---

1. Introduction

The introduction situates managed honey bees as livestock whose health and productivity depend on management practices and biosecurity measures, while also noting their distinctive ecology: colonies are housed and selected by humans but forage freely. The authors link colony health to both economic outcomes for beekeepers and broader agricultural and ecosystem services, and they highlight the variety of hive products and beekeeping activities that are influenced by colony performance.

As a motivation for the synthesis, the paper points to widely reported colony losses and summarizes prominent drivers identified in surveys and research projects, with Varroa destructor presented as the major threat to Apis mellifera under many conditions. Varroa is described as a host-shift parasite originating on Apis cerana, exploiting the absence of a stable host–parasite balance and contributing to colony collapse when untreated through mechanisms that include impaired immunity, viral transmission, and developmental impacts.

The introduction further frames bacterial brood diseases as major contributors to losses, particularly american foulbrood (AFB) caused by Paenibacillus larvae and european foulbrood (EFB) caused by Melissococcus plutonius, with mention of secondary pathogens that can accompany EFB. Additional threats are outlined for other parasitic mites, especially Tropilaelaps spp. (noted for rapid reproduction and the need for monitoring tools), and for invasive pests such as the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida), whose feeding damage can precipitate colony decline.

Against this multi-threat background and the global spread of beekeeping across diverse climates, the authors argue that prevention, early detection, treatment, and pest control are essential, but that comprehensive syntheses translating applied research into field-tested recommendations remain limited. The stated aim is therefore to identify beekeeping and biosecurity practices with demonstrated effects on colony health and productivity by analyzing peer-reviewed field studies with realistic conditions and control comparisons, and to present results structured by practice type, region, and season. The distinction between “good beekeeping practices” (regular management actions) and “biosecurity measures” (preventing introduction and spread of pathogens) is central to the framing, and the work is presented as a flexible framework intended for future expansion as new studies become available.

---

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology is defined by inclusion criteria designed to ensure practical relevance and comparability: the honey bee colony must be the subject unit, the work must be conducted under field conditions, and experimental and control groups must be present. The search covers publications from 1995 onward and is limited to English-language peer-reviewed field studies. Publications based on reviews, surveys, laboratory experiments, or cage studies using individual bees or small groups as the unit were excluded, although excluded reviews could provide contextual orientation during screening.

Publications were retrieved via Google Scholar and screened manually. From 341 reviewed papers, 191 were included, representing field work involving a total of 12,400 beehives across the selected studies. Data extraction is operationalized through a spreadsheet-based compilation (Supplemental Material S1), which the authors identify as the core output: each row represents a “practice record”, defined as one documented application of a specific practice and its observed effect. This structure allows one publication to contribute multiple practice records, either because multiple practices were evaluated or because one practice was assessed for multiple outcomes, each recorded separately.

To support harmonized description across heterogeneous designs, practice records were standardized at a simplified level, while technical details (for example, application mode or substance concentration) were recorded in separate columns when available, with the expectation that full procedural specifics would be retrieved from the original papers if needed. Practices were categorized into eight thematic areas: general apiary management, small hive beetle infestation, american foulbrood, chalkbrood, european foulbrood, greater wax moth, Tropilaelaps spp. infestation, and Varroa mite infestation. Additional analyses were performed for the AFB and varroosis themes, focusing on seasonality of practice application; for varroosis, the authors also assessed efficacy patterns with specific attention to oxalic acid treatments as the most frequently studied practice type.

For biosecurity measures, reported impacts were further classified into efficacy levels using thresholds described by the authors, and when numeric efficacy was unavailable the study’s own classification was used. The authors explicitly state that they did not recalculate effect sizes or statistical significance and did not conduct additional statistical analysis unless otherwise specified, so the frequencies presented reflect how often practices were associated with outcomes in the literature rather than quantified estimates of effect magnitude. Geographic classification uses a simplified hierarchy (continent, country, and for Europe a six-region subdivision), and seasonal application timing is recorded by month, with Southern Hemisphere months shifted by six months to align calendars across hemispheres. Additional metadata include year of publication and experiment, number of colonies, and references, with GraphPad Prism used for visualization.

---

3. Results

The results consolidate 744 practice records derived from 191 field studies. Practice records are divided into good beekeeping practices and biosecurity measures, with the latter comprising the majority of records. Across themes, the literature is strongly dominated by interventions targeting varroosis, followed by general apiary management and american foulbrood, with smaller contributions for Tropilaelaps spp. and small hive beetle; european foulbrood, greater wax moth, and chalkbrood appear only rarely in the eligible field-study literature as captured by the authors’ criteria.

The paper reports a marked geographic concentration: most practice records originate from Europe and North America, with additional contributions from Asia and comparatively fewer from Africa, South America, and Oceania. The United States leads as a single-country contributor, and within Europe several countries contribute notably to the identified applied field evidence. This geographic distribution is illustrated in a world map figure representing the density of identified practices by region.

Seasonality analysis across practice records with monthly data shows a global peak in applications between July and October after aligning Southern Hemisphere data to a unified calendar. The pattern is reported as largely shaped by the high proportion of Varroa-focused studies, and the Northern Hemisphere accounts for the dominant share of records in the dataset, with the Southern Hemisphere showing a smaller but distinct peak later in the year.

 

---

3.1. Geographic and Temporal Distribution

The geographic mapping emphasizes that evidence on applied practices is not evenly distributed worldwide. Europe and North America together account for the majority of records, with Asia contributing a substantial but smaller proportion and other continents contributing comparatively few. The reported spread spans 42 countries, but the intensity of evidence varies strongly by country and region, implying that what is “well studied” in the dataset reflects where field research capacity, beekeeping systems, and publication patterns intersect.

Temporal distribution is presented via monthly application counts, after shifting Southern Hemisphere months by six months to enable hemispheric comparability. The unified pattern peaks in late summer to early autumn (July to October) and declines during winter, and the authors interpret this as consistent with the seasonal emphasis of Varroa treatments after honey harvest. The seasonal analysis is descriptive, showing when practices were applied in the reviewed field studies rather than measuring biological seasonality directly, but it functions as a practical indicator of when interventions have been most frequently tested under field conditions.

---

3.2. Practice Themes and Frequencies

 

Across the eight themes, varroosis constitutes the largest portion of the evidence map, indicating that the applied field-study literature has prioritized the control of Varroa destructor above other threats and management topics. General apiary management is the second most frequent theme, reflecting the role of colony and apiary-level decisions in survival and productivity outcomes. AFB appears as the third major theme, while Tropilaelaps spp. and small hive beetle control appear as smaller but non-negligible clusters of practice records. The remaining themes are rare, which the paper presents as an observation about the eligible applied field evidence rather than a claim that these issues are biologically unimportant.

Within themes, sub-themes highlight what kinds of interventions dominate. For Varroa, “soft” acaricides make up the majority of records, with oxalic acid, formic acid, and thymol accounting for substantial shares, while synthetic (“hard”) acaricides remain prominently represented. For general apiary management, colony management is the most frequent sub-theme, followed by feeding and watering, then queen management and hygiene. For AFB, antibiotics and biotechnical methods are prominent. In Tropilaelaps-focused records, soft acaricides dominate, and in small hive beetle records, in-hive traps are the most frequent approach, followed by modifications of hive entrances. These distributions are presented as frequencies of practice records, meaning they reflect research attention and documented outcomes rather than a direct ranking of effectiveness across all contexts.

---

3.3. General Apiary Management

Within general apiary management, colony management is reported as the most abundant sub-theme. Practice records associated with reduced annual or winter losses include starting new colonies (including splits and nucleus colonies), certain hive types and insulation approaches, and swarm control, alongside practices such as comb management and the use of domestic queens. For honey yield outcomes within this theme, the paper reports a smaller number of practice records, distributed across several colony management strategies rather than concentrated in a single dominant practice.

For infestation-related outcomes (Varroa, viruses, Nosema), the authors summarize practice records indicating positive influences associated with how new colonies are started, comb hygiene practices, swarming, operational type, natural forage conditions, and to a lesser extent annual queen replacement and pollen supplementation. Queen management studies within the dataset focus heavily on annual queen replacement and on comparisons between domestic and imported queens in relation to losses, productivity, and health metrics, again represented as practice records rather than pooled effect estimates.

Feeding and watering research is contextualized by landscape setting of apiaries and by distinctions between natural forage and agricultural or urban contexts. Supplemental feeding is described as involving both protein and energy sources, with several categories represented in the dataset, including natural pollen, protein substitutes, amino-acid products, and energy feeding via sugar syrup or high fructose corn syrup. The paper also highlights that certain practices were linked to higher annual or winter losses in the identified records, including chemical-free operations, imported queens, long-distance transportation, and protein supplementation, and that lower honey yields were reported for chemical-free operations and for shook swarms in the management theme’s practice records. These associations are presented as reported outcomes in the reviewed field studies, not as causal estimates generalized beyond those contexts.

---

3.4. Varroosis

Varroosis is treated as the central theme in the dataset, with practice records derived from a large subset of the included papers. The most intensively researched interventions are “soft” acaricides, with oxalic acid, formic acid, and thymol reported as the most frequently represented substances. Synthetic (“hard”) acaricides are also widely studied in the eligible field literature, with records focusing on compounds such as tau-fluvalinate, amitraz, coumaphos, and flumethrin. In addition, multiple biotechnical methods appear, including drone brood removal, hyperthermia, queen caging, powdered sugar dusting, requeening, small cell foundation, swarming, and total brood removal, reflecting the diversity of field-tested approaches captured by the authors’ categorization.

For positive Varroa reduction outcomes, oxalic acid is most frequently mentioned among the practice records with reported benefit, followed by other soft acaricides and by several hard acaricides that are also reported as effective in the reviewed studies. Biotechnical approaches such as drone brood removal, queen caging, hyperthermia, and trapping combs are reported as additional measures with positive associations in the identified records. The paper also notes that certain practices are associated with productivity and survival outcomes in the dataset, including combinations such as queen caging plus oxalic acid and the inclusion of regular mite monitoring in decision-making about treatments, illustrating how the dataset captures integrated strategies as distinct practice records when evaluated for specific outcomes.

The results section explicitly balances efficacy with drawbacks by reporting practice records that describe adverse colony effects associated with some Varroa treatments, particularly for formic acid and oxalic acid, and also for certain non-chemical approaches or products in a smaller number of records. Residue-related observations in bee products are reported for some substances, and isolated records note reduced honey yields associated with specific interventions. Rather than resolving these trade-offs quantitatively, the paper presents them as part of the descriptive evidence map that beekeepers and advisors must consider when selecting strategies under field conditions.

Seasonality analysis for varroosis shows that soft acaricides are mainly used in late summer to early autumn, aligning with typical periods of higher Varroa pressure after honey harvest in many systems, while biotechnical and management strategies appear more evenly distributed across the year with some late-summer increase. For oxalic acid, monthly outcome distributions are presented to illustrate how reported efficacy categories vary across the year, with high treatment success most commonly associated with broodless periods and more variable outcomes reported when treatments are applied earlier in the season. These patterns are descriptive summaries of reported study outcomes and are explicitly not recalculated effect estimates.

 

---

3.5. American Foulbrood

Within the AFB theme, the dataset is dominated by studies evaluating antibiotics, with tylosin and oxytetracycline identified as the most frequently evaluated compounds among the eligible field studies, and other antibiotics appearing only in a small number of records. The paper characterizes antibiotics as having positive impacts on the clinical course of the disease in the reported records, while also highlighting concerns about residues in honey associated with antibiotic use as documented in the dataset.

Biotechnical approaches are also represented, especially the shook swarm method, which is discussed in relation to spore reduction and colony recovery outcomes across practice records. The results present a mixture of positive and negative associations for different AFB-related practices, including records related to spore counts and to recovery, reinforcing that the dataset captures multiple outcome dimensions rather than a single efficacy endpoint.

The seasonal distribution for AFB-related practice records is reported as peaking in spring and early summer, with the shook swarm method appearing exclusively within a window from late winter into early summer in the dataset’s calendar alignment. The interpretation emphasizes timing in relation to periods of intense brood rearing, again as an observed pattern of practice application in the literature rather than as a definitive biological rule across all contexts.

---

4. Discussion

The discussion frames the dataset as a comparative framework for assessing efficacy, seasonality, and geographic relevance of field-tested practices, explicitly targeted at those linking research and practice as well as policy audiences. At the same time, it stresses that identifying globally valid “best practices” is difficult because environmental and climatic conditions, regulatory differences, regional beekeeping traditions, and varying philosophies shape both implementation and outcomes. These factors constrain comparability across studies and limit how directly practices can be transferred between contexts.

The authors openly acknowledge methodological limitations of the synthesis, including manual screening and heterogeneity among included studies, which may introduce selection biases. To improve reproducibility and reduce bias, they recommend adopting standardized systematic review methodologies, thereby positioning this work as an organizing framework rather than a definitive, fully systematic evidence synthesis with pooled effect estimates.

In interpreting themes, the discussion emphasizes that good beekeeping practice is central to maintaining healthy and profitable colonies and can prevent or reduce disease impacts, while also noting that evidence in some areas remains inconsistent. It highlights management-related findings around apiary density, hive modifications aligned to climatic context, and the trade-offs between swarming (often economically costly) and brood interruption that may reduce Varroa, with splitting presented as an alternative that can provide brood interruption without the same economic consequences under some management systems. Queen management is treated as a key determinant of colony performance, with attention to queen replacement timing, acceptance issues in queenless periods, and the value of younger, locally bred queens as reflected in the cited literature discussed by the authors.

For Varroa, the discussion interprets the dominance of the theme as consistent with broader historical patterns in honey bee research and describes the dataset as covering chemical, biotechnical, and integrated pest management approaches. It argues that no universal solution emerges, but that multiple effective strategies exist, and it highlights the importance of timing and potential synergies between brood interruption and oxalic acid treatments as described in the literature the authors cite. Synthetic acaricides are acknowledged as continuing to play a key role, while resistance issues and residue accumulation are presented as constraints that must be considered, especially for certain compounds.

For AFB, the discussion emphasizes that antibiotic use remains common in some regions despite prohibition in others, and that concerns about residues and resistance have driven evaluations of different antibiotics. It contrasts antibiotic-centered approaches with alternatives such as stamping-out and the shook swarm method, and it notes that long-term monitoring and elimination programs can be successful as described in cited work, while also pointing to newer approaches under development, including oral vaccination of queens, as part of the broader research landscape discussed in the paper. For Tropilaelaps and small hive beetle, the discussion underscores limited coverage and the consequent need for further field research to establish effective control strategies and to better evaluate alternative methods, especially in regions where these threats are emerging or not yet established.

---

5. Conclusions

The conclusions synthesize the reviewed practice records into an overarching message that effective beekeeping relies on integrated, multi-dimensional management rather than any single intervention. The paper emphasizes the interplay among regular monitoring and timely treatments for Varroa, queen and colony management aligned to local adaptation, nutritional support matched to seasonal forage, and hygiene and biosecurity protocols. These components are presented as reinforcing within a holistic system that must be contextualized by season, geography, colony condition, and regulatory environment.

The authors characterize their work as a structured overview linking 744 field-derived practice records from 191 systematically selected studies to reported positive or negative impacts on health or productivity. They acknowledge remaining gaps due to database limitations, inclusion criteria, and underrepresented themes, but present the framework as a practical tool for synthesizing applied honey bee research and prioritizing practices demonstrated under real-life conditions. Future work is framed as expanding themes, incorporating long-term and region-specific outcomes, and refining recommendations through international collaboration, with the stated aim of supporting honey bee health, sustainable beekeeping, and essential pollination services through evidence-based decision-making.

 

► Read article

See also:

• Factsheet: 1.3.3 Oxalic acid sublimation
• Factsheet: 2.1 American foulbrood
• Factsheet: 2.2 European foulbrood
• Factsheet: 2.3 Small hive beetle

---

References used (excerpt)

Only references explicitly named in the PDF are listed below (excerpt, not exhaustive). Rivera-Gomis, J.; Bubnić, J.; Ribarits, A.; Mutinelli, F.; Dahle, B.; Formato, G.; van der Zee, R.; Gracia, M.J.; Soroker, V.; Schuster, S.; et al. Good farming practices in apiculture. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2019, 38, 1–27. Pietropaoli, M.; Ribarits, A.; Moosbeckhofer, R.; Köglberger, H.; Alber, O.; Gregorc, A.; Smodis Skerl, M.I.; Presern, J.; Bubnic, J.; Necati Muzet, M.; et al. Biosecurity measures in European beekeeping. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2020, 39, 725–735. Tubene, S.; Kulhanek, K.; Rennich, K.; vanEngelsdorp, D. Best management practices increase profitability of small-scale US beekeeping operations. J. Econ. Entomol. 2023, 116, 47–55. Kulhanek, K.; Steinhauer, N.; Wilkes, J.; Wilson, M.; Spivak, M.; Sagili, R.R.; Tarpy, D.R.; McDermott, E.; Garavito, A.; Rennich, K.; et al. Survey-derived best management practices for backyard beekeepers improve colony health and reduce mortality. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245490. Rosenkranz, P.; Aumeier, P.; Ziegelmann, B. Biology and control of Varroa destructor. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2010, 103 (Suppl. 1), S96–S119. Gregorc, A.; Planinc, I. The control of Varroa destructor using oxalic acid. Vet. J. 2002, 163, 306–310. Rademacher, E.; Harz, M. Oxalic acid for the control of varroosis in honey bee colonies—A review. Apidologie 2006, 37, 98–120. Matović, K.; Žarković, A.; Debeljak, Z.; Vidanović, D.; Vasković, N.; Tešović, B.; Cirić, J. American foulbrood—Old and always new challenge. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 180. Neumann, P.; Ellis, J.D. The small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray, Coleoptera: Nitidulidae): Distribution, biology, and control of an invasive species. J. Apic. Res. 2008, 47, 181–183.