Introduction

In this study, the feasibility for apiculture to become a complementary activity that generates additional income for the agricultural and livestock rural production units in the region of the Tehuantepec Isthmus, is analyzed.

According to the National Statistics and Geography Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, ^{INEGI, 2013}), a secondary activity “is one that is developed within the same production unit in addition to the main activity showing an added value lower than that of the main activity, and its production generates a secondary product which, just as the main activity, has to be supplied outside of the production unit”.

The region with highest honey production in México is the Yucatán Peninsula, which includes the states of Yucatán, Quintana Roo and Campeche, adding up to a total of 17 014 tons annually, with a value of $477 072 thousand pesos (^{Sistema de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera, 2013}).

In addition to the areas mentioned, in México there are others that are not being taken advantage of entirely and where it is possible to develop apiculture, as is the case of the region of the Tehuantepec Isthmus, Oaxaca, because it has wealth from its natural resources and the development processes induced in the moist tropics have made the Tehuantepec Isthmus one of the most important regions. Its watershed system includes part of the widest rivers in México, such as the Papaloapan, Coatzacoalcos, and Grijalva-Usumacinta, which flow into the Huave Lagoon System and the Tehuantepec, making this one of the most humid regions in México, which explains the early cultural emergence, the wealth of its forests, rainforests and coasts, and, again, its strategic importance for life (^{Gómez, 2005}).

With the seventh place in the country, Oaxaca has 108 659 thousand beehives that represent 4.2% for this study, with 24 producers and a total of 4600 hives, and their economic importance at the national level is sixth place with a yearly production of 3 thousand 798 tons of honey, at a price of 36.64, generating $139 158 720.00 pesos in 2013 (^{SIAP, 2013}).

Currently, apiculture is among the first three places in the livestock sector as a currency generator, with an economic spill that benefits mostly small-scale producers. In the Yucatán Peninsula it is possible to see how honey has generated a family industry that contributes to the peasant families rooting themselves in their places of origin and preventing migration from lack of work (^{Martínez, 2010}). México has remained as the third honey exporter in the world; in 2013 it reached the figure of 33 thousand 476 tons of honey, according to data from the Ministry of Economy (Secretaría de Economía, SE), with a commercial value of $ 112.5 million USD from honey exports (^{SAGARPA, 2014}). This proves that it is an important source of currency for the country.

Apiculture is one of the activities that presents sustainable management of natural resources from a region and requires a relatively small investment, in addition to providing an important income that contributes to the economic stability of producers’ lives (^{Cajero, 2004}).

On the other hand, the social transcendence of apiculture in México is seen in the opportunity of production and income and in employment generation. In 2013, there were 1 933 105 beehives, with an estimated yield of 28.6 kg to 31.72 kg per beehive according to ^{SAGARPA (2001)}, with a sales price of $38.11 kg^-1 (SIAP, 2013). In that year, an income of 2 168 879 million pesos was generated, value that represents the drive of local economies and which influence the families’ income. The second aspect of social interest is evidenced by the 2.2 million workdays that apiculture generates per year (64.7 work days per apiary) and the payment of salaries of 263 million pesos. Thus, the income from honey sales, the salaries and the value of the purchase of inputs, equipment and materials are the main areas of the multiplying effect of the income that this activity generates on the locality or region of the country (^{Magaña et al., 2012}). This allows avoiding migration, unemployment, and generating income for the production units.

Facing the challenge that the Mexican State and international organizations have of decreasing poverty and not achieving favorable results, the following question emerges: What alternatives do families that live in the rural area have to decrease poverty? Yúnez and Taylor (2001) have mentioned that the development of complementary activities as an alternative to generate extra income in the rural production unit arises as a strategy to combat extreme poverty; these are mechanisms that the families have adopted on their own to complement family income. Many of the studies about diversification in farms question the reasons that foster this process. Normally the diversification is presented as an adjustment strategy in front of the difficulties that the family production unit faces (^{Bowler et al., 1996}).

Poverty is a problem that seems to have a permanent character in Mexican society. According to ^{CONEVAL (2012)}, in 2012 16.7 million people were in rural poverty, representing 61.6 % of the total population. ^{De Janvry and Sadoulet (2004)} report that the concentration of extreme poverty takes place in rural areas and the growing inequality in the distribution of income are quite worrisome results despite the efforts undertaken, frequently costly, to combat rural poverty and inequality. Thus, for example, poverty increased between 2008 and 2012 in 3.8 million people and, on the other hand, the richest 10% of the population earns 31.8 times what the poorest 10 % earns (^{CONEVAL, 2012}).

Theoretical Framework

The diversification of income allows complementing the current income with an extraordinary one to face the low income and inequality, as well as to mitigate their effects (^{López et al., 2011}). The diversification of income can be considered a strategy of household sustenance with several activities to generate a current of benefits. In their daily life the families implement the diversification of income indirectly, since they visualize it as an alternative to contribute resources to their economies.

There are two aspects for which the income/ productive diversification is considered an alternative for the members of a family (^{Yúnez and Taylor, 2001}). The reasons why the households are diversified can be explained simply by two causes: the need (push factors) or the option (pull factors). In the first case the diversification takes place as a response to the crisis of the agricultural and livestock sector, the increase of agricultural prices, the decrease of income, the risk from climate changes, the high transaction costs, or as a strategy to combat extreme poverty. In the second case, the diversification is an option to gain access to new markets, specific markets, or as an economic strategy to complement the income. In face of these two situations mentioned before, the families in México adopt income strategies to afford the expenses of basic necessities; this implies that some of the members of the family could be employed or working in non-agricultural/livestock, or agricultural/livestock activities (^{Hazael, 2012}).

^{Pellens (2006)} analyzes specifically agricultural diversification as a strategy to take advantage of the available resources in a better way; for this purpose, the restrictions and possibilities of the ecological environment are taken into account, and of ensuring the family diet now and in the future.

One of the variables is the conditions of the ecosystem present in the agricultural zones that influence in many ways the degree and form of diversification. First, the climate, ecological and orographic characteristics condition to a large degree the potential crops to be produced and, consequently, the potential diversification of the agricultural system (^{Pellens, 2006}). In the Tehuantepec Isthmus the most important forests and moist rainforests of the country survive because of their biodiversity and area conserved (Chimalapas, Uxpanapa, Low Mixe). This contact zone between the fauna and flora of North and South America is part of the group of ecosystems that still house between 30 and 40 % of the planet’s biodiversity (García, 1998).

^{Valdivia et al. (1996)} mention that the high degree of seasonality in agriculture, consequence among other things of the cycles of the ecosystem, motivates the diversification of crops, since this way the family can optimize the use of productive resources of the household throughout the year. This characteristic allows the producers to generate other incomes through different activities.

Methodology

A sample of 24 producers was selected in the study region. In a conversation held with the head of SAGARPA’s Center for Rural Development Support (Centro de Apoyo al Desarrollo Rural de SAGARPA, CADER) it was possible to understand the proportion of producers that belonged to each stratum, 25-50-25, small-scale, medium-scale and large-scale, respectively. The sample applied kept this proportion, and it resulted in the following: small-scale, 26 %; medium- scale, 48 %; and large-scale, 26 %.

The study region is located in the Tehuantepec Isthmus, Oaxaca. The producers cited before are characterized by having a production where the main workforce is the family.

The study included the municipalities of El Barrio de la Soledad, Matías Romero Avendaño, San Juan Guichicovi and Chahuites, where there are 14 producers in the registry of beneficiaries of the Program for Sustainable Livestock Production and Livestock and Apiculture Zoning (Programa de Producción Pecuaria Sustentable y Ordenamiento Ganadero y Apícola) that depends on SAGARPA; at the state level there are 741 registered (PROGAM) in 2013.

The research work was carried out in two phases: office work and field work. The parameters used were: description of the family unit, equipment, inputs, management of the activity, and production. The field data were obtained through the application of surveys directly to the producer. The survey was designed previously with a total of 24 producers who together have 4600 beehives with heterogeneous characteristics. For a better study the information was organized into small, medium and large strata. In addition, the information from the producer with the highest number of beehives (1500) was eliminated because it was an atypical piece of data that distorts the statistical measurements, such as maximums and minimums, median, averages, variance and covariance.

The “snowball” sampling (Table 1) (^{Mas, 2010}) consisted in the selection of the producers where an initial group of survey respondents was selected, generally randomly. After being interviewed they are asked to identify others who belong to the population of interest. The subsequent survey respondents were selected based on their references, which leads to a snowball effect in which surveys must be applied, covering the largest part of the geographical area under study. For data analysis, the Excel software 2010 was used.

In the office phase a literature review was performed, a questionnaire was designed, and a homogeneous study area was defined in order to identify the common characteristics of the honey production unit. In the field stage surveys were carried out with honey producers in the region of the Tehuantepec Isthmus with the aim of understanding the current situation of apiculture and having the information necessary to analyze its variable costs, fixed costs and incomes.

For the feasibility analysis of apiculture, the following indicators are taken:

Validations of the data and their standardization were carried out. For example, in the case of units used to represent the production, it was determined whether it is expressed in volume (liters) or in mass (kg, tons, for example); for this study, the production was in kilograms.

The analysis of the data obtained was through descriptive analysis, means, maximums, minimums, standard deviation, and frequencies.

Results and discussion

The capital in honey production was defined as the set of tools and equipment which the production unit has, and which are destined to honey production, plus the total number of beehives that make up the productive module (Table 2).

It should be clarified that when there is only one beehive, the same work equipment is used (vail, glove, overall, wedge and smoker) than if they had two or more, so the total investment is the same in this area; however, the extraction equipment does vary. A larger number of beehives imply equipment of higher capacity. In addition, the investment varies if manual extractors are used or others that use pump motors and which send honey to a sedimentation tank. Another important aspect that explains the difference in investment is the quality of the equipment; for example, a stainless steel extractor for four frames has a value almost four times higher than the galvanized steel one.

Structure of the production cost

The percentage structure of the honey production costs in México is composed mainly by the variable cost (^{Magaña, 2010}). In this study the variable costs represent 65%, 73% and 70% for the small-scale, medium-scale and large-scale stratum, respectively (Figure 1). These costs correspond to food, medicines, beehive maintenance (repairing frames, lifts, offspring chambers, floors and lids), nails, wire, workforce, gasoline, and vehicle maintenance.

Source: authors’ elaboration with data from the survey to producers, 2013.

Figure 1 Percentage structure of the honey production cost. 

In the case of the fixed costs, aspects such as the following are considered: extraction rooms, vehicles, salary payment in case there are wages, electricity bill, land rental and depreciation of equipment. Although the highest costs in percentage are present in the small-scale stratum compared to the other two strata, the honey producers seek optimizing their resources through the acquisition of their own technology, procreation of their own queen bees, and reuse of inputs, such as wax to use their own equipment.

Next the most important areas of the variable costs are highlighted, which allows determining the profitability of the apiculture activity.

The cost structure of the total production of honey (Table 3) in the study region of the Tehuantepec Isthmus, the relative participation of the expenditure to purchase sugar required for the larger producer to feed the beehives with fructose or honey from the wax (the honey that is left over on the wax dripping after the desoperculation), and other practice transhumance (they move the beehives once the flowering is over, thus decreasing the artificial feeding, although the costs are increased from freight and workforce, but on the other hand, they implement an economy of scale).

Table 3 Structure of production costs and profitability of the apiculture activity per stratum ($). 

Conceptos	Pequeño	%	Mediano	%	Grande	%
Azúcar	1947.50	15.415	6412.7	11.211	8000.0	5.586
Medicamentos	800.00	6.36	3930.0	6.97	7000.0	4.885
Cera	460.00	3.64	1345.5	2.42	1291.7	0.901
Combustible	2333.33	18.518	11 872.7	20.821	39 204.0	27.3427
Subtotal	5540.83	0.8	23 560.9	0.6	55 495.7
Mantenimiento de colmena (clavos, alambre, bastidores)	103.33	0.81	346.4	0.61	587.0	0.41
Subtotal	103.33	2.1	346.4	0.8	587.0
Mano de obra(personal)	1440.00	11.4	9396.0	16.4	39 204.0	27.34
compra de reinas	900.00	7.1	8100.0	14.2	4666.7	3.25
Subtotal	900.00	3.67	8100.0	2.414	4666.7	27.343
Total Costos Variables ($)	8254.17	65.465	41 853.3	73.273	100 553.3	70.1270
Costo Fijo
Costos fijos de operación	150.00	1.21	180.00	0.31	1000.00	0.701
Depreciación de activos fijos	4210.07	33.433	15 117.49	26.526	41 849.51	29.1829
Total costo fijo ($)	4360.07	34.635	15 297.49	26.827	42 849.51	29.8830
Costo total de producción	12 614.20	100.00	57 150.76	100.00	143 402.84	100.00
Total de ingresos	33 959.00		149 080.92		396 038.97
Rentabilidad	21 344.80		91 930.16		252 636.13

Source: authors’ elaboration with data from the survey to producers, 2013.

Note: the analysis does not include the costs of vehicle wear, infrastructure, and if the case may be, land rental⁵.

On the other hand, in the area of drugs against pests, one of the diseases, the Varroa Destructor (parasite mite of the bee Apis mellifera and ants), is an important problem to address in the economic aspect, causing a decrease in income for the producer’s pocket.

In the aspect of the wax, honey producers of the stratum of more beehives invest in equipment to stamp the wax, in contrast with the small-scale producers who send it to be stamped, this because with small-scale production it is not affordable to purchase this equipment and they generally send it to be processed with large-scale honey producers, or else, they buy it already stamped.

One of the variable costs that impact the expenditures of the honey producer is fuel, the daily use in the activity mainly in the vehicle with 18 %, 21 % and 27 % in the small-scale, medium- scale and large-scale strata. It can be compared with beehive maintenance (nail, wire, frame repair) which represent 1 %, 1 % and 0.40 % in the small-scale, medium-scale and large-scale strata.

In payment for the workforce, the expenditure made represents the main one in the area of variable costs and it is because honey producers have the need to hire workforce to carry out the various activities in the apiary; of these, the main one is the harvest.

It should be highlighted that the large-scale stratum tends to make its own queen bees, which causes them to substitute the purchase and decrease its variable costs, compared to the small-scale stratum that has to buy them, or the case of some producers who divide their beehives and let the bees breed their own queens, which produces queens of low genetic quality and high africanization.

In turn, the magnitude of the fixed cost of producing honey with regards to the total production represents approximately 35 %, 27 % and 30 %, respectively, for the small-scale, medium-scale and large-scale producer of the total costs. This reflects that the small-scale stratum with food grade stainless steel extractor increases four-fold the fixed costs in comparison to the total costs. Within the three main expenditures of this cost, the most important one was the depreciation value of equipment; that of depreciation of the transport vehicles that belong to the beekeeper is not included in the costs, which could reduce the profitability of the honey producers.

Point of equilibrium

^{Horngreen (2007)} explains that the point of equilibrium is the amount of production sold at which the total income is equal to the total costs; that is, the operative profit is zero. The point of equilibrium indicates the magnitude of production required to be sold to avoid a loss.

The point of equilibrium of the small-scale stratum deserves attention in particular because one of the hypotheses is that the implementation of beehives at a small scale is a viable alternative which will have a positive impact on the standard of living of the producer through employment generation and additional income in his production unit. The point of equilibrium for the small-scale producer in a situation in which he doesn’t win or lose is $5760.15 pesos, income that he can obtain with the sale of 144.18 kilograms of honey at a price of $47.00 pesos because these are considered costs that include the final consumer, such as the purchase of container, label, depending on the case, dissemination work, time, and the product is given an added value; in some cases it is sold not as food but rather as a medicinal product (Figure 2).

Source: authors’ elaboration with data from the survey to producers, 2013.

Note: IT: Total Income, CTP: Total production cost, Total variable cost, Total fixed cost, Production value, PE: Point of equilibrium, PEVP: Point of equilibrium of the production volume, PEVV: Point of equilibrium of the sales volume.

Figure 2 Point of equilibrium of the small-scale stratum. 

If 38 kilograms are taken as the average production per beehive, piece of data that was taken from the survey with producers of the Tehuantepec Isthmus Region, and this is above the national mean of 31.5 kg/beehive (SAGARPA, 2010), the point of equilibrium would be reached with a total production of 144.18 kilograms, which is feasible to achieve with four beehives.

The fixed costs also vary depending on the installation capacity of the plant, but these do not influence the production volume, so it should be sought for them to be smaller for the point of equilibrium to be reached faster. For the producers to reach the production level at which the incomes over sales are exactly equal to the sum of fixed and variable costs, it is important to work at 100 % of the capacity of the fixed costs (extractors, vehicles, extraction room, wages), which would allow having a higher profitability.

The benefit/cost relation indicates that in apiculture for every peso invested (variable and fixed cost), a profitability of 92 cents is obtained in the small-scale stratum, in the medium-scale it is 96 cents, and in the large-scale 1.01, in 2013. This indicator is evidence that apiculture in the study region is profitable, since for each peso invested in the activity the return from an investment equivalent in fixed rent promissory notes of 3.8 % (the promissory note is a document by which the emitting entity is committed to make a payment, at the time of expiration date, in favor of its holder, and involves the payment of interest at expiration), is exceeded. If there is no investment in the profitable activity in a period, the money from the investment will be affected by the inflation process that takes place during that year and the purchasing power will be lost.

Conclusions

In the Tehuantepec Isthmus Region, apiculture is a profitable activity.

Farming is feasible under the technical and market conditions.

The profitability in apiculture is related to the market. It is important to have a trading channel to sell the product directly to the consumer. In this study the producers from the small-scale stratum are the ones who obtain the highest price in the market. The producers from the medium-scale and large- scale strata sell their product through intermediaries, which, although it makes the commercialization of higher volumes of honey possible, results in them getting a lower price.

The small-scale stratum showed that two people are required to manage the beehives, which can be family members for self-employment of the father or children of both sexes, which allows showing the optimization of resources such as workforce.

Based on the average production per beehive in the study region, 38 kilograms per beehive, the point of equilibrium would be reached with a total production of 144.18 kilograms, which are obtained through four beehives. In this regard, the only stratum that fulfills this condition is the small-scale stratum.

Based on this, we can affirm that the rural production units can diversify their activity to complement their income through apiculture; according to the data obtained in the field by beekeepers who live in the study region, the activity can be complementary under the following conditions: managing 23 beehives in average in a single apiary, extraction equipment of 8 to 24 frames, working in organized groups of beekeepers to decrease labor costs, training and in the extraction room; they can devote time to their main activity and in the afternoons or weekends devote time to the beehives and work with this as a family business that serves for self-employment.