Best Practices in Beekeeping (Meta-study)

The analysis is based on 191 peer-reviewed field studies published since 1995 and conducted under real beekeeping conditions, with comparisons between treated and control groups. In total, 744 practice records were identified, each corresponding to the documented application of a specific intervention and its observed effect on colony health or productivity.

The practices were classified into two main categories: good beekeeping practices (routine colony management) and biosecurity measures (prevention and control of pathogens and parasites). Results are presented descriptively; frequencies reflect the proportion of practices associated with certain effects, without recalculation of statistical indicators or effect sizes.

The majority of the analyzed studies originate from Europe and North America, followed by Asia, Africa, South America, and Oceania. The species studied is almost exclusively Apis mellifera. This distribution highlights a relative underrepresentation of certain regions of the Global South, limiting the generalization of the findings to all ecological contexts.

Seasonality shows a peak of interventions between July and October, corresponding in particular to post-harvest management and increased Varroa pressure. Measures against American foulbrood are more concentrated in spring and early summer, in relation to brood dynamics.

General management practices account for 17.2% of the records. Colony management in the broad sense (division, creation of artificial swarms, hive type, swarm control) constitutes the most frequent subtopic. Certain practices, such as creating nuclei, splitting colonies, wax management, or using local queens, are associated with a reduction in annual or winter losses.

Colony density within the apiary and the floral environment are also linked to levels of parasite infestation and performance. The findings suggest that management adapted to climatic and landscape contexts can influence survival and productivity, although no single practice can be considered decisive in all cases.

Varroosis represents 57% of the practice records. So-called “soft” acaricides (notably oxalic acid, formic acid, and thymol) dominate the studies, followed by synthetic acaricides. Biotechnical methods such as queen caging, removal of drone brood, or brood interruption are also documented.

Reported efficacy strongly depends on the timing of application and the presence or absence of brood. Oxalic acid treatments more frequently show positive results during broodless periods. However, adverse effects have been reported for certain substances, including brood losses or residues in wax and honey for some synthetic products. The data underline the importance of regular infestation monitoring and adaptation of treatments to the seasonal context.

Regarding American foulbrood, antibiotics constitute the most studied subtopic, with positive effects on the clinical course of the disease, although a risk of residues in honey is mentioned. Alternative methods, such as the shook swarm technique or elimination of clinically affected colonies, are also documented.

Infestations by Tropilaelaps spp. and by the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) are less represented in the analyzed literature. For Tropilaelaps, organic acids are the most studied. For the small hive beetle, internal hive traps are the most frequently evaluated measure, although the total number of studies remains limited.

• Practices combining regular monitoring with seasonally adapted treatments are associated with better control of varroosis.
• Biotechnical methods can complement chemical treatments, particularly when integrated into a coherent strategy.
• Queen management (age, local origin, timing of requeening) influences colony performance and survival.
• Colony density and the quality of floral resources are linked to infestation levels and performance.
• Interventions against American foulbrood must consider residue risks and the local regulatory framework.
• No single practice constitutes a universal solution; efficacy depends on climatic, sanitary, and regulatory contexts.