticides (Porrini et al., 2003). In addition, detection of

pesticide residues in honeybee products is a serious health concern among consumers

(Karazafiris et al., 2011). Further, the growing demand for organic honey in markets such as EU,

though with stringent export regulatory requirements demands that products must be screened to

guide farmers, other stakeholders on pesticides handling in farms to meet and maintain export

compliance and consumer safety. The findings of this study will help improve farmers‟

agricultural practices and also in the objective policies formulation for apiculture subsector.

1.6 Scope of the study

This study was conducted in Lolgorian, Angata, and Kilgoris Divisions of Transmara West Sub-

County, Narok County, Kenya in 2015; March – July (long rains) and August – November (short

rain) seasons. It determined the effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality rate and honey

yields and measured the pesticides residues in honeybee, honey and pollen. In addition it focused

on pesticide use patterns among beekeepers and their effect on honeybees‟ survival.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERARURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the global pesticides consumption, routes of pesticides exposure to

honeybee and hive products, formulations and mode of action of pesticides. Further it highlights

the contribution of pesticides to honeybee mortality rates. The section also reviews information

on pesticide residue dynamics in honey, honeybee and pollen; residue limits and the analytical

techniques used in the residues determination. In addition, conceptual framework indicating the

relationship among the variables in the study is described.

2.2 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality and honey production

2.2.1 Classes and formulations of pesticides

Pesticides are classified into groups based on various criteria such as; their chemical structure i.e.

organophosphates, pyrethroids, organochlorines, carbamates, neonicotinoids etc., mode of

action; systemic or contact, target organism; insecticides, acaricides, herbicides, fungicides,

bactericides, nematicides and synthesis whether synthetic or natural (Emmanouel et al., 2011).

Most fungicides, herbicides and miticides are unstable and disintegrate quickly after use hence

relatively non-toxic to honeybees (Bogdanov, 2006). However synthetic pyrethroids are highly

toxic to honeybees and cannot be applied to blooming crops when bees are present without

causing serious injury to the colonies (Bogdanov, 2006). Dust formulations are typically

hazardous than sprays because they are picked up on honeybee hairs (Kolankaya et al., 2002).

However, wettable powder would remain toxic in the field for longer periods than emulsifiable

concentrates (Magic, Keshet, Sypertix and Steladone), while granular insecticides are less

8
hazardous to honeybees (Kolankaya et al., 2002). Drift of spray application can cause significant

problems when it reaches the colonies or adjacent flowering crops or weeds. It is therefore

advisable to locate apiaries far from spray race or pesticides be applied when the wind speed is

below 10 mph (Garcia et al., 1996). Further pesticides that degrade within a short time are

usually applied without much risk when honeybees are foraging (Wallner, 2003).

2.2.2 Exposure of honeybee and hive products to pesticides

Sandford and Jamie (2011) observed that while foraging, field bees may range as far as two to

five miles from a colony. Gregorc and Ellis (2011) concluded that about 10,000 - 25,000

honeybee workers of a colony make an average of ten journeys every day to explore roughly 7

Km2 in the area near their hive while gathering nectar and pollen from flowers. They usually

forage systematically, not randomly, and once a food source is found, bees prefer to work that

particular source to exhaustion before changing plants (Chauzat et al., 2009). This kind of

resource partitioning by honeybee colonies accounts for the inconsistency observed many times

between colonies undergoing pesticide poisoning in the same location (Marten, 2004). The bees

are not all working the same plants and so some are affected more than others. Often it is those

bees with established flight patterns located in an area before a pesticide is applied that are most

affected (Sandford and Jamie 2011).

During foraging process, various microorganisms, chemical products, and particles suspended in

the air from industrial, agricultural and domestic activities are intercepted by these workers and

retained in the hair of their body surfaces, or inhaled and attached to their trachea (Devillers and

Pham-Delegue, 2002a). In many cases, these chemicals are pesticides which encompass an array

9
of compounds designed to repel or kill insects (insecticides), plants (herbicides), fungi

(fungicides) and other organisms considered pests (Grecorc and Ellis, 2011). Though honeybees

are non-target organisms for most pesticide applications, they nevertheless get exposed to

pesticides while foraging, drinking water from rivers, lakes and ponds, breathing, and during

flight (Maya et al., 2012). These pesticides may be brought inadvertently to the colony where

their levels are concentrated further in the waxy nest infrastructure and consequently negatively

affecting the colony. This denies the environment the crucial honeybee pollination service that in

the long run impacts the residents livelihood adversely (Ellis, 2010; Weick et al., 2002).

2.2.3 Mode of action of pesticides

Pyrethroids, in general, interfere with normal production and conduction of nerve signals in the

nervous system. It acts on nerve membranes by delaying the closing of the activation gate for the

sodium ion channel (Tomlin, 2006) hence killing target pests by blocking the voltage-gated

sodium and calcium channels (Davies et al., 2009). Deltamethrin is effective against insects via

ingestion and direct contact; it expresses a strong knock-down effect while Amitraz, a non-

systemic insecticide and acaricide, causes stimulation of neuronal activity killing the target

(Tomlin, 2006). Cyhalothrin penetrates the insect cuticle, disrupting nerve conduction within

minutes; this leads to cessation of feeding, loss of muscular control, paralysis, and eventual death

(Kaijun 2012). Cypermethrin inhibits the γ-aminobutyric acid receptor, causing excitation and

convulsions, inhibits calcium uptake by nerves and inhibits monoamine oxidase, an enzyme that

breaks down neurotransmitters (Anand et al., 2012). Chlorfenvinphos, an organophosphate

pesticide acts by inhibiting acetylcholine esterase (Tomlin, 2006).

10
Malathion is toxic via skin contact, ingestion, and inhalation exposure. They bind to the enzyme

acetylcholinesterase (AChE) at nerve endings throughout the bodies of insects and other

organisms resulting in overstimulation of the nervous system leading to eventual death of insects

(Journal of Pesticide Reform, winter 2003). Neonicotinoids are acetylcholine mimics and act as

nicotinic acetychloline receptor agonists. They cause persistent activation of cholinergic

receptors which leads to hyper excitation and death (Jeschke and Nauen, 2008). The

Phenylpyrazoles, including Fipronil, bind to "-amino butyric acid (GABA)-gated chloride ion

channels and block their activation by endogenous GABA, leading to hyper excitation and death

of the pests (Gunasekara et al., 2007). Many of the pesticides to which honeybees are exposed

have insecticidal properties and may be harmful to bees. For example, pesticides are known to

lower the developmental rate of queen honeybee, increase the occurrence of queen rejection, and

lower queen weight (Nasr and Wallner, 2003; Pettis et al, 2004). In addition, they cause

honeybee cardio toxicity (Papaefthimiou and Theophilidis, 2001), and affect forager bee

mobility and communicative capacity (Medrzycki et al., 2003).

Honeybees have been reported to be susceptible to many pesticides more than other insects

(Henry et al., 2012). Pesticides impact on their immune systems, predisposing them to diseases

and interfering with brood development and shorten lifespan of adult honeybees (; Pettis et al.,

2012; Wu et al., 2012 and Desneux et al., 2007). The recent sequencing of the honeybee genome

found that relative to other insect genomes, the honeybee genome is markedly deficient in the

number of genes encoding detoxification enzymes, including cytochrome P450,

monooxygenases (P450s), glutathione-S-transferases, and carboxylesterases (Claudianos et al.,

11
2006). This relative lack of detoxicative genes in the honeybee genome reduces the chances of

gene response following pesticides exposure (Claudianos et al., 2006).

2.2.4 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality rate

Naturally, honeybees like other living organisms exhibit senescent decline. Senescence is

defined as an age-specific decrease in physiological performance accompanied by an increase in

mortality rate (Dukas, 2008b). However in the recent past, honeybees have been dying off at

unprecedented rates around the world (PAN, 2012), hence generating interest among scientists.

Oldroyd (2007) concluded that colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a recent, pervasive syndrome

affecting honeybee (Apis mellifera L) colonies in the Northern hemisphere, and is characterized

by a sudden disappearance of honeybees from the hive. North America and European beekeepers

have routinely reported up to 30 % losses of their managed colony populations over the last 30

years (VanEngelsdorp and Meixner, 2010). Multiple causes of CCD have been proposed, such as

pesticides use, pathogens, parasites, and natural habitat degradation (Cox-Foster et al., 2007;

Naug, 2009). However, the relative contribution of those stressors in CCD events remains

unknown (Henry et al., 2012) since no study has strongly linked a single factor to colony losses

(Alaux et al., 2010). Thus the belief that these factors act synergistically to weaken colonies,

with pesticides playing a key role in colony decline (Vidau et al., 2011). This was because

pesticides induce honeybee malfunction in navigation and homing ability, impaired memory and

reduced foraging and olfactory distortion (PAN, 2012 and Whitehorn et al., 2012). Although no

single pesticide has been found to cause CCD, the synergistic effects of multiple pesticide

exposures may be contributing to the decline in colony population (Johnson et al., 2010).

12
Honeybees are extremely sensitive to pesticides; the number of dead bees in front of the hive is

therefore the most important variable to be considered for these contaminants (Porrini et al.,

2002). This varies according to a number of factors such as the toxicity of active ingredients used

(LD50), the presence of honeybees on the sites at the time of chemical treatment, the means used

to distribute the pesticide and the presence of wind (Porrini et al., 2003). For instance up to 32 %

of honeybees exposed to sub-lethal levels of pesticides in France failed to return to the hive,

effectively doubling the natural loss rate of foraging workers (Henry et al., 2012). In addition

beekeepers near flower farms and tea estates in Uganda and Kenya have complained of decline

in honeybee colony populations and attributed it to pesticides poisoning (Kajobe et al., 2009).

Thus although pesticides even at sub-lethal doses impact negatively on honeybees, and given that

farmers suspect as such, no study has been done to understand the impact of pesticides use on

honeybee mortality rate in the Sub-County.

Many honeybees directly struck by pesticides will not have enough strength to return to their

hive and will die in the field or during their return flight (Porrini et al., 2002). Others only

marginally hit while visiting the flowers of the treated species or gathering nectar and pollen

from spontaneous species contaminated by drift will eventually die in the hive hence acting as a

direct indicator (Sanford and Jamie, 2011). In the case of compounds that are not particularly

dangerous, the insect acts as an indirect indicator providing information in form of residues

(Celli et al., 1996). This monitoring scheme will yield results such as weekly mortality, active

ingredients responsible for bees kill, periods and areas at highest risks (Porrini et al., 2003). In

the event that mortality rate exceeds the critical threshold of two hundred and fifty (250) dead

honeybees per week per station, laboratory analyses are carried out (Porrini et al., 2002).

13
Most pesticides programs for monitoring honeybee mortality rates have been oriented to the

determination of the impacts of acaricides that are apiculture based (Walner, 1999; Menkissogl et

al., 2001). Further, most pesticides regulatory authorities globally focus mainly on lethal

concentrations yet there is evidence that sub-lethal pesticides doses cause alterations in

honeybee‟s physiological functions (Henry et al., 2012; PAN, 2012; Whitehorn et al., 2012).

However attention has since shifted to studies on pesticides used for crop and livestock

protection and introduced into the hive by contaminated honeybees (Al-Rifai and Akeel, 1997).

These studies have indeed illustrated the various constrains that impact on honeybees

performance. Nevertheless the studies could not consistently link a single factor to honeybee

colonies decline. Therefore they concluded that these various stressors acted synergistically with

pesticides playing a key role in the decline. However despite pesticides use in the study area, no

empirical information was available that links use and impacts of pesticides on honeybee

mortality rate. The determination of pesticides use effect on honeybee mortality will help in

conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of cross-pollination, a vital ecosystem service.

2.2.5 Effect of pesticides use on honey yields

Honey production globally and in Kenya, has been declining. The Kenyan yield in 2005 was

25,000 tons (Wainwright, 2005) against a potential of 100,000 tons (GoK, 2008). The average

annual honey yields in Kenya in 2005, 2006 and 2007 were 20.28, 15 and 9.3 kg/colony in that

order with Transmara West Sub-County having an annual honey yield of 18 Kg/colony (Carroll,

2002; NBS, 2007). An evaluation of log hives and KTBH for honey yields over a two year

period in Cheptuya area found average annual yields of 18 Kg and 47 Kg of honey respectively

14
(MacOsore et al., 2005). This KTBH yield was comparable to the Rwandan Langstroth honey

yield of 48 Kg (Nienke and Zunderdorp, 2008). This was due to the difficulty in attracting bees

to Langstroth hives (Honey Care Africa, 2010). Further, pesticides use reduces worker bees and

bee forage respectively hence low yields. Despite this scenario, no information linking pesticides

use and honey yield was available in the sub-county, components this study determined.

2.3 Pesticide residue dynamics in honey, honeybee and pollen

Pesticides, especially herbicides have been found to contaminate honeybees and pollen more

than honey (Celli et al., 1996). Studies conducted on North American honeybee colonies in 2007

and 2008 found 121 different pesticides and metabolite residues in wax, pollen and honeybees‟

samples but traces in honey samples (Mullin et al., 2010). Further organochlorine pesticides

were found in most Portuguese and Spanish honey samples (Cristina et al., 2003) while

organohalogens and organophosphorous residues were detected in Brazilian honey (Sandra et al.,

2007). However in Switzerland, no pesticide residues were detected in 27 honey samples

analyzed for pesticides residues (Bogdanov et al., 2003).

In Kenya, efforts have been made to examine pesticides residues in various matrices suspected of

pesticides exposure. Otieno et al., (2010) determined the concentrations of carbofuran residues in

water and soil samples from agricultural farmlands in Isiolo and Laikipia Districts, Kenya. He

found high concentrations of carbofuran demonstrating extensive Furadan use in the two areas

posing risks to man, domestic and wild animals drinking the water. Wandiga (2001) studied the

distribution of organochlorine pesticides along the Indian Ocean coast of Kenya and found that

the lowest concentration of pesticides was found in water followed by sediment and fish.

15
However, some attempts made to determine pesticides residues in honeybee products in Kenya

obtained mixed results. Orina (2012) evaluated the levels of pesticides residues and found none

in honey samples on sale in Mwingi, Kitui, Ntubo, Tharaka, Embu, Mbeere, Timboroa, Turbo,

Malaba forest, Lenana forest, Thika Kakuzi, Kakamega forest and Taita Taveta beekeeping

zones of Kenya. Further, Muli et al., (2014) performed pesticide analysis on honey and pollen

samples from 13 sites across Kenya. Only four pesticides; 1-naphthol, chlorothalonil,

chlorpyrifos and fluvalinate out of 171 were found to be present mostly at very low levels (<

0.05 Mg/Kg). The absence or relatively low pesticides concentration in honey compared to other

matrices may be attributed to a filtering effect of honeybees. Studies have established that

honeybees indeed decrease initially high pesticide nectar concentrations so that the final

concentration in honey was much lower, mostly by a factor of about 1000 (Schur and Wallner,

2000). However Bonmatin et al., (2005) and Kievits (2007) made a contrary finding; they

concluded that any pesticide in the nectar was concentrated at least four times in honey, which is

stored for later use.

2.3.1 Pesticides residue limits

Pesticide residues in honey and hive products are a sensitive topic as honey and bee products

(bee pollen, royal jelly, beeswax and propolis) are perceived as pure and natural food

(Heinkelein, 2011). There are maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticide residues in honey,

royal jelly and bee pollen given in regulation 396 of the year 2005, (EC) 470/2009 and (EU)

/37/2020 (WHO/FAO, 2010). According to article 18 of this regulation a default MRL of 0.01

mg/kg was set for those products for which no specific MRL is set out in Annexes II or III, or for

16
active substances not listed in Annex IV. For example, the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for

Deltamethrin is 0.01 mg/kg (Tomlin, 2006). The MRL for Cyhalothrin was 0.5 as established by

Codex Alimentarius (FAO/WHO, 2010). In pollen and honey, the LOQ for, Amitraz,

Cypermethrin, Deltamethrin is 0.01mg/Kg while that for Chlorfenvinphos, Cyhalothrin

Malathion and Diazinon is 0.005mg/Kg (FAO/WHO 2010).

Inappropriate pesticides use generates residues often higher than MRL. Given that MRL is a

measure of product quality and safety (Heinkelein, 2011) and that pesticides are used in the study

area (GoK, 2008), there was no pesticides residue information available. Although these studies

provided valuable information regarding environmental contamination by pesticides, they

obtained mixed results. Some studies detected pesticides residues while others did not. Further

some matrices recorded higher residues than others. Besides no pesticides residue information

yet considerable amounts of pesticides are consumed in the Sub-County. Therefore the study

screened honey, pollen and honeybee matrices for pesticides to assure the market of product

quality and safety. This will ensure good health while attracting higher premium market

resulting in improved socioeconomic wellbeing of the residents of the study area.

2.3.2 Analysis of pesticides residues

Contaminations of honeybees, pollen and honey by pesticides have been monitored using various

schemes. Honeybees more than its products, have been used as biological monitors for pesticide

contamination of geographic regions (Celli et al., 1996). In these monitoring schemes, pesticide

residues have been determined using chromatographic techniques. Gas chromatography (GC) is

still the method of first choice for the analysis of pyrethroid residues with various detectors such

17
as GC with electron capture detector (GC-ECD) (Sandra et al., 2007; Su et al., 2007; De Pinho et

al., 2010), GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Albero et al., 2004; Beltran et al. 2003; Kazuaki et

al. 1997; Tagami et al. 2009), high performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet (HPLC-UV)

(Metwally et al. 1997), and HPLC-mass spectrometry(HPLC-MS) (Klein and Alder, 2003).

However, since honey or pollen contaminated at ppm or ppb levels with pesticides are known to

impair honeybee health (Halm et al., 2006; Desneux et al.,2007, Johnson et al., 2009), it is

important to use sensitive analytical technologies. One such technology is the recently developed

liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS) QuEChERS method (Bonmatin

et al., 2005; Chauzat et al., 2006). The QuEChERS method has since been modified to the most

current AOAC Official Method 2007.01. It is quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe

multiresidue analytical method (AOAC, 2007).

2.4 The pesticides use patterns

Adequate pesticides use ensures higher productivity gains in agriculture to meet the global

demand for food security although their negative environmental impacts cannot be ignored either

(Hamilton or Crossley, 2004). About 4.6 million tons of chemical pesticides worth USD 40.5

billion are annually applied to the environment globally with Europe being the largest consumer,

followed by Asia with Africa accounting for only 4 % of this volume (WenJun et al., 2011).

China, USA, France, Brazil and Japan economies are the leading pesticide consumers globally

accounting for 1.5, 0.4, 0.12, 0.12, and 0.065 million tons in that order (FAO, 2010; WenJun et

al., 2011). South Africa consumes 0.10 million tons accounting for half of Africa‟s pesticides

consumption (FAO, 2010). Sadly only 1% of sprayed pesticides effectively hit their targets while

18
99% are released to non-target environment and finally absorbed by almost every organism

(FAO, 2010). South Africa‟s registered pesticides products is about 3000 (Dabrowski, 2015),

three times Kenya‟s 1100 pesticide formulations registered with annual use of 8,000 metric tons

of pesticides (PCPB, 2013), owing to its agriculture based economy (Birech and Benhard, 2006).

The average pesticide application rates differ considerably across regions. For example the Latin

America and Asia rates are 7.17 kg a.i./ha and 3.12 - kg a.i./ha respectively compared to Africa‟s

1.23 kg a.i./ha, (Repetto and Baliga, 1996). Further most agricultural activities in Africa are

small-scale farming systems, viewed as low input, with low use of pesticides (Ebenebe et al.,

2001). Since the volume of pesticides used in Africa is much lower than elsewhere, the risks and

impacts may be correspondingly lower (Ebenebe et al., 2001; Waichman et al., 2007). However

this would ignore hazards arising from the use of toxic pesticides, poor handling practices and

inadequate pesticides regulation (Waichman et al., 2007; Gitonga et al., 2010). For instance 50%

of all pesticide related illness and 72.5% of reported fatal pesticide poisonings occur in

developing countries yet they account for only 25% of global pesticides used (Harris, 1999).

It is expected that farmers follow dilution instructions labeled on the pesticide container and

application done when honeybees are not working, preferably in the early evenings (Sandford

and Jamie, 2011). However due to low literacy levels, measurements are rarely adhered to,

resulting in either higher or lower pesticide concentrations (PCPB, 2005). The use of low

concentrations results in resistance to pesticides by the target organisms causing economic losses

(Marten, 2004). Conversely, the use of high pesticides concentrations may poison and kill non-

target and beneficial organisms such as honeybees whenever they fly through a cloud of

19
pesticide dust or spray or walk on treated parts of plants (Bogdanov, 2006). The spraying of

pesticides to livestock and crop fields during the day especially morning hours exposes

honeybees to pesticides since this is the time when foragers are most active in the field gathering

nectar, pollen and water (Sandford and Jamie, 2011).

The industrialized countries have developed sound pesticides waste disposal and management

systems. For example triple rinsing of empty pesticides containers transforms them from

hazardous to non-hazardous status. This coupled with obsolete pesticides collection schemes has

made waste disposal very effective in many European and other developed countries (FAO,

2008). In addition, they have a robust infrastructure for disposal of obsolete pesticides such as

incinerators. This is however not the case in the third world countries as most have no disposal

infrastructure let alone disposal policies (FAO, 2008). This was despite the quantities of obsolete

pesticides in Africa alone being more than 20,000 tons, which will cost up to US$150 million to

destroy (Harris 1999). In addition, most African farmers have not abandoned crude pesticides

disposal methods such burying or throwing containers away or pouring excess diluted pesticides

(Gitonga et al., 2010). Thus these factors evidently predispose the physical and biological

environment including honeybees to hazardous pesticides, hence the necessity of the study.

In Kenya, several studies have been carried out to understand pesticides use patterns and

application regimes. Nyakundi et al. (2010) observed that pesticides were readily available and

widely used in horticultural farms in Central and Rift valley provinces contaminating water

bodies resulting in death of fish in nearby rivers. Further Mutuku et al., (2013) observed that

majority of tomato farmers in Kathiani exposed themselves to pesticides hazards during

20
handling. Macharia et al., (2009) concluded that the vegetable sub-sector potentially has

environmental pesticide negative impacts. Nderitu et al., (2007) found that Kenyan farmers

applied insecticides up to 15 times during a single cropping season for crops like French beans.

Transmara West Sub-County is an agro-pastoral area with the main pest control method being

pesticides (Pyrethroids; Deltamethrin, Cypermethrin and organophosphorous (Steladone,

Diazinon, Malathion and Amitraz) (GoK, 2008; Magembe et al., 2014). The sub-county has

varied edaphic and climatic conditions ideal for a range of plant species with nectar and pollen

for sustaining a large number of honeybee colonies (Kiyiapi, 2000; Ogweno et al., 2009).

These studies have provided important information on pesticides accessibility, use patterns and

their potential risks to man and the environment. Further they highlighted the beekeeping

potential of the study area. However although the effect of pesticides use on honeybees‟ has been

documented in the developed economies, this component was notably missing in the study area.

Besides pesticides use patterns studies have not been carried out in the sub-county and how they

impact beekeeping and production despite being the main agricultural pests control method.

Therefore this study determined the pesticide use patterns whose findings will help in guiding the

sub-county and national pesticides handling policy formulation.

2.5 Conceptual framework

Pesticides remain indispensable in increasing crop and livestock production to satisfy the global

demand for quality and adequate food supply. However they comprise an array of compounds

that are designed to repel or kill pests. Unfortunately, the honeybee has been one of the

beneficial species that is threatened despite being a non-target in most pesticides applications.

21
Exposure and effects of pesticides use on honeybees are influenced by factors such as; time of

application, distance from colony to exposure point, physiological stage of forage plants, dosage

and nature of pesticides. Ideally appropriate pesticides application away from honeybee colonies,

at the right time and dosages as prescribed minimizes exposure and the effects they would have

on honeybees. However exposure to high pesticide doses result in outright bees kill while

exposure to sub lethal doses induce behavioral impairment such as reduced foraging, homing and

navigational malfunction and reduced queen production. Consequently honeybee mortality rate

may increase. In addition rate of hive colonization and honey production may reduce depending

on how these factors interact.

Time of
application

Honeybee
Pesticide
mortality
dosage

Nature of
Pesticides use
pesticides Honey
production
Distance from apiary
to exposure point

Independent variable Intervening variable Dependent variable

Figure 2.1. Relationship among pesticides use, honeybee mortality and production (Author,
2015)

22
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the study area and outlines the designs used to carry out the study

including collection of data. It describes the population and sample sizes, sampling strategy and

instruments of data collection. It further details the collection of samples, preservation and

analytical techniques used as well as data analysis and presentation of information.

3.2 Description of the study area

Transmara West Sub-County is located in Narok County, Kenya and consists of four

administrative divisions namely: Lolgorian, Angata, Kilgoris and Keiyan. It covers an area of

approximately 2900 km2 with Maasai Mara game reserve occupying 312 km2. The Sub-county

lies between latitudes 00 50` S and 10 50` N and longitudes 340 35`E and 350 14` W. It is

divided into highlands (between 2200 m and 2500 m above sea level) and the plateau (1500 m to

2200 m above sea level). It borders the Republic of Tanzania to the South, Migori County to the

West, Kisii, Nyamira and Bomet Counties to the North. The dominant elevations are between

1800m to 1950m interrupted by rocky eroded hills. Annual temperature ranges from 14.8 0C to

20.3 0C. The sub-county receives a bimodal rainfall which in normal years is well distributed

throughout the year with peaks in April (long rains) and December (short rain) seasons.

The sub-county is suitable for livestock production and as well arable agriculture with current

dominant activities being beef livestock rearing and maize farming. Other enterprises include

mining, sand harvesting, beekeeping, dairy farming and cash cropping such as sugar cane and

23
tea. Besides these, another important income generating resource for the Sub-County is the

Maasai Mara Game Reserve, where the Narok County government obtains a lot of revenue.

Figure 3.1. Transmara West Sub-County map indicating the study area (GOK, 2008).
24
Details of the experimental study sites are indicated by numbers in the study area map (figure

3.1) besides the study site legend and described in table 3.1

Table 3.1. Experimental study sites location in the Transmara Sub-County study area

Site number in map (Fig. 3.1) Site name Division

1 Naserian Kilgoris
2 Oloshomunyal Kilgoris
3 Mongor Kilgoris
4 Olmotonyi Lolgorian
5 Olepoipoi Lolgorian
6 Ololtingwal Lolgorian
7 OLkiloriti Angata
8 Oldonyoorok Angata
9 Angata Angata
10 Kondamet Angata
11 Kawai Lolgorian
12 KALRO Transmara Sub-centre Lolgorian

3.3 Study Design

The research adopted longitudinal descriptive survey and experimental study designs. A survey

was carried out to collect data from respondents on pesticides use patterns in Angata, Logorian

and Kilgoris Divisions of Transmara West Sub-County. A list of beekeeping households in the

sub-county (sampling frame) obtained from the sub-county Agricultural office was used to

identify the households. The sampled households were selected using a random numbers table

and pesticides use data collected using a structured questionnaire. Secondary data was obtained

using a check list. In the experiment, a randomized complete block design (RCBD) was used to

study the effects of pesticides use on honeybee mortality rate and honey production in Transmara

West Sub-county. Sixteen apiaries were selected; five on-station and eleven on-farm for the

experiments (Figure 1 and Table 1). All colonies in each apiary were evaluated for family

25
strength prior to start of the experiment using a standard method (Delaplane et al., 2013). This

was done to help in selection of colonies with same family strengths to be used for the study.

Further, the study colonies were checked for the presence of Varroa mites using a

standard sugar roll assay (Ellis and Macedo; 2001). A wide-mouth glass canning jar with two-

piece lid; 8-mesh per inch hardware cloth to allow mites to pass through while retaining bees and

one rounded teaspoon (7g) of powdered sugar were used. A circle of the hardware cloth was cut

to fit inside the ring. Approximately 300 adult honeybees were collected in a wide mouth pint jar

and powdered sugar was added through the hardware cloth. The jar was rolled to distribute the

dust and coat the honeybees, let to sit for one minute, inverted and shaken over a white surface to

recover mites. Any mites would pass through the screen while honeybees would remain in the

jar. Further, the presence of small hive beetle, rats and wax moths were assessed by physical

observation. In addition two main bacterial diseases affecting brood, the American foulbrood

(AFB) and the European foulbrood (EFB) were assessed. Upon infection by AFB and EFB, the

larvae exhibit a mosaic brood pattern of empty cells (dead larvae removed by nurse bees),

uncapped cells with remains of diseased larvae and healthy capped cells in the infected colonies.

3.3.1 Experimental design

A randomized complete bock design (RCBD) was used to conduct the experimental study.

In the on-station experiment at KALRO Transmara Sub-Centre, three treatments and control

were set up. Four 0.125 acre plots, two each on maize and beans, were established and two

strong colonies managed in Langstroth hives transferred from the main station apiary and placed

20 metres from the maize and beans crop fields just after planting. Crop pests were managed

26
throughout their physiological stages including flowering stage by applying Magic (Malathion)

and Keshet (Deltamethrin) pesticides according to the label instructions. Another two sets

comprising of two strong colonies managed in Langstroth hives were transferred from the main

station apiary and set 20 metres from a livestock spray crush at the KALRO Transmara Sub-

Centre. Livestock were routinely sprayed with Sypertix (Alphacypermethrin), Almatix (Amitraz)

and Steladone (Chlorfenvinphos) pesticides once a week to control external parasites after

preparation according to the instructions on container label. At the main Station apiary, two

apiaries were selected and two strong colonies managed in Langstroth hives identified in each

apiary to serve as control experiment. The apiary was located at undisturbed natural vegetation,

well fenced off and no farming or grazing ever takes place in it. It was guarded to ensure that no

livestock grazed in or around it. Therefore no pesticides got to the colonies in the apiary either by

drift or through transmission by grazing livestock.

Eleven on-farm apiaries, three in Kilgoris and four each in Angata and Lolgorian Divisions were

selected for the study. In each apiary two strong colonies managed in Langstroth hives were

identified. The colonies were constantly inspected for sanitary purposes and were monitored for

honeybee mortality rates, honey yields and pesticides residues in honey, pollen and honeybees.

All the treatments in the experiment were replicated three times over two seasons.

Dead bee traps were fixed at each hive entrances and mortality data collected at weekly intervals

through two seasons. Honeybees, pollen and honey samples were collected from the hives

containing the identified colonies and analyzed for pesticides residues using Queshers method

(AOAC Official Method 2007.01) at SGS laboratories. A data sheet was designed for recording

27
colony seasonal honey yields data. The monitoring program carried out for two successive

seasons: March - July 2015 and August - November 2015. Sample collection and pesticides

residue analysis were done at the end of each season. Details of the sites, treatments, sampling

units, sample sizes, matrices and units of analysis are summarized in table 3.2.

3.4 Monitoring honeybee Mortality rate and honey yields

Each hive containing the colonies under study was equipped with a collection cage for dead bees

(an under basket trap collect dead honeybees). The under basket traps were considered to be the

most suitable in retaining dead bees. The traps were attached to the hives seven days prior to the

start of experiment to allow the honeybees time to adapt to the traps.

The hives were checked once a week and the number of dead bees were counted, recorded and

removed. In those hives whose dead bees count exceeded the 250 critical threshold in an apiary,

the dead bees were sorted and samples taken to laboratory for pesticides residue analysis. The

dead bee traps were attached to the hives entrances on 16th March 2015 and remained fitted until

10th November 2016. The season one mortality rate data was collected from 6th April 2015 to 4th

July 2015 while the season two mortality rate data was collected from 3rd August 2015 to 6th

November 2015.

In addition, a data sheet was designed for recording honey yields data in each harvest season in

all the colonies identified in the selected apiaries. Honey yields data was collected from 22nd -

26th June 2015 and 2nd- 6th November 2015 for seasons one and two respectively.

28
3.5 Sample collection
Season one honeybee‟s samples were collected between 6th April 2015 to 4th July 2015 while the

season two honeybees samples were collected from 3rd August 2015 to 6th November 2015 at

weekly intervals. Pollen and honey samples were collected from 22nd - 26th June 2015 and 2nd- 6th

November 2015 for seasons one and two respectively.

3.5.1 Sampling honeybees for pesticides residue analysis

The identified colonies were checked weekly and dead bees removed from the traps, counted and

sorted. Eight dead bee samples were taken and packed in a plastic jar, put in a cool box and

stored at 4 0C and subsequently analyzed for pesticides residues.

3.5.2 Sampling honey for pesticides residue analysis

Fifty (50) grams of freshly harvested honey from the hive containing the two strong colonies

identified in all the sixteen selected apiaries were collected and packed in plastic jars and put in a

cool box at 4 0C and stored in a dark place, and later analyzed for pesticides residues.

3.5.3 Sampling pollen for pesticides residue analysis

Pollen samples were collected from comb cells of the two hives containing the strong colonies

identified in all the sixteen apiaries. 20 grams of pollen from each colony was packed in plastic

jar and stored in a cool box at 4 0C, in a dark place until their analysis. All the samples were

taken to SGS laboratories for quantitative determination of pesticides residues.

29
3.6 Pesticides residue analysis

Honeybee, honey and pollen Matrices were preserved at 40C, extracted and analyzed following

the modified QueCHers analytical method (AOAC Official Method 2007.01). The method uses a

single-step buffered acetonitrile (MeCN) extraction and salting out liquid–liquid partitioning

from the water in the sample with MgSO4. Dispersive-solid-phase extraction (dispersive-SPE)

cleanup was done to remove organic acids, excess water, and other components with a

combination of primary secondary amine (PSA) sorbent and MgSO4. The extracts were

separated using chromatographic analytical separation and analyzed by mass spectrometry (MS)

techniques.

3.6.1 Equipment

UPLC / MS-MS (Waters. Micromass Quattro Premier XE Mass Spectrometer) for quantifying

the Amitraz and GC- MS (Agilent 7890A GC -5975C Inert MSD with Multi-mode Inlet) were

used for other GC-amenable residues manufactured by Agilent (Karlsruhe, Germany) and an A

J2-21M/E centifuge manufactured by Beckman (Rossy, France).

3.6.2 Reagents and consumables

Acetonitrile (Merck 1000302500- gradient grade for liquid chromatography or equivalent),

Methanol (Merck 1000106035- hypergrade for LC-MS), Water (Merck 1000115333- For

chromatography LiChrosolv), PSA Clean up Tube (Sigma 55282-U), MgS04 Extraction Tube

(Sigma 55234-U) were obtained from Karlsruhe, Germany. Pesticide Pure standards (>99%

certified purity) and Diethathyl Ethyl (an internal standard) were obtained from Dr Ehrenstrofer

laboratory (Augsberg, Germany).

30
3.6.3 Pesticides residue analysis in honeybee

One g of honeybee heads was ground and mixed with 5 mL of 1% acetic acid (HOAc) in MeCN

and 0.5 g anhydrous MgSO4/NaOAc (4/1, w/w) and added to a centrifuge tube bottle, shaken and

centrifuged. An upper layer portion of the MeCN extract was added to anhydrous MgSO 4/PSA

sorbent (3/1, w/w; 200 mg per 1 mL extract), mixed, and centrifuged. The final extract was

transferred to autosampler vials for analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)

and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) for identification and

determination of pesticide residues in honeybee.

3.6.4 Pesticides residue analysis in honey

Two grams of honey was mixed with 5 mL of 1% acetic acid (HOAc) in MeCN and 0.5 g

anhydrous MgSO4/NaOAc (4/1, w/w) and added to a centrifuge tube. The mixture was shaken

and centrifuged. A portion of the MeCN extract (upper layer) was added to anhydrous

MgSO4/PSA sorbent (3/1, w/w; 200 mg per 1 mL extract), mixed, and centrifuged. This final

extract was transferred to autosampler vials for analysis by gas chromatography/mass

spectrometry (GC/MS) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) for

identification and determination of pesticide residues in honey.

3.6.5 Pesticides residue analysis in pollen

One gram of pollen sample was mixed with 2 mL of 1% acetic acid (HOAc) in MeCN and 0.5 g

anhydrous MgSO4/NaOAc (4/1, w/w) and added to a centrifuge tube, which was shaken and

centrifuged. A portion of the MeCN extract (upper layer) was added to anhydrous MgSO4/PSA

sorbent (3/1, w/w; 200 mg per 1 mL extract), mixed, and centrifuged. This final extract was

31
transferred to autosampler vials for analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)

and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) for identification and

determination of pesticide residues in pollen.

3.6.6 Quality control

The precision of the method used in this study was established by analyzing samples in triplicate.

The accuracy of the method was confirmed by running spiked honey, pollen and honeybee

samples prior to actual sample analysis. This was further ensured by running blank solvents and

standards (every six injections) between the injections. Blank solvents were run as an

opportunity to evaluate and monitor the potential introduction of contaminants into the samples

during processing. The agreement between the measured and certified concentrations of

individual analyte confirmed the accuracy of the method. This reference material was introduced

on regular basis after running 10 samples as a way of checking the procedure. The blanks were

also introduced on a regular basis in between samples analysis. For recovery efficiency, 0.05

ppm of Amitraz, Malathion, Chlorfenvinphos, Alphacypermethrin and Deltamethrin standard

mixture were added to 1g of pollen, 1g honeybee and 2g honey samples for analysis following

procedures as indicated in subsections 3.4.4.3, 3.4.4.4 and 3.4.4.5. The Calibration curves for the

LC-MS/MS & GC-MS were prepared from analytical standards at the following levels; 0 (matrix

blank), 0.005, 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.25 ppm. Diethathyl Ethyl was used as an Internal

standard with a concentration 0f 0.1 ppm. The detection limits were found to be 0.005 ppm for

Chlorfenvinphos and Cypermethrin while Amitraz, Metathion and Deltamethrin had a detection

limit of 0.01 ppm.

32
Table 3.2. Summary of sites, treatments, sampling units and matrices in Transmara West Sub-county

Site No of No of Treatment Monitoring pesticides residue Monitoring mortality No of

apiaries colonies (threshold ≥ 250 dead respondents
h/bees/ apiary /week)
Season 1 Season 2 Season 1 Season 2
samples samples samples samples

honey pollen honey pollen honeybee honeybee

On-station 1 6 T1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(KALRO 1 6 T2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Transmara) 1 6 T3 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 C1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 C2 1 1 1 1 1 1
On-Farm Farmer
Practice
Angata 4 24 Farmer 4 4 4 4 4 4 115
Division Practice
Lolgorian 4 24 Farmer 4 4 4 4 4 4 115
Division Practice
Kilgoris 3 24 Farmer 3 3 3 3 3 3 100
Division Practice
SUB-Total 16 94 16 16 16 16 8 8 330
Total 16 94 64 16 330
n = 60 colonies; Treatments: T1 = Magic and Keshet, T2 =Almatix, Sypertix and Steladone, T3 = Magic, Keshet, Almatix, Sypertix
and Steladone, C1 = Control1, C2 = Control 2, Farmer practice = Magic, Keshet, Almatix, Sypertix and Steladone

33
3.7 Study population

Transmara West Sub-County was estimated to have a human population of approximately

117,726 Persons and density of 62 persons per Km2, with over 18,000 households. The number

of households practicing beekeeping was approximately 2500 (ASDSP, 2013). A sample size of

330 respondents; livestock, crop, mixed farmers and beekeepers was selected randomly. They

comprised 100 respondents in Kilgoris and 115 each in Angata and Lolgorian Divisions of

Transmara West Sub-County (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970). The sample was distributed

proportionately on the basis of the number of beekeeping households in each division. There are

752, 871 and 877 beekeeping households in Kilgoris, Angata and Lolgorian divisions

respectively (GoK, 2008). Sixty colonies in sixteen apiaries; five at KALRO Transmara-station

and eleven in farmers‟ fields; three in Kilgoris and four each in Angata and Lolgorian Divisions

were selected for the study.

3.8 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size

Sampling procedure refers to a technique of selecting a part of population on which research can

be conducted, which ensures that conclusions from the study can be generalized to the entire

population. A sample in a research study refers to any group on which information is obtained.

The researcher used cluster random sampling technique to select the respondents. The target

population was 2500 beekeeping households. A sample size of 330 beekeeping households was

selected for the study. This was determined using the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) table

(Appendix 2) for estimating a sample size from a given population. The, sample was selected

from each of the divisions based on the composition of the target population. The sample size

was based on proportionate population distribution on target population in each division.

34
Enumerators were recruited from the study area and trained on the basic principles of conducting

surveys and questionnaire administration. The selection of these enumerators from the area was

important to help minimize language barrier and establish rapport among the respondents. The

researcher and the trained enumerators pre-tested the questionnaire prior to full implementation

of the data collection exercise with 30 selected respondents; ten from each division to check their

understanding of the questions and to help improve on the tool in order to make it more effective

in collecting the desired data. Respondents were drawn randomly from Lolgorian, Kilgoris and

Angata Divisions (clusters) of Transmara West Sub-County from the sampling frame of 2500

beekeeping households using a random numbers table. The desired data collected from the

respondents using a questionnaire (Appendix 1).

3.8.1 Data Collection Instruments

The study employed the use of a structured questionnaire to collect household pesticides use

data. A check list was used to collect data from key informants while a simple data sheet was

used to record honeybee mortality rate and honey yields data.

3.8.1.1 Questionnaire

This tool was developed by the researcher with the aid of the supervisors. The study preferred

this tool because it can collect data from a large sample over a short period of time. This tool

contained both open and closed ended question. Closed ended question are easy to analyze since

they are in immediate usable form, easy to administer as each item is followed by alternative

answer and are economical in terms of time and money. Open-ended questions stimulate a

person to think about his/her feeling or motives and to express what he/she consider most vital

35
The questionnaire was administered to 115 beekeeping farmers each in Lolgorian and Angata

divisions and 100 beekeeping farmers in Kilgoris Division. A checklist was prepared to gather

information from agrochemical traders, Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Forestry staff.

Secondary data was collected from existing reports of statutory regulatory bodies such as PCPB

and NEMA. The data obtained using the checklist was meant to corroborate the one provided by

farmers. The administered questionnaires were scrutinized to ensure that they were fully filled

before data was entered in MS Excel spreadsheet software and statistically analyzed by SPSS

version 16 software.

3.9 Validity and reliability of research instruments and methods

The research instruments for the study were tested for reliability and validity to ensure that they

captured the aims and objectives of the research.

3.9.1 Validity of research instruments

Validity is the accuracy and meaningfulness of inferences, which are based on the research

results. It is the degree to which results obtained from the analysis of data actually represent the

phenomenon under study (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). To test the content validity of

instruments, the researcher discussed the instruments with experts and specialists in Maseno

University and KALRO to ensure that all the concepts under investigation were measured. A

pilot study also aided in improving the validity of the instruments. Items were checked to ensure

they accurately measured the concepts under study, were clear and understood by the

respondents. In addition the experiments were conducted under standard conditions with

36
adequate replications. Samples collected from the experimental sites were subjected to standard

analytical procedures with adequate controls analysed in triplicate and with blank solvents.

3.9.2 Reliability of the research instruments

The reliability of the instrument in the study area was done by pre-testing it through piloting. The

exercise was conducted twice with same respondents. The responses were cross checked with

respondents‟ next of kin most often the spouse or elder sons. Further samples collected were

analysed using standard procedures with adequate quality control. The reliability of the items

was based on the estimates of the variability among the responses to the items. The reliability

coefficient was determined using Karl Pearson‟ s product moment correlation coefficient

because the method was more accurate as it determined the stability of the instrument. The

instruments were re-administered again to the same respondents after a period of two weeks and

identification maintained. A reliability index alpha greater than or equal to 0.7 was considered to

be high enough for the instrument to be used in the study (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003).

3.10 Data analysis and presentation

Survey generated data was entered using MS Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using SPSS

statistical software version 16. The mortality rate and honey yields data was analyzed using SAS

software. Descriptive statistical summaries (95 % confidence interval, arithmetic means and

standard deviations) were derived from the pesticides use patterns data. Significance level was

accepted at p< 0.05. A one way ANOVA and Mean separation using Tukey's honestly

significance test were used to establish the differences in the mortality rate and honey yields

among the treated and control colonies.

37
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the experimental and survey study results in tables, bar graphs, pie-chart

and text. Moreover, the chapter presents the interpretation of the study findings and discussion in

relation to the existing body of knowledge.

4.2 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality and honey yields

4.2.1 Effect of pesticides use on honeybee mortality

The monitoring of honeybee mortality rates carried out in several sites in Transmara West Sub-

County over two seasons, provided helpful information on the impact that crop and livestock

protection management products used may have on honeybees. The results (Tables 4.1) indicate

that there was no significant difference (p = 0.089) in mortality rates between the control and on-

farm colonies in both seasons. The seasonal average honeybee mortality rate in the on-farm and

control colonies were 77 ± 5.9 and 73 ± 12.0 respectively. However there was significant

difference (p = 0.01) in mortality rates between the control and treated colonies in both seasons.

The season one average honeybee mortality rate in the control colonies was 64.0 ± 10 while that

for the treated colonies were 229.00 ± 6.2, 231.00 ± 5.1 and 235 ± 4.3 in that order. The season

two mortality rates had a similar pattern with the honeybee mortality rate in the control colonies

being significantly different (p = 0.01) from that of the treated colonies. The mortality rate for

the control colonies was 82 ± 13 while that for the treated colonies were 228 ± 3.5, 230 ± 4.2 and

232 ± 3.8 in that order. That is the mortality rates in the treated colonies in both seasons were

significantly higher than in the control and on-farm colonies (Season1: MSD = 5.9655; on-farm =

38
68.0 ± 6.1; control = 64.0± 10; treated = 232 ± 5.1; Season 2: MSD = 3.3919; on-farm = 85 ±

5.3; control = 82 ± 1.3, treated = 230 ± 5.1). Notably the mortality rates in the treated, control

and on-farm colonies were below the maximum threshold (250 dead bees per station per week)

to warrant further laboratory investigations (Porrini, 2003).

Table 4.1. Honeybee mortality rate on selected colonies in Transmara West Sub-County

Mortality rate (No of dead bees per station per week) ± SE

Treatments Season 1 Season 2 Mean
On-farm 68.0 ± 6.1 b
85 ± 5.3 b
77 ± 5.9b
Control 64.0 ± 10b 82 ± 13b 73 ± 12.0b
Treatment1 229 ± 6.2a 228 ± 3.5a 229 ± 4.9a
Treatment2 231 ± 5.1a 230 ± 4.2a 231 ± 4.7a
Treatment3 235 ± 4.3a 232 ± 3.8a 234 ± 4.1a
MSD 5.9655 3.3919 4.6791
Mean 165 171
n = 94 colonies; Means with the same superscripts within the column are not significantly
different (Tukey test). Treatments: 1= Magic and keshet, 2=Almatix, sypertix and steladone, 3=
Magic, keshet, almatix, sypertix and steladone.

The significantly higher mortality rates in the treated colonies than in the control and on-farm

colonies (Table 4.1) can partly be attributed to intense pesticides exposure among treated

colonies. This is because honeybees constantly forage in an area saturated with pesticides.

Similarly, the on-farm colonies have a higher chance of exposure to pesticides since farmers use

it to manage pests unlike the control colonies. These findings are consistent with Henry et al.,

(2012) and Teeters et al., (2012) findings. They observed that colonies located near treated crops

where most of their workers are exposed to pesticides in nectar throughout cropping seasons

could experience population decline from which the colonies will struggle to recover. The

finding that the mortality rates in the treated, control and on-farm colonies were below the

39
maximum threshold of 250 dead bees per station per week however, cannot be used to rule out

honeybees‟ deaths due to poisoning by abuse and misuse of pesticides. This is because the

impacts of pesticides on honeybees manifest themselves with differing degrees of severity in

relation to various factors such as toxicity, time of application, application intensity and

physiological maturity of flowers visited by bees (Sanford, 1993).

These results concur with PAN (2012) findings that concluded that honeybees near agricultural

fields are exposed to a variety of pesticides via multiple routes at varying levels throughout the

foraging period. Whereas high pesticides levels exposure to honeybees result in outright bees

kill, sub-lethal doses on the other hand provoke behavioral difficulties such as loss of bees‟

navigation and communicative skills resulting in homing failure (Desneux et al., 2007). Those

that die instantly due to high dose exposure are not captured by the trap while bees exposed to

sub-lethal doses tend to wander aimlessly due to loss of navigation ability. As a result the bees

will not make it back to the hive hence the mortality rate count will be lower than expected due

to the loss of foragers in the field (Sanford and Jamie, 2011).

Furthermore, concentrations of pesticides that are normally considered safe for honeybees in

terms of individual acute toxicity have had a negative influence on their foraging behavior

(Mommaerts et al., 2010). For example honeybees exposed to pesticides at levels 70 times below

the levels causing mortality in standard tests (LD50) exhibited abnormal behavior such as

inability to return to the nest (Colin et al. 2004). In addition, doses of deltamethrin as low as

2.5ng/bee (deltamethrin LD50 = 67ng/bee) were found to cause disorientation in foragers

(Vandame et al., 1995). Thus although the mortality rate counts were within natural limits, it will

40
be inaccurate to conclude that pesticides use did not cause a substantial reduction in colony

numbers in the study area. This was because some honeybees could have been lost in the field as

a result of distorted navigation and homing abilities (Whitehorn et al., 2012).

Although there is concurrence that pesticides use result in honeybee populations decline, the

mortality rates are lower in the study area than in other regions. In North America and Europe for

example, honeybee colony population have declined over the last 30 years, with beekeepers

routinely reporting a 30 % loss of their managed colonies every winter during the last seven

years (VanEngelsdorp and Meixner, 2010). Moreover up to 32 % of honeybees exposed to sub-

lethal levels of pesticides failed to return to the hive in France, effectively doubling the natural

loss rate of foraging workers (Henry et al., 2012). This can attributed to large pesticides

quantities used and high application rates in Europe and USA (WenJun et al., 2011). In addition

the acute, chronic and synergistic impacts of multiple pesticide exposures greatly contribute to

declining honeybee health consequently increasing mortality rate (Johnson et al., 2010).

4.2.2 Effect of pesticides use on honey yields

Monitoring of honeybee colonies for honey yields was carried out in several sites in Transmara

West Sub-County over two seasons. There was evidence of significant difference (p = 0.027) in

the yields for control colonies (18.0 ± 1.00 Kg) and on-farm colonies (12.20 ± 1.80 Kg) in

season one. Similarly there was significant difference (p = 0.019) in the yields for control

colonies (22.50 ± 1.50 Kg) and on-farm colonies (16.23 ± 2.05 Kg) in season two (Table 4.2).

Moreover there was evidence that honey yields in the treated colonies were significantly lower

than in the control colonies (p = 0.024) as presented in table 4.2. The average season one honey

41
yield in the control colonies was 18.0 ± 1.0 Kg while in the treated colonies were 7.1 ±1.10 Kg,

8.4 ±1.50 and 9.2 ±1.7 Kg in that order. The season two average honey yields in the control

colonies was 22.5 ± 1.5 Kg while in the treated colonies were 11.0 ± 1.2 Kg, 15 ± 1.4 Kg and 13

± 1.3 Kg respectively (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2. Honey yields on selected colonies in 2015 in Transmara West Sub-County

Honey yields (Mean ± SE) Kg

Treatments Season 1 Season 2 Mean
On-farm 12.20 ± 1.80 b
16.23 ± 2.05 b
14.22 ± 1.93b
Control 18.0 ± 1.00a 22.50 ± 1.50a 20.30 ± 1.3a
Treatment1 7.1 ±1.10b 11.00 ± 1.20b 9.0 ± 1.2b
Treatment2 8.4 ±1.50 b
15.0 ± 1.40 b
11.7 ± 1.5b
Treatment3 9.2 ±1.70b 13.0 ± 1.30b 11.0 ± 1.6b
MSD 5.3431 4.3415 4.8425
Mean 10.98 15.55
n = 94 colonies; Means with the same superscript within the column are not significantly
different, at p = 0.05 (Tukey test). Treatments: 1 = Magic and keshet, 2 =Almatix, sypertix and
steladone, 3 = Magic, keshet, almatix, sypertix and steladone.

The higher yields in the control than the treated colonies can be attributed to a higher mortality

rate in treated colonies. This has the effect of reducing the number of foraging workers resulting

in decreased honey yields. In addition, colonies that are exposed to pesticides tend to be weaker

and cannot forage effectively hence lower honey yields in treated colonies (Vidau et al., 2011).

The results indicate that the average seasonal honey yield in the study area is 14 Kg/colony

compared to 18 Kg/colony in the past (Carroll, 2002) hence consistent with other findings that

honey production in the Sub-County and by extension Kenya has been declining. For instance

the average annual honey production in 2005, 2006 and 2007 were 20.28 kg, 15 kg and 9.3

42
kg/colony in that order (NBS, 2007). Whereas beekeeping can be practiced with the highest

potential in dry areas where crop farming is not viable provided it is not in direct conflict or

competition with livestock rearing (Mutungi et al., 2003), it has been characterized by low honey

production in Kenya (Carroll, 2002). A number of studies have made the same observation

although they attributed the scenario to various constraints. Carroll (2002) attributed it to agro-

chemicals use, deforestation, drought and theft with pesticides being the greatest threat to the

enterprise. Mutungi et al., (2003) attributed competition between beekeeping and other

agricultural activities; cutting of trees and shrubs for construction, fencing and charcoal burning;

destruction of bee forage by caterpillar, poisoning of bees by pesticides as hindering honey

production to its potential in Kibwezi District. Kajobe et al., (2009) observed that one of the

most important factors that affect honey production was the multi-sectoral policy contradictions

and conflicts within the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Industry and Fisheries for example

use of agricultural chemicals. Thus it was evident from these studies that pesticides use result in

decline in honey yields.

4.3 Pesticides residues in honeybee, honey and pollen

Pesticide analysis was performed on honey, honeybee and pollen samples from 94 colonies in 16

apiaries. Samples were screened for five pesticides; Amitraz, Chlorfenvinphos, Malathion,

Cypermethrin and Deltamethrin. This was because; these pesticides are mostly used in the study

area. Besides, they belonged to moderately hazardous class except Chlorfenvinphos (highly

hazardous) (WHO, 2010). The detection limits were found to be 0.005 ppm for Chlorfenvinphos

and Cypermethrin while Amitraz, Malathion and Deltamethrin had a detection limit of 0.01 ppm

(Table 4.3). The recoveries of spiked samples ranged from 87 % to 94 % that were above the

43
acceptable range > 70 %. However, no pesticides residues were detected in all the samples

(Table 4.3).

Table 4.3. Analytical results of honey, pollen and honeybee samples in Transmara West Sub-
County

Pesticides Limit of
Pesticide levels in detection Limit of Percentage
trade Active ingredient sample (mg /Kg) quantification (%)
Matrix name (A.I) (mg/Kg) (mg /Kg) recoveries
Honey Almatix Amitraz < LOD 0.01 0.01 90 ± 3.0
Magic Malathion < LOD 0.01 0.05 87 ± 5.7
Steladone Chlorfenvinphos < LOD 0.01 0.05 94 ± 3.7
Sypertix Cypermethrin < LOD 0.01 0.01 92 ± 4.3
Keshet Deltamethrin < LOD 0.01 0.01 93 ± 1.5
Pollen Almatix Amitraz < LOD 0.01 0.01 90 ± 3.0
Magic Malathion < LOD 0.01 0.05 87 ± 5.7
Steladone Chlorfenvinphos < LOD 0.01 0.05 94 ± 3.7
Sypertix Cypermethrin < LOD 0.01 0.01 92 ± 4.3
Keshet Deltamethrin < LOD 0.01 0.01 93 ± 1.5
Honeybee Almatix Amitraz < LOD 0.01 0.01 90 ± 3.0
Magic Malathion < LOD 0.01 0.05 87 ± 5.7
Steladone Chlorfenvinphos < LOD 0.01 0.05 94 ± 3.7
Sypertix Cypermethrin < LOD 0.01 0.01 92 ± 4.3
Keshet Deltamethrin < LOD 0.01 0.01 93 ± 1.5
n = 80 matrices; <LOD = below limit of detection

The results indicate that there were no pesticides residues detected in all the matrices. This can

be attributed to the degrading nature of pesticides over time as they interact with the environment

(Greig-Smith et al., 1994). Additionally, honeybees degrade pesticides following exposure

through their gut filtering mechanism (Schur and Wallner, 2000). Honeybees ingest most of the

chemicals just after exposure, and then rapidly eliminate it by metabolism, advection and

deposition hence reducing the initially high pesticides concentrations (Tremolada et al. 2004).
44
These findings are consistent with findings of previous studies in the region. Orina (2012) found

that there were no pesticides residues in all the honey samples collected from different sites from

13 regions throughout Kenya and analyzed for pesticides residues in the laboratory. Muli et al.,

(2014) performed pesticide analysis on honey samples from 13 sites across Kenya by screening

for the presence of 171 pesticides. Only four pesticides; 1-naphthol, Chlorothalonil, Chlorpyrifos

and fluvalinate were detected mostly at very low levels (below 50 ppb). Further Bogdanov et al.,

(2003) screened 27 honey samples produced in Switzerland for 36 organochlorine, 32

organophosphorous pesticides and six fungicides and found no pesticides residues. This can be

attributed partly to low application rates of pesticides in Kenya and a strict pesticides regulations

in Switzerland (FAO, 2010; WenJun et al., 2011). Therefore it is possible to effectively control

agricultural pests with pesticides while maintaining the environmental integrity (Kasina, 2012).

However, these results contrast findings from other studies globally that reported residues in

honey, pollen and honeybee. For example over 90% of honeybee colonies in the USA contained

pesticide residues with over 129 different pesticide-related chemicals being found, with an

average of six chemicals per colony (Mullin et al., 2010). Cristina et al., (2003) analyzed honey

samples from Portugal and Spain and found that most were contaminated with organochlorine

pesticides with Portuguese honeys being more contaminated than Spanish ones.

The differences in residues can be attributed to different volumes consumed and application rates

of pesticides (Reus et al., 2000). For instance USA, Brazil and Spain consume 0.4, 0.12 and 0.11

million tons annually in that order (FAO, 2010; WenJun et al., 2011). In addition Spain

emphasizes on pesticide applicator training, considered one of the most relevant aspects in the

reduction of pesticide exposure and consequently their honeybee products are less contaminated

45
than Brazil ones (Tremolada et al. 2004). Moreover Kolankaya et al., (2002) detected Aldrin

residues in six honey (very low levels) and two pollen samples. He further detected Carbosulfan

and Carboryl pesticides residues in dead honeybees‟ heads in Ankara, Turkey while Maja et al.,

(2010) found Fluvalinate in bee heads after external doses of pesticides were applied to colonies

of nine combs, occupied with 20,000–30,000 adult honeybees located at the agricultural institute

of Slovenia.

The low pesticides residues levels in honey compared to honeybee or its other products can

partly be attributed to a filtering effect of bees (Schur and Wallner, 2000). He observed that

indeed, honeybees decreased initially high pesticide nectar concentrations so that the final

concentration in honey was much lower, mostly by a factor of about 1000. Additionally, bees

immediately begin to degrade pesticides following exposure, further reducing concentrations of

remaining pesticide residue (Greig-Smith et al., 1994 and Tremolada et al. 2004). Therefore the

low levels of pesticides in honeybee products from across Kenya, particularly when compared to

levels in developed countries, suggests pesticide consumption is low and that they impact

minimally on honeybee health at present in Kenya (Muli et al., 2014).

4.4 Survey results on pesticide use patterns among farmers in Transmara West Sub-County

The survey assessed the profile of 330 farmers. The results (Table 4.4) indicate that 60 % of the

respondents are male, mostly adults aged between 25 and 50 years of age. The area has a low

literacy level with illiterate and primary education levels accounting for 35 % and 34 %

respectively. Secondary, tertiary and university education, which are indicators of high literacy

only accounts for 13 %, 2 % and 1 % in that order while 15 % had informal education.

46
Table 4.4. Farmers‟ profile: Age and education level in Transmara West Sub-County

Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

Age Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
< 18 years 0 0 19 19 9 8 8
18-35 years 50 44 44 44 53 46 45
35-50 years 36 31 27 27 46 40 33
> 50 years 29 25 10 10 7 6 14
Level of education
Illiterate 25 22 41 41 50 43 35
In-formal 14 13 20 20 13 11 15
primary 58 50 32 32 22 19 34
Secondary 14 13 7 7 22 19 13
Tertiary 4 2 0 0 4 4 2
University 0 0 0 0 4 4 1
n = 330

The level of illiteracy was lower in Angata compared to the other divisions (Table 4.4). This can

be attributed to the migrant community living in the division that came from a literate

background and hence mobilized resources and established schools earlier in their area. These

results are comparable to Kenya‟s adult population illiteracy level of 38.5% with notable

disparities between various regions and across gender (KNBS, 2007, Berem, 2009). However it

was contrary to Nyeri‟s high literacy level with 76% having secondary education (Gitahi, 2014).

This was despite education being a tool for promoting development of any country (Mwaluko,

2009). Since education level is correlated with pesticides handling, the low levels of education in

developing countries must be improved for proper use of pesticides to be met (Wandiga, 2001).

Majority of the residents keep cattle, goats and sheep at 98 %, 94 % and 89 % in that order

(Table 4.5). More than half of the population keeps chicken (55 %) while 22 % keep donkeys.

47
The most popular crops among the farmers in the three divisions were maize and beans grown by

70 %, and 52 % of the farmers respectively. Others are kales (26 %) and tomatoes (15 %).

Table 4.5. Livestock kept and crops grown in Transmara West Sub-County

Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

Livestock Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Cattle 115 100 95 95 114 99 98
Goats 115 100 85 85 111 96 94
Sheep 104 90 83 83 106 92 89
Chicken 61 53 51 51 71 62 55
Donkey 47 41 17 17 13 11 22
Crops
Maize 110 96 61 61 60 52 70
Beans 92 80 36 36 45 39 52
Kales 58 50 10 10 17 15 26
Tomatoes 22 19 5 5 23 20 15
n = 330

Angata farmers constituted a higher proportion of bean growers (88 %), Lolgorian (24 %) and

Kilgoris (17 %) since it is grown as an intercrop with maize. The economic activities in the study

area were comparable to some parts of the country. Nyeri farmers grew; maize, beans and

vegetables among others but kept dairy cattle (Booker et al, 2009; Gitahi, 2014). Cattle, goats

and sheep were kept while maize, beans and vegetables were grown in Laikipia and Isiolo, with

69 % of farmers growing maize (Otieno et al., 2010).

From the survey results, it was found that livestock keeping was a major activity for most of the

households (89 %) while the rest engaged in other activities such as crop farming, trade and

formal employment (Table 4.6). The mobility of the livestock in the study area is essentially

sedentary (98 %). The rest comprised nomadic livestock keeping. Herding was the main mode

48
of grazing livestock among the households (88 %) while 10 % free graze. A small proportion (2

%) put their livestock in paddocks.

Table 4.6. Importance, mobility and grazing of livestock in Transmara West Sub-County

Livestock Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

activity Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Major 90 78 98 98 107 93 89
Minor 25 22 2 2 8 7 11
Mobility
Sedentary 114 99 98 98 113 98 98
Nomadic 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
Grazing
Herding 83 72 100 100 106 92 88
Free grazing 28 24 0 0 6 5 10
Paddock 4 4 0 0 3 3 2
n = 330

Notably the main mode of grazing in the area was herding. This can be attributed to the vast

fallow land mass; hence farmers can afford to graze their livestock widely without causing

conflict among their neighbours. Sedentarization has been a worldwide phenomenon with,

formerly nomadic livestock-keeping pastoralists settling in many parts of the world within the

past one century (Roth and Fratkin, 2005). The pastoral communities settled mainly in response

to ecological decline or new market opportunities. For example, the Maasai community settled

near roads and urban areas like Nairobi for easy access to cattle markets, while in Northern

Kenya, the Borana settled on Marsabit Mountain so as to provide beef and milk to police posts

and road crews (Roth and Fratkin, 2005). Today, mobile pastoralists in Eastern Africa are

becoming sedentary due to population pressure, droughts and famines (Ekaya, 2001). However,

49
sedentarization brings about negative ecological impacts due to intense localized utilization of

vegetation with high value species like Acacia spp. being overexploited (Ekaya, 2005).

The results further indicate that ticks are the external livestock parasite of most economic

importance according to 31 % of the sample population while 26 % reported tsetse flies are a big

threat to their livestock, a main livelihood (Table 4.7). Other livestock parasites were; ticks,

mites and tsetse (16 %), tsetse and worms (14 %) and ticks and worms (13 %). Stem borer was a

major maize pest of economic importance according to 40 % of the farmers. Another 24 % of the

farmers reported aphids caused them heavy economic losses. Bean flies infested 12 % of the

farms while nematodes were reported by nine percent of the farmers. Further seven percent

stated that army worms infested their crops while four percent of the farmers stated that stem

borers and bean flies infested their crops.

Table 4.7. Livestock parasites and crop pests in Transmara West Sub-County

Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

Livestock parasites Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Ticks 36 32 25 25 42 37 31
Tsetse flies 22 19 10 10 55 47 26
Ticks, mites, tsetse 18 16 15 15 19 17 16
Tsetse & worms 14 12 24 24 8 7 14
Ticks & worms 13 10 12 12 17 16 13
Crop pests
Stem borer 36 31 49 49 47 41 40
Aphids 36 31 24 24 19 16 24
Bean flies 14 13 9 9 17 15 12
Nematodes 11 10 8 8 11 10 9
Army worm 7 6 5 5 7 6 7
Stem borer & beanfly 4 3 2 2 8 7 4
n = 330

50
Distinctly most farmers could recognize livestock pests by name than crop pests probably due to

the areas livestock background. Hence there is need for suitable training to build the capacity of

farmers to identify the common pests and diseases for their crops (Sithanantham, 2004). This is

because pest management approaches have always succeeded where farmers recognize the pest

problem as a production constraint (Heong and Escalada, 1999; Joshi et al., 2001).

The predominant method for controlling external livestock parasites and crop pests in the area

was use of chemical pesticides (91 %) indicated in (Figure 4.1). The specific pesticides used are

indicated in table 4.8. Four percent of the population burned dry grass in the grazing fields to

control ticks. The burning of dry grass destroys the ticks‟ breeding areas. Three percent use

ethno drugs, while a paltry two percent practice manual parasites picking whenever they were

spotted on their livestock skins. This applied to those with a few number of livestock.

Figure 4.1. Pests control methods used in Transmara West Sub-County (%)
51
The choice of pest control method (pesticides) was influenced by cost, accessibility and efficacy

(GoK, 2008). These findings are consistent with those of past studies. For example Sibanda et

al., (2000) observed that farmers choose pest management options that appear to meet their

objectives based on their beliefs towards damage and control. Pesticides are often used as the

primary control method in agriculture because of their convenience and cost effectiveness

(Mutuku et al., 2013). However, they cause environmental contamination, hence the interest in

adoption of crop rotation, resistant varieties, cultural practices, and biological controls as the first

line of defense (Kasina, 2012). This requires producers to plan for their use in advance of pest

outbreaks to successfully use nonchemical management tools (Nderitu et al., 2007).

About twenty different types of pesticides were used in the study area to combat crop and

livestock pests. Pyrethroids accounted for 50 %, while organophosphorous and formamidine

each accounted for 25 % of the total pesticides used in the study area (Table 4.8). The number of

farmers using individual products (Table 4.8) indicated that Amitraz and Cypermethrin were

most frequently used accounting for 73 % and 59 % respectively of all pesticides. Others were;

Malathion (27 %), Diazinon (26 %), Deltamethrin (25 %), Chlorfenvinphos (10 %) and

Cyhalothrin (7 %) of the total pesticides used by farmers to control pests in the area (Table 4.8).

All pesticides used in the area were duly registered in Kenya except Cybadip. Most farmers

chose pyrethroids compared to others partly due to their affordability, accessibility and efficacy.

52
Table 4.8. Pesticides used by livestock and crop farmers in Transmara West Sub-County

WHO Farmers
Pesticide chemical Pesticide Active ingredient toxicity Registration using
group Trade name (A.I) class status (PCPB) (%)
Formamidine Almatix Amitraz II Registered 35
Bye bye Amitraz II Registered 4
Norotraz Amitraz II Registered 18
Tixfix Amitraz II Registered 14
Triatix Amitraz II Registered 2
Organophosphorous Diazol Diazinon II Registered 6
Neocidol Diazinon II Registered 20
Magic Malathion II Registered 15
Oshothion Malathion II Registered 12
Steladone Chlorfenvinphos Ib Registered 10
Pyrethroids Alfapor Cypermethrin II Registered 5
Alphacymba Cypermethrin II Registered 13
Dominex Cypermethrin II Registered 2
Sypertix Cypermethrin II Registered 28
Cybadip Cypermethrin II Not Registered 5
Ectomin Cypermethrin II Registered 6
Grenade Cyhalothrin II Registered 7
Delete Deltamethrin II Registered 4
Keshet Deltamethrin II Registered 16
Vectocid Deltamethrin II Registered 5
n = 330, Toxicity classes: Ia = Extremely harzardous, Ib = Highly harzardous,
II = moderately harzardous, III = slightly harzardous (WHO, 2010).

These results are consistent with findings of past studies. Williamson et al., (2008) found that

chemical pest control was the dominant strategy with about 47 different pesticide active

ingredients reported by farmers. Further, Macharia et al., (2009) found 62 products, comprising

of 36 active ingredients were used in vegetable production in Kenya, with a higher volumes of

organophosphates than pyrethroids class. This was the case among vegetable growers in Eastern

Africa (Sithanantham, 2004). This variation was attributed to the target crop or livestock pests.

53
The encounter of unauthorized and highly hazardous pesticide use (WHO, 2010) although not

widespread was generally an extremely hazardous practice (Sibanda et al., 2000; Dinham, 2003).

The majority of livestock farmers (79 %) spray their livestock weekly, 19 % biweekly while 2 %

spray on a monthly basis (Table 4.9). Farmers spray their livestock with pesticides during

various times of the day with 93 % applying during morning hours. About 40 % spray early in

the morning at 6am-8am, 53 % spray at 8 am -10 am while seven percent sprayed between 10 am

and noon. No farmers sprayed their livestock in the afternoon and evening (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9. Pesticides use intensity among livestock farmers in Transmara West Sub-County

Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

Frequency of use Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Weekly 90 78 83 83 87 76 79
Biweekly 23 20 15 15 25 22 19
Monthly 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
Application time
6-8 am 43 37 42 42 47 41 40
8-10 am 68 59 42 42 64 56 53
10-12 noon 4 3 16 16 4 3 7
Afternoon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Evening 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n = 330

The lack of awareness and safety insensitivity among farmers on the honeybees‟ activity seems

to inform their livestock spraying schedule with pesticides that is in direct conflict with

honeybees (Table 4.9). This was because honeybees are most active from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

(Sanford and Jamie, 2011) hence high likelihood of pesticides exposure. This also confirms the

concern by the PCPB that environmental health problems associated with pesticide application

54
are usually blamed on the pesticides without considering how they were applied (PCPB, 2005;

Williamson et al., 2008).

Majority (63 %) of the farmers applied pesticides to their crop fields weekly, 26 % spray

biweekly while 10 % apply monthly (Table 4.10). The pesticides were applied mostly in the

morning with 36 % of them spraying at 6-8 am, 42 % spray at 8-10 am, 16 % spray at 10-12

noon while 5 % spray in the afternoon with none spraying in the evening. This was the case

throughout all the crops physiological including all flowering stages (Table 4.10).

Table 4.10. Pesticides use intensity among crop farmers in Transmara West Sub-County

Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

Frequency of use Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Weekly 77 67 64 64 68 59 63
Biweekly 25 22 20 20 30 26 22
Monthly 9 8 9 9 16 14 10
Application time
6-8 am 39 25 46 46 35 30 36
8-10 am 56 49 42 42 42 36 42
10-12 noon 20 17 12 12 21 18 16
Afternoon 0 0 0 0 18 16 5
Evening 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n = 330

There is limited awareness and knowledge among farmers on the negative impact of pesticides

application on the environment and honeybees in particular (Table 4.10). These results also

imply that majority of the crop farmers will have sprayed their crops 2-12 times in a single

growing season indicating that pesticides use in crop pests control is haphazard and confirms

findings of other studies. Pesticides use has been reported to be widespread among farmers in

55
some countries. Sibanda et al., (2000), reported that several sprays were applied in every

growing season in Zimbabwe. Nderitu et al., (2007), observed that Kenyan farmers applied

insecticides up to 15 times during a single cropping season for crops such as French beans. This

disregard to time and stages of plant growth while spraying crop fields with pesticides exposes

honeybees to hazardous pesticides and is inconsistent with the recommendation that pesticides

must be applied to blooming plants when bees are not working, preferably in the early evening

(Kolankaya et al., 2002). This allows time for these chemicals to partially or totally decompose

during the night. It is recommendation that insecticides should be applied only while target

plants are in the bud stage or just after the petals have dropped (Sanford and Jamie, 2011).

The survey showed that farmers acknowledged negative pesticides effects on honeybees and the

whole beekeeping enterprise, with varying degrees of severity (Figure 4.2). Over 52 % of the

respondents cited Dominex as most responsible for honeybee colony decline. About 40 % of the

farmers believed that Sypertix was the most severe while 33 % of the respondents believed that

Alfapor caused colony decline. Another 29 % and 28 % of the beekeepers respectively thought

that Alphacymba and Cybadip were responsible for the malady. Steladone and Delete each

contributed to bees decline according to 21 % of farmers while 17 % blamed it on Oshothion.

Malathion had the least effect at 13 %, meaning it does not affect honeybees as much.

56
 60

50
Percentage severity

40

30

20

10

Pesticide

Figure 4.2. Severity of pesticides to honeybees in Transmara West Sub-County

The high Dominex and Sypertix impact on honeybees was due to their extensive use in tsetse fly

eradication campaign besides control of ticks. Farmers threat tsetse flies and would use higher

concentrations of pesticides solutions to ensure they got eradicated. Cases of pesticides

poisoning have been reported around the world with varying degrees of severity. In Benin,

pesticides containing Chlorpyrifos and lambda-Cyhalothrin have caused ill health episodes with

about 47 % of villagers being adversely affected each season (Williamson et al., 2008). While in

East Africa, pesticides poisoning have been proved to cause declines in honeybee colony

populations (Musimba et al., 2001; Kajobe et al., 2009). This was due to inappropriate use

contrary to manufactures recommendations thus pesticides must be handled with care to ensure

pests control while conserving the environment (Nderitu et al., 2007; Kajobe et al., 2009).

The major information sources among farmers‟ on pesticides use were; neighbouring farmers (51

%), friends (16 %), agro-dealers (12 %), and media (10 %) while eight percent was introduced

57
by extension staff. On reliability of information source among farmers, extension staff, leading

farmers and media were most trusted at 39 %, 37 % and 17 % in that order (Table 4.11).

Table 4.11. Farmers‟ information sources on pesticides in Transmara West Sub-County

Introduction to Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

pesticides use Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Neighbours 62 54 50 50 56 49 51
Friends 12 10 20 20 21 18 16
Agro dealers 14 12 7 7 17 15 12
Media 7 6 10 10 16 14 10
Extension 11 10 7 7 8 7 8
Trust
Extension 54 46 35 35 39 34 39
Leading farmers 34 30 48 48 40 35 37
Media 25 22 17 17 13 11 17
n = 330

Most farmers had inadequate access to reliable sources of pesticides information, probably due to

inadequate extension coverage. The results are consistent with findings from past studies such as

Sithanantham (2004) who found that farmers did not have adequate access to IPM information

and depended heavily on neighbours and agrodealers. PAN (2012) found that state extension

services in countries such as Uganda were unable to provide adequate coverage and information

to the public. Inappropriate pesticides use has always been blamed on the inadequate extension

services due to staff shortage and inadequate training resources (Ngowi et al., 2007).

A significant proportion (78 %) of farmers sprays pesticides to their livestock at spray races in

their homes to control pests (mainly ticks) (Table 4.12). While 34 % use a single type of

pesticides, 66 % use a cocktail of pesticides. Over 84 % of the farmers were supplied with

58
pesticides by registered agro dealers. Seven percent each obtained their pesticides supplies from

their local kiosks and middlemen while two percent obtained their supplies from extension staff.

Table 4.12. Pesticides‟ suppliers and use patterns in Transmara West Sub-County

Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

Dipping Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Yes 43 37 7 7 22 19 22
No 72 63 93 93 93 81 78
pesticides used
One 39 34 44 44 28 24 34
More 76 66 56 56 87 76 66
Reasons for >1
Efficacy 115 100 100 100 115 100 100
Suppliers
Agro dealer 102 89 76 76 98 87 84
Kiosk 5 4 10 10 8 7 7
Middlemen 5 4 12 12 7 6 7
Extension office 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
n = 330

The study revealed that cattle dips use has tremendously declined owing to the accessibility of

pesticides by farmers spraying livestock in their spray crushes. This was despite dipping being

Kenyan government‟s tick control policy (GoK, 2008). These findings are consistent to others.

There have been reports of widespread pesticides use often sourced from unauthorized dealers,

selling products of dubious quality (Williamson et al., 2008). The use of a cocktail of pesticides

was intended to achieve efficacy due to synergy associated with mixing two products serving the

same function (Gitonga et al., 2008). Although farmers were often aware of quality problems in

non-authorized channels they felt the advantage of accessibility outweighed the risks of being

sold adulterated products (Macharia et al., 2009). Use of pesticide cocktails was reported by

vegetable farmers in Ethiopian, Benin and Kenya (Williamson et al., 2008; Mutuku et al., 2013).
59
The study found that only 24 % of the farmers checked container label for safety reasons (Table

4.13). Over 67 % of the farmers applied pesticides using Knapp sack sprayers while 33 % used

hand sprayers. About 29 % of the respondents put on protective clothing while handling

pesticides. Most farmers (59 %) stored pesticides in their granaries, 21 % in pesticides stores

while 20 % stored them in their living rooms. About 17 % threw empty containers into pit

latrines, 58 % threw them away while 25 % poured expired pesticides haphazardly.

Table 4.13. Pesticides quality control and safety measures in Transmara West Sub-County

Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

Check container label
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Yes 18 16 24 24 36 31 24
No 97 84 76 76 79 69 76
Pesticides application
Hand spraying 34 30 32 32 42 37 33
Knapsack 81 70 68 68 73 63 67
Wear protective gear
Yes 43 37 22 22 30 26 29
No 72 63 78 78 85 74 71
Storage
Granary 93 81 49 49 54 47 59
Living room 4 3 34 34 28 24 20
Pesticide store 18 16 17 17 33 29 21
Disposal
Pouring 14 12 53 53 17 15 25
Throwing away 64 56 58 58 69 60 58
Pit latrine 36 31 5 5 14 12 17
n = 330

The findings revealed that while handling pesticides, farmers exposed their health and the

environment to serious risks mainly due to indifference to safety issues and concur with findings

60
of past studies. For example lack of protective clothing has been found to cause eye and skin

irritations (Gitahi, 2014). Storing pesticides in granaries and living room may spill in food or get

easily accessible to children and cause chemical poisoning (Williamson et al., 2008; WHO,

2009). In addition, the disposal process is wanting as the pesticides residues get into the

environment through run-off during the rainy season contaminating water bodies hence affecting

organisms such as fish (Otieno et al., 2010; Gitonga et al., 2010). This is one of the ways

through which honeybees are exposed to pesticides. This will contaminate stagnant water that

bees may drink resulting in their death or for their brood (Sanford and Jamie, 2011).

Over 82 % (270) of the respondents are beekeepers owning log hive (91 %); Langstroth (5 %)

and KTBH (4 %) (Table 4.14). About 14 % of them have practiced beekeeping for less than five

years, while 20 %, 50 % and 16 % have practiced it for; 5 -10 , 11- 20 and over 20 years in that

order. The results indicate that majority were reasonably experienced beekeeping.

Table 4.14. Beekeeping practices in Transmara West Sub-County

Practice Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

beekeeping Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Yes 90 78 85 85 95 83 82
No 25 22 15 15 20 17 18
Hive type
Loghive 76 84 85 100 86 91 91
Langstroth 7 8 0 0 6 6 5
KTBH 7 8 0 0 3 3 4
Beekeeping period
1-5 years 14 16 10 12 13 14 14
5-10 Years 11 12 20 23 23 24 20
11-20 Years 50 56 38 45 48 50 50
> 20 years 15 17 17 20 11 12 16
n = 330

61
In addition they confirm that log hives remain popular in honey production in the study area

probably due to ease of accessibility and costs. This finding concurs with other findings for

example Musimba et al., (2001) and Carroll (2002) found that despite concerted efforts being

made to promote Langstroth and KTBH hives, log hives remained the hive of choice for most

beekeepers. This was partly attributed to higher initial capital needed to acquire the modern

hives although they come with the advantage of ease of operation (Kajobe et al., 2012).

Notably all the respondents irrespective of their occupation variedly concurred that honeybees

are of major economic importance. About 83 % stated that honeybee products serve as food;

medicinal value (82 %), raw material for alcohol (67 %) and industrial use (60 %) while 64 %

stated honeybees play role in cross pollination and biodiversity conservation (Figure 4.3).

100
90 83 82
80 67
70 64 64
Percentage

60
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Importance

Figure 4.3. Importance of beekeeping enterprise in Transmara West Sub-County

These results confirm the farmers‟ appreciation of importance of honeybees. No wonder, no

farmer sprayed pesticides to honeybees as target pests which is consistent with other findings.
62
Klein et al (2007) observed that around three-quarters of all global food crops, primarily

vitamin-rich crops like fruits and vegetables depend on insect pollinators whose majority are

insects such as bees. Kasina et al (2009) found that honeybees are the most commonly utilized

for honey production besides pollinating cucurbits and sunflower. Furthermore, bee products

were used as food, medicine and alcohol (Musimba et al., 2001).

Over 43 % of the respondents stated that their colonies were big, strong and high honey yielders

in the past. About 16 % had weak colonies while14 % had low honey yielding colonies (Table

4.15). While 91 % observed change in their colony strength, 50 % observed a reduction in honey

yields, 41% noted reduced colony size and 15 % observed weakening colonies.

Table 4.15. Colony strength dynamics in Transmara West Sub-County

Initial colony Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

strength Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Big and strong 59 66 42 49 40 42 43
Small and weak 6 7 30 35 16 17 16
High honey yielder 52 58 40 47 49 52 43
Low honey yielder 11 12 16 19 18 19 14
Colony change
Yes 86 96 73 86 88 93 91
No 4 4 12 14 7 7 9
Observed changes
Reduced size 43 48 27 32 42 44 41
Weakened colony 11 12 22 26 7 7 15
Lower honey yield 36 40 46 54 54 57 50
Causes of decline
Pesticides 64 71 66 78 75 79 76
Deforestation 47 49 50 59 58 61 54
Drought 14 15 40 47 22 23 28
Pests and predators 29 31 20 24 6 6 20
n = 330
63
The survey revealed a declining colony population and production. This was attributed mainly to

pesticides. Others possible causes were deforestation, drought, pests and predators. The results

are consistent with past findings. For instance Musimba et al., (2001) concluded that honey

production in ASAL areas of Kenya has declined than in the past. Melathopoulos et al., (2000),

observed that honeybees are reportedly susceptible to pests, diseases and pesticides, which cause

serious negative economic consequence to both the beekeeping industry and agriculture. In

addition, it reaffirms Claudianos et al., (2006) findings that honeybees are susceptible to

pesticides due to a deficiency in the number of genes encoding for detoxifying enzymes, such as

cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (P450s), glutathione-S-transferases, and carboxylesterases in

their genome. Claudianos et al., (2006), further observed that the relative lack of detoxicative

genes in the honeybee genome further reduces the chances of a detoxicative gene response

following pesticide exposure.

The survey revealed that 10 %, 30 %, 36 % and 25 % had sited their apiaries 10, 20, 50, and 100

metres away in that order from their spray crushes (Table 4.16). Majority of the beekeepers (88

%) believed that pesticides exposure had negative effects on honeybee, while 12 % stated that

they had no effect on honeybees. The perceptions of the beekeepers regarding pesticides effects

on honeybees were varied. Some 54 % believed pesticides caused outright bees kill, 30 % stated

that they lead to reduced honey yields, 25 % mentioned hive absconding while 24 % stated that

pesticides exposure to honeybees resulted in reduced colony size.

64
Table 4.16. Distance of pesticides use and effect on honeybees in Transmara West Sub-county

Distance between apiary Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

and spray crush Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
10 metres 4 4 6 7 17 18 10
20metres 32 36 35 41 14 15 30
50metres 34 38 37 44 25 26 36
100 metres 22 24 7 8 39 41 25
Do pesticides affect bees
Yes 73 81 78 92 86 91 88
No 17 19 7 8 9 9 12
Effects of pesticides
Kill bees 56 62 34 40 55 37 54
Cause absconding 21 23 13 15 33 35 25
Reduce colony size 23 26 30 35 13 14 24
Reduce honey yields 26 29 27 32 28 30 30
n = 330

Most farmers sited their apiaries further away from the spray crushes. This was due to their

belief that pesticides exposure to honeybees is determined by proximity; distance between cattle

spray race and the apiary. It is expected that colonies close to areas being applied pesticides will

severely be damaged due to intense exposure than those far away (Garcia et al., 1996). This

observation is consistent with Henry et al., (2012) and Teeters et al., (2012) findings. They found

that colonies located near treated crops where most of their workers are exposed to pesticides in

nectar throughout cropping seasons could experience serious population decline.

Understandably, most farmers were reluctant to abandon pesticides use; this was despite their

negative impacts on honeybees. Majority of them (74 %) recommended that pesticides that

severely affected honeybees should not be banned but instead be reformulated while a lower

proportion of the beekeepers, 26 % recommended banning of pesticides. 79 % recommended

appropriate use of pesticides, manual tick control (14 %) while seven percent stated that ethno
65
herbs should be used instead to control pests and parasites (Table 4.17). The pesticides

recommended for banning were the ones thought to be severely affecting honeybees. However

pesticides remain important in control of pests in livestock and crop production in the study area.

Table 4.17. Mitigation measures of pesticides use effects on bees in Transmara West Sub-County

Mitigation Angata Kilgoris Lolgorian Mean

measures Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % %
Ban pesticides 31 34 22 26 18 19 26
Reformulate 59 66 63 74 77 81 74
Suggested control
method of parasites
Manual tick control 25 28 5 6 8 9 14
Appropriate
pesticides use 58 64 73 86 81 85 79
Use ethno herbs 7 8 7 8 6 6 7
n = 330

Hamilton and Crossley (2004) concluded that great productivity gains are achievable in

agriculture by using adequate pesticides and are indispensable in meeting the global demand on

food. According to Maya et al., (2012), the inappropriate pesticides use and subsequent

accumulation in water, soils and air is detrimental to the environment. While this does not imply

that pesticides are bad it acknowledges that their continuous inappropriate use tends to impact

negatively on the environment (Muli et al., 2014). Therefore there is need for a balancing act so

that pests are controlled while conserving biological diversity. One of the ways to achieve this is

through labelling pesticides containers with environmental hazards in bold type and of

conspicuous prominence (Williamson et al., 2008).

66
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

The study found that pesticides use significantly increased honeybee mortality rates (p = 0.01)

although it was below the maximum station weekly threshold (250 dead bees). The mean

mortality rate in treated colonies was 232 ± 4.6 while that in control and on-farm colonies were

73.0 ± 12.0 and 77.0 ± 5.9 respectively. The increase in mortality rate was found to result in a

decrease in honey yields. The mean honey yield in control colonies was 20.30 ± 1.3 Kg while the

on-farm and treated colonies yields were 14.22 ± 1.93 Kg and 10.6 ± 1.43 Kg respectively. No

residues were detected in all matrices in both seasons suggesting that honeybee products in

Transmara West Sub-County were safe for human consumption. The study further found that

large proportion of farmers (91%) used pesticides; pyrethroids (50%), formamidines (25%) and

organophosphorous (25%) classes to control ticks, tsetse flies, stem borer, aphids and beanflies.

Although largely registered (95%), pesticides were haphazardly used without regard to safety

measures. For example most farmers (79%) stored pesticides in granaries and applied them

weekly (79%) during morning hours (93%) with 66% applying pesticides cocktails for efficacy

purposes. About 83% disposed pesticides containers improperly.

5.2 Conclusions

The study found that pesticides use increased honeybee mortality rate significantly. This in turn

resulted in a decline in honey yields.

67
There were no pesticides residues detected in all matrices across the study sites. The absence of

residues in the matrices in all the sites and across Kenya, particularly when compared to levels in

developed countries, suggests honeybee products are safe for human consumption in Kenya.

The classes mostly used were Pyrethroids, organophosphorous and formamidines duly registered

by PCBP although majority of them are classified as moderately hazardous. There is inadequate

information among farmers on pesticides handling particularly on; selectivity, dosages, time of

application, storage and disposal. Livestock and crops were sprayed weekly during morning

hours regardless of crops‟ physiological maturity including all flowering stages. Therefore the

study concludes that there is inappropriate pesticides use in the study area.

5.3 Recommendations

1. Farmers should be encouraged to spray their livestock weekly.

2. Application of pesticides to crop fields should be done appropriately with frequency

determined by the physiological maturity of crops and likely time of pests‟ emergence.

3. Extension services should be strengthened to ensure farmers handle pesticides safely

4. Pesticides containers must be properly labeled including hazard signs

5. The regulatory body; PCPB should conduct routine surveillance to ensure that only qualified

personnel handle and dispense pesticides conditionally to farmers.

6. Highly hazardous pesticides should be abandoned and integrated pests management (IPM)

Practices adopted

7. Used pesticides containers or expired pesticides should be buried or disposed in pits.

68
5.4 Suggestion for further study

Since this study focused only on pesticides use patterns and effect on honeybee‟s mortality and

production, further research to compare pesticides effects in combination with other

environmental stressors in the study area is highly recommended. This is because the

combinations of these stressors seem to weaken honeybee colonies. Probably this may be

increasing honeybee mortality.

69
 REFERENCES
Alaux C., Brunet L., Dussaubat C., Mondet F., Tchamitchan S., Cousin M., Brillard J., Baldy A.,
Belzunces P., Le Conte Y. (2010). Interactions between Nosema microspores and a
neonicotinoid weaken honeybees (Apis mellifera). Environmental Microbiology, 12: 774-
782.

Albero B., Sanchez-Brunete C., Donoso A., Tadeo L. (2004). Determination of herbicide
residues in juice by matrix solid-phase dispersion and gas chromatography–mass
spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1043:127–133.

Al-Rifai J., Akeel N. (1997). Determination of pesticide residues in imported and locally
produced honey in Jordan, J. Apic. Res. 36: 155– 161.

Anand K., Manindra N., Prakash O. and Mahendra P. (2012). A Current Review of Cypermethrin-
Induced Neurotoxicity and Nigrostriatal Dopaminergic Neurodegeneration. Curr
Neuropharmacol. 2012 March; 10(1): 64–71.

AOAC (2007). Pesticide Residues in Foods by Acetonitrile Extraction and Partitioning with
Magnesium Sulfate Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Liquid
Chromatography/Tandem Mass pectrometry. First Action 2007.

ASDSP (2013). Household baseline survey report, Narok County, Kenya.

Beltran J., Peruga A., Pitarch E., López F. and Hernández F. (2003). Application of solid-phase
microextraction for the determination of pyrethroid residues in vegetable samples by GC-
MS. Anal Bioanal Chem, 376:502–51.

Berem R. (2009). Analysis of the constraints and effects of value addition in honey among
producers in Baringo District, Kenya. MSc thesis, Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya.

Birech, T. and Bernhard F. (2006). Towards reducing synthetic pesticide imports in favour of
locally available botanicals in Kenya. 56 Conference on International Agricultural
Research for Development. Bonn, October 11-13, 2006.

Bogdanov S., (2006). Contaminants of bee products. Apidologie 37: 1–18.

Bogdanov S., Ryll G., Roth H. (2003). Pesticide residues in honey and beeswax produced in
Switzerland. Apidologie 34: 484–485.

Bonmatin J.M., Marchand P.A., Charvet R., Moineau I., Bengsch E.R., Colin M.E. (2005).
Quantification of imidacloprid uptake in maize crops, J. Agric. Food Chem. 53: 5336–
5341.

Booker O., Beatrice W., Gem A. K., (2009). The Role and Performance of Ministry of
Agriculture in Nyeri district.
70
Carroll T. (2002). A study of the beekeeping sector in Kenya, pp. 11-12

Celli G., Porrini C., Radeghieri P., Sabatini A., Marcazzan G., Colombo R., Barbattini R. Greatti
M. and D'Agaro M. (1996). Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) as bioindicators for the
presence of pesticides in the agroecosystem: Field tests. Insect Social Life 1: 207–212.

Chan Q., Howes C., Foster L., 2006. Quantitative comparison of caste differences in honeybee
hemolymph. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 5: 2252-2262

Chauzat M., Carpentier P., Martel A., Bougeard S., Cougoule N., Porta P., Lachaize J., Madec
F., Aubert M., Faucon J.P. (2009). Influence of pesticide residues on honey bee
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) colony health in France. Environ. Entomol. 38: 514–523.

Chauzat M.P., Faucon J.P., Martel A.C., Lachaize J., Cougoule N., Aubert M. (2006). A survey
of pesticide residues in pollen loads collected by honey bees in France. J. Econ. Entomol.
99: 253–262.

Claudianos C., Ranson H., Johnson R.M., Biswas S., Schuler M.A., Berenbaum M.R.,
Feyereisen R., Oakeshott J.G. (2006). A deficit of detoxification enzymes: pesticide
sensitivity and environmental response in the honeybee. Insect Mol. Biol. 15, 615–636.

Colin M.E., Bonmatin J.M., Moineau I., Gaimon C., Brun S., Vermandere J.P. (2004). A method
to quantify and analyze the foraging activity of honey bees: relevance to the sublethal
effects induced by systemic insecticides. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, 47:387–395.

Cox-Foster D. (2007). A metagenomic survey of microbes in honey bee colony collapse

disorder. Science. 318: 283-287.

Cristina, B., Monica, F., Angelina, P., Celeste L., Irene S. and Yolanda P. (2003). Assessment of
Pesticides Residues in Honey Samples from Portugal and Spain. Journal of Agriculture,
Food and Chemistry. 51: 8132-8138.

Dabrowski M. (2015). Monetary Union, Fiscal and Macroeconomic Governance. European

Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs. Fellowship
initiative, 2014-2015.

Davies, A., Murphy, C., Saraceni-Richards, C., Rosenstein, M., Wiegers, T., and Mattingly, C.
(2009). Comparative Toxicogenomics Database: a knowledgebase and discovery tool for
chemical-gene-disease networks. Nucleic Acids Research 37: D786-D792.

Delaplane K., van der Steen J. and GuzmanNovoa E. (2013).Standard methods for estimating
strength parameters of Apis mellifera colonies. Journal of Apicultural Research 52(1):
http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.03.

71
De Pinho G., Neves A., de Queiroz, Mel R, Silvério F. (2010). Optimization of the liquid–liquid
extraction method and low temperature purification (LLE–LTP) for pesticide residue
analysis in honey samples by gas chromatography. Food Control, 21:1307– 1311.

Desneux N., Decourtye A. and Delpuech J.M. (2007). The sub lethal effects of pesticides on
beneficial arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52: 81-106.

Devillers J., Ben Ghouma-Tomasella N., Doré J.C. (2002a) Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 in
French honeys collected after the Chernobyl accident: Honey bees: Estimating the
environmental impact of chemicals, Taylor & Francis, London and New York, pp. 151–
159.

Dinham B. (2003). Growing vegetables in developing countries for

local urban populations and export markets: problems confronting
small-scale producers. Pest Manage. Sci. 59 (5), 575–582.

Dukas R. (2008b). Life history of learning – short and long term performance curves of
honeybees in settings that minimize the role of learning. Anim. Behav. 75: 1125–1130.

Ebenebe A., Van den Berg J., Van der Linde TC. (2001). Farm management practices and
Farmers‟ perceptions of stalk borers of maize and sorghum in Lesotho. Int. J. Pest
Manage. 47:41–48.

Ekaya, N. (2001). Pointers to intervention domains for pastoral development in Eastern Africa.
In: A media handbook for reporting food security and drought in pastoral areas.
Indigenous Information Network. Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 30-41.

Ekaya N. (2005). The shift from mobile pastoralism to sedentary crop-livestock farming in the
drylands of eastern Africa: Some issues and challenges for research. African crop
sciences conference proceedings; Vol 7 pp. 1513-1519.

Ellis, M. D. (2010) Pesticides Applied to Crops and Honey Bee Toxicity. American Bee Journal,
485-486.

Ellis M. and Macedo P. (2001). Using the Sugar Roll Technique to

Detect Varroa Mites in Honey Bee Colonies. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska. 4 p.

Emmanouel K., Chrysoula T., Andreas T. and Urania M.S. (2011) Pesticide Residues in Bee
Products. Chapter 1-3 In Pesticides in the Modern World Book 3 ISBN 978-953-307-458-
0.

FAO (2010). International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides: Guidance
on Pest and Pesticide Management Policy Development.

72
FAO (2008). International code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides: Guidelines
on management options for empty pesticide containers.

FAO/WHO (2010). International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides:
Guidelines on Pest and Pesticide Management Policy Development.

Frazier M., Mullin C., Frazier J., Ashcraft S. (2008). What have pesticides got to do with it? Am.
Bee J. 148: 521–523.

Gallai N., Salles J.M., Settele J., Vaissi`ere B.E. (2009). Economic valuation of the vulnerability
of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics, 68: 810–
821.

Garcia, M. A., Fernandez, M. I., Melgar, M. J., and Herrero, L. O (1996). Acaricide residue
determination in honey. Bull Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 56: 881-887.

Gitahi M. (2014). Risk of agrochemicals on the environment and human health- in Mukaro
Location, Nyeri County, Kenya. MSc thesis, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.

Gitonga, W., Macharia, J., Mungai, A., Njue, H., Kanja, D. and Olweny, H. (2010). Cotton
Production, Constraints, and Research Intervention in Kenya. Government of Kenya
Report.

GoK (2008). Kenya Vision 2030: First Medium Term Plan (2008-2012).

GoK (2005). Transmara district strategic plan 2005 – 2010 for implementation of the national
population policy for sustainable development.

Gregorc A. and Ellis J. (2011). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Apidologie, 99: 200–207.

Greig-Smith, P., Thompson, H., Hardy, A., Bew, M., Findlay, E., and Stevenson, J. (1994).
Incidents of poisoning of honeybees (Apis mellifera) by agricultural pesticides in Great
Britain 1981-1991. Crop Protection 13: 567-581.

Gunasekara A., Truong T., Goh K., Spurlock F., Tjeerdema R. (2007) Environmental fate and
toxicology of fipronil. J. Pestic. Sci. 32: 189–199.

Halm M.P., Rortais A., Arnold G., Taséi J.N., Rault S. (2006). New risk assessment approach for
systemic insecticides: The case of honey bees and imidacloprid (Gaucho), Environ. Sci.
Technol. 40: 2448–2454.

Hamilton D. and Crossley S. (2004). Pesticide Residues in Food and Drinking Water: Human
Exposure and Risks. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, UK, pp. 1-25.

73
Harris, Jeremy (1999). “Pesticides in Perspective.” Retrieved from
http://www.nufarm.com/Assets/1138/1.

Heinkelein M. (2011). Overview of typical pesticide residues in honey and hive products (pollen,
royal jelly, wax and propolis). Intertek Food Services GmbH, Bremen, Germany.
Applica.

Henry M., Béguin M., Requier F., Rollin O., Odoux J., Aupinel P., Aptel J., Tchamitchian S.,
Decourtye A. (2012). A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in
Honey Bees. Science, Vol. 336: 348-350.

Heong K. and Escalada M. (1999). Quantifying rice farmers‟ pest management decisions: Beliefs
and subjective norms in stem borer control. Crop protection, Vol. 18, 315-322.

Honey Care Africa (2010). Honey production in Kenya. The Honey Care Africa annual report.
Retrieved from http://www. Honeycareafrica.com/files/faqs.php.

Jeschke P., Nauen R. (2008). Neonicotinoids – from zero to hero in insecticide chemistry. Pest
Manage. Sci. 64: 1084–1098.

Johnson R. M., Ellis, M. D., Mullin, C. A. & Frazier, M. (2010). Pesticides and honey bee
toxicity: USA. Apidologie 41: 312–331.

Johnson R.M., Pollock H., Berenbaum M. (2009). Synergistic interactions between in-hive
miticides in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J. Econ. Entomol. 102: 474–479.

Journal of Pesticide Reform/ winter (2003). Vol. 23, No. 410, insecticide factsheet.

Joshi R., Matchoc O., Bahatan R. and DelaPena F. (2001). Farmers‟ knowledge, attitudes and
practices of rice crop and pest management at Ifugao rice terraces, Philippines.
International journal of pest management, 46: 43-48.

Kaijun L. (2012). Analytical Method for the Determination of Total Cyhalothrin Residues in
Crop Commodities by LC-MS/MS Method.

Kajobe R., Godfrey J., Kugonza R., Alioni V., Otim A. and Rureba T. (2009). National
beekeeping calendar, honeybee pest and disease control methods for improved
production of honey and other hive products in Uganda.

Kasina M. (2012). Bees require protection for sustainable horticultural crops production in
Kenya. Julius-Kühn-Archiv, Nr. 437: 167-172.

Kasina M., Hagen M., Kraemer M., Nderitu J., Martius C. and Wittmann D. (2010). Bee
pollination enhances crop yield and fruit quality in Kakamega, Western Kenya. East
African Agricultural and Forestry Journal. 75(1): 1–11.

74
Kasina M, M Kraemer, C Martius and D Wittmann (2009). Diversity and activity density of bees
visiting crop flowers in Kakamega, western Kenya. Journal of Apicultural Research, 48
(2): 134-139.

Katherine Harmon, (2012). Common pesticides implicated in bee colony collapse disorder.

Kazuaki M., Machiko S., Yoshitsugu N., Osami M. (1997). Multiresidues analytical method of
pesticides by GC-MS: Application of macroporous diatomaceous earth column and silica
gel cartridge. J Pestic Sci; 22: 17–26.

Kegley E., Hill, R., Orme S., Choi H. (2010). PAN Pesticide Database, PAN, North America,
http:www.pesticideinfo.org.© 2000-2010, Pesticide Action Network, North America.

Kevan G., 1999. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of environment: species, activity and
diversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 7: 373-393.

Kievits J. (2007) Bee gone: colony collapse disorder. Pesticides News 76: 3–5.

Kiyiapi J. (2000). Tree resources assessment, anthropogenic influences and monitoring strategies
in medium to low agricultural areas: some examples from Tharaka Central and
Transmara Districts, Kenya. In A.B. Temu, G. Lund, R.E. Malimbwi et al., eds., Proc.
Off-forest tree resources of Africa Workshop. Nairobi, African Academy of Sciences and
ICRAF. Arusha, Tanzania p. 22-43.

Klein A.M., Vaissière B.E., Cane J.H., Steffan-Dewenter I., Cunningham S.A., Kremen C. and
Tscharntke T. (2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.274: 303–313.

Klein J. and Alder L. (2003). Applicability of gradient liquid chromatography with tandem mass
spectrometry to the simultaneous screening for about 100 pesticides in crops. Journal of
AOAC International 86, (5): 1015-1037.

KNBS (2007). Kenya national adult literacy survey report.

Kolankaya D., Erkmen B., Sorkun K., and Kocak O. (2002). Pesticide Residues in honeybees
and some honeybee products in Turkey. Scientific paper Naucni rad UDK: 638.15021-
099 (560).

Krejcie R. and Morgan D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 30: 607-610.

Macharia I., Mithofer D. and Waibel H. (2009). Potential environmental impacts of pesticides
use in the vegetable sub-sector in Kenya. Afr. J. Hort. Sci. 2: 138-151.

75
MacOsore Z.O., Wekesa J.B. and Akuno W. (2005). Make money from bees: Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute and the Rockefeller foundation July Bulletin. Pp.: 14-16

Magembe E., Bebe B. and Lagat J. (2014). Evaluation of Livestock- crop enterprise diversity
associated with shift from pastoral to agro-pastoral farming systems in Transmara West
District of Narok County- Kenya. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 4 (3),
101-109

Maja I., Smodis S., Kmecl V., and Gregorc A. (2010). Exposure to Pesticides at Sublethal Level
and Their Distribution within a Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colony. Bull Environ
Contam Toxicol, 85:125–128.

Marten G. (2004). “Non-Pesticide Management for Agricultural Pests: Escaping the

Pesticide Trap”. http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/our-stories/indepth/india-
pestmanagement-nonpesticide-neem.html.

Maya J., Karimi W., Mulei C., Ouko E., Omega J., Wanga C. and Koigi B. (2012).
Agrochemicals: A healthy poison, a necessary evil: August/September issue Agrolink
magazine: pp. 15-19.

Medrzycki P., Montanari R., Bortolotti L., Sabatini A.G., Maini S., (2003). Effects of
imidacloprid administered in sub-lethal doses on honey bee behavior: Laboratory tests.
Bull Insectol. 56: 59–62.

Melathopoulos, A., Winston M., Whittington R., Smith T., Lindberg C., Mukai A. and Moore M.
(2000). Comparative laboratory toxicity of neem pesticides to honey bees (Hymenoptera:
Apidae), their mite parasites Varroa jacobsoni (Acari:Varroidae) and Acarapis woodi
(Acari: Tarsonemidae), and brood pathogens Paeni bacillus larvae and Ascophaeraapis. J.
Econ. Entomol. 93:199-209.

Merin U., Bernstein S., Rosenthal I. (1998). A parameter for quality of honey. Food Chem. 63:
241–242.

Metwally M., Osman M., Al-Rushaid R. (1997). High-performance liquid chromatographic

method for the determination of cypermethrin in vegetables and its application to kinetic
studies after greenhouse treatment. Food Chem, 59: 283–290.

Minkel, J. R. (2007). "Mysterious Honeybee Disappearance Linked to Rare Virus". Science

News. Scientific American.

Mommaerts, V, Reynders, S, Boulet, J, Besard, L, Sterk, G and Smagghe, G. (2010) Risk

Assessment for Side-effects of Neonicotinoids against Bumblebees with and without
Impairing Foraging Behavior. Ecotoxicology 19 (1): 207-215.

76
Mugenda, O. and Mugenda, A. (2003). Research Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitate Techniques. Nairobi, Kenya. ACTS Press.

Muli E., Patch H., Frazier M., Frazier J., Torto B. (2014) Evaluation of the Distribution and
Impacts of Parasites, Pathogens, and Pesticides on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera)
Populations in East Africa. PLoS ONE 9(4): e94459. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094459

Mullin C.A., Frazier M., Frazier J.L., Ashcraft S., Simonds R., vanEngelsdorp D., Pettis J.S.
(2010). High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries:
Implications for honey bee health. PLoS ONE 5, e9754.

Musimba N., Nyariki D. and Mutungi E. (2001). The socioeconomics, culture and ecology of
beekeeping among the Akamba community of Southern Kenya. J.Hum. Ecol., 12(3): 207-
216

Mutuku M., Njogu P., and Nyagah G. (2013). Assessment of the Current Patterns and Practices
of use of Pesticides in Tomato Based Agrosystem in Kaliluni, Kathiani Constituency,
Kenya. International Journal of Soil, Plant and Environmental Science Vol. 1(1): 10-15.

Mutungi E., Musimba N. and Kassim F. (2003). Factors Affecting Honey Production in South
Kenya Rangelands: A Case Study of Kibwezi Division, Makueni District

Mwaluko N. (2009). Adult education learners‟ recruitment: Challenges and prospect for re-
engineered access to adult literacy in Kenya. University of Nairobi, Department of adult
education.

Nasr M. and Wallner K., (2003). Residues in honey and wax: implications and safety, Proc. of
the North American Apicultural Research Symposium. Am. Bee J. 143.

NAS (2007). Status of pollinators in North America. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NBS (2007). Hive Population and Production in Kenya (2005, 2006, and 2007) Provincial
Summaries. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Livestock.

Naug, D. (2009). Nutritional stress due to habitat loss may explain recent honeybee colony
collapses. Biological Conservation, 142(10): 2369–2372.

Nderitu J., Kasina M., Nyamasyo G., Oronje M.L. (2007). Effects of insecticides applications on
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) pollination in Eastern Kenya. World J. Agric. Sci. 3(6):
731-734.

Ngowi A., Mbise J., Ijani M., London, L., Ajay, C., (2007). Smallholder vegetable farmers in
Northern Tanzania: Pesticides use practices, perceptions, cost and health effects. Crop
Prot., 26:1617-1624.

77
Nienke v. H. and Maaike Z. (2008). Window of Opportunity: Income from Honey, Honey and
bee products sector in Rwanda.

Njoroge G.N., Gemill B. and Bussmann R. (2004). Pollination ecology of Citrullus lanatus at
Yatta, Kenya. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 24(1), 73-77.

Nyakundi W.O., Magoma G., Ochora J. and Nyende A.B. (2011). A survey of pesticide use and
application patterns among farmers: a case study from selected horticultural farms in rift
valley and central provinces, Kenya. In: proceedings of the 12th KARI Biennial Scientific
conference p. 618-630.

Ogweno, D.O.; Opanga P. S. and Obara A. O. (eds 2009). Forest Landscape and Kenya‟s Vision
2030. Proc. of the 3rd Annual Forestry Society of Kenya (FSK) Conference and Annual
General Meeting held at the Sunset Hotel, Kisumu. 30th September - 3rd October, 2008.

Oldroyd B. P. (2007). What.‟s killing American honey bees? PLoS Biol. 5, e168
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050168 Medline.

Orina I. (2012). Quality and safety characteristics of honey produced in different regions of
Kenya. MSc Thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology: 52-54.

Ostermann D.J., Currie R.W., (2004). Effect of formic acid formulations on Honey Bee
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies and influence of colony and ambient conditions on
formic acid concentration in the hive. J. Econ. Entomol 97: 1500-1508.

Otieno P., Lalah J., Munir V., Jondiko I. and Karl W. (2010). Soil and water contamination with
carbofuran residues in agricultural farmlands in Kenya following the application of
technical formulation of Furadan. Journal of environmental health, 45: 137-144.

PAN (2012). Sub-lethal and chronic effects of neonicotinoids on bees and other pollinators. Bee
declines & pesticides. PAN factsheet 2: 1-8.

Papaefthimiou C., Theophilidis G., (2001). The cardiotoxic action of the pyrethroid insecticide
deltamethrin, the azole fungicide prochloraz, and their synergy on the semi-isolated heart
of the bee Apis mellifera macedonica, Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 69: 77–91.

PCPB (2013). Annual Report for PCPB, July 2012 – June 2013.

PCPB (2005). Annual Report for PCPB, July 2004 – June 2005

Pettis J.S., vanEngelsdorp D. J., Johnson R.M. and dively G. (2012). Pesticide exposure in honey
bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema. Naturwissen Schaften, 99:
153-158.

78
Pettis J.S., Collins A.M., Wilbanks R., Feldlaufer M.F., (2004). Effects of coumaphos on queen
rearing in the honey bee, Apis mellifera, Apidologie, 35: 605–610.

Porrini C., Ghini S., Girotti S., Sabatini A.G., Gattavecchia E., Celli G. (2002). Use of honey
bees as bioindicators of environmental pollution in Italy, Honey bees: Estimating the
environmental impact of chemicals. London and New York, pp. 186–247.

Porrini C., Sabatini G., Severino G., Piotr M., Grillenzoni F., Bortolotti L., Enrico G. and Celli
G. (2003). The death of honey bees and environmental pollution by pesticides: the honey
bees as biological indicators. Bulletin of insectology, 56 (1):147-152.

Porrini C., Sabatini G., Severino G., Piotr M., Grillenzoni F., Bortolotti L., Enrico G. and Celli
G. (2003). Honey bees and bee products as monitors of the environmental contamination.
Apiacta, 38: 63-70.

Ramsay G., Thompson C.E., Neilson S. and Mackay G.R. (1999). Honeybees as vectors of GM
oilseed rape pollen, in: Proc. Symp. Gene Flow and Agriculture: Relevance for
Transgenic Crops, 11–14 April 1999, Keele (UK). British Crop Protection Council, pp.
209–214.

Repetto R. and Baliga S. (1996). Pesticides and the immune system: The public health risks.
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Reus J. and Leendertse P. (2000). The environmental yardstick for pesticides: A practical
indicator used in the Netherlands. Crop Protection 19: 637-641.

Rogers R.E.L. and Kemp J.R. (2003). Imidacloprid, potatoes, and honey bees in Atlantic
Canada: Is there a connection? Bulletin of Insectology, 56: 83–88.

Roth, E. and Fratkin, E. (2005). Introduction: the social, health, and economic consequences of
pastoral sedentarization in Marsabit District, Northern Kenya. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, New York. pp. 1-28.

Sabatini A.G., Carpana E., Serra G. and Colombo R. (2003). Presence of acaricides and
antibiotics in samples of Italian honey. Apiacta, 38: 46–49.

Sandford M. and Jamie (2011). Protecting Honey Bees from Pesticides.

Sanford M. (1993). Protecting honey bees from pesticides. Circular 534, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.

Sandra, R. R., Mario, S. G., Marcos, V., Marli, G. and Benhard, M.A. (2007). Multiresidue
determination of pesticides in honey samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
and application in environmental contamination. Journal of Food Chemistry.101 (4):
1719-1726.

79
Schur A. and Wallner K. (2000). Assessment of the individual active ingredient entry by
collecting bees after Pesticides application in thriving cultures, Apidologie31, 615–616

Sibanda T., Dobson H., Cooper J.,Manyangarirwa W. and Chiimba W. (2000). Pest management
challenges for smallholder vegetable farmers in Zimbabwe. Crop protection 19, 107-815.

Sithanantham S. (2004). Development and dissemination of IPM for vegetables in Eastern

Africa. Icipe science Press.

Su H.T., Yu J.L., Hui F.L., Shu C.S., Shin S.C., Deng F.H. (2007). A multiresidue method for
determining 136 pesticides and metabolites in fruits and vegetables: Application of
macroporous diatomaceous earth column. J Food Drug Anal 15: 316–324.

Tagami T., Kajimura K., Yamasaki K., Sawabe Y., Nomura C., Taguchi S., Obana H. (2009).
Simple and rapid determination of cypermethrin and fenvalerate residues in kampo
products by gas chromatography mass spectrometry with negative chemical ionization. J
Health Sci, 55:777–782.

Teeters S., Johnson R.M., Ellis M.D., Siegfried B.D. (2012). Using video-tracking to assess
sublethal effects of pesticides on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Environ Toxicol Chem
31: 1349–1354.

Thompson H.M. (2003). Behavioral effects of pesticides in bees: their potential for use in risk
assessment, Exotoxicol. 12: 317–330.

Tomlin, C. D. S. (2006). The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium, 14th ed.; British Crop
Protection Council: Farnham, UK; pp. 286-287.

Tremolada P., Bernardinelli I., Colombo M., Spreafico M. Vighi M. (2004). Coumaphos
distribution in the hive ecosystem: Case study for modeling applications, Ecotoxicology
13: 589–601.

Vandame, R., Meled, M., Colin, M. E., and Belzunces, L. P. (1995). Alteration of the
homingflight in the honey-bee Apis mellifera L exposed to sublethal dose of
deltamethrin. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14: 855-860.

VanEngelsdorp D. and Meixner M.D. (2010). A historical review of managed honey bee
populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them. Journal
of Invertebrate Pathology, 103: S80–S95.

Vidau C., Diogon M., Aufauvre J., Fontbonne R., Vigues B., Brunet J. L., Texier C., Biron D.
G., Blot N., Alaoui H. E., Belzunces L. P., Delbac F. (2011). Exposure to sublethal doses
of fipronil and thiacloprid highly increases mortality of honeybees previously infected by
Nosema ceranae. PLoS ONE 6, e21550. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021550 Medline.

80
Wahida L., Nadia A., Noureddine S. (2008). Evaluation of Secondary Effects of some Acaricides
on Apis Mellifera Intermissa (Hymenoptera, Apidae): Acetylcholinesterase and
Glutathione S-Transferase Activities. European Journal of Scientific Research Vol.21
No.4: 642-649

Waichman, A., Eve, E., and Nina, N. (2007). Do farmers understand the information displayed
on pesticides product labels? A key question to reduce pesticides exposure and risk of
poisoning in the Brazilian Amazon. Crop Protection, 26: 576-583.

Wainwright D. (2005). „The development of Honey Exports from Rwanda‟, ADAR

Wallner K. (2003). Sulfonamide-residues in German honey – The actual situation, Apidologie

34, 485.

Wandiga S. (2001). Use and distribution of organochlorine pesticides. The future in Africa. Pure
& Appl. Chem., Vol. 73, No. 7: 1147–1155.

Weick J. and Thorn R.S., (2002). Effects of Acute Sub lethal Exposure to coumaphos or diazinon
on acquisition and discrimination of odor stimuli in the honey bee (Hymenoptera:
Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 95: 227-236.

WenJun Z., FuBin J. and JianFeng O., (2011). Global pesticide consumption and pollution: with
China as a focus. Proceedings of the international academy of ecology and environmental
Sciences, 1(2):125-144.

Whitehorn, P. R., O‟Connor, S., Wackers, F. L. & Goulson, D. (2012). Neonicotinoid pesticide
reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336: 351–352.

Williamson S., Ball A., Pretty J. (2008). Trends in pesticide use and drivers for safer pest
management in four African countries. Int. j. of crop prot., 27: 1327– 1334.

WHO (2010). The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to
classification.

WHO (2009). Data Sheet on Pesticides No. 50: Deltamethrin; International Programme on
Chemical Safety. (Accessed Jan 2009), updated April 2004.

Wu Y., Smart D., Anelli M. and Sheppard S. (2012). Honey bees (Apis
mellifera) reared in brood combs containing high levels of pesticide residues
exhibit increased susceptibility to Nosema (Microsporidia) infection. Journal of Invertebr
Pathol. 109: 326–329

81
 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Pesticides use in Transmara West Sub-county Questionnaire

Pesticides use by farmers to Control Crop and Livestock pests in Transmara West Sub-county
This survey is being carried out to determine the pesticides use patterns among farmers in
Transmara and to assess the extent of damage caused by pesticide use to beekeeping industry in
the Sub-county in order to make recommendations to the local community and policy makers on
judicious use of pesticides. The information provided will be treated confidentially and no
identities will be revealed.
Start time…………………..
Questionnaire No ………………………..Date of interview………………………………
Section A: Site description
1. County……………….………………Sub-county……………………………………….
Division………………………………Location……………………………………..

Su-location…………………………...Village………………………………………

2. Geographical positioning systems (GPS) readings

Altitude…………………Latitude…………………… Longitude………………

Section B: Details of respondent

3. Name of respondent (farmer)………………………………Telephone No…………………

4. Relationship of respondent to the household head
Self [1] Spouse [2] Son [3] Daughter [4] Others [5] specify ……………………………..

5. Gender
Male [1] Female [2]
6. Age of respondent (farmer)
Less than 18 [1] 18-35Years [2] 35-50 years [3] Over 50 years [4]
7. Highest level of formal education
Illiterate [1] Non- formal education [2] Primary [3] Secondary [4] Tertiary [5] university [6]
8. Occupation
Crop farming [1] Animal farming [2] Trade [3] Non-formal [4] formal employment [5]
82
Section C: Livestock
9. Which livestock do you keep and the approximate number?
Cattle [1] = [ ] Goats [2] = [ ] Sheep [3] = [ ]

Chicken [4] = [ ] Donkeys [5] = [ ] Pigs [6] = [ ]

Others [7] Specify…………………………………….

10. How is the mobility of your livestock?

Sedentary [1] Nomadic [2] Others [3] Specify………………………

11. How do you graze your livestock?

Herded [1] Paddock [2] Tethered [3] Free grazing [4] Others [5] Specify…………………

12. Which pests and parasites affect your livestock?

Ticks [1] Mites [2] Tsetse flies [3] Lice [4] Worms [5]

13. How do you control ticks, mites and tsetse flies?

Pesticides [1] Ethno drugs [2] Manual tick picking [3] Burning dry pasture [4]

14. Is there a cattle dip in your neighbourhood? Yes [1] No [2]

15. If yes, do you take your livestock to the cattle dip for parasites control? Yes [1] No [2]

16. If No, which pesticides do you normally use at home to control parasites? Fill the table below

Table 1: Pesticides used to control livestock parasites (call for pesticide containers)

Pesticide Common Class Volume Active % of active

Trade Name Name (Lts) ingredient ingredient

Classes: Insecticides (organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates), acaricides and fungicides

17. Who introduced you to pesticides use?

Neighbors [1] Friends [2] Agro dealers [3] Extension staff [4] Radio [5]

83
18. How do you learn of new pesticide products in the market?

Local leaders [1] MoA [2] Church [3] Media [4] Others [5] Specify………………………

19. Whom do you trust to be credible to give you information on pesticide products?

Community leaders [1] Leading farmers [2] NGOs [3] MoA [4] Media [5]

20. How often do you apply pesticides to your Livestock?

Weekly [1] Biweekly [2] Monthly [3] Bimonthly [4]

21. How do you apply the pesticides to your Livestock?

Hand sprayer [1] Knap sack sprayer [2] Hand dressing [3] Pour-on [4] Others [5]
Specify……………………………

22. What time of the day do you apply pesticides to your livestock?

6-8am [1] 8-10am [2] 10-12am [3] Afternoon [4] evening [5]

23. How do you prepare the pesticide solution from the stock pesticide solution?
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
24. How long have you been using pesticides for Livestock parasites control?

Five years [1] Ten years [2] Fifteen years [3] Twenty years [4] Thirty years [5]

Section D: Crops
25. Do you practice crop farming? Yes [1] No [2]

26. If yes which crops do you grow? Fill the table below

Table 2: Crops grown and respective acreage

Crops 2013 2014

Plot size (Acres) Yields (Kg) Plot size (Acres) Yields (Kg)
Maize
Beans
Sukuma wiki
Cabbage
Tomatoes
Peas
Sugarcane

84
27. Which pests do affect your crops?
Stem borer [1] Aphids [2] Nematodes [3] Bean flies [4] Army worms [5]
28. How do you control the pests affecting your crops?
Pesticides [1] Manual [2] Do not control [3] Others [4] Specify………………………….
29. If pesticides, which ones and their active ingredients

Table 3: Pesticides used to control Crop pests

Pesticide Common Class Volume (Lts) Active ingredient

Trade Name Name

Classes: Insecticides (organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates and neonicotinoids), acaricides,

fungicides and herbicides

30. Do you use one pesticide or a combination of more than one in a season/ time?
One [1] More than one [2]

31. If more than one pesticide, why?

Synergy [1] Safety [2] Others [3] Specify………………………………..

32. Who supplies the pesticides?

Agro dealer [1] GoK [2] Kiosks [3] Middle men [4]

33. How often do you apply pesticides to your crops?

Weekly [1] Biweekly [2] Monthly [3] Bimonthly [4] Others [5] Specify……………………

34. How do you apply the pesticides to your crops?

Hand sprayer [1] Knap sack sprayer [2] Hand dressing [3] Pour-on [4]

35. What time of the day do you spray pesticides to your livestock or crops?

6-8am [1] 8-10am [2] 10-12am [3] Afternoon [4] evening [5]

36. What physiological stage do you apply pesticides to your crops?

After weeding [ ] Flower Budding [ ] Flower Bloom [ ] Petal fall [ ]

85
37. How do you prepare the pesticide solution from the stock pesticide solution?
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
38. What volume of pesticide solution do you use per spray session (complete spraying of crops)

10 litres [1] 20 litres [2] 40 litres [3] 60 litres [4] 100 litre [5] 200 lites [6] Others [7] ……..

Section E: Quality Control and Safety

39. Do you have any pesticides in your store currently? Yes [1] No [2]
40. If yes fill the details in the table below
Table 4: Pesticides quality control and safety

Pesticide Active Registrant Registration Manufacturing Expiry

Trade Name ingredient No date date

41. Do you check the shelf life of pesticide products that you buy in the market?

Yes [1] No [2]

42. If yes, what is the motivation?

Safety [1] Efficacy [2] Costs [3] Others [4] Specify……………………………………

43. Do you put on protective clothing (gloves, masks, overcoats and gumboots?) Yes [1] No [2]

44. Where do you store the pesticides?

Granary [1] Pesticides store [2] Living room [3] Others [4] specify…………………..

45. How do you dispose of the used or expired chemicals and empty containers?

Pit latrine [1] Rubbish pit [2] pouring on the ground [3] Others [4] Specify…………………..

46. Have you undergone any basic training on pesticide handling Yes [ ] No [ ]

47. If yes, who offered the training?

MoA [ ] MoH [ ] Agro dealers [ ] NEMA [ ] Environmental lobbies [ ]

86
Section F: Beekeeping
48. Do you keep honey bees? Yes [1] No [2]

49. If yes, how many hives do you own? Indicate in the table below

Table 5: Beekeeping practices

Hive No of No of hives Yields in 2014 (Kg) Yields in 2015 (Kg)

hives colonized Season 1 Season 2 Season 1 Season 1
Jan-June July-Dec Jan-June July-Dec
Loghive
KTBH
Langstroth
Total

50. In your opinion do you think honey bees are of any economic importance? Yes [1] No [2]

51. If yes how?, mark as appropriate

Honey is food [1] Bee products have medicine properties [2] Honey is brewed to produce
alcohol [3] Bees pollinate crops [4] Environmental conservation [5] Industrial benefits [6]

61. How long have you been keeping bees?

1-5 years [1] 5-10 years [2] 11-20 years [3] More than 20 years [4] Others [5]

62. How was the size and strength of your colonies when you started keeping bees?

Big and strong [1] Small and weak [2] High honey yielding [3] Low honey yielding [4]

63. Have you observed any changes in the recent past regarding your colony size and strength?

Yes [1] No [2]

64. If yes, how have been the changes?

Reduced colony size [1] weakened colony [2] Reduced honey yields [3]

65. What can be attributed to these negative changes? (Mark as appropriate)

Pesticide use [1] deforestation [2] drought [3] pests/predators [4] Diseases [5] Don`t know [6]

66. How far is your apiary from your spray race?

87
 Ten metres [1] Twenty metres [2] Fifty metres [3] hundred metres [4] > 100 metres[5]

67. In your opinion, does the use of pesticides affect honey bees? Yes [1] No [2]

68. If yes above, how do they affect?

Kill bees [1] Cause absconding [2] reduces colony population [3] reduced honey yields [4]

69. Which pesticides affect honey bees the most? Rank in order of their severity

i..………………ii………………iii………………iv………………v…………………
70. What do you think should be done with the pesticides that affect honey bees the most?

Ban [1] Reformulate [2] Others [3] Specify……………………………….

71. Have honey bees ever caused you any inconveniences? Yes [ ] No [ ]

72. If yes how?

Stinging animals [1] Stinging humans [2] Quarrels with neighbors [3] Nuisance [4]

73. Have you ever sprayed honey bees with pesticides as a target? Yes [1] No [2]

74. In your opinion, what needs to be done to ensure that the honey bees are not adversely
affected by pesticides?

Manual tick control [1] use pesticides appropriately [2] use ethno herbs [3]

75. How do agro dealers (manufacturers and distributors) respond to complaints?

Sensitization in Local barazas [1] Investigate Complaints [2] Product reformulation [3]

Change of pesticide [4] Take no action [5]

End time………………………………………………………..

I wish to sincerely thank you for sparing your time to answer my questions. It is highly
appreciated

88
Appendix 2: Krejcie and Morgan‟s Table for Determining Sample Size from a Given Population
(1970)

N S N S N S
10 10 220 140 1200 291
15 14 230 144 1300 297
20 19 240 148 1400 302
25 24 250 152 1500 306
30 28 260 155 1600 310
35 32 270 159 1700 313
40 36 280 162 1800 317
45 40 290 165 1900 320
50 44 300 169 2000 322
55 48 320 175 2200 327
60 52 340 181 2400 331
65 56 360 186 2600 335
70 59 380 191 2800 338
75 63 400 196 3000 341
80 66 420 201 3500 346
85 70 440 205 4000 351
90 73 460 210 4500 354
95 76 480 214 5000 357
100 80 500 217 6000 361
110 86 550 226 7000 364
120 92 600 234 8000 367
130 97 650 242 9000 368
140 103 700 248 10000 370
150 108 750 254 15000 375
160 113 800 260 20000 377
170 118 850 265 30000 379
180 123 900 269 40000 380
190 127 950 274 50000 381
200 132 1000 278 75000 382
210 136 1100 285 100000 384

Note: N= Population size, S= Sample size

89
Appendix 3: Drop-zone dead-bee under basket trap for monitoring bee mortality (Accorti et al, 1991)

90
Appendix 4: The Researcher fixing dead bee traps to hives containing the experimental colonies

91
Appendix 5: Calibration curve and chromatogram for amitraz standard solution (25 ppb Spike and Recovery: 90%)

Calibration curve 25 ppb Spike and Recovery: 90%

92
Appendix 6: Calibration curve and chromatogram for chlorfenvinphos standard solution (50 ppb Spike; Recovery: 94%)

Calibration Curve 50 ppb Spike; Recovery: 94%

93
Appendix 7: Calibration curve and chromatogram for Cyhalothrin standard solution (50 ppb Spike; Recovery: 97%)

94
Appendix 8: Calibration curve and chromatogram for cypermethrin standard solution (50 ppb Spike; Recovery: 92%)

95
Appendix 9: Calibration curve and chromatogram for Deltamethrin standard solution (50 ppb Spike; Recovery: 93%)

Calibration Curve 50 ppb Spike; Recovery: 93%

96
Appendix 10: Calibration curve and chromatogram for Dietathyl-ethyl (internal standard solution)

97