Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV), a widespread honey bee RNA virus, causes massive worker bee losses, mostly in strong colonies. Two different syndromes, with paralysis, ataxia and flight incapacity on one hand and black hairless individuals with shortened abdomens on the other, can affect a colony simultaneously. This case report presents two Apis mellifera carnica colonies with symptoms of paralysis and hairless black syndrome in 2019. Via RT-PCR, a highly positive result for CBPV was detected in both samples. Further problems, such as a Nosema infection and Varroa infestation, were present in these colonies. Therapy methods were applied to colony 1 comprising queen replacement, shook swarm method and Varroa control, whereas colony 2 was asphyxiated after queen loss and colony weakening. After therapy, colony 1 was wintered without symptoms. Beekeeping and sanitary measures can save a CBPV-infected colony, while further complications result in total colony loss.

Veterinarians are educated in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases in various vertebrate species. As they are familiar with multifactorial health problems in single animals as well as in herd health management, their knowledge and skills can be beneficial for the beekeepers and honeybee health. However, in education and in practice, honeybees are not a common species for most veterinarians and the typical veterinary diagnostic methods such as blood sampling or auscultation are not applicable to the superorganism honeybee. Honeybee colonies may be affected by various biotic and abiotic factors. Among the infectious agents, RNA-viruses build the largest group, causing covert and overt infections in honeybee colonies which may lead to colony losses. Veterinarians could and should play a more substantial role in managing honeybee health—not limited to cases of notifiable diseases and official hygiene controls. This review discusses the veterinary diagnostic approach to adult bee examination with a special focus on diagnosis and differential diagnosis of the common virus diseases Acute Bee Paralysis Virus (ABPV)-Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV)-Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV)-Complex, Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV) and Deformed Wing Virus (DWV), as well as coinfections like Varroa spp. and Nosema spp.

Honeybees are some of the smallest farmed animals, and apiculture by-products, e.g., honey, beeswax, propolis, royal jelly, and pollen contribute to animal nutrition. For the effective production of these by-products, the optimal development and nutrient supply of the honeybee is required. Beginning with the development of the mouth and anal pores on the second day of embryonic development, the digestive tract differentiates into the mouth and fore-, mid-, and hindgut during the pupal stage. The various glands within the oral cavity are particularly important, secreting enzymes and substances that are crucial for digestion and hive nutrition, e.g., invertase and royal jelly. Honeybees rely on a specialized caste system, with worker bees collecting nectar, pollen, water, and resin for the nutrition of the entire hive. Macronutrients, including proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids, obtained primarily from pollen and nectar, are essential for the growth and development of larvae and the overall health of the colony. Inadequate nutrient intake can lead to detrimental effects on larval development, prompting cannibalism within the hive. Apiculture by-products possess unique nutritional and therapeutic properties, leading to a growing interest in the use of honey, beeswax, propolis, and pollen as a feed additive. In recent years, the use of apicultural by-products in animal nutrition has been primarily limited to in vivo studies, which have demonstrated various positive impacts on the performance of farm animals. Honey, beeswax, propolis, royal jelly, and pollen are listed feed stuffs according to Regulation (EC) No. 68/2013. However, for animal nutrition there is not any specific legal definition for these products and no legal requirements regarding their ingredients as given for honey or beeswax in European food law.

As Varroa destructor is one of the most important pathogens of Apis mellifera, there are numerous treatment methods, including pharmaceutical and biotechnological approaches. However, the rapid development of resistance to synthetic acaricides by Varroa destructor has become a significant concern. To date, there have been no investigations into the development of resistance to organic acids. This review examines the potential risk of oxalic acid resistance development by evaluating literature sources from the past 30 years following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Median annual efficacies are calculated and reviewed over time for several application methods. An efficacy higher than 70% is determined as not resistant. Independent of the method of application, no resistance development can be observed, although there are some outliers of the annual median. These outliers can be explained by brood status or study setting. However, the result is limited by the low number of efficacy values, and further standardised studies are needed.

Varroa destructor represents one of the most significant pathogens affecting Apis mellifera. A multitude of treatment modalities exist, including those based on pharmaceutical and biotechnological principles. A few years after the first use of synthetic acaricides, Varroa destructor developed resistance to these substances, becoming a significant concern. The present review assesses the potential risk of resistance development to formic and lactic acid. This is performed by evaluating sources in the literature over the past 30 to 40 years following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Median annual efficacies are determined and evaluated over time. Independent of pharmaceutical form, mite populations are considered non-resistant for efficacies higher than 70%. After the assessment of outliers for lactic acid, the remaining limited data are insufficient to draw conclusions on resistance. The reported unusually low efficacy values for formic acid can be explained by inadequate evaporation rates and study settings. Notably, for both acids, the findings are limited by a low number of efficacy values, and further, more detailed and standardized studies are needed.