































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 4, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Matt Benge, Associate Professor, University of Florida, PO Box 112060, Gainesville, FL 32610, mattbenge@ufl.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5358-3233 
2. Amy Vu, State Specialized Program Extension Agent II, University of Florida, PO Box 110620, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

amy.vu@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7547-7282 
49 

 

Challenges and Barriers to Developing Commercial 
Beekeeping Education Programs in Florida 

 
M. Benge1, A. Vu2 

 
 

Article History 
Received: July 27, 2023 
Accepted: December 1, 2023 
Published: December 18, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
extension; program development; 
planned behavior  

Abstract 
Honey bees are vital to Florida agriculture as they play an important role 
in pollinating a variety of the state’s crops and the demand for honey bee 
pollination and bee-related products continues to increase as the need 
for more food increases. Cooperative Extension plays an important role 
in Florida’s agricultural sector, yet many extension agents do not focus 
much time and attention on commercial beekeeper education. Using the 
program development model, we sought to understand the challenges 
and barriers of Florida agriculture extension agents to conducting 
commercial beekeeping programs. We conducted a focus group with the 
Honey Bee Extension Education Team to identify potential barriers and 
challenges. One major finding is that agriculture extension agents are 
using a variety of definitions and descriptions when classifying who a 
commercial beekeeper is. The major challenges that affect Florida 
Extension agents conducting commercial beekeeping programs are a lack 
of resources, little technical/subject matter knowledge and experience, 
lack of trust with commercial beekeepers, understanding clientele needs, 
and other agent job responsibilities take priority demands. Florida 
Extension needs to provide a strategic plan with specific goals, objectives, 
and training for agriculture extension agents to conduct commercial 
beekeeping programs. 

mailto:mattbenge@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5358-3233
mailto:amy.vu@ufl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7547-7282


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   50 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Agriculture plays a pivotal role in Florida’s economy, as it is the second highest grossing 
economic industry in the state and utilizes 9.70 million acres of land for ranches and farms for 
agricultural production (United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics 
Service [USDA-NASS], 2019). Honey bees are vital to Florida agriculture, ranking third in the 
nation in number of colonies (United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture 
Statistics Service [USDA-NASS], 2020) and pollinating a variety of crops such as almonds, 
melons, blueberries, squash, cucurbits, and more (Florida Department of Agriculture & 
Consumer Services [FDACS], 2021). In recent years, demand for many pollinator-dependent 
crops has increased across the United States (U.S.), which has resulted in a demand for 
increased pollination services. Florida’s Extension agents need to be prepared and equipped 
(Harder et al., 2010; Seevers et al., 1997) to work with and educate Florida’s 520 commercial 
beekeepers (Calderone, 2012) to match the demand for pollinator services.  
 
Many Florida Extension agents conduct educational programs for hobbyist (or backyard) honey 
beekeepers; however, many agents do not conduct commercial beekeeping programs (S. 
Mukhtar, personal communication, July 21, 2020). Historically, this has been the case all over 
the nation, with extension personnel focusing on hobbyist beekeepers and less so on 
commercial beekeepers. The Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (FDACS) 
categorizes backyard beekeepers as an individual who manages 0-40 colonies, sideliners are 
those with 41-100 colonies, and commercial beekeepers manage 101 colonies or more 
(Branden Stanford, personal communication, 2023). However, there is no consensus on what is 
considered a “commercial beekeeper” on a national or international scale or even within the 
beekeeping community in Florida, which can cause some confusion. While there are many 
reasons extension agents focus their programmatic efforts on hobbyist beekeepers, it is 
important to acknowledge the reason for little to no commercial beekeeping programs in 
Florida. Due to the importance honey bees contribute to the Florida, and to the U.S.’ 
agriculture, it is critical to understand the barriers and challenges Florida Extension agents face 
to developing commercial beekeeping programs. 

 
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 

 
Program development “is a process designed to bring about effective programming” and is a 
“system of interrelated parts, all of which work together to achieve defined goals” (Seevers et 
al, 1997, p. 102). The Program Development Model (PDM) is made up of three primary 
components: (a) program planning, (b) program design and implementation, and (c) program 
evaluation (Seevers et al., 1997). Program planning guides the formation of a program, such as 
identifying needs, setting program priorities, and developing goals and objectives. Within the 
program design and implementation component, extension agents create curriculum and 
presentation materials and identify and choose appropriate program delivery methods (i.e. 
field day, group workshop, webinar, etc.). Lastly, program evaluation refers to the planning and 
implementing of evaluation measures to ensure outcome were achieved (Diaz et al., 2019). 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   51 
 

When linked together with thoughtful and intentional planning, these components provide the 
foundation for successful extension programming. However, a breakdown within one of the 
PDM processes can be a challenge for extension professionals to effectively educate their 
clientele (Boone et al., 2002). 

 
Purpose 

 
The purpose of this research was to understand the challenges and barriers of Florida 
agriculture extension agents to developing commercial beekeeping programs. The two research 
questions guiding this study were: (a) How do Florida agriculture extension agents describe 
commercial beekeeping? (b) What challenges do Florida agriculture extension agents face when 
developing commercial beekeeping programs? 

 
Methods 

 
A qualitative design utilizing focus groups was used to understand the challenges and barriers 
of Florida agriculture extension agents when conducting commercial beekeeping programs. 
Focus groups allow participants the opportunity to share opinions and engage in feedback with 
others and therefore promote discussion and deeper thought into an issue (Morgan, 1998). A 
focus group was conducted with members of the Honey Bee Extension Education Team 
(HBEET), which is a working group of 11 Florida Extension agents with the sole purpose to 
develop and conduct education programs for commercial beekeepers. Though the literature 
typically recommends three focus groups (Krueger & Casey, 2000), conducting one focus group 
with the HBEET members was appropriate because of their membership in this appointed 
working group and can speak on the challenges and barriers to commercial beekeeping 
programs. 
 
A semi-structured moderator’s guide was created by the researchers consisting of five 
questions to satisfy the research questions, such as “What is commercial beekeeping?” and 
“What challenges exist to conducting commercial beekeeping programs?” The interview guide 
was reviewed by a four-member panel for face and content validity (Morse et al., 2002). The 
study received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to being conducted, and 
each participant consented to participate in the study. Nine of the eleven HBEET members 
participated in the virtual focus group which lasted 47 minutes and was audio-recorded. The 
lead researcher served as the moderator for the focus group interview while the other 
researchers took observational notes as a form of secondary data collection that was also 
utilized for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Once the audio recording was transcribed 
verbatim, the data was analyzed using the constant comparative method where first the 
researchers analyzed and coded the data individually before comparing together (Krueger & 
Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1998). 
 
The researchers utilized NVivo 12 qualitative software to organize, code, and analyze the data 
collected. The constant comparative method was used to reduce data into identifiable, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   52 
 

recurring themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researchers analyzed the data individually and 
then met to discuss emergent themes together, which was important in this study since one of 
the researchers did not have an extension background and acted as an external check to the 
other researchers with extension backgrounds.  
 
Eisner (1991) stated the importance of establishing credibility within qualitative research 
“allows us to feel confident about our observations, interpretations, and conclusions” (p. 110). 
We first used member checking with four focus group participants both prior and after 
analyzing the data to ensure accuracy and understanding of the emergent themes. Second, we 
invited one of the moderator’s guide reviewers to peer debrief our emergent themes to ensure 
accuracy and application of the data. Third, thick and rich descriptions were used to ensure 
transferability of the findings. 

 
Findings 

 
Findings from Research Question One 
Regarding the first research question, participants described commercial beekeeping in four 
different ways: (a) bee products and pollination services, (b) Florida definition of commercial 
beekeeping, (c) USDA definition of beekeeping, and (d) money. Many of the extension agents 
were uncertain about how they should classify commercial beekeepers and what specifications 
defined a commercial operation compared to a hobby operation which led to the use of 
multiple descriptions. 
 
Bee Products and Pollination Services 
Participants indicated a variety of bee product and pollination services that should be 
considered in the definition of commercial beekeeping. Tatiana explained that a commercial 
beekeeper is someone that provides pollinator services or sells bee-derived products. JK 
suggested that a beekeeping operation should be considered a product or service that comes 
from their bee business. Francisco provided a description of bee products and services he uses 
to define a commercial beekeeper:  

I think that a commercial beekeeper operation should be a product or a service that 
comes from the bee industry. Those could be different things like honey production, 
could be the sale of queens, could be the building of the housing for the bee, could be a 
pollinator of acres. So, I think that any product or service related to the honey bee 
industry should be considered a commercial operation. 

 
Florida Definition of Commercial Beekeeping 
Florida defines a commercial beekeeper as someone that has a minimum of 101 colonies (B. 
Stanford, personal communication, 2023). Some of the participating extension agents were not 
comfortable with this definition due to it not involving a monetary aspect and that the 
definition excluded other pieces of beekeeping that can also count individuals as beekeepers 
that do not have hives. Sarah explained she does not use Florida’s definition for commercial 
beekeeping, and Bonnie followed suit by stating, “I was never comfortable with that Florida 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   53 
 

definition for extension work.” Jessica explained that she came from a small farm background 
and believed a beekeeper should not be defined by a minimum number of colonies. Teresa 
expanded on what Jessica mentioned by stating:  

I'm a cheerleader for Extension, so if we are talking about large farms and small farms, 
we could probably think the same way about beekeepers that those hundred or more 
hives will be a large bee farm and others who may have, you know, 5-10, or maybe less, 
but they are making some money. From that [they] could be considered maybe like 
small bee farms.  

 
USDA Definition of Commercial Beekeeping 
The participating agents all utilized the USDA definition of a farm to describe a commercial 
beekeeping operation which states that if beekeepers made more than one thousand dollars it 
is considered a commercial operation. JK explained he used the $1,000 definition of a farm 
because “it makes sense.” Jessica supported JK’s comment by stating, “basically, anybody that 
makes money off of a beekeeping like $1,000 or more, I consider that commercial.” 
 
Money 
Sarah, Jessica, Bonnie, and Francisco agreed that if the beekeeping operation is trying to 
maximize their profit, it should be considered a commercial operation and not a hobby. Jessica 
stated that “if they’re aiming to make money from their beekeeping operation and they’re 
doing that, and they’re considering themselves a business, then, to me that’s commercial.” 
Sarah agreed with Jessica’s statement and said, “if there is some sort of exchange of money 
involved… that’s a commercial transaction and so they produce commercially.” JK added that 
using a “profit threshold [to be considered commercial] does not make sense.” Francisco stated 
that if a beekeeper is not making money off of their operation, then it is not sustainable and 
should be considered a hobbyist operation rather than a commercial operation. 
 
Findings from Research Question Two 
Regarding the second research question of understanding the challenges when implementing 
commercial beekeeping programs, five themes emerged: (a) agent’s lack of resources, (b) agent 
technical/subject matter knowledge and experience, (c) lack of trust with commercial 
beekeepers, (d) understanding clientele needs, and (e) other agent job responsibilities take 
priority demands. 
 
Agent’s Lack of Resources 
The participating agents felt they did not have the proper resources for beekeeping programs 
and they do not have access to house bees at their local offices due to safety concerns. They 
thought that this is one of the main reasons that agents lack resources when needing to 
understand clientele needs. Tatiana explained that they would like to have a bee program in 
their county, but a lot of extension offices lack the space and materials to conduct the proper 
programs. Additionally, Francisco stated, “not having the proper resources to be able to 
conduct programs decreases the agent’s experience with commercial beekeeping programs.” 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   54 
 

Agent Technical/Subject Matter Knowledge and Experience  
The extension participants felt they do not have enough knowledge experience with bees to 
understand beekeeping and educate others on the topic, as well as enough knowledge on bee 
products and pollination services. The participating agents understood the rules and regulations 
that beekeepers must abide by but often refer their commercial beekeepers to FDACS because 
they did not feel confident enough to provide information beyond the FDACS’ website. Agents 
also felt they lacked major knowledge on the production scale of beekeeping and staying up to 
date with emerging techniques. Ray explained that he knows the basics of beekeeping but 
clarified, “I don’t really have anything to probably offer them at this point; they know more 
about the subject than I do.” Tatiana agreed with Ray and stated, “I think that another 
challenge is we don't have enough knowledge ourselves to teach at the commercial level; ask 
me about bugs and plants, but everything else goes over my head.” 
 
Lack of Trust with Commercial Beekeepers 
Francisco and Tatiana explained that commercial beekeepers feel as if they are being neglected 
when compared to hobby-type beekeeping operations and that commercial beekeepers have 
lost trust in Extension due to the beekeeping information that is published through FDACS 
applying more to hobby beekeepers. Tatiana expressed her concern effectively by stating: 

The commercial beekeepers feel left out, more or less, kind of like what happens with 
small organic farms versus the conventional farms that they feel like all the resources 
and research goes to the larger acreage of the big players. Now the commercial 
beekeepers feel like most of the beekeeping information coming from FDACS and 
extension efforts go towards hobbyist beekeepers so they don't have [trust] in 
Extension. And I think that's one of the barriers that we have. We need to have enough 
good relationships with at least a few beekeepers to get into the group and try to break 
that mentality of “we are not going to help you” or “what we have is not useful for you.” 

 
Understanding Clientele Needs 
Sarah, Bonnie, Tatiana, and Jessica explained that they do not understand what commercial 
beekeepers’ educational needs are, which impacted their ability and willingness to dive into the 
realm of commercial beekeeping education. Bonnie expressed a need for a needs assessment 
to be conducted on what commercial beekeepers need by stating, “we don’t really know what 
they want. We need to do like focus groups…to figure out what they need and how we could 
use it to our advantage.” Jessica echoed what the other agents were expressing and provided 
further:  

I myself don't feel like I know enough about what they need, and therefore, what my 
role [would be] to fill the educational gap would be. And it seems like a lot of the issues 
that they are dealing with are kind of like outside of our educational realm.  

 
Other Agent Job Responsibilities Take Priority Demands 
Many of the participating agents expressed difficulty with dedicating time to focus on 
commercial beekeeping stakeholders due to the other demands of their job. Sarah expressed 
concern that the low number of recorded commercial beekeepers in her county makes it 
challenging to have specific educational programs, and the other programmatic demands and 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   55 
 

high number of other commodity producers need her time and attention. Luke expressed a 
similar concern and that he must have at least ten clientele registered to conduct an 
educational program. Prior to her extension career, Sarah was an extension user and 
sometimes felt that “Extension doesn’t actually have the time for you and you’re actually not 
that important,” which is a concern for her, and she does not want commercial beekeepers to 
have that same perspective. Bonnie and Sarah recommended a collaborative regional approach 
to meet commercial beekeepers needs which would make it “easier to pull together enough 
expertise and enough participation to warrant a formalized educational program.”  

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
Many of the Florida Extension agent participants indicated they did not feel comfortable with 
conducting commercial beekeeping programs because they did not know enough about both 
standard beekeeping knowledge and commercial beekeeping practices. Additionally, 
participants were not using a singular description to define and understand commercial 
beekeeping, adding to the narrative of not being knowledgeable and potentially misinformation 
about beekeeping. Participants recognized that each state and government agencies define 
commercial beekeeping differently from one another which is problematic when setting 
educational goals and objectives. The barriers the participants faced occurred in the planning 
and designing/implementing phases of the PDM framework (Seevers et al., 1997), suggesting 
extension agents might be having difficulty planning educational programs for an audience that 
is unknown and hard to reach.  
 
We recommend that Florida agents work together with the Florida HBREL to identify what they 
define as commercial beekeeping. The Florida definition is any beekeeper who manages 101+ 
colonies (Branden Stanford, personal communication, 2023). Finding a common definition will 
help agents work together to know how to identify target audiences for programs (i.e. “who are 
the commercial beekeepers in my county?”). This may also set a standard for other extension 
programs around the nation. Additionally, some resources already exist to help Florida 
agriculture agents with conducting commercial beekeeping programs such as the commercial 
beekeepers needs assessment produced by Bammer et al. (2022) 
 
Second, extension agents need to be technically competent to serve the needs of their clientele 
(Harder et al., 2010; Seevers et al., 1997). Regarding the PDM, many of the challenges and 
barriers fell within the program planning component, such as agents’ lack of information. 
Florida Extension needs to better prepare extension agents to conduct commercial beekeeping 
programs, provide in-service trainings, and hire agricultural extension agents with knowledge 
(Benge et al., 2011) of beekeeping and commercial beekeeping practices. UF/IFAS HBREL 
provides a University of Florida Master Beekeeper Program that agents can participate in to 
develop a baseline understanding of beekeeping practices. Once the basics of beekeeping are 
met (i.e. knowing beekeeping terminology, understanding honey bee pest and diseases, etc.), 
Florida Extension should invite commercial beekeepers and other stakeholders within the 
beekeeping industry to have a discussion related to their challenges and needs. Visiting 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   56 
 

commercial beekeeping operations, collaborating with district apiary inspectors, regularly 
attending county and state honey bee association meetings, and being in contact with local 
beekeepers association presidents can help agents identify needs in their counties and districts 
while building connections with beekeepers. Agents with a willingness to learn about 
beekeepers’ practices, needs, challenges, and concerns may help build trust between one 
another, and through time, beekeepers may identify agents as a resource.  
 
Florida Extension must better prepare and offer trainings (formal and nonformal) to extension 
agents interested in working with commercial beekeepers, so that they are equipped and 
prepared to create a successful program. Supporting the commercial beekeeping industry will 
ultimately impact the high-quality fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other agricultural crops that are 
dependent on beekeepers throughout the nation. Creating a baseline for successful beekeeping 
programs in Florida can provide an example for other states around the U.S. and beyond. 

 
Acknowledgements 

 
M. Benge - formal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, writing-original draft; A. Vu - 
formal analysis, investigation, writing-original draft. 

 
References 

 
Bammer, M., Benge, M., & Warner, L. A. (2022). Identifying and assessing the needs of 

Florida commercial beekeepers using nominal group technique. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 63(1), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.01080  

 
Benge, M., Harder, A., & Carter, H. (2011). Necessary pre-entry competencies as perceived 

by   Florida Extension agents. Journal of Extension, 49(5), Article 3. 
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.49.05.03   

 
Boone, E. J., Safrit, R. D., & Jones, J. (2002). Developing programs in adult education: A 

conceptual programming model (2nd ed.). Waveland Press. 
 
Calderone, N. W. (2012). Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: 

Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PLoS ONE, 7(5). 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037235  

 
 
Diaz, J., Chaudhary, A. K., Jayaratne, K. S. U., & Warner, L. A. (2019). Program evaluation 

challenges and obstacles faced by new extension agents: Implications for capacity 
building. Journal of Extension, 57(4), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.57.04.26  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.01080
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.49.05.03
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037235
https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.57.04.26


Benge & Vu  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379   57 
 

Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye. Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of 
educational practice. Macmillan. 

 
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. (2021). Florida agriculture overview 

and statistics. https://www.fdacs.gov/Agriculture-Industry/Florida-Agriculture-
Overview-and-Statistics  

 
Harder, A., Place, N. T., & Scheer, S. D. (2010). Towards a competency-based extension 

education curriculum: A Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(3), 44–52.    
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03044  

 
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd 

ed.). SAGE. 
 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.  
 
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and 

implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.  
 
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Planning focus groups. In D. Morgan, & R. Krueger, (Eds.), The focus 

group kit. (Vol. 2). Sage. 
 
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for 

establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of 
Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690200100202  

 
Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through Cooperative 

Extension. Delmar Publications. 
 
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2019). 

Florida agriculture overview.  
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Annual_Statistica
l_Bulletin/2019/A1thru10Over-2019.pdf  

 
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2020). Other 

agriculture. 
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Annual_Statistic
al_Bulletin/2020/F1thru5-2020.pdf  

 
  

 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.379
https://www.fdacs.gov/Agriculture-Industry/Florida-Agriculture-Overview-and-Statistics
https://www.fdacs.gov/Agriculture-Industry/Florida-Agriculture-Overview-and-Statistics
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2010.03044
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690200100202
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2019/A1thru10Over-2019.pdf
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2019/A1thru10Over-2019.pdf
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2020/F1thru5-2020.pdf
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2020/F1thru5-2020.pdf

