Here, we present the results of an online international survey concerning the adoption of good beekeeping practices and proper biosecurity measures for the management of varroosis in Apis mellifera. The survey was designed as a risk assessment tool by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Federation of Beekeepers’ Association (Apimondia), the Center for Analytics Research & Education (CARE) at Appalachian State University, and Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Lazio e Toscana (IZSLT). The data collected investigated the beekeeping techniques, treatments, and training beekeepers adopt concerning the varroa mite. The idea was to validate a tool able to collect and compare, in the different areas of the world, the management measures adopted by beekeepers to face this major parasitic disease of honey bees. The survey was disseminated online for a period of 14 months (January 2019–March 2020) through the FAO website. A total of 861 responses were received, most of them from the Americas (20.9%) and Europe (74.7%). Concerning the control measures useful in combating varroa, the results showed an overall awareness of the usefulness of biosecurity measures in beekeeping (BMBs), which we compare across regions. The majority of the beekeepers (89.9% in the Americas and 82.8% in Europe) were interested in additional bee health training and, at the same time, were willing to connect themselves with veterinary experts specialized in bees. This is an indication that beekeepers recognize the importance of training and experts’ advice. This study revealed the efficacy of the survey adopted as a useful assessment tool that will be further disseminated, even in geographic regions heretofore not investigated, to provide useful information on the status of the beekeeping sector.

Beekeepers need new registered products to control the small hive beetle (SHB), Aethina tumida, a significant pest of western honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Few approved chemical controls exist, and there is no standardized system for screening compounds against SHBs. We outline a detailed method for an acute toxicity bioassay that delivers compounds via pollen. We provide a detailed method for a field trial that delivers treated pollen in traps made from modified compact disc cases. We applied both methods in proof-of-concept experiments to assess acetamiprid as a SHB control agent. Using the laboratory bioassay, we found acetamiprid (${\mathrm{LC}}_{50}$ = 20.5 µg/g) to be more toxic to SHBs than coumaphos was (${\mathrm{LC}}_{50}$ = 1250 µg/g), yet less toxic to SHBs than fipronil was (${\mathrm{LC}}_{50}$ = 1.78 µg/g). In our field trial, colonies treated with acetamiprid and fipronil significantly reduced (p < 0.001) live SHB populations over those of control colonies. Traps containing acetamiprid retained significantly higher (p < 0.001) numbers of dead SHBs than did traps containing fipronil. We outline the first detailed methods to assess the toxicity of compounds delivered in pollen for adult SHB control. Our proof-of-concept experiments showed acetamiprid to be a promising control agent for SHBs.

Background/Objectives: In a collaborative effort, FAO, the International Federation of Beekeepers’ Association “Apimondia”, the Appalachian State University, and the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e Toscana (IZSLT), the FAO Reference Centre for Animal Health and Food Security Discipline Apiculture, health, and biosecurity, designed an online international survey (“Knowledge, Awareness and Practice”-KAP) as a risk assessment tool to validate biosecurity measures able to prevent and control the main honeybee (Apis mellifera subsp.) infectious diseases. Methods: The KAP survey was disseminated through various channels for 14 months (January 2019–March 2020). Beekeepers’ knowledge on nosemosis, American foulbrood (AFB), and European foulbrood (EFB) management was assessed. Beekeepers’ attitudes were investigated by asking them to provide a score called “Acceptance by beekeepers”. Results: Of the 410 respondents, the majority of them (68.3%, n = 252) were from Europe. European beekeepers (n = 252) considered “Highly acceptable” the following practices: removing combs that show signs of dysentery and feeding colonies for nosemosis; the quick identification and management of affected hives for American foulbrood and European foulbrood. Instead, the following practices were considered as not acceptable by beekeepers: for nosemosis, the use of antibiotics and sampling of hive debris for early detection; for American foulbrood and European foulbrood, the shook swarm, the destruction of the whole apiary, as well as their treatment with antibiotics. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the validity of the present “Knowledge, Awareness and Practice” (KAP) survey to validate the best practices for the main infectious honeybee diseases, considering the pragmatic point of view of beekeepers. Sustainable practices for disease control are preferred by the European beekeepers. While having an adequate knowledge base for the early detection of the investigated honeybee diseases, European beekeepers tend to be aware of the health status of their hives, embracing advanced, practice-oriented training. Authors highlight that the selection of practices and their validation should be revised on a regular basis, to be adapted in a timely manner to the current infectious honeybee disease situation, in order to build up a resilient and effective stock of practices.

Background: The use of antibiotics in beekeeping has potential implications for honeybee health and environmental contamination. Recent research indicates that extensive antibiotic use in beekeeping, especially oxytetracycline, promotes antimicrobial resistance in bee-related bacteria. Honeybees can transport oxytetracycline-resistance genes during foraging, potentially establishing reservoirs of resistance in the colony and facilitating intergeneric gene transfer among various gut bacteria as well as in the microbiome of the flowers and the wider environment, where honeybees can spread antibiotic-resistance genes over a large distance. This study investigates the effects of oxytetracycline hydrochloride (OTC) treatment on honeybees from a One Health perspective, examining antibiotic residues in honey, environmental spread, and the presence of tetracycline-resistance genes (TET-RGs). Methods: In the spring of 2022, two groups of four honeybee hives were placed near an almond grove in Central Italy. One group was treated with 1.68 g of OTC, while the other remained untreated. Samples were collected from bees, honey, hive entrances, and flowers before treatment and at 3 as well as 9 days post-treatment. OTC residues and TET-RGs were analyzed to assess contamination and resistance gene dissemination. Results: OTC residues were detected in honey from both treated (day 3: 263,250.0 ± 100,854.3 µg/kg; day 9: 132,600 ± 146,753.9 µg/kg) and untreated hives (day 3: 20.5 ± 8.2 µg/kg; day 9: 135.8 ± 198.6 µg/kg), suggesting cross-contamination. Residues were also found in almond tree flowers (0.7 ± 0.1 µg/kg), with TET-RGs (tet(K), tet(L), tet(M), tet(B), tet(O), tet(D)) detected pre- and post-treatment. In honeybee gut bacteria, resistance genes (tet(M), tet(A), tet(D), tet(B)) appeared post-treatment in both groups. No significant correlation was observed between hive distance and resistance gene presence in flowers, although the presence of other farms located within the bees’ flight range, in which OTC might have been used in the past, could have influenced the results. Conclusions: These findings highlight the risk of OTC-induced antibiotic cross-contamination and the spread of TET-RG, raising concerns for bee health and environmental safety. Given honeybees’ social nature and the negative effects of antibiotics on their health, an antibiotic-free management approach is recommended for sustainable apiculture.

The small hive beetle (SHB), Aethina tumida was first detected in the Calabria and Sicily region (Southern Italy) in 2014. In this regard, a more effective and faster inspection method than the Official one (Ministry of Health) was tested to detect the beetle in the hive. In collaboration with Calabria beekeepers’ association, a “mobile divider”-based method was tested, in order to facilitate the detection of A. tumida and save time during hive inspection. In this short communication, we provide an update on the mobile divider technique and its related inspection procedure, which was first proposed and used in Calabria (Southern Italy) from 2014 to 2016. We report preliminary data concerning the number of detected SHBs and the time spent for their detection, based on the inspection of two apiaries in Calabria region, using both methods (official method and mobile divider method). The preliminary data presented here show that, on average, the mobile divider method seems to be able to recover a slightly higher number of beetles (0.9 adults) per inspected hive, in a shorter time (25 s).

Honey bees are vital to ecosystem conservation, agricultural production, and biodiversity, yet their welfare has often been overlooked. This study introduces the integration of Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs) into the One Welfare framework, addressing the interconnectedness of honey bee welfare, environmental welfare, and human wellbeing. We analysed and re-evaluated the 243 HBWPs already identified and categorised within the context of the Five Domains model in 2024 by Giovanni Formato et al., and we explored their broader impacts. By incorporating the One Welfare approach, we assessed each practice’s effect on bee welfare both as individuals and as a superorganism, human wellbeing, and environmental welfare, as well as their economic and time-related implications for beekeepers. The aim of this study was to obtain a list of One Welfare Practices in Beekeeping, considering all stakeholders as equally important. The analysis highlights the multidimensional nature of beekeeping, with 280 practices positively affecting honey bee welfare, while also considering their potential impact on human wellbeing, environmental health, and production. Challenges such as balancing beekeeper time constraints and welfare goals are discussed, with recommendations for practical compromises. This approach can offer a holistic and sustainable model for apiculture, ensuring that welfare is maintained across all stakeholders, and provides a flexible framework applicable to various beekeeping systems worldwide.