Verimlilik Olmadan Genişleme: Türkiye'nin Bingöl İlinde Arıcılık Verimliliğinin 16 Yıllık Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2009-2024 yılları arasında Bingöl’de arıcılık verimliliğindeki uzun dönemli eğilimleri ve destek mekanizmaları ile bal verimi arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışma, resmi ulusal ve bölgesel kaynaklardan elde edilen ikincil verilere dayalı retrospektif ekolojik zaman serisi tasarımında yürütülmüştür. Temel sonuç değişkeni olarak bal verimi (kg/kovan) hesaplanmış ve arıcılık göstergeleri ile ilişkisi korelasyon ve regresyon analizleri kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Zaman içerisinde kovan sayısı, desteklenen arıcı sayısı, desteklenen kovan sayısı ve finansal destek miktarında önemli artışlar gözlenmesine rağmen, toplam bal üretiminde dalgalanmalar görülmüş ve kovan başına bal verimi tutarlı bir artış eğilimi göstermemiştir (ortalama: 11.12±2.54 kg/kovan). Pearson korelasyon analizi sonuçlarına göre bal verimi ile kovan sayısı (r=-0.597), desteklenen kovan sayısı (r=-0.597), desteklenen arıcı sayısı (r=-0.562) ve bal üretimi (r=-0.549) arasında anlamlı negatif ilişkiler saptanmıştır (p<0.05). Basit doğrusal regresyon analizleri bu değişkenlerin verimdeki azalış ile anlamlı düzeyde ilişkili olduğunu doğrulamış, ancak destek miktarının istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmadığı bulunmuştur (p=0.072). Genel olarak bulgular, arıcılık kapasitesindeki artışın verimlilikte iyileşme ile ilişkili olmadığını göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar, sürdürülebilir arıcılık sistemlerinin sağlanabilmesi için miktar odaklı destek stratejilerinden verimlilik odaklı yaklaşımlara geçilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Arıcılık
• Bal verimi
• Kovan verimliliği
• Tarımsal destek
• Arıcılık verimliliği

Expansion Without Efficiency: A 16-Year Analysis of Beekeeping Productivity in Bingöl, Türkiye

Abstract

This study aimed to examine long-term trends in beekeeping productivity and the relationship between support mechanisms and honey yield in Bingöl, Türkiye, between 2009 and 2024. A retrospective ecological time-series design was used based on secondary data obtained from official national and regional sources. Honey yield (kg/hive) was calculated as the primary outcome, and its associations with beekeeping indicators were analyzed using correlation and regression methods. Despite substantial increases in the number of beehives, supported beekeepers, supported hives, and financial support over time, honey production showed fluctuations and honey yield did not exhibit a consistent increasing trend (mean: 11.12±2.54 kg/hive). Pearson correlation analysis revealed significant negative associations between honey yield and number of beehives (r=-0.597), supported hives (r=-0.597), supported beekeepers (r=-0.562), and honey production (r=-0.549) (p<0.05). Simple linear regression analyses confirmed that these variables were significant predictors of decreased yield, whereas support amount was not statistically significant (p=0.072). Overall, the findings indicate that expansion in beekeeping capacity is not associated with improvements in productivity. These results highlight the need to shift from quantity-oriented support strategies toward efficiency-focused approaches to ensure sustainable apiculture systems.

Keywords

• Beekeeping
• Honey yield
• Hive productivity
• Agricultural support
• Apiculture efficiency

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval was not required as the study was based on aggregated secondary data and did not involve human participants.

Thanks

The authors would like to thank the Bingöl Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry for providing access to the data.

References

1. Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings Biol Sci. 2007;274(1608):303-13. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721.
2. Potts SG, Imperatriz-Fonseca V, Ngo HT, Aizen MA, Biesmeijer JC, Breeze TD, et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature. 2016;540(7632):220-9. doi: 10.1038/nature20588.
3. Daubenfeld T, Lauenstein L, Carrasco D. Limits to growth in global crop yield? Insights from data mining of the FAOSTAT database from 1961 to 2023. [Internet]. agriRxiv. CABI Wallingford UK; 2025. p. 20250585560. Available from: http://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.31220/agriRxiv.2025.00382
4. Baydaş G, Aksoy FT, Güngördü Dalar Z, Aksakal MN, Çoruhlu İ, Çıbık S, et al. Bee prducts and the potentıal health ıssues arısıng from theır uncontrolled use. Turkish J Nat Sci [Internet]. 2024;13(1):17688. Available from: https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1429727
5. Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science. 2015;347(6229):1255957. doi: 10.1126/science.1255957.
6. Karahan A, Gül A, Kutlu MA, Karaca İ. Imidacloprid’in Bal Arılarının (Apis mellifera anatoliaca ve Apis mellifera caucasica) Vücut Fonksiyonları Üzerine Etkisinin Araştırılması. Turkish J Nat Sci [Internet]. 2018;7(1):24-8. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tdfd/article/398576
7. Erdal B, Tipi T. Time Series Forecasting of Honey Production in Turkey TT - Time Series Forecasting of Honey Production in Turkey. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknol Derg. 2022;(35):417–23. doi: 10.31590/ejosat.1066665.
8. Aizen MA, Harder LD. The Global Stock of Domesticated Honey Bees Is Growing Slower Than Agricultural Demand for Pollination. Curr Biol [Internet]. 2009;19(11):915–8. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209009828

9. Potts SG, Roberts SPM, Dean R, Marris G, Brown MA, Jones R, et al. Declines of managed honey bees and beekeepers in Europe. J Apic Res [Internet]. 2010 Jan 1;49(1):15–22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.49.1.02
10. Sağdıç M. The role of apiculture in rural development in Turkey TT - The role of apiculture in rural development in Turkey. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknol Derg. 2016;5(9):48–54. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA74KG86DR
11. Bingöl İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü. Bingöl İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü Faaliyet Raporu [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://bingol.tarimorman.gov.tr/Belgeler/2026-belgeler/Bingöl İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü 2025 Yılı Faaliyet Raporu (Son).pdf
12. TÜİK. T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Arıcılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü : Arıcılık İstatistikleri [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/aricilik/Link/2/Aricilik-Istatistikleri
13. Tubene S, Kulhanek K, Rennich K, vanEngelsdorp D. Best Management Practices Increase Profitability of Small-Scale US Beekeeping Operations. J Econ Entomol. 2023;116(1):47–55. doi: 10.1093/jee/toac174.
14. Underwood RM, Lawrence BL, Turley NE, Cambron-Kopco LD, Kietzman PM, Traver BE, et al. A longitudinal experiment demonstrates that honey bee colonies managed organically are as healthy and productive as those managed conventionally. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):6072. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-32824-w.
15. İvgin Tunca R, Arslan T. A Lıttle Known Bee Product with The Potentıal to Become a Functıonal Food and Nutrıtıonal Supplement: Apılarnıl. Uludag Bee J [Internet]. 2024;24(2):403–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.31467/uluaricilik.1523198
16. Gürer B, Akyol E. An empirical analysis of technical efficiency determinants in beekeeping farms: evidence and policy implications from Niğde Province, Turkey. J Agric Environ Int Dev. 2018;14(112):343–59. doi: 10.12895/jaeid.20182.790
17. Hemming DJ, Chirwa EW, Dorward A, Ruffhead HJ, Hill R, Osborn J, et al. Agricultural input subsidies for improving productivity, farm income, consumer welfare and wider growth in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev [Internet]. 2018;14(1):1–153. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.4073/csr.2018.4
18. Amulen DR, D’Haese M, Ahikiriza E, Agea JG, Jacobs FJ, de Graaf DC, et al. The buzz about bees and poverty alleviation: Identifying drivers and barriers of beekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa. Blenau W, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017;12(2):e0172820. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172820
19. Negash B, Greiling J. Quality Focused Apiculture Sector Value Chain Development in Ethiopia. J Agric Sci Technol A [Internet]. 2017;7(2):107–16. Available from: http://www.davidpublisher.org/index.php/Home/Article/index?id=31147.html
20. Altunel T, Olmez B. Beekeeping as a rural development alternative in Turkish northwest. Appl Ecol Environ Res. 2019;17(3). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1703_60176029
21. Kuvancı A, Yılmaz F, Öztürk SH, Konak F, Buldağ M. Doğu Karadeniz bölgesi arıcılığına genel bakış. Arıcılık Araştırma Derg. 2017;9(2):47–55. https://izlik.org/JA64JC44MJ
22. Demir O. Efficiency analysis of beekeeping activities in Turkey and comparison by regions. CUSTOS E AGRONEGOCIO LINE. 2024;20(2):223–44.
23. vanEngelsdorp D, Meixner MD. A historical review of managed honey bee populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them. J Invertebr Pathol [Internet]. 2010;103:S80–95. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022201109001827
24. Rowland BW, Rushton SP, Shirley MDF, Brown MA, Budge GE. Identifying the climatic drivers of honey bee disease in England and Wales. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2021;11(1):21953. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01495-w
25. Vincze C, Leelőssy Á, Zajácz E, Mészáros R. A review of short-term weather impacts on honey production. Int J Biometeorol. 2025;69(2):303–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-024-02824-0