Honey Bees on the Farm: Connecting Women Beekeepers and Women Farmers for Environmental and Economic Benefit

2018:  We collected preliminary data this year to set the research protocol and refine questions. The first year of research is starting winter-spring 2019.

2019:  We collected data from 20 program participants, 96 non-program women beekeepers (control/comparative data), in-person pre- and post-program in person or phone interviews with 12 participants, 3 interviews with non-program participants. Over 3000 minutes of video data was also collected on beekeepers keeping hives. Over 150 hours were spent with program participant beekeepers and landowner in collecting data. Research (Preliminary Analysis) was presented at 2 National Meetings and 2 International Conferences in 2019.

Preliminary Data

For our participants, scores for pollinator knowledge (p = 0.127, n = 7) and honey bee management knowledge went up significantly for participants (p = 0.034, n =7); * significance at p .05. We also found a positive correlation between knowledge and mid-season hive health. Honey bee knowledge score mid-season hive health score per colony (Spearman’s Rho = 0.481, p = 0.007, n = 30). In looking at the data, nearly every aspect of confidence, knowledge about bee management, and general beekeeping knowledge has improved. We are working to run the final analysis of the project this year (2019).

2020: All participants in the program said that the program helped them in their beekeeping. Total beekeeping and self-efficacy in beekeeping score increased for program participants. 88% of participants reported that they kept better hive inspection schedules and records of hive management practices. 

From interviews, four themes emerged regarding how the Women in Beekeeping programs helped participants.

• Learned more about inspections
• Knowledge of the process and procedures of inspecting hives
• New accessibility to beekeeping management knowledge
• Engaging with other women beekeepers and landowners through the program

2021: analysis and summary of research data, discussed by Research Question:

RQ1: How did program Impact Participants?

• Beekeepers who took part in the learning circles had higher levels of honey bee knowledge and self-efficacy after partaking in the program. Additionally, beekeepers performed better in terms of knowledge regarding general pollinator knowledge compared to a control group that did not take part in the program. Evidence gathered suggests increases in knowledge and self-efficacy may lead to improvements in beekeeping management. 
• To compare the program participant answers prior to and after completing the program, a Signed Rank Test was used to examine the summed question scores for verbal persuasion, physiological state, and performance attainment. Program participant scores for self-efficacy in verbal persuasion increased significantly pre-survey to post-survey (z= -3.2301, p = 0.0313) and marginally increased for performance attainment (z= -3.0301, p = 0.0781). Physiological state was not significantly different prior to and after participation (z= -7, p= 0.3125). A Wilcoxon Rank Sum was used to compare the post-participation program participant scores to the non-program participants, and there was no significant difference (Verbal persuasion: z= 265, p= 0.336; Performance attainment; z= 226.5, p= 0.149; Physiological state; z= 306.5, p= 0.679). Verbal persuasion is the influence of positive feedback from peers or mentors, in WBK other beekeepers and program leaders/mentors, have on self-efficacy. The change in this score is consistent with feedback from participating beekeepers regarding the value of hive inspections from GRA Gross. Whom beekeepers also viewed as an expert and mentor.

• We used interviews to examine domains of pollination process, insect conservation, and beekeeping management. Little change occurred in knowledge of pollination process and insect conservation as study participants had relatively high pre-program scores. However, in beekeeping management questions where participants were shown an aerial view of a section of land and then asked where best to place their apiaries, beekeepers showed an improvement in discussing the need to place their apiaries away from crops (where incidental pesticide exposure could be increased), near to available floral resources, next to the presence of a windbreak, and in proximity clean water sources. This indicates an improvement in knowledge regarding the most important landscape influences in hive health. Additionally, 92% of interviewed participants wanted to modify the land to include additional resources on the land (e.g. floral resources, trees, water) for their bees after their participation in the program. This request to modify the landscapes indicates participants’ improved recognition of needing to change and improve landscapes after their participation in WBK programming.

• In terms of behaviors observed during monthly hive inspections, we saw a theme of participants’ improved inspection confidence through both the change in their language and the number/types of inspection activities engaged in. During Janet’s (alias) first two inspections, she said “I don’t know,” after many of the questions we asked her. However, we noticed her using less “I don’t know” statements during the mid-season inspection. During the last inspections she stopped saying “I don’t know” all together. Using less “unsure” statements is an indication that she has become more confident when discussing her beekeeping. Kristin had a similar experience, showing more confidence in her beekeeping decisions and asking fewer questions during later hive inspections. She also began taking notes during her second inspection to help her track her beekeeping management practices. She also altered how she took notes throughout the season. She started with written notes and ended the season by voice recording her notes on her phone as she found this the “richest” way to review her notes. Both Janet and Kristin also discussed their feelings of increased confidence during their interviews. Janet said, “It [the program] helped me recognize, it helped me a lot doing the inspections to recognize things I can look for and things that I didn't really think about.” Additionally, during her last inspection, Janet pointed out that now she can confidently identify eggs and larva within a colony. In Kristin’s pre-program interview, she discussed how she thinks of herself as an “incompetent beekeeper”. Post-program, she referred to herself as needing to be a more proactive beekeeper instead of an incompetent beekeeper. Another participant, Margaret did not show any changes in her inspection behaviors. However, she told us during her interview that, “If it were it not for this program and the Nebraska Beekeepers Association scholarship (which her daughter received), [she] would have not started keeping bees.” The support provided by the program was important for her in feeling comfortable enough to begin beekeeping.
• While some of the changes in their inspection behaviors may be a result of becoming more comfortable with having someone observe them, part of these changes may be attributed to a change in self-efficacy. Fiona and Julia also showed changes in their inspecting behaviors, but these behaviors are more dramatic and noticeable than Janet and Kristin’s. Fiona did not inspect her hives until her last inspection. During the first inspection, when we asked her to inspect her hives while we observed, she declined. We inspected the hives for her during the first four inspections, but she conducted the final inspection while we observed. Julia also declined to inspect, letting her husband take charge of the inspections. She even stated at one point that she “just prefers to watch.” However, we noticed that Julia began helping more during inspections throughout the season, such as smoking the bees or putting the lid on the hive when needed. She was also able to spot the queen bee and drones in later inspections. At one point she even held a frame of bees at one point. Both Fiona’s and Julia’s change to active participants in hive inspections by the end of the program may indicate an increase in confidence working the bees.

RQ2: Does involvement in this program lead to changes in bee colony health?

• A total of 157 hive inspections were conducted from March to October 2019, from nine program participants. Hives were scored using rubric tailored for hive health factors by month including brood pattern, colony population, pollen and nectar stores, caste diversity and refined to a 0.82 internal reliability score. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare scores from May to July. The scores from these months were used because there were hives score data from 7 of the 9 program participants. Homogeneity of variance assumptions were met, with the exception of scores from July. To account for this, hive scores from July were transformed using Log10. Overall, there was a marginal difference when examining the hive scores by month (Wilks’ lambda = 0.766, F(2, 18) = 2.747, p = 0.054, multivariate η2 = 0.234). To determine which months were significant, a t-test was used to compare May to June and May to July. Hive scores were not significantly different between May (M = 2.61) to June (M = 2.84) but significantly increased in score from May (M = 2.61) to July (M = 3.38, SD = 0.347, t = 2.537, p = 0.018) in the hives.

• To further examine colony health, participants were to respond to questions before and after participation in the program: How do you tell if an area is good for bees; and can you list factors that impact bee health? The major theme within colony health was what is important to beekeepers during an inspection. Beekeepers focused on the need for water sources near their colonies, the need for windbreaks in their apiaries, the need for an easily accessible apiary, and the need for floral resources available for the bees. Additionally, factors that beekeepers think impact honey bees included Varroa mites, the application of sprays (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides) near their colonies, the local weather, and other pests/diseases. The overall factors and needs of colonies were similar between pre- and post-program participation interviews and between program participants and non-program participants. Another common theme was how management impacts colony health. Kristin, Fiona, Donna, and Eleanor (aliases) all discussed how management is a factor that impacts colony health. However, while there are common factors and needs that beekeepers list for colony health, some of the individual answers of the program participants did vary between their pre- and post-participation interviews. Fiona, Donna, Justine, and Rosemary gave different answers in their pre- and post-program interviews, but their answers were not necessarily better or worse in terms of beekeeping management between the interviews. Kristin, Julia, and Amelia’s answers improved from their pre-participation to post-participation interviews. For Julia, her beginning answer was that she did not know anything about factors that impact honey bees, but in her post-participation interview was able to list three factors. Kristin and Amelia both make slight changes in their wording, going from broadly saying that forage and food is important for honey bees, to the more specific: forage and floral resources need to be available throughout the season for honey bees. While this change in wording is small, it is an important distinction for beekeepers to make as it indicates that they care about the diversity of resources available to their honey bees, not just access to resources.
• Mixed Methods Findings. The mixed methods question examined how the quantitative hive scores confirmed the participant’s views of colony health (qualitative strand). While the hive scores increased from May to July, we know that generally that this increase naturally occurs as hives grow stronger as the weather becomes warmer and more floral resources become available for honey bees. In terms of the qualitative strand, there were slight improvements in the program participant’s interview responses over time. These small changes converge to show that program participants improved marginally over time in terms of colony health, however some of these improvements may be a result of natural improvements in hive health over time.

RQ3. Engaging with other women beekeepers and landowners through the program.

For a majority of engagement with women questions, we used a semi-structured interviews. The responses for these questions were long and are included here in context as participants explain the sentiment of what aspects of programming is important to them as women.

• A majority enjoyed being able to engage with the learning circle and beekeeping community. One participant said she started beekeeping because she felt she had the support of a community. More experienced (8+ years of beekeeping) beekeepers said that they enjoyed the program for providing a chance for beekeepers and landowners to talk and educate each other. “I just thought it was really interesting [to watch other women beekeepers] and I feel like part of the things that they're doing, I could definitely use.” 
• Participants had a generally positive experience with the program. Every participant found the program beneficial, although their reasons why varied. The accessibility of the program’s content was largely praised by the participants. Many liked that some of the content was video recorded and put online for them to view. All mentioned that they liked being able to participate in video webinars so they did not have to worry about having to drive - some lived an hour or more away from Lincoln, Nebraska where most learning circles were held. Additionally, a subset of participants noted that they enjoyed being able to rewatch the learning circles at a later date, or that they could rewatch the learning circles so that they could better absorb the information.
• Community was by far the most important resource for women beekeepers. Eight beekeepers discussed becoming involved with beekeeping due to the help and support of their community. For some it was knowing that their family was interested and involved: “I had a cousin in Canada that wanted to [beekeep], and my mom's always shown interest and I always thought it was kind of fascinating. And so I thought, well if he [cousin] can do it in Canada, I can do it here” (Janet); having the support of their family or friends, “And so after the losses in the first year, we thought we better take a class. And so I went to class with him [husband] and that's when I first started to get interested” (Eleanor); or having the support of the local beekeeping community, “knowing that we would have their support through the Nebraska Beekeepers Association made it less intimidating that we would have people coming alongside of us, walking with us, and showing us were we screwing up” (Margaret).    
• While community was important to these beekeepers, being a part of a women-dominated community was not as important. However, every beekeeper reported that respect, communication, and the ability to learn from the community was important in their selection and commitment to a beekeeping community. Even though community was deemed important, three beekeepers, Kristin, Fiona, and Julia, were not involved in some form of beekeeping association. Every other beekeeper reported being involved with a local beekeeping association, some were even part of multiple local organizations, and every beekeeper mentioned consulting and relying on other beekeepers in their local communities for help and support. Seven beekeepers were still involved with beekeepers and mentors from prior beekeeping courses even though they were not actively partaking in a beekeeping course. Kristin and Georgia were the only two beekeepers to not mention taking a formal beekeeping course; Kristin specifically stated she has not taken a beekeeping course, and Georgia did not discuss taking a formal beekeeping course; therefore we assume she has not taken one. The three beekeepers who did care about gender ratio all had specific negative experiences they could recall. Janet noted issues with feeling disrespected when asking questions, Donna noted that she preferred consulting other women beekeepers who also face physical struggles lifting heavy hive boxes, and Amelia recalled multiple experiences of being ignored in favor of her husband by beekeepers. Again, most of these negative experiences stem from a lack of communication and acceptance from male beekeepers. Furthermore, most beekeepers did not care for social media communities, again due to a lack of knowledge sharing and respect within the pages. Some found that Facebook pages provided too much information to sift through. Others did not like the amount of bad or false information spread on the pages. Some reported having had negative experiences with other beekeepers being "mean" on FB. In our third follow-up interview, we asked beekeepers to list nouns with which they identify. All post interviewees identified with the noun “mother.” They all discussed that by being a mother they ‘plan for the future’, are attentive to their children, and use their intuition, which they also apply to their beekeeping. Janet summed it up as, “moms are kind of the keeper of the home, so to speak. So maybe its kind of, maybe it kind of relates to beekeeping in a way.” From this, there continues to be a theme of motherhood connecting to their beekeeping.