Giovanni Formato1,2,3
Elena Giannottu1,2,3*
Cristina Roncoroni1,2,3
Valentina Lorenzi4
Giovanni Brajon1,2,3- 1International Cooperation and Research for Sustainable Development in Beekeeping Laboratory, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana “M. Aleandri”, Roma, Italy
- 2Centre of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) "Animal Health and Food Security Discipline Apiculture, Health and Biosecurity", Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana “M. Aleandri”, Roma, Italy
- 3World Organization of Animal Health (WOAH) Collaborating Centre, "Good Beekeeping Management Practices and Biosecurity Measures in the Apiculture Sector", Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana “M. Aleandri”, Roma, Italy
- 4Italian Reference Centre for Animal Welfare, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “B. Ubertini”, Brescia, Italy
1 Introduction
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 behavioral 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, behavioral, 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 behavior, 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., 2024; Chittka, 2022a; Chittka and Geiger, 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., 2024), 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 (Donkersley et al., 2020).
1.1 Apis mellifera welfare definition: current state and development
The concept of welfare has been explored through various lenses, primarily focusing on either the subjective experiences and consciousness (Experience Welfare) or on the physical health, biological functioning, and the ability of animals to perform natural behaviors (Functional Welfare) (Birch, 2022; Mellor, 2016). By integrating both experience welfare and functional welfare, a more comprehensive understanding of animal welfare can be achieved, ensuring that animals experience both physical well-being and positive emotional states (Reimert et al., 2023). For Apis mellifera, applying Experience Welfare can be challenging due to difficulties in reaching consensus on honey bee cognition, which might lead to arbitrary conclusions. However, the recent New York Declaration could help guide the discussion and address this issue. In fact, the welfare of insects in captivity encompasses a complex array of issues, like stress, loss of individual choice, suffering, pain and sentience (Boppré and Vane-Wright, 2019). Sentience, understood as the capacity to experience positive and negative feelings (Birch, 2017), has rarely been considered in traditional beekeeping practices. However, recent studies on invertebrates, including bees, suggest that individual bees as much as the superorganism exhibit distinct personality traits, highlighting the need to pay greater attention to their welfare, especially in the context of intensive, managed apiculture (Mather and Carere, 2019). Given the highly social and interconnected nature of bees, both the collective personality of the colony and the individual experiences of each bee should be acknowledged when they are held in captivity (Pinter-Wollman, 2012). For instance, foraging bees have been shown to exhibit varying personality profiles depending on the areas they forage, which could indicate different levels of stress or well-being in these environments (Chittka, 2022b). Failing to recognize this could lead to unnecessary suffering: sentience is crucial for adapting beekeeping practices to minimize negative experiences and promote positive ones, particularly in captivity where stressors may be heightened. In 2019, Garrido and Nanetti have been at the forefront of defining welfare in managed bees, describing it as the “most natural condition possible” under managed circumstances, while considering all potential threats to honeybees (Garrido and Nanetti, 2019).
The responses to stress events characterize the animal’s welfare status, which relies on animal’s subjective experiences (i.e. sentience). Sentience grants the ability to consciously experience negative or positive sensations, emotions, feelings, or other subjective states that are significant to the animal (Mellor, 2019). Sentience plays a crucial role in understanding the variety of animal welfare status, whether experiences are negative (welfare compromising), or positive (welfare enhancing) (Mellor, 2019). Sentience is recognized in animals regardless of their cognitive capacities, a topic that scientific communities have recently been focusing on, particularly in the case of honeybees (Andrews, 2024; Chittka, 2017; Perry et al., 2017; Wenseleers and Van Zweden, 2017).
The New York Declaration on animal consciousness highlights the realistic possibility of conscious experience in many invertebrates, including insects, and stresses the importance of considering this possibility in welfare decisions (Andrews, 2024). Even in the absence of conclusive evidence of sentience, the precautionary principle and the Terrestrial Animal Code (WOAH, 2013), along with the Animal Welfare Act, grant welfare considerations to all animals (Birch, 2017; Knutsson and Munthe, 2017; Lundmark et al., 2013).
Thus, animal welfare assessments should be carried out also in the beekeeping sector and the methods used can be supported by established Good Beekeeping Practices and Biosecurity Measures and can benefit from comprehensive data and insights from surveys, studies, beekeeper experiences, and in-hive monitoring (Precision Beekeeping). In order not to overlook the relationship between environmental stressors and animals’ stress-responses, the use of both Resources-Based Indicators and Animal-Based Indicators to assess honeybee welfare, appears to be the most suitable solution (Montagnin et al., 2024; Moriconi et al., 2024). For Apis mellifera such approach has been already used in research projects in Europe, like BEE-WELL (Italian Ministry of Health, 2022) and CLASSYALV (Montagnin et al., 2024).
1.2 Apis mellifera welfare definition: author’s vision
With the New York Declaration regarding honey bee sentience now addressed, we can incorporate Stamp Dawkins’ recent statement on animal preferences to refine our understanding of bee welfare (Stamp Dawkins, 2021). Marian Stamp Dawkins suggested that an animal in good welfare is healthy and “has what it wants”, indicating a positive state of preference defined as “valence state” (Birch, 2022; Stamp Dawkins, 2023, 2021). The latter is a neutral status, functionally positioned between consciousness and non-consciousness, where animals process information, make choices for their best interests, and express preferences based on the environmental options available to them. Many bee species have demonstrated such capacities (Menzel, 2021), exhibiting behaviors indicative of desire, curiosity (Degen et al., 2015) playfulness (Galpayage Dona et al., 2022), anxiety, and despair (Bateson et al., 2011; Schönfelder and Bogner, 2017; Tan et al., 2013; Wehmann et al., 2015). In bees, affective states were reported to influence decision-making, just as they do in humans and other vertebrates. While the neurophysiological mechanisms are probably different, the resulting decision-making behavior appears similar (Mendl et al., 2011). Thus, the study of emotion-like patterns in bees is becoming an increasingly important topic within the scientific community (Baracchi et al., 2017; Chittka, 2017; Chittka and Geiger, 1995; Mendl and Paul, 2016; Perry et al., 2017; Perry and Baciadonna, 2017; Solvi et al., 2016).
Stamp Dawkins’s definition of animal welfare aligns with the fundamental needs outlined in many scientific and ethical declarations (Stamp Dawkins, 2021). The most prominent of these is the Five Freedoms enunciated in the Brambell Report (Brambell, 1965; Carenzi and Verga, 2009; Webster, 2001) and later by the British Farmed Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in 1979. However, since its inception, animal welfare science has made significant progress, going beyond the basic needs of animals to also include positive experiences, as highlighted in the Five Domains model. In addition, the widely recognized One Welfare approach emphasizes the interconnected welfare of humans, animals, and the environment (Fraser and MacRae, 2011; Koralesky et al., 2022; Lanzoni et al., 2023; McGreevy et al., 2020; Pinillos, 2018; Stephens, 2022), and organizations like FAO (2009), WOAH (2024), and the European Commission- EUPAHW (2024) are actively supporting initiatives to advance this approach.
Based on these considerations, we propose a novel welfare definition for Apis mellifera that follows a functional approach: “a balanced and dynamic state, as natural as possible, where the beehive superorganism and each individual bee have the freedom to express their roles and preferences, meet their fundamental needs, and adapt positively to variable external stressors without enduring unnecessary suffering”. This definition captures the essence of honey bee welfare, acknowledging both individual and colony-level needs and emphasizing adaptability and natural living conditions.
Honey bees have only recently been considered within the scope of Animal Welfare (Garrido and Nanetti, 2019), and there was still no clear definition that apply welfare principles. Due to limited knowledge about the cognitive world of bees, the scientific community has long been skeptical about the necessity of considering welfare in invertebrates (Perry et al., 2017). Thanks to the New York Declaration, scientific research, and growing public and institutional awareness, solid foundations have been established to approach welfare in honey bees, accounting their consciousness and acknowledging the extraordinary abilities of their minds (Baracchi et al., 2017; Boppré and Vane-Wright, 2019; Chittka, 2022a, 2017; Perry and Baciadonna, 2017; Pinter-Wollman, 2012; Solvi et al., 2016), as we did in this work. Acknowledging the complex interplay of colony dynamics and individual experiences our definition is flexible and applicable to various scenarios, including experimental, breeding, and non-traditional beekeeping. This opinion piece offers a focused perspective on what welfare means for honey bees fostering narrow actions to make progress in beekeeping practices, aligning apiculture with the One Welfare framework for the first time. Additionally, this definition introduces the welfare’s functional approach for honey bees, opening roads to viable actions for control, assessments and measurements, such as welfare indicators and to improvements, such as identification of honey bee welfare practices.
1.3 Apis mellifera welfare definition: future directions
In our opinion, we believe that a functional definition of Honey Bee Welfare is essential for advancing beekeeping practices and honey bee research. Nowadays, beekeeping cannot disregard animal welfare and it must provide a clear and actionable framework to endure good living conditions of Apis mellifera (Garrido and Nanetti, 2019). Applying welfare principles to honey bees involves addressing their ability to cope with stress (Even et al., 2012; Jhawar et al., 2023), maintain balance, and express preferences (Chittka, 2017; Stamp Dawkins, 2023; Rault et al., 2020; Stamp Dawkins, 2021) within a biocentric framework. This approach not only enhances our understanding of honey bees but also opens the door to increasing general knowledge about their needs and well-being. By integrating beekeeping with the principles of the Five Domains model into a comprehensive, multi-level, and interdisciplinary approach, under the One Welfare perspective, apiculture can become more welfare-oriented. Developing a welfare-friendly beekeeping sector begins with a clear understanding of what constitutes the good life for Apis mellifera and redefining its needs through this novel welfare definition. This approach not only advocates for honey bee resilience but also aligns with the broader goal of creating a balanced world. Establishing this new definition of Honey Bee Welfare will clarify their role within a shared future context (Fraser, 2019) and support the development of policies and regulations that reflect the latest scientific and ecological knowledge, as well as contemporary attitudes towards managed animals.
Future research directions should focus on refining and validating welfare indicators specific to honey bees, considering both individual bees and the colony as a superorganism. This includes developing new methodologies for assessing bee health, behavior, and environmental interactions (Papa et al., 2022), and creating welfare assessment tools that can be easily used by beekeepers and sector operators, like entomologists, veterinarians, ecologists, and social scientists. Interdisciplinary collaborations will be crucial in addressing the multifaceted challenges of honey bee welfare. Emphasizing the role of technology in monitoring and improving bee welfare, such as through the use of sensors and artificial intelligence, can also provide real-time data and insights (Danieli et al., 2023). Policymakers should be informed by this research to establish guidelines and standards that promote sustainable and welfare-oriented beekeeping practices. Education and outreach programs for beekeepers and the public will be vital in fostering a culture of welfare awareness and encouraging the adoption of best practices. Ultimately, advancing honey bee welfare will contribute to the health and stability of ecosystems, benefiting both biodiversity and human societies.
Author contributions
GF: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. EG: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CR: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. VL: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. GB: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Marco Pietropaoli for his invaluable feedback and guidance throughout this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
References
Alonso M. E., González-Montaña J. R., Lomillos J. M. (2020). Consumers’ Concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10, 385. doi: 10.3390/ani10030385
Andrews K. (2024). All animals are conscious”: Shifting the null hypothesis in consciousness science. Mind Lang. 39, 415–433. doi: 10.1111/mila.12498
Andrews K., Birch J., Sebo J., Sims T. (2024). “Background to the New York declaration on animal consciousness,” in New York Declaration of Animal Consciousness. Available at: nydeclaration.com.
Baracchi D., Lihoreau M., Giurfa M. (2017). Do insects have emotions? Some insights from bumble bees. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 11. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00157
Baragli P., Yngvesson J., Gentili C., Lanata A. (2022). Editorial: Emotions and emotional interplay within and between species: A “one welfare” perspective. Front. Vet. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1011214
Bateson M., Desire S., Gartside S. E., Wright G. A. (2011). Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases. Curr. Biol. 21, 1070–1073. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017
Bayvel A. (2004). Science-based animal welfare standards: the international role of the Office International des Épizooties. Anim. Welf. 13, S163–S169. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600014536
Beausoleil N., Mellor D. (2015). Advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for assessing welfare impacts associated with vertebrate pest control. New Z. Vet. J. 63, 37–43. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.956832
Birch J. (2017). Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Anim. Sentience 2(16). doi: 10.51291/2377-7478.1200
Birch J. (2022). Should animal welfare be defined in terms of consciousness? Philos. Sci. 89, 1114–1123. doi: 10.1017/psa.2022.59
Blokhuis H., Miele M., Veissier I., Jones B. (Eds.) (2013). Improving farm animal welfare: Science and society working together: the Welfare Quality approach (Wageningen, the Netherlands: Brill | Wageningen Academic). doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7
Boppré M., Vane-Wright R. I. (2019). “Welfare dilemmas created by keeping insects in captivity,” in The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals, Animal Welfare. Eds. Carere C., Mather J. (Springer International Publishing, Cham), 23–67. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13947-6_3
Bottaccioli F., Rulli G. (2014). Theories on stress/Teorie sullo stress. (Bologna: TAO Digital Library). doi: 10.6092/UNIBO/AMSACTA/4135
Brambell F. W. R. (1965). Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office).
Brodschneider R., Gratzer K. (2021). The FAO guideline on good beekeeping practices for sustainable apiculture. Bee World 98, 144–144. doi: 10.1080/0005772X.2021.1981664
Broom D. M. (2008). Welfare assessment and relevant ethical decisions: key concepts. Annu. Rev. BioMed. Sci. 10, T79–T90. doi: 10.5016/1806-8774.2008.v10pT79
Browning H. (2022). Assessing measures of animal welfare. Biol. Philos. 37, 36. doi: 10.1007/s10539-022-09862-1
Carenzi C., Verga M. (2009). Animal welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 8, 21–30. doi: 10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.21
Chittka L. (2022a). The Mind of a Bee (Princeton, UK: Princeton University Press). doi: 10.1515/9780691236247
Chittka L. (2022b). Personality differences between bees. Natural History 130, 16–23. Available at: https://chittkalab.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/2022/16-23%20NH%20Chittka%20922%20V.3.pdf. (Accessed February 13, 2024)
Chittka L., Geiger K. (1995). Can honey bees count landmarks? Anim. Behav. 49, 159–164. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80163-4
Danieli P. P., Addeo N. F., Lazzari F., Manganello F., Bovera F. (2023). Precision beekeeping systems: state of the art, pros and cons, and their application as tools for advancing the beekeeping sector. Animals 14, 70. doi: 10.3390/ani14010070
Degen J., Kirbach A., Reiter L., Lehmann K., Norton P., Storms M., et al. (2015). Exploratory behavior of honeybees during orientation flights. Anim. Behav. 102, 45–57. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.12.030
De Goede D. M., Erens J., Kapsomenou E., Peters M. (2013). “Large scale insect rearing and animal welfare,” in The Ethics of Consumption. Eds. Röcklinsberg H., Sandin P. (Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen), 236–242. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_38
Donkersley P., Elsner-Adams E., Maderson S. (2020). A one-health model for reversing honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) decline. Vet. Sci. 7, 119. doi: 10.3390/vetsci7030119
Escobar M. P. (2022). Editorial: Interdisciplinary approaches to antimicrobial use in livestock farming. Front. Vet. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.971029
European Commission- EUPAHW (2024). European Partnership on Animal Health and Welfare. Available online at: https://www.eupahw.eu/ (Accessed August 2, 2024).
Even N., Devaud J.-M., Barron A. (2012). General stress responses in the honey bee. Insects 3, 1271–1298. doi: 10.3390/insects3041271
FAO. (2009). Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (Ed.) - Capacity building to implement good animal welfare practices: report of the FAO expert meeting, FAO headquarters (Rome), 30 September-3 October 2008. (Rome: FAO).
FAO (2022). Review of existing legislation to protect pollinators from pesticides in selected countries (Rome: FAO). doi: 10.4060/cc0226en
FAO (2023). One Health, One Welfare. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/6273/icode/ (Accessed 8.1.24).
Fernandes J. N., Hemsworth P. H., Coleman G. J., Tilbrook A. J. (2021). Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare. Agriculture 11, 104. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11020104
Fraser D. (2008). “Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production,” in The Ethics of Intensification, The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. Ed. Thompson P. B. (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht), 167–189. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8722-6_12
Fraser D. (2019). What do We mean by One Welfare? Available online at: https://www.woah.org/fr/animal-welfare-conf2016/PTT/2.1.%20Fraser%20D.pdf. (Accessed June 30, 2024)
Fraser D., MacRae A. (2011). Four types of activities that affect animals: implications for animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy. Anim. Welf. 20, 581–590. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600003213
Galpayage Dona H. S., Solvi C., Kowalewska A., Mäkelä K., MaBouDi H., Chittka L. (2022). Do bumble bees play? Anim. Behav. 194, 239–251. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.08.013
Garrido C., Nanetti A. (2019). “Welfare of managed honey bees,” in The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals, Animal Welfare. Eds. Carere C., Mather J. (Springer International Publishing, Cham), 69–104. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13947-6_4
Giovanetti M., Bortolotti L. (2023). Pollinators and policy: the intersecting path of various actors across an evolving CAP. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 38, e27. doi: 10.1017/S1742170523000200
Grandin T. (2022). Practical application of the five domains animal welfare framework for supply food animal chain managers. Animals 12, 2831. doi: 10.3390/ani12202831
Hristov P., Neov B., Shumkova R., Palova N. (2020). Significance of apoidea as main pollinators. Ecological and economic impact and implications for human nutrition. Diversity 12, 280. doi: 10.3390/d12070280
Italian Ministry of Health. (2022). Valutazione del benessere in Apis mellifera e messa a punto di protocolli operativi in relazione alle misure di biosicurezza e di contesto ambientale (BEE-WELL).
Jhawar J., Davidson J. D., Weidenmüller A., Wild B., Dormagen D. M., Landgraf T., et al. (2023). How honeybees respond to heat stress from the individual to colony level. J. R. Soc Interface. 20, 20230290. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2023.0290
Keeling L. J., Marier E. A., Olmos Antillón G., Blokhuis H. J., Staaf Larsson B., Stuardo L. (2022). A global study to identify a potential basis for policy options when integrating animal welfare into the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Front. Anim. Sci. 3. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.974687
Knutsson S., Munthe C. (2017). A virtue of precaution regarding the moral status of animals with uncertain sentience. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 30, 213–224. doi: 10.1007/s10806-017-9662-y
Koralesky K. E., Rankin J. M., Fraser D. (2022). The everyday work of One Welfare in animal sheltering and protection. Humanit Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 430. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01455-3
Lanzoni L., Whatford L., Atzori A. S., Chincarini M., Giammarco M., Fusaro I., et al. (2023). Review: The challenge to integrate animal welfare indicators into the Life Cycle Assessment. Animal 17, 100794. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100794
Lerner H., Berg C. (2017). A comparison of three holistic approaches to health: one health, ecoHealth, and planetary health. Front. Vet. Sci. 4. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00163
Lorenzi V., Sgoifo Rossi C. A., Compiani R., Grossi S., Bolzoni L., Mazza F., et al. (2023). 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. 47, 141–158. doi: 10.1007/s11259-022-09939-y
Lundmark F., Berg C., Röcklinsberg H. (2013). “‘Unnecessary suffering’ as a concept in animal welfare legislation and standards,” in The Ethics of Consumption. Eds. Röcklinsberg H., Sandin P. (Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen), 114–119. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_18
Mariottini F., Giuliotti L., Gracci M., Benvenuti M. N., Salari F., Arzilli L., et al. (2022). The classyFarm system in Tuscan beef cattle farms and the association between animal welfare level and productive performance. Animals 12, 1924. doi: 10.3390/ani12151924
Mather J. A., Carere C. (2019). “Consider the individual: personality and welfare in invertebrates,” in The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals, Animal Welfare. Eds. Carere C., Mather J. (Springer International Publishing, Cham), 229–245. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13947-6_10
McGreevy P. D., Fawcett A., Johnson J., Freire R., Collins T., Degeling C., et al. (2020). Review of the online one welfare portal: shared curriculum resources for veterinary undergraduate learning and teaching in animal welfare and ethics. Animals 10, 1341. doi: 10.3390/ani10081341
Mellor D. (2016). Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living. Animals 6, 21. doi: 10.3390/ani6030021
Mellor D. (2019). Welfare-aligned sentience: enhanced capacities to experience, interact, anticipate, choose and survive. Animals 9, 440. doi: 10.3390/ani9070440
Mellor D. J., Beausoleil N. J., Littlewood K. E., McLean A. N., McGreevy P. D., Jones B., et al. (2020). The 2020 five domains model: including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 10, 1870. doi: 10.3390/ani10101870
Mendl M., Paul E. S., Chittka L. (2011). Animal behaviour: emotion in invertebrates? Curr. Biol. 21, R463–R465. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.028
Menzel R. (2021). A short history of studies on intelligence and brain in honeybees. Apidologie 52, 23–34. doi: 10.1007/s13592-020-00794-x
Moberg G. P. (Ed.) (1985). Animal Stress (New York, NY: Springer New York). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7544-6
Montagnin C., Frasnelli M., Fusi F., Bonilauri P., Bertocchi L., Lorenzi V. (2024). Preliminary study on the extention of the IT system ClassyFarm to the apiary. Acta IMEKO 13, 1–5. doi: 10.21014/actaimeko.v13i2.1630
Moriconi M., Lorenzi V., Montagnin C., Forte C., Dondo A., Vevey M., et al. (2024). Application of the ClassyFarm checklist as measurement tool to evaluate the welfare of cattle kept in tie-stalls in Aosta valley. Acta IMEKO 13, 1–5. doi: 10.21014/actaimeko.v13i1.1622
Olate-Olave V. R., Verde M., Vallejos L., Perez Raymonda L., Cortese M. C., Doorn M. (2021). Bee health and productivity in Apis mellifera, a consequence of multiple factors. Vet. Sci. 8, 76. doi: 10.3390/vetsci8050076
Papa G., Maier R., Durazzo A., Lucarini M., Karabagias I. K., Plutino M., et al. (2022). The Honey Bee Apis mellifera: An Insect at the Interface between Human and Ecosystem Health. Biology 11, 233. doi: 10.3390/biology11020233
Perry C. J., Baciadonna L. (2017). Studying emotion in invertebrates: what has been done, what can be measured and what they can provide. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 3856–3868. doi: 10.1242/jeb.151308
Perry C. J., Barron A. B., Chittka L. (2017). The frontiers of insect cognition. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 16, 111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.011
Pietropaoli M., Skerl M. S., Cazier J., Riviere M.-P., Tiozzo B., Eggenhoeffner R., et al. (2020). BPRACTICES project: towards a sustainable European beekeeping. Bee World 97, 66–69. doi: 10.1080/0005772X.2020.1757220
Pinillos R. G. (2018). One welfare: a framework to improve animal welfare and human well-being (Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK; Boston, MA, USA: CABI).
Pinter-Wollman N. (2012). Personality in social insects: How does worker personality determine colony personality? Curr. Zool. 58, 580–588. doi: 10.1093/czoolo/58.4.580
Rault J.-L., Hintze S., Camerlink I., Yee J. R. (2020). Positive welfare and the like: distinct views and a proposed framework. Front. Vet. Sci. 7. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00370
Reimert I., Webb L. E., Van Marwijk M. A., Bolhuis J. E. (2023). Review: Towards an integrated concept of animal welfare. Animal 17, 100838. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100838
Rivera-Gomis J., Bubnic J., Ribarits A., Moosbeckhofer R., Alber O., Kozmus P., et al. (2020). Good farming practices in apiculture: -EN- -FR- Les bonnes pratiques apicoles -ES- Buenas prácticas de explotación en la apicultura. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 38, 879–890. doi: 10.20506/rst.38.3.3032
Sandfoss M. R., Claunch N. M., Stacy N. I., Romagosa C. M., Lillywhite H. B. (2020). A tale of two islands: evidence for impaired stress response and altered immune functions in an insular pit viper following ecological disturbance. Conserv. Physiol. 8, coaa031. doi: 10.1093/conphys/coaa031
Schönfelder M. L., Bogner F. X. (2017). Individual perception of bees: Between perceived danger and willingness to protect. PloS One 12, e0180168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180168
Sevi A. (2009). Animal-based measures for welfare assessment. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 8, 904–911. doi: 10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.904
Solvi C., Baciadonna L., Chittka L. (2016). Unexpected rewards induce dopamine-dependent positive emotion–like state changes in bumblebees. Science 353, 1529–1531. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4454
Stamp Dawkins M. (2021). The Science of Animal Welfare: Understanding What Animals Want. 1st ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198848981.001.0001
Stamp Dawkins M. (2023). Farm animal welfare: Beyond “natural” behavior. Science 379, 326–328. doi: 10.1126/science.ade5437
Stephens T. (Ed.) (2022). One welfare in practice: the role of the veterinarian, CRC one health one welfare (Boca Raton: CRC Press).
Tan K., Hu Z., Chen W., Wang Z., Wang Y., Nieh J. C. (2013). Fearful foragers: honey bees tune colony and individual foraging to multi-predator presence and food quality. PloS One 8, e75841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075841
Vapnek J., Chapman M. (2010). Legislative and regulatory options for animal welfare, FAO legislative study (Rome: FAO).
Verniers E. (2022). One health, one welfare, one right: introducing animal rights in Europe. J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 19, 277–310. doi: 10.1163/18760104-19040002
Vigors B., Sandøe P., Lawrence A. B. (2021). Positive welfare in science and society: differences, similarities and synergies. Front. Anim. Sci. 2. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2021.738193
Webster A. J. F. (2001). Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. Vet. J. 161, 229–237. doi: 10.1053/tvjl.2000.0563
Wehmann H.-N., Gustav D., Kirkerud N. H., Galizia C. G. (2015). The sound and the fury—Bees hiss when expecting danger. PloS One 10, e0118708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118708
Wenseleers T., Van Zweden J. S. (2017). Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6424–6426. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707141114
WOAH (2013). Animal Welfare at Glance. Available online at: www.oie.int/en/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-ata-glance. (Accessed September 15, 2023)
WOAH (2024). Vision Paper - Animal welfare: a vital asset for a more sustainable world (Paris, France: WOAH (World Organisation for Animal Health). doi: 10.20506/woah.3440
Keywords: Apis mellifera, animal welfare, definition, One Welfare, Five Domains
Citation: Formato G, Giannottu E, Roncoroni C, Lorenzi V and Brajon G (2024) Apis mellifera welfare: definition and future directions. Front. Anim. Sci. 5:1486587. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2024.1486587
Received: 26 August 2024; Accepted: 21 October 2024;
Published: 20 November 2024.
Edited by:
Leonie Jacobs, Virginia Tech, United StatesCopyright © 2024 Formato, Giannottu, Roncoroni, Lorenzi and Brajon. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Elena Giannottu, Z2lhbm5vdHR1ZUBnbWFpbC5jb20=