Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices Within the Five Domains Framework for Sustainable Beekeeping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices for sustainable beekeeping” has interesting subject is written legibly and most information are presented in a logical way.

The title “Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices for sustainable beekeeping” – authors do not provide what was the key to define and identify honey bee welfare practices.

Authors do not provide the definition of “sustainable beekeeping” and the article relate rather  to ecological practices. Authors should provide the definition and correct the title or text of the publication.

Authors should provide why they stated “we discouraged the use of invasive techniques, such as queen artificial insemination and queen marking, as these practices strongly conflict with the bees' natural behavioural expression and cause unnecessary suffering” and explain how using their practices how  pure honeybee subspecies or races should be preserved?

Authors should explain line 249 “After a detailed analysis of the identified HBWPs…”. What was the key to these HBWPs identification, what were they principles? These methods should be discussed in more detail. Why were these chosen?

Why the authors do not write about natural methods of combating diseases, e.g. combating foulbrood with the help of probiotic bacteria (i.e. DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.12.040).

Materials and methods: How were the publication to do the analysis selected - based on what key?

Author Response

Comment 1: The article “Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices for Sustainable Beekeeping” has an interesting subject, is written legibly, and most information is presented in a logical way      

Response 1:  Dear Reviewer, thank you for your positive feedback. We are glad you found the subject of the article interesting and the writing clear. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the logical presentation of the information, and are trying to further refine the manuscript adopting your kind suggestions.

Comment 2: The title “Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices for Sustainable Beekeeping” – authors do not provide what was the key to define and identify honey bee welfare practices      

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We believe it is important to emphasize the initial definition we provided of HBWPs. We have revised the title of the table in the annex to explicitly reference the guiding key principle for the categorization of practices, namely the Five Domains Model.

Comment 3: Authors do not provide the definition of “sustainable beekeeping” and the article relates rather to ecological practices. Authors should provide the definition and correct the title or text of the publication.         

Response 3:  Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your comment. We included in the paper a clear definition that encompasses ecological, ethical, and long-term management practices for sustainable beekeeping in lines 48-58.

Comment 4: Authors should provide why they stated “we discouraged the use of invasive techniques, such as queen artificial insemination and queen marking, as these practices strongly conflict with the bees' natural behavioural expression and cause unnecessary suffering” and explain how using their practices how pure honeybee subspecies or races should be preserved.        

Response 4: Thank you for your observation. In lines 222-234 we tried to enhance clarity regarding the observation you kindly make us notice.

Comment 5: Authors should explain line 249 “After a detailed analysis of the identified HBWPs…”. What was the key to these HBWPs identification, what were their principles? These methods should be discussed in more detail. Why were these chosen?     

  Response 5  Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comment. We have integrated some lines concerning specific areas (Domains) of the Welfare (117-122).The key principles and methods used to identify the HBWPs are even reported in the Materials and Methods section.

Comment 6: Why do the authors not write about natural methods of combating diseases, e.g., combating foulbrood with the help of probiotic bacteria (i.e., DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.12.040)?

Response 6: Thank you for right suggestion. We integrated this relevant biosecurity measure (see point 154 concerning BMB for EFB).

 Comment 7: Materials and methods: How were the publications used for the analysis selected – based on what key?    

Response 7:  Dear Reviewer, thank you for your question. We clarified the selection criteria for the publications used in our analysis. You can find the section in line 130-139.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript Definition and Identification of Honey Bee Welfare Practices for sustainable beekeeping is very interesting and provides important information about beekeeping and environmental sustainability. It presents a series of practices that can be implemented. we identified, for the first time, 249 HBWPs.

Here are some suggestions:

 But the big challenge will be how the beekeeper will apply these practices? What suggestions can be given to implement these HBWPs?

 Introduction: It should be made more explicit that food production often depends on bees and that some plants do not reproduce without honey. More than 80% of plants are pollinated by honey. To think about, does the well-being of bees generate better honey production? Comment.

 Material and methods

Was there any testing during the preparation and after the listing of HBWPs?

 

Results and discussion:

The proposed model evaluated classic and emerging threats to Honey bee and is very well explained.

 Line 233 - Integrating these additional practices into beekeeping management also has the potential to promote greater public awareness and support for bee conservation efforts. Excellent.

 

Line 236-242 - Future research should aim to develop valid, reliable, and feasible indicators to assess the effectiveness of these practices, allowing for the assessment of welfare conditions once they are implemented in the field. Continuous monitoring and feedback loops between researchers and practitioners will be essential to dynamically adapt these practices. Another challenge: How to implement these actions?

 Line 243 - Further validation, harmonization and scoring of HBWPs in different geographic contexts and types of beekeeping will require specialized knowledge, it is a multidisciplinary process. This is extremely important, but the manuscript could contain information on how to make this happen.

 Line 258 - Integrating these additional practices into beekeeping management also has the potential to promote greater public awareness and support for bee conservation efforts. To encourage adherence to these practices and promote compliance among beekeepers, specific marks and labels – certification – could be introduced. Excellent. How to do it?

 Line 283-285 - The use of local bee  populations, which is requested for bee welfare to ensure autochthony, should also be  prioritized, regardless of other factors. Which factors?

 Line 295 - The holistic perspective that frames these practices advocates gentle beekeeping and recognizes the interconnectedness and capacity of humans, animals, and their environments to achieve optimal welfare conditions. How can beekeepers be guided to carry out these practices?

 Line 306 - HBWPs should be evaluated across diverse beekeeping contexts – which contexts?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we sincerely thank you reviewer for the constructive comments and positive feedback, which have greatly enhanced the manuscript's quality and clarity. 

Comment 1-Introduction: It should be made more explicit that food production often depends on bees and that some plants do not reproduce without honey. More than 80% of plants are pollinated by honey. To think about, does the well-being of bees generate better honey production?  

  Response 1: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have made the connection between bee well-being and food production more explicit in the introduction (line 40-45). Yes,  similarly to other animal species, the well-being of bees generates better honey production?

Comment 2- Materials and Methods: Was there any testing during the preparation and after the listing of HBWPs? 

Response 2: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your question. While  the Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs)  have been carefully identified and listed, they have not yet been tested in the field. However, among the future applications we suggest, the implementation and testing of these practices in real-world beekeeping environments are crucial steps to validate their effectiveness and refine their application.

Comment 3- Results and Discussion: Line 233 - Integrating these additional practices into beekeeping management also has the potential to promote greater public awareness and support for bee conservation efforts. Excellent.

Respose 3: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the potential for these additional practices to promote public awareness and support for bee conservation efforts. We will ensure that this point is highlighted in the manuscript to emphasize the broader impact of sustainable beekeeping practices.

Comment 4 - Results and Discussion: Line 236-242 - Future research should aim to develop valid, reliable, and feasible indicators to assess the effectiveness of these practices, allowing for the assessment of welfare conditions once they are implemented in the field. Continuous monitoring and feedback loops between researchers and practitioners will be essential to dynamically adapt these practices. Another challenge: How to implement these actions?            

Response 4: Dear Reviewer, thank you for highlighting this important challenge. We added some explanatory paragraphs in line 316-320.

 Comment 5- Results and Discussion: Line 243 - Further validation, harmonization and scoring of HBWPs in different geographic contexts and types of beekeeping will require specialized knowledge, it is a multidisciplinary process. This is extremely important, but the manuscript could contain information on how to make this happen.       

Response 5: Thank you for pointing that out. We have added a statement in lines 261-266  to the manuscript suggesting that future research should involve collaboration between beekeepers, ecologists, veterinarians, and policymakers to address these challenges effectively.

Comment 6- Results and Discussion: Line 258 - Integrating these additional practices into beekeeping management also has the potential to promote greater public awareness and support for bee conservation efforts. To encourage adherence to these practices and promote compliance among beekeepers, specific marks and labels – certification – could be introduced. Excellent. How to do it     

Response 6: Dear reviewer, thank you for your insight. We have included a reference to future efforts of  quality certification programs in animal husbandry that focus on bee welfare in line 276.

Comment 7- Discussion and Results: Line 283-285 - The use of local bee populations, which is requested for bee welfare to ensure autochthony, should also be prioritized, regardless of other factors. Which factors?             

Response 7: thank you for askig about this. We considered other factors such as  the aim to constantly increase production, or relying on sourced lines coming from abroad.We have added clarification in the manuscript, in lines 234-242-

Comment 8- Result and Discussion: Line 295 - The holistic perspective that frames these practices advocates gentle beekeeping and recognizes the interconnectedness and capacity of humans, animals, and their environments to achieve optimal welfare conditions. How can beekeepers be guided to carry out these practices?  

Response 8: Thank you for pointing that out. We have added a statement in line 300-305  to the manuscript explaining that beekeepers can be guided through specialized training programs, facilitated exchanges with fellow beekeepers, and collaboration with scientific experts and veterinarians. Additional support could be provided by dedicated funds by side of the Governments.

Comment 9-Results and Discussion: Line 306 - HBWPs should be evaluated across diverse beekeeping contexts – which contexts?        

Response 9:  Dear reviewer, thank you for highlighting this. We considered for example professional beekeeping or hobbyst beekeeping, and we have expanded on the diverse beekeeping contexts in which HBWPs should be evaluated in lines 311-317

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

I have made several observations on your article, which can be seen in the attached PDF document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we provide our responses to your thoughtful remarks:

Comment 1: Line 4 Is the last name Lorenz or Lorenzi          

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your observation. You are right, the last name is Lorenzi. We have corrected the spelling of the author' name.

Comment 2: line 37 Why are keywords listed?        

Response 2: Thank you for pointing that out. We have removed the numbers from the keywords list.

Comment 3: Line 57 delete already mentioned above.        

Response 3: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your suggestion. To avoid any further repetition, we removed the redundancy for "Pytosanitary Products" from the text

Comment 4: Lines 70-72 Delete already mentioned above

Response 4: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your suggestion. The redundant text "Good Beekeeping Practices" has been removed throughout the manuscript to avoid repetition. Additionally, we have applied this criterion consistently across the entire text, as you pointed out

Comment 5: Line 70-72 Delete already mentioned above   

Response 5: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We removed the  redundant text "Biosecurity Measures" applying the same criteria across  the paper, as you suggested.

Comment 6: Line 116 Delete already mentioned above      

Response 6: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your suggestion.  In order to ensure more clarity, yhe redundant text  "Honey Bee Welfare Practices"has been removed to consistently along the text.

Comment 7: Line 153: What is the function of quotation marks?    

Response 7: Dear Reviewer, thank you for pointing that out. We have used the quotation marks to underline the fact that it is a definition, to ensure greater clarity

Comment 8: Line 153 Table 1 Use upper and lower case letters      

Response 8: Thank you for your kind suggestion. We have formatted the characters with both upper and lower case letters, and have applied the same formatting criteria consistently across the other tables in the manuscript  adhering to grammatical standards

Comment 9: Table 1 Why are some letters in bold and some else not?       

Response 9: Thank you for pointing that out. As we clarified in lines 139-140 bold characters highlight the most impacted domain

Comment 10 Line 154 the asterisk is not in the table            

Response 10 Thank you for your observation. We deleted the asterisk. It was a typo.

Comment 11: Line 238 place a period at the end of the paragraph   

Response 11: Thank you for highlighting it. We .placed the period at the end of the paragraph.

Comment 12: Line 274-294 Repeated paragraph       

Response 12: Dear Reviewer, thank you for pointing that out, we have carefully reviewed the acknowledgments section and removed all repeated text to improve clarity and avoid redundancy

Comment 13: Table 1, 2, 3 correct the numbers of tables     

Response 13: Thank you for this observation. The table numbering has been updated as per your recommendation

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Materials and Methods waht are the defintion of HBWPs?

lines 140-142. Authors should list them and explain them in the Materials and Methods. The statement: "In the present study, after defining and listing the HBWPs, we categorized them according to the literature existent about relevant topic for honey bee Welfare, such as Five Domains model, sustainable beekeeping practices, and scientifically validated approaches" is not sufficient. 

 

line 141. Authors should expalin how they choose the publications to be analysed. The statement "the literature existent" is not suufiecient.

 

Conclusion "In conclusion, the HBWP approach is more comprehensive, and the development of appropriate tools (e.g. checklists, guidelines, manuals, etc.) can help assess how closely farm management aligns with this concept." is to general. Authors should explain why HBWP should be used, why and by whom. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments provided during the peer review process. Your insightful suggestions have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and flow of the manuscript. We deeply appreciate your time and effort in carefully reviewing our work and offering constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in refining its quality.

Comment 1: lines 140-142. Authors should list them and explain them in the Materials and Methods. The statement: "In the present study, after defining and listing the HBWPs, we categorized them according to the literature existent about relevant topic for honey bee Welfare, such as Five Domains model, sustainable beekeeping practices, and scientifically validated approaches" is not sufficient. 

Response1: Thank you for highlighting this important point. To address it, we have expanded and clarified the explanation in lines 141–153 regarding how the Honey Bee Welfare Practices (HBWPs) were identified and categorized (see lines 141-153). Specifically, we have detailed the systematic approach taken to include previously unlisted practices. This process involved consulting relevant scientific literature, incorporating expert opinions, and placing a particular emphasis on aspects such as honey bee behavior and the mitigation of suffering. Additionally, we have provided further details about the structure of the Good Beekeeping Practices (GBPs) framework, explaining how these practices align with established models like the Five Domains, sustainable beekeeping principles, and scientifically validated methodologies.

 

Comment 2: line 141. Authors should expalin how they choose the publications to be analysed. The statement "the literature existent" is not suufiecient.

Response 2:Thank you for your insightful comment. In response, we have clarified the criteria and methodology used to select the publications analyzed, as outlined in lines 141–145. Specifically, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature, prioritizing studies that addressed key aspects of honey bee welfare, including the Five Domains model, sustainable beekeeping practices, and scientifically validated approaches. To ensure a thorough and up-to-date analysis, we also consulted subject-matter experts. This approach allowed us to include relevant and current practices, with particular emphasis on studies that comprehensively address honey bee behavior and welfare.

Comment 3: Conclusion "In conclusion, the HBWP approach is more comprehensive, and the development of appropriate tools (e.g. checklists, guidelines, manuals, etc.) can help assess how closely farm management aligns with this concept." is to general. Authors should explain why HBWP should be used, why and by whom

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the conclusion to provide a more detailed explanation of why the HBWP approach should be used and who would benefit from it.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf