Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices Within the Five Domains Framework for Sustainable Beekeeping
by
, , , ,
Giovanni Formato
1
Elena Giannottu
1,*,
Valentina Lorenzi
2
Cristina Roncoroni
1
Marco Pietropaoli
1
Camilla Pedrelli
1,
Marina Bagni
3 and
Stefano Palomba
1 1
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana “M. Aleandri”, International Cooperation and Research for Sustainable Development in Beekeeping Laboratory, FAO Reference Centre “Animal Health and Food Security Discipline Apiculture, Health and Biosecurity”, WOAH Collaborating Centre “Good Beekeeping Management Practices and Biosecurity Measures in the Apiculture Sector”, Via Appia Nuova 1411, 00178 Rome, Italy
2
Italian Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia-Romagna “B. Ubertini”, Via Antonio Bianchi, 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy
3
Direzione Generale della Salute Animale, Ufficio 2, Ministero della Salute, Viale Giorgio Ribotta 5, 00144 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(24), 11902; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411902
Submission received: 31 October 2024
/
Revised: 10 December 2024
/
Accepted: 12 December 2024
/
Published: 19 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advances in Beekeeping, Bee Behavior and Its Bionic Applications)
Abstract
:Featured Application
The main applications of this article include integrating Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs) into beekeeper training programs, developing sustainability policies and standards, creating technological monitoring tools, conducting welfare audits, fostering environmental partnerships, and supporting ongoing research, promoting a sustainable impact aligned with the One Welfare framework.
Abstract
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.
1. Introduction
The welfare of honey bees (Apis mellifera) has received significant attention due to their crucial roles in agroecosystems, such as pollination, serving as bioindicators, producing hive products, and their use in Api tourism and apitherapy [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Food production is heavily reliant on bees, as more than 80% of plants are pollinated by honeybees, and some plants cannot reproduce without their pollination. Additionally, the well-being of bees is directly linked to improved honey production, highlighting the importance of maintaining their health [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].
Bee welfare is an important topic for both the ecosystem and the economy, as bees are essential for pollinating many cultivated and wild plants. Bee welfare refers to maintaining optimal conditions for their health and survival requiring sustainable beekeeping management practices [9]. In fact, sustainable beekeeping refers to the implementation of bee-friendly practices aimed at addressing the various threats to honeybee health, including pests, predators, chemicals, inadequate management practices, climate change, and other stressors. This involves a holistic approach that extends beyond the apiary, considering the surrounding environment and all relevant stakeholders. This approach prioritizes the long-term health and well-being of bee colonies, ensuring their resilience and productivity while promoting ecological balance and sustainability in beekeeping practices [10].
Several factors affect bee welfare, mainly nutritional stress, loss of habitat, climatic changes, improper use of PPPs (phytosanitary products), diseases and wrong management.
In terms of nutrition, bees require a diverse diet to maintain optimal health. However, this is increasingly threatened by habitat loss. Urbanization, deforestation, and intensive agricultural practices contribute to the loss of natural habitats, limiting bees’ access to essential food and water sources and shelter [10]. Monoculture practices and insufficient floral diversity can lead to malnutrition, weakening honey bee resilience to diseases and environmental stressors [11]. Climate change, characterized by shifts in temperature patterns and irregular precipitation, disrupts the availability of forage and affects bees’ ability to pollinate and survive seasonal transitions, thereby disturbing their life cycles [12,13]. The improper use of certain PPPs, particularly neonicotinoids, has been shown to negatively affect bees by disrupting their nervous systems, impairing navigation and reproduction, and increasing mortality rates [14,15]. Bee colonies are also highly susceptible to parasites, such as the Varroa destructor mite, and pathogens, including Nosema and various viruses, which together contribute to significant colony declines and collapse [16]. Finally, effective hive management, which includes the control of diseases and parasites as well as providing supplemental feeding during critical periods, is crucial to maintaining the health and productivity of bee colonies [14,15]. As challenges facing bee populations continue to grow, it is crucial to adopt comprehensive approaches to ensure their health and welfare, guiding beekeepers in their activities through the application of Good Beekeeping Practices (GBPs) and Biosecurity Measures in Beekeeping (BMBs).
Rivera Gomis et al. described GBPs as “all the integrative activities that beekeepers apply in on-apiary production to ensure optimal health for humans, honey bees, and the environment” [17,18]. Additionally, Pietropaoli et al. defined BMBs as “all operational activities to reduce the risk of introduction and/or spread of specific honey bee disease agents” [18]. This definition follows valuable models, such as the traditional One Health approach; however, a shift toward more holistic and modern frameworks, such as One Welfare, that describes the interconnection between animal welfare, human well-being and their physical and social environment as important elements to consider in the elaboration and implementation of policies and activities related to each of these aspects, became necessary [19,20,21]. In this approach, a balanced compromise between honey bees, humans, and environmental well-being is recognized as fundamental [7,19,20].
Although there is no consensus within the scientific community on insect consciousness [13], the precautionary principle assumes that all animals, including honey bees, are sentient and capable of experiencing suffering and emotions [21]. This view has recently been reinforced by the New York Declaration of Consciousness, which acknowledges the realistic possibility of honey bee consciousness and emotional capacities [22] and the need to grant honey bee welfare in beekeeping. The concept of Honey Bee Welfare (HBW) was first defined by Garrido and Nanetti in 2019. They described the welfare of managed honey bees as maintaining “the most natural condition possible”, while considering all potential threats to honey bees. Although this definition is valuable, it lacks a positive application of welfare principles for bee life improvements and does not consider the individual experiences of bees or the precautionary principle. We amplified the honey bee welfare concept and defined reared honey bee welfare as “a balanced and dynamic state, as natural as possible, in which the beehive superorganism and each individual bee have the freedom to express their roles and preferences, meet their fundamental needs, and adapt positively to external stressors without experiencing unnecessary suffering”.
This definition aligns with current welfare models used for other livestock species, particularly the Five Domains Model [23].
In major livestock species, animal welfare science has significantly improved our understanding of animal welfare. Welfare is assessed by utilizing multiple indicators to measure various aspects of well-being [23]. In particular, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare is currently used across different animal sectors. The model emphasizes the significance of both negative and positive emotions and offers a structured and comprehensive approach to evaluating and improving welfare [24]. The Five Domains Model evaluates the animal’s well-being across five key areas: nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state [25]. The latter illustrates the impact of the first four domains on the animal. For instance, the scarcity of food, which affects the nutrition domain, is reflected in the mental domain as a state of ‘hunger’, representing the animal’s subjective experience (or feeling) of the event [23,24,26]. In fact, this model considers both, physical and emotional state, and their interconnections [25,27,28,29,30,31]. Although the Five Domains Model has not yet been applied to beekeeping, it can offer a structure to facilitate the implementation of targeted welfare practices in this field [25]. Considerations of honey bee mental state are supported by the recognition of their sentience and by the recent New York Declaration [22]. Honey bee mental state can be assessed by observing the colony’s response to stimuli, treating the superorganism as an individual entity, just as one would consider a single bee.
In this paper, we established the first definition of HBWPs and applied the Five Domains Model to categorize practices that support not only honey bee survival and productivity but also their overall welfare, along with benefits for humans and the environment, thereby promoting a more sustainable, welfare-oriented approach to modern beekeeping.
2. Materials and Methods
In the present study, after defining and listing the HBWPs, we categorized them according to the existing literature about relevant topics for honey bee Welfare, such as the Five Domains Model, sustainable beekeeping practices, and scientifically validated approaches. To list the practices, we referred to the One Health approach, used to identify the 140 GBPs [32] and the 84 [18] already validated through the European BPRACTICES Horizon 2020 project (https://www.izslt.it/bpractices/, accessed on 16 July 2024) in collaboration with European beekeepers, international federation of beekeepers association of APIMONDIA, and research Institutes. Additionally, we included previously unlisted practices to ensure comprehensive coverage of all aspects of honey bee welfare. These practices were identified through a detailed review of scientific literature and consultations with experts, with a particular focus on addressing honey bee behavior and minimizing suffering. The inclusion process also considered practices that could complement the existing validated ones to provide a holistic approach to honey bee welfare.
Regarding the headings of the practices, we adhered to those already established. The 140 Good Beekeeping Practices (GBPs) were organized into six categories [17]: general apiary management (including transportation, hygiene, bee health, apiary management, wintering, human health, and colony management), veterinary medicines, disease management, hygiene, animal feeding and watering, and record keeping [17]. In contrast, BMBs were organized under five headings corresponding to the main honey bee diseases in Europe [18]: Varroosis; American Foulbrood, European Foulbrood, Nosemosis and Aethinosis. Finally, we categorized the HBWPs according to the domains nutrition/hydration (N), environment (E), health (H), behavior (B), and mental domain (M) as usually performed for the other animal species. We also used bold characters to indicate the domain we considered to be most significantly affected compared to the others.
3. Results
Keeping in mind our functional approach of HBW [33], we defined HBWPs as “all those operational activities that aim to implement positively best living conditions for honey bees, pursuing optimal welfare for humans, animals and the environment”.
A total of 243 practices (see Annex) were classified as HBWPs, expanding on those previously identified in GBPs and BMBs within the BPRACTICES project. In addition, 28 new practices, primarily focused on preventing unnecessary suffering and addressing honey bee behaviors (Table 1), were introduced to ensure comprehensive coverage of honey bee welfare, as they had not been covered in the BPRACTICES project. Each practice was evaluated to confirm its alignment with the HBWP definition and to determine its corresponding domain (see Appendix A Table A1).
We adapted to honey bees the Five Domains, identifying challenges and opportunities concerning their welfare. The results are shown in Table 2.
After a detailed analysis of the 243 identified HBWPs, all practices were considered relevant to the mental state domain (M), 42 were assigned to the nutrition/hydration domain (N), 94 to the environment domain (E), 217 to the health domain (H), and 50 to the behavior domain (B) (Table 3). During the allocation, each HBWP could be assigned to more than one domain (Table 3).
4. Discussion
The Five Domains Model, originally developed for vertebrates [34], has been adapted in the present work to the managed honey bees (Table 2).
Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Welfare (HBW) includes the adoption of proper practices, named Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs), by the beekeeper. Starting from GBPs and BMBs already identified by in the EU project BPRACTICES, under the One Health approach [1,17,32,35,36,37,38,39,40], the proposed model evaluates both classic and emerging threats to honey bees, considering their belonging to the different welfare domains and their effects on small and large scales during stationary and migratory beekeeping practices.
The adoption of the Five Domains Model for honey bee welfare introduces a novel framework that extends beyond traditional beekeeping practices. This offers a more holistic perspective by addressing both the physiological and psychological needs of honey bees, while emphasizing not only the single bee, but even the superorganism response as the primary focus to which beekeeping practices should be adapted. Through the application of the One Welfare framework and the Five Domains Model, HBWPs encompassed all aspects of managed bee life. This includes the health of the bees (by monitoring their health, preventing diseases, and ensuring responsible use of medications) along with their emotional well-being, which acknowledges the importance of honey bees’ mental states for optimal welfare (by minimizing negative emotions consequential to negative conditions of living and favoring positive emotions, such as contempt or calmness, with environmental enrichments). Environmental impact is also thoroughly considered, considering factors such as pollution, location, exposition, available space, food and water resources and stores (based on colony size), predators, and interactions with other animals and humans.
This approach encompasses previously underexplored aspects such as the bees’ mental state, their sufferance and their natural behaviors, acknowledging their importance in promoting not only the well-being of the colonies but also the sustainability of apiculture. Compared to those already considered by the B-PRACTICES project within the One-Health approach, the newly introduced welfare practices (28 in total) place special emphasis on honey bee physiology, behavior, and suffering. These practices aim to better recognize what is rewarding for honey bees, with the key objectives including alignment with the natural behaviors of Apis mellifera, promotion of gentle beekeeping, a reduction in unnecessary stress and suffering, and provision of environmental enrichment to enhance adaptability and choice.
For example, we discouraged the use of invasive techniques, such as queen artificial insemination and queen marking, as these practices strongly conflict with the bees’ natural behavioral expression and cause unnecessary suffering. In addition, by promoting the use of locally adapted bee populations and non-invasive management practices, we aim to preserve the genetic integrity and natural behavior of pure honeybee subspecies or races, ensuring their resilience and sustainability over time Moreover, when managing brood interruption, different beekeeping techniques can be compared, such as using trapped comb versus queen caging. Both techniques are effective in protecting bee health. However, in considering their impact on honey bee welfare, the method that allows the queen more freedom to exhibit her natural behavior should be favored. Similarly, additional behavioral considerations should be considered when evaluating practices such as drone brood removal, which is not permitted for bee welfare but is considered a good biosecurity measure against Varroa destructor. The use of local bee populations, which is requested for bee welfare to ensure autochthony, should also be prioritized as best as possible considering factors such as productivity, costs for the beekeeper, the difficulty to avoid hybrids, and honey production. In terms of environmental enrichment, we recommended the introduction of beehives in highly biodiverse areas with great numbers of melliferous and nectareous plants or selecting diverse foraging regions avoiding monocultures, areas with conventional agriculture density, or polluted environments in general, and we considered a balanced and rational use of supplementary feeding to be extremely important, advising its use only when necessary.
Additionally, we highlighted the need to prevent unnecessary bee mortality through more gentle management practices, such as using latex gloves to improve the beekeeper’s tactile sensitivity and avoid accidental bee crushing, applying bee culling with CO2 before hive destruction, and recognizing bee mental states by avoiding hive inspections when bees are extremely aggressive or irritable.
Furthermore, adopting this model and pursuing a positive welfare state could improve resilience to emerging threats, such as climate change, habitat loss, and pesticide exposure, which are increasingly affecting honey bee populations worldwide.
The integration of these additional practices into beekeeping management also has the potential to foster greater public awareness and support for honey bee conservation efforts.
Future research should aim on developing valid, reliable, and feasible indicators for assessing the effectiveness of these practices, enabling the evaluation of welfare conditions once they are implemented in the field. Such indicators could provide valuable data to further refine the HBWPs and help bridge any gaps between scientific recommendations and practical application in diverse environmental and cultural contexts. Continuous monitoring and feedback loops between researchers and practitioners will be essential to adapt these practices dynamically as new challenges arise.
Further validation, harmonization and scoring of HBWPs across different geographic contexts and types of beekeeping will require expert knowledge elicitation [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. To ensure this process is multidisciplinary, and produces transparent and unbiased measures [26], it should involve not only beekeepers, apiculture experts, and beekeepers’ associations but also specialists from related fields of welfare science, such as veterinarians, biologists, ecologists, ethologists, and legislators.
Now that HBWPs for managed Apis mellifera are established, valuable tools can be developed to further enhance beekeeping management. These tools could include the creation of specific manuals, guidelines, and practical instructions for beekeepers and policymakers, as well as the development and the improvement of dedicated checklists for audits, official inspections, and self-assessment tools [6,7,42,48,49,50] All of these resources can be revised and refined based on the HBWPs already identified with the present paper.
Finally, to encourage adherence to these practices and promote compliance among beekeepers, dedicated labelling and marks, such as complementary or integrated organic production labels, can be introduced to certify good will, proper management and boost farmers’ income [51,52,53,54,55]. To encourage adherence to these practices and promote compliance among beekeepers, specific marks and labels, such as certification programs, could be introduced. Such certification would not only offer specific incentives for farmers [3,13,53,56,57,58], but also enhance consumer trust in the sustainability and welfare standards of beekeeping practices [51,53,54,55]. There are already established quality certification programs in animal husbandry that ensure animal welfare, and in Italy, the Classy Farm [46] integrated system is applying a similar approach to beekeeping, ensuring the welfare of honeybees within the broader framework of sustainable farming practices [45].
As consumers become more informed about the welfare standards behind hive products, their demand for ethically produced honey and other by-products is likely to increase, which could drive market preferences toward more sustainable beekeeping practices. In turn, this could incentive more beekeepers to adopt HBWPs, thereby creating a positive feedback loop that benefits both the bees, beekeepers, consumers, and the broader ecosystem services they support.
This approach to including welfare considerations in beekeeping represents a transformative step toward sustainable and modern apiculture. The new Honey Bee Welfare Practices prompt to intervene on long-term effects that proper beekeeping management have on ecosystems and biodiversity. Following a positive approach, they seek to minimize environmental impact and enrich bee life, offering opportunities for positive experiences while still reducing and controlling negative stressors. Moreover, they allow bees to choose their optimal conditions.
The holistic perspective framing these practices advocates for gentle beekeeping and recognizes the interconnectedness of humans, animals, and their environments to achieve optimal welfare conditions. As we highlighted with the HBWPs list, beekeepers can be guided to carry out these practices through specific training programs, peer discussions among beekeepers, collaboration with scientific authorities, and input from veterinary professionals.
Performing the above-mentioned new practices together with the previous one already identified, will empower both bees and beekeepers to make informed decisions regarding welfare options. This approach emphasizes that improving animal welfare directly benefits human welfare, and vice versa, and underscores the need for coordinated actions between veterinary and other services. Moreover, welfare considerations for honey bees highlight environmental protection as a fundamental step in safeguarding the well-being of both humans and animals [30]. An important challenge moving forward will be the development of practical strategies for implementing these practices on a large scale. This will require collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to ensure that these practices are effectively integrated into beekeeping management and adapted to different regional contexts such as professional, and hobbyist beekeeping, organic beekeeping, propolis production, queen breeding, transport, and bee protection efforts. To achieve this, future research should involve the collaboration of beekeepers, ecologists, veterinarians, and policymakers, ensuring that HBWPs are validated, harmonized, and scored according to regional variations in beekeeping practices and environmental conditions.
HBWPs should be evaluated across diverse beekeeping contexts, engaging a wide range of stakeholders, and developing tools such as manuals and guidelines to support their effective implementation.
By evolving beyond a sole focus on production and adopting a multidisciplinary and comprehensive strategy, beekeeping practices can now aim for more resilient hives and thriving colonies. This shift aligns with the One Welfare concept, as it benefits not only the honey bees but also supports beekeepers and promotes environmental sustainability toward a modern concept of apiculture [1,8,23,25,27,29,30,31].
In conclusion, the HBWP approach offers a comprehensive framework for improving honey bee welfare by integrating scientifically validated practices into daily beekeeping operations. The adoption of HBWPs is particularly important for beekeepers, veterinarians, policymakers, and researchers, as it provides clear and actionable guidance for managing apiaries in ways that prioritize honey bee health, behavior, and overall well-being. Furthermore, the development of tools such as checklists, guidelines, and manuals can facilitate the assessment and implementation of these practices, enabling stakeholders to align farm management strategies with the HBWPs. This approach not only enhances the sustainability of apiculture but also strengthens its role in supporting broader environmental and societal goals.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, G.F. and E.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G.; writing—review and editing, G.F., E.G., V.L., C.R., C.P., M.P. and M.B.; visualization, G.F. and E.G.; supervision, S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received external funding from the Italian Ministry of Health under the project Valutazione del benessere in Apis mellifera e messa a punto di protocolli operativi in relazione alle misure di biosicurezza e di contesto ambientale (BEEWELL), project ID LT 08/22 RC.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting the results reported in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Andrea Gyorffy, Alessandra De Carolis, Marcella Milito, and Lauriane Mariame for their invaluable help and support during the preparation of this work.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Honey bee welfare practices (HBWPs) for sustainable beekeeping organized according to the honey bee welfare domain.
Table A1.
Honey bee welfare practices (HBWPs) for sustainable beekeeping organized according to the honey bee welfare domain.
| Heading | Honey Bee Welfare Practice | Honey Bee Welfare Domain |
| 1. General Apiary Management Transportation |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| E/H/B/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| 1. General Apiary Management Hygiene |
| H/E/M |
| H/E | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| 1. General Apiary Management Bee health |
| H/M |
| H/B/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| N/H/E/M | |
| E/N/B/M | |
| H/E/N/M | |
| E/N/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| 1. General Apiary Management Apiary management |
| N/E/M |
| H/E/M | |
| N/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| N/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| B/N/H/E/M | |
| E/H/N/M | |
| E/H/N/M | |
| B/M | |
| B/E/M | |
| B/M | |
| B/M | |
| ||
| B/E/M | |
| B/E/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| E/N/H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| B/M | |
| E/B/N/M | |
| 1. General Apiary Management Wintering |
| E/HM |
| E/H/M | |
| E/H/M | |
| N/E/H/M | |
| E/H/M | |
| E/H/M | |
| E/H/M | |
| E/H/B/M | |
| 1. General Apiary Management Human health |
| H/M |
| B/H/M | |
| 1. General Apiary Management Colony management |
| H/N/B/E/M |
| H/B/M | |
| ||
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| B/E/M | |
| B/E | |
| H/B/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/B/E/M | |
| E/H/B/M | |
| E/H/B/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| B/E/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| E/M | |
| B/H/E/M | |
| B/H/M | |
| E/H/N/B/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| E/H/N/B/M | |
| 2. Veterinary Medicines |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| 3. Disease Management |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| 4. Hygiene |
| H/E/M |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| 5. Biosecurity Measures Varroosis |
| H/M |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| 5. Biosecurity Measures American Foulbrood |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| H/M | |
| 5. Biosecurity Measures European Foulbrood |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| H/M | |
| 5. Biosecurity Measures Nosemosis |
| H/E/M |
| H/N/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/N/M | |
| 5. Biosecurity Measures Aethinosis (if SHB is present in the area) |
| H/N/M |
| H/N/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/N/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| 5. Biosecurity Measures Aethinosis (if SHB is not present in the area) |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/B/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/E/M | |
| 6. Animal Feeding and Watering |
| H/N/M |
| N/M | |
| N/M | |
| N/M | |
| N/H/E/M | |
| N/H/E/M | |
| N/H/E/M | |
| 7. Record Keeping |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| N/H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| N/H/M | |
| N/H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| N/H/M | |
| H/M | |
| N/H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| N/H/M | |
| N/H/M | |
| N/H/E/M | |
| H/M | |
| N/H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| 8. Training |
| H/M |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| H/M | |
| M | |
| H/M | |
| B/E/H/N/M |
N = nutrition; E = environment (inside and/or outside the hive); H = health; B = behavior; M = mental state. In bold is the main domain affected. Note: The listed Honey Bee Welfare Practices include Good Beekeeping Practices (from Rivera-Gomis et al. 2020, modified [47]), Biosecurity Measures in Beekeeping (from Pietropaoli et al., 2020 [19] modified), and Honey Bee Welfare Practices (Table 1 of the current paper).
References
- Olate-Olave, V.R.; Verde, M.; Vallejos, L.; Perez Raymonda, L.; Cortese, M.C.; Doorn, M. Bee Health and Productivity in Apis mellifera, a Consequence of Multiple Factors. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garrido, C.; Nanetti, A. Welfare of Managed Honey Bees. In The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals; Carere, C., Mather, J., Eds.; Animal Welfare; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 18, pp. 69–104. ISBN 978-3-030-13946-9. [Google Scholar]
- Giovanetti, M.; Bortolotti, L. Pollinators and Policy: The Intersecting Path of Various Actors across an Evolving CAP. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2023, 38, e27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Review of Existing Legislation to Protect Pollinators from Pesticides in Selected Countries; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN 978-92-5-136265-5. [Google Scholar]
- Moldoveanu, O.C.; Maggioni, M.; Dani, F.R. Environmental Ameliorations and Politics in Support of Pollinators. Experiences from Europe: A Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 362, 121219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keeling, L.J.; Marier, E.A.; Olmos Antillón, G.; Blokhuis, H.J.; Staaf Larsson, B.; Stuardo, L. A Global Study to Identify a Potential Basis for Policy Options When Integrating Animal Welfare into the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Front. Anim. Sci. 2022, 3, 974687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeling, L.; Tunón, H.; Olmos Antillón, G.; Berg, C.; Jones, M.; Stuardo, L.; Swanson, J.; Wallenbeck, A.; Winckler, C.; Blokhuis, H. Animal Welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodschneider, R.; Gratzer, K. The FAO Guideline on Good Beekeeping Practices for Sustainable Apiculture. Bee World 2021, 98, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA Scientific Committee; More, S.; Bampidis, V.; Benford, D.; Bragard, C.; Halldorsson, T.; Hernández-Jerez, A.; Bennekou, S.H.; Koutsoumanis, K.; Machera, K.; et al. A Systems-based Approach to the Environmental Risk Assessment of Multiple Stressors in Honey Bees. EFSA 2021, 19, e06607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naug, D. Nutritional Stress Due to Habitat Loss May Explain Recent Honey bee Colony Collapses. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2369–2372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaudo, A.D.; Tooker, J.F.; Grozinger, C.M.; Patch, H.M. Bee Nutrition and Floral Resource Restoration. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2015, 10, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jongh, E.J.; Harper, S.L.; Yamamoto, S.S.; Wright, C.J.; Wilkinson, C.W.; Ghosh, S.; Otto, S.J.G. One Health, One Hive: A Scoping Review of Honey Bees, Climate Change, Pollutants, and Antimicrobial Resistance. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0242393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Conte, Y.; Navajas, M. Climate Change: Impact on Honey Bee Populations and Diseases. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2008, 27, 485–497, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sperandio, G.; Simonetto, A.; Carnesecchi, E.; Costa, C.; Hatjina, F.; Tosi, S.; Gilioli, G. Beekeeping and Honey Bee Colony Health: A Review and Conceptualization of Beekeeping Management Practices Implemented in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 696, 133795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, A.; Hassler, E.; Formato, G.; Rünzel, M.A.S.; Wilkes, J.; Hassan, A.; Cazier, J. Data Mining Hive Inspections: More Frequently Inspected Honey Bee Colonies Have Higher over-Winter Survival Rates. J. Apic. Res. 2023, 62, 983–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hristov, P.; Shumkova, R.; Palova, N.; Neov, B. Honey Bee Colony Losses: Why Are Honey Bees Disappearing? Sociobiology 2021, 68, e5851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivera-Gomis, J.; Bubnic, J.; Ribarits, A.; Moosbeckhofer, R.; Alber, O.; Kozmus, P.; Jannoni-Sebastianini, R.; Haefeker, W.; Köglberger, H.; Smodis Skerl, M.I.; et al. Good Farming Practices in Apiculture: -EN- -FR- Les Bonnes Pratiques Apicoles -ES- Buenas Prácticas de Explotación En La Apicultura. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 2020, 38, 879–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietropaoli, M.; Ribarits, A.; Moosbeckhofer, R.; Köglberger, H.; Alber, O.; Gregorc, A.; Smodis Skerl, M.I.; Presern, J.; Bubnic, J.; Necati Muz, M.; et al. Biosecurity Measures in European Beekeeping: -EN- Biosecurity Measures in European Beekeeping -FR- Mesures de Biosécurité Dans l’apiculture Européenne -ES- Medidas de Seguridad Biológica En La Apicultura Europea. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 2020, 39, 725–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koralesky, K.E.; Rankin, J.M.; Fraser, D. The Everyday Work of One Welfare in Animal Sheltering and Protection. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinillos, R.G. One Welfare: A Framework to Improve Animal Welfare and Human Well-Being; CABI: Wallingford, UK; Boston, MA, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-78639-387-6. [Google Scholar]
- Birch, J. The Search for Invertebrate Consciousness. Nous 2022, 56, 133–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, K.; Birch, J.; Sebo, J.; Sims, T. Background to the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness 2024. Available online: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/declaration (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Hemsworth, P.; Mellor, D.; Cronin, G.; Tilbrook, A. Scientific Assessment of Animal Welfare. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkins, C.L.; McGreevy, P.D.; Cosh, S.M.; Henshall, C.; Jones, B.; Lykins, A.D.; Billingsley, W. Introducing the Mellorater—The Five Domains Model in a Welfare Monitoring App for Animal Guardians. Animals 2024, 14, 2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandin, T. Practical Application of the Five Domains Animal Welfare Framework for Supply Food Animal Chain Managers. Animals 2022, 12, 2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harvey, A.M.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Ramp, D.; Mellor, D.J. Mental Experiences in Wild Animals: Scientifically Validating Measurable Welfare Indicators in Free-Roaming Horses. Animals 2023, 13, 1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Littlewood, K.E.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D.; Jones, B.; Wilkins, C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mellor, D. Positive Animal Welfare States and Reference Standards for Welfare Assessment. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. One Health, One Welfare. Available online: http://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/6273/icode/ (accessed on 1 August 2024).
- Fraser, D. What Do We Mean by One Welfare? Available online: https://www.woah.org/fr/animal-welfare-conf2016/PTT/2.1.%20Fraser%20D.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2024).
- Grandin, T. How to Improve Livestock Handling and Reduce Stress. In Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach; Grandin, T., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2021; pp. 84–112. ISBN 978-1-78924-521-9. [Google Scholar]
- Pietropaoli, M.; Skerl, M.S.; Cazier, J.; Riviere, M.-P.; Tiozzo, B.; Eggenhoeffner, R.; Gregorc, A.; Haefeker, W.; Higes, M.; Ribarits, A.; et al. BPRACTICES Project: Towards a Sustainable European Beekeeping. Bee World 2020, 97, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Formato, G.; Giannottu, E.; Roncoroni, C.; Lorenzi, V.; Brajon, G. Apis mellifera Welfare. Definition and Future Direction. Front. Anim. Sci. 2024, 5, 1486587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, D. Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”. Animals 2016, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Agrebi, N.; Steinhauer, N.; Tosi, S.; Leinartz, L.; De Graaf, D.C.; Saegerman, C. Risk and Protective Indicators of Beekeeping Management Practices. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 799, 149381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Agrebi, N.; Steinhauer, N.; Renault, V.; Graaf, D.C.; Saegerman, C. Beekeepers Perception of Risks Affecting Colony Loss: A Pilot Survey. Transbounding Emerg. Dis. 2022, 69, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hristov, P.; Shumkova, R.; Palova, N.; Neov, B. Factors Associated with Honey Bee Colony Losses: A Mini-Review. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danieli, P.P.; Addeo, N.F.; Lazzari, F.; Manganello, F.; Bovera, F. Precision Beekeeping Systems: State of the Art, Pros and Cons, and Their Application as Tools for Advancing the Beekeeping Sector. Animals 2023, 14, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gray, A.; Adjlane, N.; Arab, A.; Ballis, A.; Brusbardis, V.; Bugeja Douglas, A.; Cadahía, L.; Charrière, J.-D.; Chlebo, R.; Coffey, M.F.; et al. Honey Bee Colony Loss Rates in 37 Countries Using the COLOSS Survey for Winter 2019–2020: The Combined Effects of Operation Size, Migration and Queen Replacement. J. Apic. Res. 2023, 62, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Der Zee, R.; Gray, A.; Pisa, L.; De Rijk, T. An Observational Study of Honey Bee Colony Winter Losses and Their Association with Varroa destructor, Neonicotinoids and Other Risk Factors. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hampton, J.O.; Hemsworth, L.M.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Hyndman, T.H.; Sandøe, P. Rethinking the Utility of the Five Domains Model. Anim. Welf. 2023, 32, e62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montagnin, C.; Frasnelli, M.; Fusi, F.; Bonilauri, P.; Bertocchi, L.; Lorenzi, V. Preliminary Study on the Extention of the IT System ClassyFarm to the Apiary. Acta IMEKO 2024, 13, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilioli, G.; Sperandio, G.; Hatjina, F.; Simonetto, A. Towards the Development of an Index for the Holistic Assessment of the Health Status of a Honey Bee Colony. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 101, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holighaus, L.; Zanon, T.; Kemper, N.; Gauly, M. First Evaluation of the Practicability of the CLASSYFARM Welfare Assessment Protocol in Italian Small-Scale Mountain Dairy Farms—A Case Study. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2023, 22, 995–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moriconi, M.; Lorenzi, V.; Montagnin, C.; Forte, C.; Dondo, A.; Vevey, M.; Gaino, S.; Fusi, F.; Bergagna, S. Application of the ClassyFarm Checklist as Measurement Tool to Evaluate the Welfare of Cattle Kept in Tie-Stalls in Aosta Valley. Acta IMEKO 2024, 13, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzi, V.; Sgoifo Rossi, C.A.; Compiani, R.; Grossi, S.; Bolzoni, L.; Mazza, F.; Clemente, G.A.; Fusi, F.; Bertocchi, L. Using Expert Elicitation for Ranking Hazards, Promoters and Animal-Based Measures for on-Farm Welfare Assessment of Indoor Reared Beef Cattle: An Italian Experience. Vet. Res. Commun. 2023, 47, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rioja-Lang, F.C.; Connor, M.; Bacon, H.J.; Lawrence, A.B.; Dwyer, C.M. Prioritization of Farm Animal Welfare Issues Using Expert Consensus. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 6, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuyttens, F.A.M.; De Graaf, S.; Andreasen, S.N.; De Boyer Des Roches, A.; Van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M.; Haskell, M.J.; Kirchner, M.K.; Mounier, L.; Kjosevski, M.; Bijttebier, J.; et al. Using Expert Elicitation to Abridge the Welfare Quality® Protocol for Monitoring the Most Adverse Dairy Cattle Welfare Impairments. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 634470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fernandes, J.N.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J.; Tilbrook, A.J. Costs and Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare. Agriculture 2021, 11, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caporale, V.; Alessandrini, B.; Dalla Villa, P.; Del Papa, S. Global Perspectives on Animal Welfare: Europe. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2005, 24, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heerwagen, L.R.; Mørkbak, M.R.; Denver, S.; Sandøe, P.; Christensen, T. The Role of Quality Labels in Market-Driven Animal Welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, M.E.; González-Montaña, J.R.; Lomillos, J.M. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kehlbacher, A.; Bennett, R.; Balcombe, K. Measuring the Consumer Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare to Inform Welfare Labelling. Food Policy 2012, 37, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sørensen, J.T.; Schrader, L. Labelling as a Tool for Improving Animal Welfare—The Pig Case. Agriculture 2019, 9, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Krampe, C. The End of Animal Welfare Labelling as We Know It? Persisting Problems at the Consumer Level and PLF-Based Solutions. Front. Anim. Sci. 2022, 3, 819893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Prioritizzazione Delle Esigenze nel Piano Strategico Nazionale PAC 2023–2027. Available online: https://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/d%252F9%252Fc%252FD.07cf9fa428c1537fc6e5/P/BLOB%3AID%3D24037/E/pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024).
- Animal Welfare Matters for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Available online: https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/news/animal-welfare-matters-common-agricultural-policy-cap_en (accessed on 8 August 2024).
- Tosini, G.P. European Common Agricultural Policy and Animal Welfare. Riv. Dirit. Dell’economia Trasp. Dell’ Ambiente 2024, XXII, 251–266. [Google Scholar]
Table 1.
New Honey Bee Welfare Practices identified.
| Honey Bee Welfare Practices | Honey Bee Welfare Domain |
|---|---|
| E/B/M |
| E/B/N/H/M |
| E/H/N/M |
| E/H/N/M |
| H/E/N/B/M |
| H/E/B/M |
| E/M |
| H/E/M |
| H/B/M |
| B/E/H/M |
| E/B/N/M |
| B/H/E/M |
| E/H/B/M |
| H/B/M |
| B/H/M |
| H/B/M |
| H/B/M |
| B/H/M |
| B/H/M |
| H/E/B/M |
| H/M |
| H/B/M |
| B/H/M |
| B/H/M |
| B/E/M |
| B/E/M |
| E/N/H/M |
| B/E/H/N/M |
N = nutrition; E = environment (inside and/or outside the hive); H = health; B = behavior; M = mental state. In bold is the main domain affected.
Table 2.
A description of the Five Domains Model, adapted to managed honey bees (Harvey et al. [13], modified).
Table 2.
A description of the Five Domains Model, adapted to managed honey bees (Harvey et al. [13], modified).
| DOMAIN 1 Nutrition/hydration Challenges: restricted feed, food and water intake; low feed, food and water quality. Opportunities: Sufficient and good quality of food, feed and water, varied and preferred shapes, colours, smells. | DOMAIN 5 Mental state NEGATIVE Thirst, hunger, breathlessness, general (thermal, physical, etc.) discomfort, sickness, exhaustion, frustration, loneliness, isolation, lack of control or security, anxiety, fear, and pain. POSITIVE Rewarding engagement in exploration and foraging; general comfort (thermal, physical, etc.); calmness and liveliness. | HONEY BEE WELFARE STATUS | |
| ➝ | |||
| DOMAIN 2 Environment Challenges: Internal or external discomfort (housing): extreme heat or cold, lack of shade, extreme humidity, lack of internal space within the hive, challenging flying and foraging areas (e.g., physical obstacles, excessive distance from the hive, monoculture/non-melliferous plants, presence of competitors), or predatory threats (bears, birds, wasps, hornets, etc.); poor quality of air/soil/water; anthropogenic pollution (pesticides, electromagnetic fields). Opportunities: Internal or external comfort (housing): thermal comfort, adequate humidity, presence of shade, adequate space within the hive, variable underfoot substrate and terrain. Good location, orientation, and disposition. Painting hives in colors and shapes. Adequate ventilation during transport and when stationary; correct wintering. | ➝ | ||
| DOMAIN 3 Health Challenges: Acute or chronic injury, poor health, poor fitness (e.g., queen quality, drone/queen fertility, productivity), and weakness (e.g., flight activity, colony). Opportunities: injury and disease-free, robust good health, good physical fitness. | ➝ | ||
| DOMAIN 4 Behavior Challenges: Limited positive interactions and behavior (e.g., restriction of natural foraging and flights, wax building, defending, fanning, egg laying, mating); lack of enrichment. Opportunities: Ability to express natural behaviors (e.g., foraging, swarming, flying, building wax, defending, ventilating, laying eggs, mating) and to interact within a balanced social structure. | ➝ |
Table 3.
Honey Bee Welfare practices (HBWPs), an overview of the domain distribution.
| Honey Bee Welfare Category | Number of Honey Bee Welfare Practices Idetified |
|---|---|
| Nutrition/Hydration (N) | 40 |
| Environment (E) | 90 |
| Health (H) | 220 |
| Behavior (B) | 50 |
| Mental state (M) | 243 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Formato, G.; Giannottu, E.; Lorenzi, V.; Roncoroni, C.; Pietropaoli, M.; Pedrelli, C.; Bagni, M.; Palomba, S. Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices Within the Five Domains Framework for Sustainable Beekeeping. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411902
AMA Style
Formato G, Giannottu E, Lorenzi V, Roncoroni C, Pietropaoli M, Pedrelli C, Bagni M, Palomba S. Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices Within the Five Domains Framework for Sustainable Beekeeping. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(24):11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411902
Chicago/Turabian StyleFormato, Giovanni, Elena Giannottu, Valentina Lorenzi, Cristina Roncoroni, Marco Pietropaoli, Camilla Pedrelli, Marina Bagni, and Stefano Palomba. 2024. "Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices Within the Five Domains Framework for Sustainable Beekeeping" Applied Sciences 14, no. 24: 11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411902
APA StyleFormato, G., Giannottu, E., Lorenzi, V., Roncoroni, C., Pietropaoli, M., Pedrelli, C., Bagni, M., & Palomba, S. (2024). Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices Within the Five Domains Framework for Sustainable Beekeeping. Applied Sciences, 14(24), 11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411902
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.