Assesses how pollen and bee venom harvesting affects honey quality, indicating improved properties.
Pollen and bee venom harvesting technologies are increasingly adopted globally due to their products' use for health and income generation. However, our current understanding of the effects of pollen and venom trapping on honey quality remains incomplete. This study assessed the effects of pollen and bee venom harvesting technologies on physicochemical, nutritional and antioxidant properties of honey. A total of thirty-six honey samples were collected from untrapped (control), pollen and venom-trapped hives in Singida Region, central Tanzania, during dry (high) and wet (low) seasons. The results showed that pollen collection technology increased diastase and pH but reduced water content, while bee venom collection technology increased titratable acidity but decreased colour absorption. Moreover, both technologies increased the hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content compared to control. Interestingly, both technologies increased honey fructose content, whereas the venom collection technology increased protein and glucose. Furthermore, pollen collection technology increased antioxidant activity in honey compared to the control, while venom collection increased flavonoid content. Honey harvested during the high (dry) season had significantly higher brix, diastase activity, glucose, vitamin C, fructose, and total flavonoid content than the low (wet) season. However, harvesting honey during the high season significantly reduced pH, water content, HMF, ash content, colour absorption, protein content, antioxidant activity, total phenolic content, and titratable acidity compared to the low season. Technology and season interacted to affect all measured physicochemical parameters, nutritional quality and antioxidant capacity, except honey ash content. In general, pollen and bee venom harvesting technologies improve honey quality through enhancing physicochemical, nutritional, and antioxidant properties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mwakigonja et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: