ArticlePloS one2024
Effect of various supplements on productive performance of honey bees, in the south Wollo Zone, Ethiopia.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The productivity and well-being of honey bee colonies are greatly influenced by the nutrients present in the hives. A study was conducted to evaluate different supplemental feeds on honey bee productive performance during dearth periods. Thirty colonies were grouped into five (four treatment groups and one control group) and each group contained three sub-groups (2 weak, 2 strong, and 2 very strong). Control groups were not given any supplementation. Treatment diets were T1 (50% sugar syrup + 14% roasted barley powder (beso) + 36% roasted spiced pea powder (Shiro)), T2 (50% powder sugar + 14% white sorghum powder + 36% bakery yeast, T3 (50% powder sugar + 14% white sorghum powder + 36% skimmed milk powder), T4 (50% sugar syrup with infusion of stinging nettle and 1% kerefa + 50% white sorghum powder). Feed was given on the entrance sides. The performance of experimental colonies was measured every 21 days in two phases during the dry season (from 3_2_2021 to 27_4_2021) and the rainy season (from 28-7_2021 to 1_10_2021). Feed intake, space (cm2) of pollen, nectar, and honey in the comb were measured using a frame-sized transparent grid meter. The study revealed significant differences (p<0.0001) in all measured parameters among the various treatments. The diet provided by T4 showed the highest levels of crude protein (18.15%) and carbohydrates (92.15%), whereas the diet presented by T3 had the lowest crude protein content (6.66%) and the diet offered by T1 had the lowest carbohydrate content (61.91%). In general, colonies that received T4 showcased superior performance compared to others. They exhibited a feed intake of 98.3%, a nectar area of 54.3 cm2, a pollen area of 68.7 cm2, a honey area of 311.2 cm2, and a honey yield of 7 kg. Consequently, their net profit amounted to 51.54 USD. On the other hand, the colonies that received T1 had the lowest performance indicators. They demonstrated a feed intake of only 54.7%, a nectar area of 37.6 cm2, a pollen area of 48.8 cm2, a honey area of 254.3 cm2, a honey yield of 2.8 kg, and a net profit of 18.81 USD. The significance of this study was to enable the beekeepers in realizing the effects of feed supplements on the productivity and profitability of honeybee colonies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.