Stingless bees (Meliponini) are among the most important pollinators in tropical and subtropical ecosystems, providing essential ecological services that sustain native plant communities and contribute significantly to agricultural productivity (Grüter, 2020; Nunes-Silva et al., 2020; Sarkar et al., 2024). Their efficient foraging strategies, broad floral preferences and ability to pollinate crops under diverse environmental conditions make them critical contributors to food security and biodiversity (Putra et al., 2020; Raina et al., 2023; Heard, 1999). As global pollinator populations continue to decline due to habitat loss, pesticide contamination and climate change, the role of managed stingless bee colonies in ensuring stable pollination services has become increasingly central to conservation and agricultural sustainability (Newis et al., 2023; Tirfie et al., 2024; Parrey et al., 2022).
       
In many regions, meliponiculture has expanded rapidly as a nature-based livelihood (Cortopassi-Laurino et al., 2006), driven by the high commercial value of stingless bee products, including honey, propolis and cerumen (Costa et al., 2022). However, the success of stingless beekeeping is often constrained by limited colony availability and the biological challenges associated with their propagation. Unlike honeybees, stingless bees reproduce more slowly and possess complex internal nest structures that are highly sensitive to disturbance. Traditional methods of colony propagation, primarily colony splitting and brood transfer, remain widely practiced but involve extensive manipulation of brood clumps, honey pots and pollen storage chambers. Recent studies demonstrate that such intensive handling can result in considerable stress, reduced foraging activity, disruption of queen pheromonal regulation and delays in brood recovery (Tan et al., 2022; Razak et al., 2023). For example, divided Tetragonula carbonaria colonies exhibited suppressed pollen and nectar inflow for up to 31 days following manipulation, indicating measurable impairment of colony functioning (Newis et al., 2023).
       
These limitations highlight a critical gap in meliponiculture: the need for propagation methods that successfully increase colony numbers while maintaining internal nest integrity and minimizing stress on the bees. With wild stingless bee populations declining globally due to fragmentation and land-use change (Melo, 2020; Carneiro et al., 2021), sustainable and well-designed propagation systems are essential not only for beekeeping but also for species conservation. Researchers and beekeepers alike have called for the development of low-disturbance propagation technologies that can be implemented by small-scale practitioners without specialized equipment or costly materials (Costa et al., 2022).
       
The Hose Method has emerged as a promising alternative, designed to reduce handling stress by transferring bees and brood through a controlled conduit from a parent hive to a receiving colony. The method is designed to maintain colony cohesion, minimize physical manipulation and facilitate a smoother colony acceptance process. While anecdotal evidence suggests that this technique may improve establishment success, reduce queen loss and support faster colony stabilization, there is a significant lack of empirical research evaluating its biological effectiveness, practicality and long-term sustainability.
       
Evaluating the Hose Method requires a comprehensive understanding of the structure and dynamics of stingless bee colonies. Systems theory conceptualizes a bee colony as an adaptive, self-organizing biological system in which changes in brood presence, queen signaling and resource stores can cascade into changes in division of labor, foraging patterns and overall resilience (Carpenter et al., 2001). Minimizing disturbance during propagation is therefore essential for sustaining colony stability during transition. Ecological resilience theory further emphasizes the importance of maintaining core system functions in the face of disturbance, an especially relevant consideration for stingless bee colonies, which are sensitive to disruptions in nest architecture and resource distribution (Mazed et al., 2022).
       
Moreover, sustainable agriculture paradigms emphasize the need for propagation systems that are biologically effective, economically feasible and socially acceptable to local beekeeping communities, which is consistent with the agroecological principles of sustainable production systems (Altieri, 1995). Practical stingless bee propagation not only strengthens pollination services and supports agricultural productivity but also enhances rural livelihoods, biodiversity conservation and climate-resilient food systems (Potts et al., 2021). A low-cost, low-labor, high-success propagation method such as the Hose Method could therefore play a pivotal role in scaling meliponiculture across resource-limited communities.
       
Given the growing ecological value of stingless bees, the increasing global demand for sustainable pollination and the documented limitations of traditional propagation methods, a rigorous evaluation of the Hose Method is both timely and necessary. This study aims to fill this research gap by systematically comparing the Hose Method with conventional propagation techniques in Tetragonula biroi, focusing on three key dimensions: (i) colony establishment success, (ii) impacts on colony health and productivity, including queen performance, brood development, honey production and pollen stores and (iii) practicality and sustainability in terms of labor, time and cost efficiency. By integrating ecological, biological and socio-economic perspectives, this research provides an evidence-based assessment of the Hose Method as a viable pathway to enhance stingless bee propagation and advance sustainable meliponiculture.

Study area
 
The study was conducted at the Research and Development Center of the Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology (ASIST) in Lagangilang, Abra, Philippines, from April 2024 to April 2025. The site is situated in a tropical monsoon climate zone, characterized by mean annual temperatures ranging from 26°C to 32°C and relative humidity levels between 65% and 85%. These conditions are conducive to year-round Tetragonula biroi activity and colony development. All apiaries used in the study were situated within a 2-km radius to ensure comparable environmental exposure, forage availability and landscape conditions across treatments.
 
Experimental design
 
A controlled-comparative experimental design with replication was employed to evaluate the Hose Method relative to traditional colony propagation. Thirty healthy, queenright colonies of Tetragonula biroi of comparable population size and resource stores were selected. Colonies were randomly assigned to two treatments:
1. Traditional propagation method (n = 15).
2. Hose method propagation (n = 15).
       
To reduce selection bias, colonies were stratified by initial population strength (weak, moderate, strong) prior to randomization. Each treatment was subdivided into three replicates of five colonies, resulting in a total of six experimental blocks. The experiment ran for 12 months to capture the dynamics of colony growth during the dry season, transition and wet season.
 
Traditional propagation procedure
 
Traditional colony propagation followed widely practiced meliponiculture techniques. Colonies were opened manually and brood combs containing late-stage larvae and pupae were removed and transferred into newly prepared hive boxes. Adult workers were encouraged to migrate into the new hive through scent placement, positioning near the mother colony and gradual hive separation over 3–5 days. All handling followed standardized protocols to minimize brood damage and queen disturbance. The conventional brood transfer and colony splitting process used in the study is presented in Plate 1.


 
Hose method propagation procedure
 
The hose method utilized a flexible, food-grade polyethylene hose (diameter: 1.0-1.2 cm; length: 50-75 cm). The procedure involved the following steps:
 
Hive preparation
 
New empty colonies were prepared with standardized internal structures (brood chamber, resin lining, cerumen starter discs).
 
Colony connection
 
A hole was drilled into the mother colony and the receiving hive. The hose was inserted and sealed using propolis-resin mixtures to prevent light leakage and external intrusions.
 
Colony migration
 
The receiving colony was placed 20-30 cm away from the mother colony. Worker bees freely moved through the hose, initiating nest construction in the new hive. Queens were not forced to migrate; instead, workers gradually established brood zones in the receiving hive and the queen would voluntarily relocate, a process monitored daily.
 
Separation protocol
 
Once egg-laying commenced in the receiving hive (usually within 7-14 days), the hose was gradually constricted until complete detachment was achieved.
       
This method reduced direct handling of brood and minimized exposure of nest structures to the environment. The physical setup and actual colony connection using the hose conduit are shown in Plate 2.


 
Data collection
 
Data were collected monthly for 12 months using standardized measurement protocols.
 
Colony establishment success
 
A colony was considered successfully established if:
• The queen relocated to the new hive.
• New brood cells were observed.
• Colony population growth was positive for ≥60 consecutive days.
 
Colony health indicators
 
• Brood cell counts
 
Total number of capped and uncapped brood cells, measured through photographic grid analysis.
 
• Queen performance
 
Egg-laying regularity based on the presence of brood in at least two brood layers.
 
• Adult population strength
 
Semi-quantitative scoring (weak, moderate, strong) based on entrance activity and internal comb occupancy.
 
Productivity measures
 
• Honey production (grams)
 
Extracted using non-destructive sampling at 3-month intervals.
 
• Pollen stores (grams)
 
Measured through digital estimation of pollen pot volumes using calibrated photographic analysis.
 
Practicality metrics
 
• Labor input: Number of people required per propagation event.
 
• Time requirement: Time (hours) from initiation to colony  independence.
 
• Cost analysis: Materials, equipment and labor cost per colony (in Philippine pesos).
 
Sustainability indicators
 
• Colony survival rate: Percentage of colonies alive at month 12.
 
• Long-term productivity: Average honey and brood production post-establishment.
 
• Beekeeper satisfaction: Assessed using a 5-point Likert scale.
 
Research instruments
 
• Colony assessment sheets for monthly brood, honey and pollen measurements.
• Digital image analysis software (ImageJ) for quantifying brood and resource stores.
• Entrance activity counter for semi-quantitative worker flow estimation.
• Beekeeper perception surveys for sustainability parameters.
       
Instrument reliability was validated through pilot testing on five non-experimental colonies.
 
Statistical analysis
 
Quantitative analyses were performed using SPSS v.27. Significance was set at p<0.05.
 
Chi-square test
 
Used to compare colony establishment success between propagation methods.
 
Independent samples t-test
 
Applied to compare:
• Brood cell counts.
• Honey and pollen production.
• Time, labor and cost efficiency.
• Beekeeper satisfaction scores.
 
Repeated measures ANOVA
 
Used to evaluate changes in colony health and productivity across time.
 
Effect size calculations
 
• Cohen’s d for mean differences.
• Eta squared (η²) for ANOVA effects.
       
Effect sizes were interpreted following conventional thresholds (small = 0.2, medium = 0.5, large = 0.8).
 
Assumptions testing
 
Normality and homogeneity of variance were assessed using:
• Shapiro-Wilk test.
• Levene’s test.
       
Non-parametric alternatives (Mann-Whitney U) were used when assumptions were violated.
 
Ethical and safety considerations
 
All procedures adhered to ASIST’s environmental and research ethics policies. Only healthy colonies were used. No harmful chemicals or invasive procedures were employed. Colony disturbance was minimized to ensure animal welfare. No human subjects were involved; hence, human ethics approval was not required.

Colony establishment success
 
The Hose Method, as shown in Table 1, demonstrated a substantially higher colony establishment success rate (87%) compared with the traditional propagation technique (60%). Although the chi-square test approached statistical significance (χ² = 3.75, p = 0.053), as summarized in Table 2 shows the magnitude of the difference suggests a biologically meaningful improvement in initial colony stabilization. This trend aligns with recent findings that reduced brood disturbance leads to higher acceptance rates in newly propagated colonies of Tetragonula and Heterotrigona species (Tan et al., 2022; Razak et al., 2023).




       
Traditional splitting exposes brood chambers, honeycombs and pollen stores to external conditions, creating physiological stress that can disrupt colony activities. By contrast, the Hose Method minimizes direct handling and maintains nest microclimate stability, thereby supporting cohesive worker migration and voluntary queen relocation. The higher establishment rate observed suggests that low-disturbance transfer mechanisms enhance initial colony resilience, a key factor in meliponiculture success (Quezada-Euán et al., 2001).
 
Colony health indicators
 
Brood development
 
Brood cell counts were significantly higher in the Hose Method colonies (mean: 1800 ±150) than those propagated traditionally (mean: 1500±200; t = 4.42, p = 0.0001) (Table 3). The 20% increase in brood production indicates more substantial and more sustained queen oviposition activity. The more robust brood structure observed in colonies propagated using the Hose Method is illustrated in Plate 3.




       
These results are consistent with research showing that stable brood temperatures and undisturbed brood architecture promote faster reproductive recovery in stingless bees (Newis et al., 2023). The Hose Method’s reduced intrusion likely preserves the brood nest’s pheromonal signaling and thermal integrity, both of which are critical for synchronized brood development. In contrast, traditional methods temporarily expose brood to fluctuating temperatures and mechanical damage, resulting in slower rebuilding phases.
 
Queen performance
 
Qualitative assessments revealed more consistent egg-laying patterns and larger brood chambers in colonies using the Hose Method. The queen’s retention of brood-laying rhythm suggests lower stress levels during and after propagation, supporting the idea that queen stability is central to colony recovery (Grüter, 2020).
 
Productivity indicators
 
Honey production
 
Hose Method colonies produced significantly more honey (mean: 650±40 g) compared with traditional colonies (mean: 500±50 g; t = 8.14, p<0.0001) (Table 3). The 30% increase demonstrates enhanced foraging efficiency and resource allocation in less-disturbed colonies.
       
Reduced physical disturbance allows for earlier reallocation of worker labor from nest repair to foraging activities. This finding aligns with studies demonstrating that colony stress negatively impacts nectar processing rates, worker longevity and foraging motivation in stingless bees (Costa et al., 2022).
 
Pollen storage
 
Pollen stores were also significantly higher in the Hose Method colonies (400±25 g vs. 300±30 g; t = 10.59, p<0.0001) (Table 3). This improvement is crucial because pollen availability directly influences brood production and overall colony vigor. Increased pollen accumulation indicates robust foraging activity and efficient nest provisioning. The comparative honey yield and pollen storage performance of the propagated colonies are shown in Plate 4.


 
Practicality and economic feasibility
 
Labor and time efficiency
 
The hose method required fewer people (2 vs. 3) and significantly less time (3.0 h vs. 4.5 h; t = 9.75, p<0.0001) as shown in Table 4. Fewer handling steps and shorter propagation events translated to greater operational efficiency.


       
For beekeepers, especially smallholder practitioners with limited labor availability, this streamlined process presents a practical advantage. Similar adoption patterns have been observed in low-manipulation hive technologies for Melipona and Tetragonula species (Potts et al., 2021).
 
Cost efficiency
 
Propagation cost per colony was notably lower in the Hose  Method (±2,200) compared with traditional propagation (₱2,750; t = 6.32, p<0.0001). This reduction stemmed from lower labor inputs and minimal hive reconstruction requirements. Over multiple propagation cycles, this cost difference may substantially increase meliponiculture profitability.
 
Sustainability indicators
 
Colony survival
 
After one year, survival rates were significantly higher in Hose Method colonies (85%) compared with those propagated traditionally (65%; t = 6.30, p<0.0001) (Table 5). High survival rates are crucial for the long-term viability of beekeeping and effective population management.


       
These findings support ecological resilience theory, which posits that systems exposed to minimal disturbance maintain their functional capacity more effectively (Carpenter et al., 2001). The Hose Method appears to preserve internal nest organization better, enabling colonies to withstand post-propagation stressors.
 
Long-term productivity
 
Across all quarterly productivity cycles, the Hose Method colonies consistently outperformed traditional colonies in brood and honey production as shown in Table 5. These sustained gains suggest that early propagation advantages translate into long-term colony robustness.
 
Beekeeper satisfaction
 
Beekeepers rated the hose method significantly higher in terms of usability and reliability (4.5 vs. 3.5; t = 5.95, p<0.0001) (Table 5). The perceived ease of implementation and lower risk of colony loss contributed to higher satisfaction scores.
       
The results clearly indicate that the Hose Method is biologically superior to traditional propagation techniques. Its reduced-disturbance approach improves colony establishment success, enhances brood and resource development and increases long-term survival. These outcomes validate early anecdotal reports and align with contemporary research emphasizing the importance of disturbance minimization in stingless bee colony management.
       
The significant improvements in practicality metrics, labor, time and cost also underscore the method’s suitability for both commercial-scale and smallholder meliponiculture. Given the increasing global need for sustainable pollination systems, the Hose Method offers a scalable, ecologically grounded and economically viable solution.
       
Overall, this study provides the first comprehensive empirical evidence supporting the use of the Hose Method as a sustainable alternative for stingless bee propagation, reinforcing its potential to enhance conservation-oriented beekeeping strategies.

The study demonstrates that the Hose Method is a more effective, practical, and sustainable approach for propagating Tetragonula biroi colonies compared with conventional splitting techniques. The method significantly improved colony establishment, brood development, honey and pollen production, while reducing labor, time, and operational costs. These advantages make it highly beneficial for farmers and beekeepers, enhancing productivity, reducing colony losses, and supporting sustainable meliponiculture. Its applicability at the community level further supports earlier perspectives on the development potential of stingless beekeeping systems in tropical regions. Moreover, its simplicity and low cost of implementation make it suitable for wider adoption in extension programs, school-based research, and community livelihood initiatives.

The present study was supported by Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology (ASIST), including the Office of the President Gregorio T. Turqueza Jr., VPAA Dr. Noel B. Begnalen and RandD Director Dr. Pablo B. Bose Jr., whose assistance, guidance and institutional support were instrumental to the completion of this research.
 
Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the affiliated institution. The author is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided and does not accept liability for any losses resulting from the use of this content.
 
Informed consent
 
All experimental procedures involving animals (stingless bees) were conducted under ethical guidelines and approved by the Institutional Committee on Experimental Animal Care and Management.

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation.