# Treatments: The Hard and Soft of Them?



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

This is a topic that I think about a lot. Part of a recent post here on Beesource:


> Where I do draw the line is "hard" chemical treatments. No synthetic miticides in my hives.


I think this topic needs more than the cursory consideration that it usually gets.

There is an assumption that 'synthetic chemicals' are more damaging, less 'green', and more sinful than using 'natural remedies'. I suppose such a judgement depends on what criteria one uses to determine any of these terms...but there are a few problems with this assumption.

1. The 'natural products' such as organic acids and concentrated essential oils are strongly antimicrobial in ways that make what we call 'wide spectrum antibiotics' seem very specific. Organic acids are what you would use to sterilize a petri dish in microbial work where you do have to kill everything. Essential oils are what plants produce to keep microbes from eating them. 

2. Using any of these 'natural treatments' clearly causes a huge disruption in the normal functioning of the hive/bee microflora. Only if one assumes that an adapted/adapting, robust, intact and functioning microbial culture is separate from 'honeybeee health' and/or 'ability to deal with disease and pests' can routine use of these 'natural treatments' help lead to bees that won't require treatments. 

3. Although thymol (and i'm sure some/all of the other essential oils used in beekeeping) and the organic acids are 'naturally occuring substances', they are in very unnatural concentration....and they are produced synthetically.

...and, oxytetracycline is a naturally occurring chemical (I'm not sure if it is produced synthetically or from a culture)...but it is at least as 'natural' as synthesized thymol by any definition of the word natural.

Fumigillin is also natural...and is produced by culturing a fungus...this is a true 'natural' product (an isolated fungal toxin that is actually produced by fungus), and is the most dangerous chemical we use in beekeeping (causes birth defects in mammals) and is only legal to use on bees in the US, Canada (I think), and the UK (where I believe it is allowed but difficult to obtain).

...fluvalinate itself is synthetic for sure...but it is is pyrethroid...which makes it specifically based upon naturally occurring chemicals in the chrysanthemum flower.

The bottom line is that I can't see a way to differentiate treatments into hard and soft, natural and synthetic...at least not a way that jibes with how most people use these terms. It makes no sense to me.

deknow


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

One thing I would ask is "Does this product build up in the comb with a probability of causing damage to brood." If the answer is yes, I look for another method.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Yes, I agree...that is a useful distinction. Thank you.


----------



## Jim Brewster (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm glad my statement inspired you to start this thread. Everyone draws their own conclusions and their own "lines in the sand," and that happens to be mine. 

One of my particular considerations is that I one day hope to be involved in organic agriculture, whether that entails going through the certificate process or simply following closely organic principles as I see them.

Beyond that, things I take into consideration:

1. Is the treatment going to lead to a persistent residue build-up? In this case, as I understand it, there is a clear distinction between the "soft" and "hard" treatments. (Yes, I have some foundation in my hives, though mostly foundationless, so they currently contain low levels of amitraz and coumaphos, but I won't be adding more, and will be culling those out over time.)

2. Is the treatment likely to select for resistance in the target organism? In this case, the broad-spectrum, or "blunt instrument" nature of the "soft" treatments may be an advantage, since their mode of action is not conducive to resistance. Isn't this the biggest problem with fluvalinate?

I don't know enough about the hive microflora and how it responds to different treatments to say whether the acute effects of the "soft" is more disruptive than the cumulative effects of the "hard." I can't imagine how any treatment disrupts the microflora beyond recovery without killing all the bees too. I would like to know more about this area...

Bottom line, there aren't necessarily objective ways to differentiate those things. Personal perspectives and priorities must also play a role.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

I think bees are a lot tougher than we think in dealing with treatments.
Just yesterday, I was popping some lids and found to my surprise that the underside of the lids were soaking wet from Di-hydrogen Monoxide (The chemical that has killed more people than all others combined).
Apparently, this stuff has been dripping right onto the bees!
It's time that we all band together and push for a world wide BAN on Di-hydrogen Monoxide!
I gotta say though; the bees didn't seem to be affected by it.
t:


----------



## gone2seed (Sep 18, 2011)

Actually Harry,the Di-hydrogen monoxide can be good for the bees.Some of us put out bowls of the stuff for their use.It can really increase yield.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

gone2seed said:


> Actually Harry,the Di-hydrogen monoxide can be good for the bees.Some of us put out bowls of the stuff for their use.It can really increase yield.


SO YOU'RE THE ONE!!!................


----------



## Jim Brewster (Dec 17, 2014)

It's okay if it doesn't contain too much hydrohydroxic acid.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Is there a given hive environment that we can define as normal? I hear quite often about how, in its "natural" state the hive is a super organism containing this myriad of organisms all living in harmony in a hive. It all seems a bit idyllic to me. Perhaps it's more like human neighborhoods, some existing in harmony and some rife with crime. Wouldn't local conditions and the hive products gathered in each area result in unique regional hive environments as well? We already know there are pollens and even a few nectars that are detrimental to hive health not to mention parasites and diseases that can totally wipe out a hive along with all those happy little critters living in there. 
I choose to continue to use my human brain to decide what is best for my hives and continue to use the expertise of others to develop products that are both safe and effective.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 30, 2014)

We have been conditioned by the media and advertising to react to the words 'organic' and 'natural' with warm and fuzzy feelings. 
The word 'sustainable' is getting there, too. 

To my knowledge it has never been proven that organic food is truly better for us. It's just assumed. 

Now, understand, I am not saying I want to consume a bunch of chemicals out of my garage; but by the same token, I doubt the minute traces of chemicals in my food are going to hurt me.

Try to find a balance. 

I have a neighbor who is all organic, she won't treat her bees; but every year her bees die. There is no logic there, but she is so emotionally attached to the concept of 'organic' she can't get out of her rut. She's an organic grim reaper to those poor bees.


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

Had a woman trying to convince me that I needed to use organic non-gmo sugar to feed bees until I suggested that she buy me 100# of it. That day she found Aldi and the $1.19 for four pounds of sugar. Funny how economics trumps "fantasy land of organic non-GMO".


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

In the case of the two organic acids (formic and oxalic) I think it's their chemical classification (as organic acids vs inorganic acids) that makes them seem more acceptable than something like _tau-_fluvalinate, or whatever.

I have pointed out this from time to time, but I think it rolls right over most people's heads. The group of acids classified as organic simply means they occur in nature, even though I suspect that they are now produced in labs. The word organic in this case has nothing to do with organic certification that might be applied to certain food production standards.

I would love to not have to treat for varroa, but it would mean certain death for my bees. So I use OA, and sometimes MAQS (formic), because I'll be darned if I'll sit by and watch my bees die off in some kind of half-baked science experiment.

Still, I am wary and troubled by even the restrained amount of treating that I do, with the mildest chemicals that are still effective. To counteract the possible bad side effects I strive to lower all other environmental stressors. (I am experimenting this fall with bee-specific probiotics, but it may be just woo-woo.)

Enj.


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

HarryVanderpool said:


> I think bees are a lot tougher than we think in dealing with treatments.
> Just yesterday, I was popping some lids and found to my surprise that the underside of the lids were soaking wet from Di-hydrogen Monoxide (The chemical that has killed more people than all others combined).
> Apparently, this stuff has been dripping right onto the bees!
> It's time that we all band together and push for a world wide BAN on Di-hydrogen Monoxide!
> ...


But remember, it is only good in limited quantities, I heard from a friend that read that too much of this stuff can kill humans in 2 or 3 minutes. Bees in less than that. But I didn't read that, just heard it from a friend who....
It probably is as bad a white cane sugar....:ws:


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Some of the treatments used in the past have proven to be problematic, Coumaphos for instance is bioaccumulative and susceptible to adaptation of resistance by the target. Some of the others have shown similar traits. In the meantime others are being worked on that appear to have fewer drawbacks. The situation with the mites came about rapidly and with dire consequences. Some bad things were used. I think what is in the works now is getting more thorough testing. The cost / benefit analysis process seems to be working but some will disagree. 

I think many people choose a villain to persecute often out of ideological drive and devote a lot of time to gathering material to support that idea. Sometimes there is little balance: far more deadly practices being engaged by society but their pet villain is the one to persecute. It is an extreme analogy, but I have known people to be dead against the use of microwave ovens but continue smoking and other proven life shortening practices. Where there is fixation of purpose in one area of a persons thinking I wonder about their objectivity in others.

The reason more money and resources is not devoted to the cure for bee diseases is that there are a lot more dangerous situations on our plate that are making demands.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

enjambres said:


> I have pointed out this from time to time, but I think it rolls right over most people's heads. The group of acids classified as organic simply means they occur in nature, even though I suspect that they are now produced in labs.


 Please see this and reconsider the above:

"The primary difference between organic compounds and inorganic compounds is that organic compounds always contain carbon while most inorganic compounds do not contain carbon.
Also, almost all organic compounds contain carbon-hydrogen or C-H bonds."
Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

jim lyon said:


> Is there a given hive environment that we can define as normal?


the short answer is no, and that much more is unknown than is known about what constitutes a healthy beehive ecosystem.

i had the opportunity this past weekend to attend a lecture on the human gut biome. turns out most of us have on average at least 1000 different microbes in there, the balance of which is pretty darn important for our health.

of interest is the role some of the microbes play in certain regulatory processes via epigenetics, which basically means that those bugs' genes interact with our own genes in complex ways that are just now starting to be understood.

turns out that patients with severe life threatening imbalances are even being treated by receiving transplanted fecal material from healthy individuals in order to reestablish that essential flora.

perhaps we are doing something similar when we transfer a frame of brood from a strong hive to a weak one, who knows?

perhaps the recent finding that resistant colonies have a less virulent strain of dwv out competing the more virulent strain may have something to do with the overall microbial balance and epigenetics, who knows?

as to how much or how little of an effect any of the treatments have on microbial life in the hive is really anybody's guess. since my colonies are staying healthy it seems the more prudent course is to not introduce anything than might disturb the natural flora in there.

i'm like you jim and willfully defer to the expertise of others who make this their life's work, maybe they'll get it figured out in time for us to do something with it.


----------



## Jim Brewster (Dec 17, 2014)

clyderoad said:


> Please see this and reconsider the above:
> 
> "The primary difference between organic compounds and inorganic compounds is that organic compounds always contain carbon while most inorganic compounds do not contain carbon.
> Also, almost all organic compounds contain carbon-hydrogen or C-H bonds."
> Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D


Yes, I believe that is the context for organic acids in this case, as opposed to inorganic acids like sulfuric, nitric, etc. Things are a bit garbled between the technical and lay definitions of organic because both derived from the concept of biological origin, but the scientific understanding has grown and shifted. Hence most synthetic pesticides are technically organic, but not by the agricultural definitions.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

squarepeg said:


> . since my colonies are staying healthy it seems the more prudent course is to not introduce anything than might disturb the natural flora in there


What is prudent for one person may not be for another. .. I see my colonies staying healthy with a few shots of OAV every year. Without it, they are dead. I'm sure the treatments disrupt the microbial balance in the hive, but they seem to bounce back very well. I would assume it might be the same as an antibiotic treatment to knock out pneumonia in a human. The drug disrupts the bacterial balance in the body for a period of time, but after a while everything returns to normal. Without the antibiotic .... ?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Mike Gillmore said:


> What is prudent for one person may not be for another.


very true mike. 

the folks i mentioned above requiring the fecal transplant are generally those on their deathbeds after courses of antibiotics wiped out the good bugs which didn't bounce back thus allowing the bad ones to take over. thankfully such cases are more the exception than the rule, but it does have physicians considering the need for providing supplemental probiotics as an adjunct to long term antibiotic treatment.

it is indeed one of those case dependent type of things when it comes to treating honey bee colonies and why i avoid advocating carte blanche one way or the other. unfortunately those colonies doing well off treatments appear to be more the exception than the rule, but i am intrigued about what they may be able to teach us.


----------

