The Spanish beekeeping sector accounts for approximately 0.44% of total national livestock production and 0.17% of overall agricultural production, with an estimated annual output value—derived from honey, wax, and pollen—of approximately €62 million ([18]). At the European Union level, Spain stands out not only for its large number of beehives, but also because nearly 80% are managed by professional beekeepers, defined as those operating more than 150 hives. However, the significance of this sector cannot be assessed solely in economic terms. The contribution of beekeepers extends far beyond the production of honey, pollen, and wax; most importantly, bees play an essential and irreplaceable role in the pollination of both wild flora and agricultural crops, thereby contributing to the preservation of biodiversity and the sustainability of agricultural production systems ([3]; [7]; [9]).

Beekeeping in southeastern Spain, particularly in the Region of Murcia, presents distinctive characteristics that clearly differentiate it from practices observed in other Spanish areas. One of its defining features is the semi-arid climate, characterized by prolonged periods of drought, which directly affects flowering cycles and hinders the permanent establishment of hives in the same location. As a result, seasonal hive transhumance to northern regions with more favorable environmental conditions is a widespread practice ([8]). This includes both internal transhumance within the region itself—commonly referred to as local transhumance—and long-distance transhumance to other Spanish provinces such as Soria, Burgos, Palencia, and Albacete.

According to [18], two main beekeeping systems can be identified in Spain. The first predominates in the north and northwest and is characterized by a high proportion of hobbyist and small-scale non-professional beekeepers, most of whom do not practice transhumance. The second, prevalent in the central and southern/southeastern regions of the Iberian Peninsula, is marked by a higher degree of professionalization and a predominantly transhumant production model. Indeed, Extremadura, Andalusia, and the Region of Murcia exhibit the highest relative proportion of professional beekeeping operations within their respective territories.

The sector currently faces a range of structural weaknesses and external threats. These include adverse climatic conditions—such as extreme temperatures, prolonged droughts, or excessive rainfall—which directly affect floral availability; rising production costs combined with low market prices received for honey and pollen; and substantial imports of honey and other apicultural products from third countries at prices significantly below domestic production costs ([2]). In addition, sanitary challenges, including Varroadestructor infestation (varroosis) and other biological threats such as Vespavelutina, continue to undermine colony health and reduce bee populations ([7]; [16]).

In response to these challenges, European Union Member States, within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), are redefining intervention strategies and allocating financial support aimed at improving the production and marketing conditions of apicultural products. This renewed CAP vision seeks to strengthen food security, enhance environmental sustainability, and promote the socioeconomic development of rural areas by equipping Member States with the flexibility to design sector-specific interventions tailored to identified needs and priorities, while maintaining the economic viability of agricultural activity as a central principle ([7]).

Within this framework, particular emphasis is placed on improving commercialization through producer associations ([2]) and encouraging generational renewal, given that the aging farming population remains one of the major structural challenges facing European agriculture ([17]).

Economic and production cost analyses constitute essential tools for agricultural decision-making, investment planning, and the establishment of prices that adequately reflect real production costs. In Spain, Law 16/2021 on the Food Chain reinforces this principle by requiring that contractual prices cover, at a minimum, the effective costs incurred at each stage of the food supply chain, thereby fostering more balanced and transparent commercial relationships ([6]). Despite this regulatory framework, there remains a notable scarcity of both official technical reports and peer-reviewed scientific studies addressing production costs in the agricultural sector in general, and more specifically in the beekeeping sector ([20]), which limits evidence-based policymaking and strategic planning. In this context, studies assessing production costs and economic viability are essential for guiding decision-making processes, enhancing the competitiveness and resilience of the agri-food chain, and providing reliable reference data for both policymakers and private stakeholders. The present study stems from a technical-economic assessment commissioned by the Regional Government of Murcia to support the justification of eligible beekeeping-related expenditures under tab-funded support schemes.

The socioeconomic relevance of the beekeeping sector in southeastern Spain, together with the urgent need for rigorous cost analyses within the framework of agricultural policy design and the limited availability of detailed scientific evidence, provides the rationale for this study. Consequently, the objective of this research is to provide a technical characterization and analysis of representative beekeeping production systems in southeastern Spain.

The investment requirements associated with each production system were estimated using the baseline technical information obtained from field surveys and complementary bibliographic sources. Tables 2-4 present the corresponding initial and long-term investment requirements by budget category, together with the total investment associated with each farm type.

Depreciation was calculated on the basis of acquisition cost, residual value (where applicable), and the estimated useful life of each asset; these parameters are detailed in the corresponding tables.

Table 5 presents the cost structure of the three beekeeping systems analyzed in this study. For each production model, costs are reported in both absolute and relative terms, allowing an assessment of the proportional contribution of each cost component to the overall production cost.

Table 2. Investment and Amortization: Non-transhumance system.

The fixed cost of each item, expressed in €·year⁻¹, includes the opportunity cost.

Table 3. Investment and amortization: local transhumance system.

The fixed cost of each item, expressed in €·year⁻¹, includes the opportunity cost.

Table 4. Investment and amortization: long distance transhumance system.

The fixed cost of each item, expressed in €·year⁻¹, includes the opportunity cost.

Table 5. Cost structure of the three beekeeping system analyzed.

Within the initial investment structure, two major components stand out: physical infrastructure—primarily hives and initial swarms—and transport vehicles. Together, these two categories account for between 88.0% and 90.5% of total investment in the non-transhumant and long-distance transhumance systems, respectively. However, the relative contribution of hives and swarms declines progressively from the non-transhumant system (48.8%) to the long-distance transhumance system (31.0%), while the opposite trend is observed for vehicle-related investment. Transhumant production systems require substantially higher investment in transport equipment, both in absolute and relative terms. In the case of long-distance transhumance, vehicles represent up to 59.5% of total initial investment (Tables 2-4). Storage facilities and extraction equipment rank next in importance, although their contribution remains considerably lower.

The investment-per-hive indicator, used here as a proxy for production capacity, ranges from €197 per hive in non-transhumant systems to €309 per hive in long-distance transhumance systems, with local transhumance occupying an intermediate position at €237 per hive. The cost structure reveals an activity characterized by a relatively high proportion of fixed costs (FC), ranging from 15.66% in the non-transhumant system to 18.34% in local transhumance and 20.74% in long-distance transhumance (Table 5). These results confirm that more productive systems, particularly those involving transhumance, require greater capital investment and consequently exhibit higher relative fixed costs, largely associated with the need for larger and more specialized transport vehicles.

Production systems differ substantially depending on the technological level adopted, the combination of production factors employed, and whether transhumance is practiced, resulting in distinct fixed-cost structures. Similar variability has been reported in other Mediterranean regions, where fixed costs range from 8.8% in Türkiye ([5]) to 10% in Greece ([17]) and 20.3% in Egypt ([1]).

By comparison, in other Mediterranean livestock systems such as dairy sheep and goat farming, fixed costs generally account for slightly more than 5% of total costs ([14]). These intensive indoor systems require high initial investment; however, much of that investment—particularly in buildings, facilities, permits, and breeding stock—has a long useful life, resulting in relatively low annual depreciation costs.

Among variable costs, labor is the dominant component, accounting for between 44.8% and 46.5% of total production costs. This finding is consistent with previous studies reporting labor as the largest cost component in other beekeeping systems, including Bosnia and Herzegovina (41%) ([19]) and Türkiye (48%) ([2]). Moreover, absolute labor costs tend to increase in transhumant systems, as also reported by [5]. Similar patterns have been identified by [7] and [22]. Given its structural nature, labor costs offer limited scope for reduction; improvements in economic efficiency therefore depend primarily on increasing productivity through economies of scale ([1]; [22]) and through greater technological efficiency in transport and honey extraction equipment.

Supplemental feeding constitutes the second most important cost component, representing 26.3% of total costs in non-transhumant systems. However, its relative importance decreases markedly in transhumant systems, particularly in long-distance transhumance, where it accounts for only 10.0% of total costs, despite the additional expenses associated with transport, travel, and temporary stays at destination sites (Table 5). When these transhumance-related expenses are combined with feeding costs, the resulting share reaches 24.5% in local transhumance and 20.3% in long-distance transhumance. This indicates that, although transhumance reduces feeding costs, the overall reduction is only partially offset by new logistical expenditures. Therefore, the economic viability of transhumance depends fundamentally on the productivity gains achieved through increased honey yields per hive. Other studies have similarly identified feeding as a major variable cost component, accounting for approximately 25% - 30% of total production costs ([2]; [5]; [7]; [17]). In this regard, [2] emphasized the strategic importance of selecting suitable locations for transhumant apiaries.

Together, labor and supplementary feeding costs account for as much as 72.9% of total production costs in non-transhumant systems. In transhumant systems, however, the greater weight of vehicle-related fixed costs reduces the relative importance of this combined category, lowering it to 64.5% in local transhumance and 56.3% in long-distance transhumance. Comparable proportions have been reported in other livestock sectors, such as intensive dairy goat systems in southeastern Spain, where labor and feeding jointly account for between 76% and 80% of total production costs ([14]).

Animal health treatment represents another relevant cost component, amounting to €4187 annually and accounting for approximately 6% of total costs across all production systems. Insurance costs—including both hive and vehicle coverage—also increase with the scale and technical complexity of the operation, reaching 3% of total costs in long-distance transhumance systems. Similarly, maintenance costs are primarily influenced by vehicle type and account for up to 2% of total costs in long-distance transhumance systems (Table 5). These findings further illustrate the additional cost burden associated with transhumant management systems.

As reported in other European regions, honey remains the principal product and primary source of income for beekeeping operations ([5]; [7]; [8]; [17]). Nevertheless, by-products and complementary services—such as surplus wax sales and pollination services—provide additional income that, although modest, is not economically negligible ([17]). Table 5 shows that unit production costs are sensitive to this supplementary income. In the present study, the difference ranges from €0.21/kg in long-distance transhumance systems to €0.32/kg in non-transhumant systems. Although relatively small, these margins may determine the economic viability of an operation; notably, more productive and transhumant systems appear less dependent on supplementary revenues.

The results clearly indicate that transhumance systems achieve lower unit production costs, primarily because increased productivity more than compensates for the additional operational expenses associated with mobility. In semi-arid Mediterranean conditions, the unit cost of honey production in non-transhumant systems (€4.95/kg) is considerably higher than in local (€4.13/kg) and long-distance transhumance systems (€3.74/kg) (Table 5). From the perspective of cost analysis and cost accounting adopted in this study, the long-distance transhumance system exhibits the lowest unit production cost and is therefore the most economically competitive. After accounting for recent increases in input prices, these results remain consistent with those reported in previous studies ([2]; [5]; [21]).

These findings suggest that transhumance is an essential adaptive strategy in semi-arid Mediterranean regions, as it improves productivity, reduces dependence on supplemental feeding, lowers unit production costs, and ultimately enhances economic viability and competitiveness. As noted by [8], transhumance is much less common in northern Spain, where climatic conditions and floral resources are more favorable, than in southern and southeastern regions such as Murcia, where professionalized and larger-scale transhumant operations predominate ([18]).

The production systems analyzed generate between 1.51 Agricultural Work Units (AWU) in local transhumance and non-transhumant systems and 1.77 AWU in long-distance transhumance systems. These jobs are directly linked to rural areas, highlighting the social importance of beekeeping activity. Labor requirements per hive are higher in the long-distance transhumance system (425 hives/AWU) than in the local transhumance and non-transhumant systems (497 hives/AWU). Nevertheless, these values are relatively high and reflect the high level of professionalization and the operational scale of the regional beekeeping sector ([18]).

As previously noted by [17], the aging rural population and the lack of generational renewal remain major structural challenges for the sector. In this context, ensuring the economic viability of beekeeping—given its recognized socioeconomic and environmental importance—should constitute a strategic policy priority ([8]).

Finally, several authors have emphasized the importance of strengthening cooperation among professional beekeepers, particularly in the marketing of bee products and in strategic collective actions such as the development of quality labels, technical training, and joint access to financial support ([2]; [4]). Producer associations and interprofessional organizations can play a decisive role in promoting more balanced and transparent commercial relationships across the value chain, in line with the objectives of regulatory frameworks such as Spain’s Law 16/2021 on the Food Chain ([6]), which transposes Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

This work has been funded by the Rural Development Program (FEADER) within the framework of the project “Socio-economic Analysis of the CAP in the Region of Murcia”.

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, B.G.G, J.G.G. and I.G.M.; writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, B.G.G, J.G.G., I.G.M and F.C.L.; funding acquisition J.G.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.