This paper aims to define and identify the Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs) that beekeepers should adopt within a modern framework for sustainable apiculture. Once identified, HBWPs were categorized according to the Five Domains Model used in other animal species. Drawing on findings of the European BPRACTICES Horizon 2020 project, we identified, for the first time, 243 HBWPs: while all practices were considered impacting the mental state domain, 38 were assigned to nutrition/hydration, 90 to environment, 220 to health, and 50 to behavior. The proposed HBWPs aim to fill existing gaps by introducing a new approach that more fully respects honey bee behavior and helps prevent unnecessary suffering for each bee and the whole beehive at the same time. Future efforts should focus on maximizing welfare benefits within the One Welfare framework, moving beyond the previously considered One Health perspective. This welfare-oriented focus benefits honey bees, supports beekeepers, and promotes environmental sustainability, aligning with the principles of One Welfare.

Apis mellifera, commonly known as the Western honeybee, plays a crucial role in providing ecosystem services, such as pollination, which are essential for biodiversity and environmental quality (Stout and Finn, 2015). Honey bees are the most economically valuable pollinator worldwide and impact a wide number of commercial crops and wild plants, some of which are threatened by extinction (Hristov et al., 2020). Hive products are valuable not only for their economic benefits but also for their positive impact on human and animal health (Boppré and Vane-Wright, 2019;Brodschneider and Gratzer, 2021;De Goede et al., 2013). Thanks to its pollination services, Apis mellifera is regarded as a flagship species among pollinators and serves as a biomarker for environmental quality (FAO, 2022;Giovanetti and Bortolotti, 2023;Olate-Olave et al., 2021).Beekeepers promote sustainability and product safety by adopting Good Beekeeping Practices and Biosecurity Measures, following the principles of the One Health approach to achieve collective health for animals, humans, and the environment (Brodschneider and Gratzer, 2021;Lerner and Berg, 2017;Pietropaoli et al., 2020;Rivera-Gomis et al., 2020). However, a more advanced approach to apiculture should incorporate animal welfare considerations, as these represent a key component in the shift towards more sustainable farming practices (Escobar, 2022;Koralesky et al., 2022;Lanzoni et al., 2023;Stamp Dawkins, 2021).Animal welfare science, a multidisciplinary field involving ethics, laws, physiology, ethology, and farming, is now a significant consideration in modern policies and scientific research (Koralesky et al., 2022;Vapnek and Chapman, 2010). Poor welfare can exist also in animals that appear healthy and productive, and its negative outcomes become evident only when coping mechanisms fail, leading to issues like illness, lack of productivity, infertility, and behavioural anomalies (Bottaccioli and Rulli, 2014;Fraser, 2008;Moberg, 1985;Sandfoss et al., 2020;Yeates, 2024). Since the beginning of the 21st century, ensuring good levels of animal welfare has shown to improve production outcomes, maintain healthy animals, and reduce intervention costs (Fernandes et al., 2021), while enhancing the living conditions of animals, humans, and the environment in various aspects, including social, health, economic, behavioural, and mental domains (Bayvel, 2004;Beausoleil and Mellor, 2015;Browning, 2022). Several studies have shown that animals living in good welfare conditions not only produce more, but also exhibit better health and fertility. This reduces the costs associated with treating sick or infertile animals, limits the usage of antimicrobial substances and enhances growth and resilience (Blokhuis et al., 2013;Fernandes et al., 2021;Fraser, 2008;Mariottini et al., 2022;Moriconi et al., 2024).In this context, the One Welfare approach, encouraged by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and WOAH (World Organization of Animal Health), is gaining global traction (Baragli et al., 2022;FAO, 2023;Verniers, 2022). This approach advocates for the interconnected and shared welfare of humans, animals, and the physical and social environments (Keeling et al., 2022;Stephens, 2022;Vapnek and Chapman, 2010). Traditional animal welfare is based on the Five Freedoms, which outline the fundamental requirements for contemporary animal farming to satisfy the essential needs of the farmed animals (Blokhuis et al., 2013;Broom, 2008). These include Freedom from hunger and thirst, Freedom from discomfort, Freedom from pain, injury and disease, Freedom to express normal behaviour, and Freedom from fear and distress (Brambell, 1965).The Five Freedoms, initially conceived to protect intensively farmed mammals and birds, have evolved in response to changing public opinion and values regarding animals (Alonso et al., 2020). In recent years, animal welfare science has expanded its focus from avoiding negative impacts to also include providing positive welfare states. Modern practices now emphasize good farming and product standards (Browning and Veit, 2021), based on the more comprehensive Five Domains Model (Beausoleil and Mellor, 2015;Grandin, 2022;Mellor, 2016;Mellor et al., 2020). This approach aims for a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, rather than merely the absence of disease or infirmity, considering as significant the welfare of all the stakeholders involved (human, animals and the environment). The model not only addresses the basic needs of the animals, but also emphasizes that animal welfare is a continuum from negative to positive emotional states. It strives to enhance animal welfare by placing greater emphasis on the mental experiences of the animals (Vigors et al., 2021). Despite their remarkable abilities, honey bees have been given limited consideration in terms of welfare due to uncertainty about their capacity to experience mental states. However, based on numerous scientific reports, we believe that honey bees are capable of feelings and emotions, and they align perfectly with the Five Domains model, just like any other animal (Andrews, et al., 2022;Chittka, 2022;Chittka andGeiger, 1995, 1995;Degen et al., 2015;Garrido and Nanetti, 2019;Perry et al., 2017;Solvi et al., 2016;Tan et al., 2013).The New York Declaration recently acknowledged the realistic possibility of consciousness in invertebrates (Andrews, et al., 2022), including Apis mellifera, emphasizing the importance of considering their welfare based on scientific evidence1 . However, animal welfare is applicable once its meaning is clearly defined and practical actions are implemented to measure and to improve specific indicators (Lanzoni et al., 2023;Lorenzi et al., 2023;Sevi, 2009). For Apis mellifera, the concept of welfare needs to be further defined, drawing from models that address contemporary threats and promote preventive approaches...

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.

In recent years, wild bee decline has emerged as a major conservation challenge driven by interacting ecological, health-related, and socio-environmental pressures. Although Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) have long documented bee ecology, environmental change, and sustainable stewardship practices, their contribution remains insufficiently integrated into contemporary conservation and veterinary frameworks. This review evaluates the current evidence on how IKS can contribute to wild bee conservation and examines how these knowledge systems can be integrated with ecological and veterinary approaches within a One Health and One Welfare perspective. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature published primarily between 2020 and 2026, together with selected foundational studies where necessary, we synthesised evidence from ecology, ethnobiology, conservation science, and veterinary population health. Particular attention was given to studies documenting Indigenous observations of bee health, habitat quality, landscape management, nutritional ecology, disease ecology, and conservation governance. The reviewed literature indicates that IKS provide long-term ecological observations and adaptive management practices that complement scientific monitoring by identifying early indicators of environmental degradation and colony stress. Indigenous-managed landscapes frequently support greater habitat heterogeneity and more stable floral resources, highlighting nutritional ecology as a key pathway linking land-use practices with immune competence, stress tolerance, and population resilience. Disease ecology emerged as a second critical dimension, demonstrating that pathogen spillover at the managed–wild bee interface is primarily shaped by management intensity, colony density, and landscape characteristics rather than species boundaries alone. Across these domains, IKS and veterinary population-health approaches converge in emphasizing prevention, early detection of cumulative stress, and ecosystem-based management. These findings support the integration of Indigenous and scientific knowledge through collaborative governance and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)-based research partnerships. Recognising Indigenous-managed territories as valuable biocultural landscapes and extending health surveillance beyond managed Apis mellifera to include wild and stingless bees may strengthen evidence-based conservation strategies under integrated One Health and One Welfare frameworks.