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.

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.

The small hive beetle (SHB) was first detected in Italy in 2014 and remains confined to the regions of Calabria and Sicily (Italy). The environmental and colony-related factors favorable to the development of SHBs are widely studied, but mainly at the laboratory level; it is not yet clear whether these factors also apply in the field within apiaries in regions affected by SHBs. In 2022, we conducted a study in the province of Reggio Calabria, Italy, to investigate if these factors influence SHB infestation levels in honey bee colonies. Data were collected from 67 hives in late winter and 81 hives in autumn, inspecting each hive three times per season. Overall, SHB infestation levels were low (an average 0.83 SHB/hive). Our analysis revealed a significant relationship between the SHB infestation level and the following six factors: the number of combs covered by adult bees, the total number of combs, combs surveillance, the previous month’s infestation, sun exposure, and season. GLM analysis predicted a higher number of SHBs in colonies with fewer combs covered by adult bees (2.543), with a greater number of combs (1.877), with lower comb surveillance (0.935), with a higher SHB infestation level in the previous month (1.192), in shaded locations compared to sunny ones (0.207), and in autumn compared to late winter (0.258), with peak infestations in September. These findings provide insights to inform surveillance plans, optimise sentinel apiaries setup in SHB-free regions, and offer practical guidance for beekeepers on implementing biosecurity measures to minimise infestation levels and enhance early detection. Future research should examine whether these factors have similar effects in regions with higher SHB infestation rates.

Aethinosis, the honey bee disease caused by small hive beetle, is listed in the Animal Health Law and requires mandatory surveillance and control measures. The Mobile Divider (MD) method has been proposed as a time-saving alternative to the official surveillance method outlined by the Ministry of Health (MoH). The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the MD method in concentrating SHBs behind the MD and optimizing the number of SHBs detected during hive inspections, thereby improving the surveillance strategies required by European regulations and the WOAH. In late winter and autumn 2022, we conducted 431 hive inspections across six apiaries in the province of Reggio Calabria, Italy. A total of 379 adult SHBs were collected and killed; no larvae were detected. Using the MD method, 238 SHBs were found behind the MD, while 141 SHBs were found in the remaining volume of the hive. Chi-square analysis confirmed the effectiveness of the MD method, showing that the SHB distribution behind the MD and in the remaining volume of the hive was not random (p < 0.0005). Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and potential benefits of the MD method in regions with higher SHB infestation levels.

The invasive hornet Vespa velutina nigrithorax was first recorded in Spain in 2010 and in Italy in 2012. Control strategies to reduce V. v. nigrithorax infestation level in apiaries include nest neutralization and trapping of adult hornets. Trapping methods are simpler, more cost-effective, and can be implemented directly by beekeepers without the use of insecticides; however, they are usually poorly effective or selective. While assessing trap effectiveness is essential for reducing V. v. nigrithorax pressure on hives, evaluating trap selectivity is equally crucial to minimize the capture of non-target insects, such as honey bees and native hornets like Vespa crabro, which exist in a delicate balance with the honey bees. During autumn 2024, five combinations of commercially available mechanical traps, tested with both a homemade and a commercial bait, were evaluated in Spain and Italy to determine the most effective and selective option against V. v. nigrithorax. The mean daily capture rate was significantly lower in Italy (0.19 ± 0.07) than in Spain (1.82 ± 0.39). Significant differences were observed among the five trap–bait combinations (p < 0.0001), with the VelutinaTrap^® (BeeVital GmbH, Vienna, Austria) associated with a homemade bait (sugar, yeast, and water) being the most effective. When trap design was considered independently of bait, VelutinaTrap^® remained the most effective option (p < 0.0001). In contrast, no significant differences were detected between bait types when analyzed irrespective of trap design (p = 0.524). Concerning selectivity, even though all tested traps showed positive results against A. mellifera, the combination VelutinaTrap^® associated with the homemade bait significantly outperformed in V. crabro selectivity. Further research is needed to develop more effective traps for capturing V. v. nigrithorax and to investigate environmental factors that influence variations in the attractiveness of the same trap and bait combinations across different seasons and geographical areas.