# Define "treatment free"



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

To me, the use of anything not normally found in a beehive is a Treatment. Manipulations aren't treatments.

If one were Treatment Free and Manipulation Free one would be a "Let Alone" Beekeeper. Those days are long gone. If you want to Keep bees.

I appreciate your attempt to define the term, Barry. It would be nice if we did this in other areas too. Some words mean different things to different people. My best to you.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Mark -

I would agree with your definition. I suppose I should not break it up into two categories. They are all treatments, but there is a difference between a compound being added versus a different cell size or requeening more often.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

Treatment : 

"The act, manner, or method of handling or dealing with someone or something:"
"management in the application of medicines, surgery, etc. "
"subjection to some agent or action. "
"care provided to improve a situation (especially medical procedures or applications that are intended to relieve illness or injury)"

In terms of pest management, relating to insects, plants and disease, a treatment is a manipulation or application of various control methods to minimize or eliminate said pests from an environment such as a building, farm or in beekeepers cases, a bee hive.

All of the things you described above, Barry, are technically "treatments" some of which involve introducing chemical pesticides, others of which fall into biological, mechanical, etc... controls, methods or "treatments".

Personally, to me it seems the biggest argument in this type of discussion revolves around the definition of "chemical" treatments.

Most people want to include all synthetics as chemicals, other want to include natural ingredients as "chemicals" which technically is correct. A chemical can contain any number of synthetic and/or natural ingredients.

For most people I read who say they try to eliminate or minimize "treatments", they usually mean they are not using any type of chemical or very often, no synthetic chemicals, inside the hive.

To be quite literal, even if you do not introduce a chemical to the hive, if you do a powder sugar shake, you have performed a "treatment" or if you pinch a queen, that technically is also a "treatment", performed in order to have effect on the conditions or symptoms of the colony inside the hive.

According to the EPA and the Department of Agriculture, any Integrated Pest Management plan should and can very likely include the possible use of chemicals/pesticides in addition to other control methods (biological, mechanical, regulatory, etc...).

The goal of the Integrated Management Plan is to control populations, keeping them at minimal or economically sustainable levels by using multiple controls which in combination can minimize and, at times, eliminate the need for chemical pesticides. (chemical including both synthetic and natural ingredients)

My point, after all this lengthy typing, is that most people who say they are "treatment free "most likely mean they are "chemical" free, but still use other, non chemical, treatments to have an effect on the health of the colony/hive.

Big Bear


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Add to the list of treatment/manipulations:
Moving
Supering
Honey Harvesting
Super Reversal

???

We could get rediculous I bet.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

would you say you are adding supers (or nadiring them) to impact the health of the colony or to increase the amount of honey produced?

moving and harvesting again is not done for colony health reasons.

personally, I see a hive manipulation as those things we do not having to directly or intentionally impact the health conditions of the colony.

Harvesting or increasing production is something different. At least to me it is.

Big Bear


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I would agree. We could get extreme on this, but I do think we can find a good balance in where we draw the line.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Hi Barry!

I assume that since Megabee is on your list, that would include all pollen/diet supplements? If that is the case, then shouldn't sugar be on the list also? My rationale for the question is that we feed diet supplements to stimulate brood rearing and provide feed in the absence of natural pollen. We also feed sugar to stimulate brood rearing, and provide feed in the absence of a honey flow.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Isn't Gardstar used on the soil, not the bees and hives? Maybe should not be on the list. Then you would have to include paint, Coppernate, Bee-go etc.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

I second BBO's comments.

I think there needs to be a differentiation between chemical and non-chemical treatments also. Many people will not lump sugar dusting in with a treatment.

I have also seen confusion about just what IPM is. I read comments where people say something like once a certain mite threshold is met they quit IPM and use chemicals. 

Discussing beekeeping is bad enough with so many ways to do things getting a correct, common understanding of terms is important.

Tom


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

odfrank said:


> Maybe should not be on the list.


Yeah, not sure about this one. While it is applied to the ground, do we just assume that bees don't touch/land on the ground in front of the hive, pick up residue and take it in? I know I see bees on the ground in front of my hives when activity is high.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

StevenG said:


> Hi Barry!
> 
> I assume that since Megabee is on your list, that would include all pollen/diet supplements?


Hi Steven -

I think they all need to be on a list, just not sure yet how best to define it or break it into two lists. As we progress in this discussion, I'll edit the OP to reflect the group thought.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

> I have also seen confusion about just what IPM is. I read comments where people say something like once a certain mite threshold is met they quit IPM and use chemicals.


That's part of my point earlier TW. the use/inclusion of chemical pesticides is able to be a part of the total IPM plan.

the truth of the matter is that even chemical pesticides do not kill every 'pest' (be it insect, plant or bacteria/disease) for various reasons. As a matter of fact, no control method, by itself is 100% effective. Thus combining control methods or 'treatments" to get the most effective, efficient and safest plan for the whole environment is the goal.

in my opinion, for someone to say they "quit" IPM" in order to use chemicals, is as you said, indicative of not truly understanding what IPM really is.

Big Bear


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

My thought is that there needs to be three Categories of Treatment/Management.

1. Pharmacological Treatment (Any Drug or Chemical Treatment)
2. Non-Pharmacological Treatment (Food Supplements, Drone Foundation, Screened bottom boards)
3. Hive Management (Splits, Requeening, Honey Harvesting) 

When i think of of Non-treatment management i personally think of not using Pharmacological Treatments. 

Thanks 
Dan


----------



## Specialkayme (Sep 4, 2005)

If you start asking "what's treatment free" and "what's not treatment free" you are going to end up with 1,000 different opinions on what's what. If you ask 10 beekeepers how they do something, you will likely get 15 different answers.

It might be easier, and more sane, to devide the list into three sections:
1. Things that 'everyone' would include can not be listed in a "treatment free" category. This will likely include tough chemicals, and invasive treatments.

2. Things that 'everyone' would include can be listed in a "treatment free" category, or something that is safe for a beekeeper to use who claims to be treatment free. Not too sure, but this would likely include routine beekeeping practices, such as adding a super during a honey flow (not speaking to the foundation in the super though), or replacing a queen that died of natural causes.

3. The catch all, or everything that clearly isn't a treatment, but perhaps clearly isn't NOT a treatment.

Once we get a third category, we can discuss why it should or should not be listed in categories 1 or 2.

Getting some issues off the table completely is the only way I see this discussion going anywhere, without being 43 pages long.


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries (Jan 16, 2010)

Read my signer. That is what I believe. 

Mike


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

I, just my two cents look at it differntly. I will admit I read the first 6 posts only so if someone has posted the same....

I look at treatments as any sort of medication....even sugar dusting and EO's. Treatments are used to help increase the hives health. Like treating cows for footrot, worms, vaccinations. This has it's own line when filing farm taxes....its called vet fees and medication.

Things like pollen patties and syrup ( non medicated) I look at as nutrition. Nutrition is apart of every day life whether the bees gather it or we give it to them. For example in cows...pasture, hay and silage or grain, salt and mineral....nutrition even when filing farm taxes this has it's own category.

Any type of manipulations of hives, be it supering, pulling honey, moving frames, splitting is classed as management tools....like calving cows, moving cows to pasture, pasture rotations, bull turn out and bringing in. 


It is how it is defined with cows and such.

Treatment free means, to me, anything...and i mean anything added to a hive to clear up nosema, mites, viruses etc.
Nutrition is a different ball of wax.

edit:
Just read the whole thread.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

"treatment free" is a term we use quite often (in posts, in our book, in talks to bee clubs, etc). perhaps "input free" would be a more accurate term for what we describe.

i would agree with everything on barry's original list....and i'd add esential oils (in general, a few are named specifically), and sugar/hfcs feeding.

i would make a distinction between "treatments" (to "fix problems") and "management" (for production).

some things could be either, depending on context (ie, splitting to reduce varroa is a treatment, splitting to increase is management).

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

IPM has _nothing_ to do with what treatments are used....IPM can include the harshest and most toxic of synthetic chemicals.....the term loosely describes under what circumstances what treatments should or can be used.

deknow


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

I obviously strongly disagree with that. The EPA and most, if not all, Dept's of Ag disagree as well.

not the part about the possibility of chemicals being added, I said as much earlier. but that IPM does contain components of multiple control methods, up to and including the possibility of pesticide chemicals.


EDIT: I include this definition and link to the EPA website about IPM... (Bold emphasis my own)



> # What is IPM?
> 
> Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common-sense practices. IPM programs use current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment. This information, in combination with available pest control methods, is used to manage pest damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment.
> 
> The IPM approach can be applied to both agricultural and non-agricultural settings, such as the home, garden, and workplace. *IPM takes advantage of all appropriate pest management options including, but not limited to, the judicious use of pesticides*. In contrast, organic food production applies many of the same concepts as IPM but limits the use of pesticides to those that are produced from natural sources, as opposed to synthetic chemicals.


Big Bear


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries (Jan 16, 2010)

I also see dusting, EOs, Screened bottom boards etc. as treatments. I feed all kinds of stuff to them, and do a lot of hive manipulations. To answer Mr Barry's original question, Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine the hives that our fathers and grandfathers in beekeeping kept. They had never heard of any of the pests, EOs, and why in the world would you cut up you bottom boards and put wire in them? They made all kinds of honey, and without much work. I work on having bees that resist everything. I do the live or let die. The main reason that drove me to keeping bees this way is money. I am in high school and I do not make a whole lot of money to be honest. I cannot afford fancy bbs that trap this and that and the other thing. I definably cannot afford any of the treatments on the market, or EOs for that matter. Powdered sugar is a pain. It molds, clumps, ticks the bees off, etc. Bottom line, I do not want to fool with all this stuff. Wouldn't you think that with all this stuff that people would have hives producing 200 lbs + of honey out of every hive. Not so. I like to let my bees alone with the pests, and let them deal with it. Growing up, I was always told to get up and get over it when i fall. That is what I let my bees do. The ones that come out are the ones that will be the future of american beekeeping. 
*What we have been doing with our bees is not sustainable!!!* 
Leave that money in you wallet and go TOTALLY TREATMENT FREE.
I will get off my off topic soap box. 

THanks

MIke


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

bigbearomaha said:


> I obviously strongly disagree with that. The EPA and most, if not all, Dept's of Ag disagree as well.


I just don't see the difference between how you and Dean are defining IPM from what you posted.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

Is it a treatment to spray a Clorox and water solution on deadout combs before using those combs again? Or scorching boxes for that matter?

What about adding Clorox to syrup to prevent fermentation?

Is it a treatment if I add probiotics to syrup?

Personally, I am trying to go no treatment (but pro-nutrition and active management) and I am contemplating spraying any deadout combs (or used equipment that is purchased) with Clorox and water to help give the bees a sterile environment to start with. I'm still on the fence whether or not Clorox would be considered a treatment. Does no treatment mean unnecessarily exposing your bees to viruses and diseases? (Live and let die doesn't mean you have to infect the survivors with whatever killed the dead, in my mind.)


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

Barry, Dean is suggesting that IPM does not include chemical use at all.

all I am saying is that IPM can indeed include chemical controls along with the use of other controls.

that's the only difference.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

bigbearomaha said:


> Barry, Dean is suggesting that IPM does not include chemical use at all.


???? ...i said no such thing! please reread the relevant post.

deknow


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

You're right. my apology.

I saw that you mention it can include the chemicals. I was thrown by the statement that IPM has nothing to do with what treatments are used.

IPM doesn't specify which treatments one uses, if that's what you mean. only that one should include multiple controls or "treatments" in conjunction rather than independently. if this is what you mean by that, then I read it all wrong.

If that is so, it's a darn good thing I happen to like the taste of crow.



Big Bear


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

That's OK. Had me confused there for a minute.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

TWall said:


> I have also seen confusion about just what IPM is. I read comments where people say something like once a certain mite threshold is met they quit IPM and use chemicals.
> Tom


IPM, aka integrated pest managment, does not rule out the use of chemical controls. It doesn't require the use of chemical controls, but it doesn't exclude them by definition. That's what is meant by the word "integrated", the use of managment techniques and pest control through proper use of natural and chemical pest control mediums.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

When discussing this topic, "treatment free", I appreciate that the word "chemical" not be used inappropriately. Nearly everything in our world is made of chemicals and chemical compounds, including us. Air is a mixture of chemicals and water is a chemical compound. I can't think of a single thing, commonly used as a treatment for honey bees, that is not chemical, except perhaps various management techniques. Even the screen/wire mesh used in SBB's is composed of several chemicals, which even come in contact with the bees.

It would be much more succinct to simply use one or more of the commonly used terms for whichever treatment(s) are being discussed.

Don't forget to include my two favorite treatments--> the only two I use on a semi-regular basis: nutritional supplement Copper, in the form of Copper gluconate (which I use because it is said to increase honey bee vitality), and toxin and spores of _Bacillus thuringiensis_ variety Aizawai, a bacteria that has a strong suppressive effect on young larva of wax moths, when sprayed onto empty/idle honeycombs -- helping to maintain their integrity against the hungry moth larvae.

But my very favorite treatment, for the past two or three years has been to feed pollen substitute patties, mixed with large quantities of "dry" sugar. It seems that when I'm feeding this way the bees are able to keep raising brood (keeping their populations up) even without feeding them supplemental sugar syrup, separately.

--------------
Of course, I like to consider my bees as "treatment free", but I don't wish to be deceptive, either. I don't believe either copper or bt accumulate in the hives or beeswax thereof to uber-toxic levels, as some other "treatments" are known to do.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Thanks Joseph. What struck me while reading your post is to simply create a list of every possible item that has been known to be put into hives. From there, we can categorize each item into different groups. I'd still like input on all these various items.


----------



## hipifreq (Sep 9, 2010)

Barry: thanks for starting the discussion - something I'd been thinking about for a while - perhaps sticky this one, if not already? Or maybe just the final lists with link to discussion?

As Specialkayme suggested, starting with 3 lists - 2 easily defined and the 3rd not so - would be a good place to start. For the sake of beginners like myself I'd refrain from the use of acronyms in the list - they can sometimes be confusing.

@Joseph: It's just pedantic to get into the "everything is chemicals" discussion, and doesn't really help. In that tack, EVERYTHING we do to the bees will be a treatment - even just having them live in boxes is a treatment is the strictest sense of the word. I think it's safe to say that when the term "chemical" is used it means any synthetically-derived chemical. There may be some who would call menthol crystals "chemicals", but I'm still on the fence on that one.

For list one I would put any of the synthetically-derived chemicals / treatments such as the antibiotics, pesticides, etc. The "hard" stuff. I'd include the Paramoth and Gardstar, as they are both used for beekeeping purposes. Of course, I'm sure some people would include items used on garden plants too, as the bees visit those places, but I think it's safe to exclude them as they are "for the bees".

On the "treatment free" list I would include any management techniques: supering, rotatating, splitting, ventilation control, requeening, etc. I'd also include and hive design in that list too: screened bottom board, ventilation control, small cell comb, etc.

For the still-to-define list I'd start by putting things like menthol crystals, powdered sugar, essential oils, etc.

Lastly, I think it may be wise to separate this discussion of "treatment free" from the idea of Organic. I would think that Treatment Free would exclude the use of menthol crystals, powdered sugar dusting, and essential oils. Organic on the other hand allows treatment with "natural" and "organic" methods.


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

The definition of treatment free sounds good. 
Now we need one for chemical free beekeeping, & natural beekeeping without going to Joseph's extreme's. "Sorry Joseph". 

A lot of people use the 3 interchangeably, & I see they aren't


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

> even just having them live in boxes is a treatment is the strictest sense of the word


I don't think is correct.

especially in the context of beekeeping, this discussion has the potential to clarify exactly those things that are "treatments" as opposed to "manipulations".

If we look at treatments in the light of the multiple definitions posted in earlier posts in this thread, a "treatment" can be pretty well confined to those steps taken to impact the health of the colony.

A "manipulation" could then easily be those remaining actions taken having to do with non health actions such as actions taken for honey production and harvesting, breeding and reproduction and colony installment.

hence, in the strictest example of that, "treatment free" would be the complete absence of actions taken for the purpose of impacting health in the colony.

it is entirely plausible that one could not take any actions in terms of colony health, but still take the action (or manipulation) to add or remove supers (or nadir) to expand honey comb building and storage.

Perhaps one could say that all actions could be considered manipulations, but not all manipulations are "treatments".


----------



## hipifreq (Sep 9, 2010)

bigbearomaha said:


> I don't think is correct.
> 
> especially in the context of beekeeping, this discussion has the potential to clarify exactly those things that are "treatments" as opposed to "manipulations".


I would agree with you 100% BBO! I DON'T think that putting bees in hives is a "treatment" any more than putting on screened bottom boards is. I was responding to Joseph's discussion of what "chemical" means and following that logically all the way through to show how ridiculous it is (no offense Joseph). Of course, in the hard ecological sciences putting bees in hives IS considered a treatment along the same lines as hatchery fish and breeder zoo populations. It's an anthropogenic manipulation of the bee population.

So the interesting thing becomes drawing lines between manipulations and treatments. What is using small cell foundation? Is that a treatment for health purposes or to provide the bees with more natural cell sizes to work with? I think you'll find beeks who use it for one or the other, which makes it difficult to put in a one-or-the-other situation.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

well, tell them to stop that. It's making our heads hurt.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

When I brought up the issue of using the word, "Chemical", I simply meant that it would be clearer to others in the future if we don't use the term, "chemical-free" in an inaccurate way. Such that after we have assembled our lists of various treatments and categories, that one category isn't defined as "chemical-free", but, perhaps, rather, "synthetic pesticide chemical-free". Or in a positive and more directly descriptive way, we could call one category: "organically accepted pesticides". Other categories can be similarly more succinct.

I envision categories such as:


Synthetic pesticides - pyrithroids, miticides (Apistan, Check-mite), mineral oil, Formic acid, Oxalic acid, Glacial acetic acid, etc.
Organically accepted pesticides - Bt, diatomaceous earth, rootenone, HBH, essential oils, thymol, vinegar, probiotics (natural bacteria and other microorganisms that are known honey bee symbiotic organisms), etc.
Management by hive manipulations - checker boarding, supering, reversing brood chambers, etc.
Management by equipment manipulations - using supers of various dimensions, different style frames (foundationless, wired, non-wired), SBB or traditional BB, inner cover + outer cover (telescoping), various foundation types and cell sizes, etc.
Management by bee manipulations - requeening, splitting, artificial swarms, swapping resources (frames) between hives, etc.
Management by nutritional manipulation - feeding various supplements, such as dry sugar, sugar syrup, HFCS, protein supplements, mineral and vitamin supplements, collected and stored bee pollen, honey, nutrients and other feed additives used to boost levels of symbiotic organisms, etc.

The word, "chemical" need never be used - it is way too generic, and leaving it out makes the category definitions much clearer.


----------



## hipifreq (Sep 9, 2010)

Joseph Clemens said:


> When I brought up the issue of using the word, "Chemical", I simply meant that it would be clearer to others in the future if we don't use the term, "chemical-free" in an inaccurate way. ... The word, "chemical" need never be used - it is way too generic, and leaving it out makes the category definitions much clearer.


Awesome, thanks for clarifying that, and for bringing us back on topic.

Now then, what can we CLEARLY call a "treatment" from that kind of categories? I would nominate both synthetic and organic pesticides as being treatments, as well as nutritional supplements (not to include simple sugar syrup feeding). Everything else should be considered manipulations of some kind.


----------



## MARBIS (Jun 10, 2010)

honeyshack said:


> I look at treatments as any sort of medication....even sugar dusting and EO's. Treatments are used to help increase the hives health.
> 
> Things like pollen patties and syrup ( non medicated) I look at as nutrition. Nutrition is apart of every day life whether the bees gather it or we give it to them.
> 
> ...


This is what i would agree with. Regards


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

I dont practice treatment free beekeeping but to me if your are trying to rear bees that dont need assistance staying alive and you define any assistance as treatment then any chemical, manipulation, or otherwise to me would be treatment. If you in any way perform a exercise that has the intent of helping the bees alleviate pressure form one problem or another than that is not treatment free.

So other than normal beekeeping practice before pest or disease control, my idea of treatment free beekeeping would be letting the bees survive or die on there own as if it were a feral colony. And by that I dont mean never rob honey or such but that you never use any calculated exercise to help them.

I think you have a few problems that make this idea unfeasible like afb. How would the bees ever conquer that.

I would think you can practice minimum treatment beekeeping but eventually you will have to do something one way or the other.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_I think you have a few problems that make this idea unfeasible like afb. How would the bees ever conquer that._

Dadant used to have an apiary at their wax rendering plant. Those bees were constantly exposed to AFB, and eventually they became AFB resistant. Once the bees were moved, and no longer faced constant AFB pressure, they lost their AFB resistance.

_What struck me while reading your post is to simply create a list of every possible item that has been known to be put into hives. From there, we can categorize each item into different groups. I'd still like input on all these various items. _

Don't forget things like frames of bees, brood, and pollen. Pulling extra resources from a strong hive is a common way to boost ailing hives. Requeening (even from your own stock) even with cells could be considered a treatment.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

just a thought here.

do a google search on "treatment free beekeeping" (with or without quotes)

you will find that the vast majority of the first few pages of results reference either the conference we run (Northeast Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference), posts that I have made on various forums, our book on treatment free beekeeping ("The Complete Idiot's Guide to Beekeeping"), presentations we have made at various bee clubs, or the honey we sell.

all of the above refer to how we have been using the term. imho, this seems to be the "common usage".

certainly there are other people with other definitions...and there are beekeepers that want their products to be considered "treatment free" using different definitions (we have one commercial beekeeper in massachusetts that claims "no miticides"...yet uses formic and oxalic to kill ("cide") mites.

deknow


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

sorry dean, on this, just because something is common or popular, doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

and I'm not saying that you are necessarily incorrect either, but only that it is largely your opinion, not a universal fact.

Ultimately, people are going to define these things for themselves based on personal philosophy and how they feel it represents them.

For example, I like the definitions I posted earlier in the thread because I believe it is the most objective and anything not a health specific motivated action is not a "treatment" but a manipulation instead.

For some others, they take any human action, health, medical or otherwise and lump them all as the same thing. Then others further want to leave more options open to them and call a treatment as only a synthetic chemical additive in the hive, anything else isn't a treatment.

Much like the topic of certification, "treatment" is going to be largely defined by agreement in a specific group or community of people who intend to have a uniform communication for a particular purpose. Such as selling bees or something.

For us on a beekeeping forum such as BS, we can go round and round forever without finding consensus. There's no motivation other than the spirit of discussion to 'lock' the definition of treatment.

to bee more specific, I can see the russian breeders association having a group agreed upon definition of 'treatment" so that all the members are working under the same guidelines and can compare universally, at least among themselves.

I can see the members of the Fontenelle Bee Club here in Omaha, NE having an agreed upon definition of "treatment" for the purpose of discussion and education of existing and new members. Something that keeps everyone on the same page.

outside of groups though, those agreed upon definitions will mean little to nothing except maybe to folks who have an awareness of it and a personal appreciation of it.

So to me, I think the discussion here is more to help each of us better define for ourselves what we see the definition of "treatment" as with the benefit of seeing other people's ideas and reasoning.

but I do not see a universal or "common"agreement ever happening.

Big Bear


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes there will not be a universal agreement, for the reasons BBO stated.

To the non beekeeper consumers of honey though, it would be reasonable to claim honey is treatment free if it means nothing has been used that could leave a residue in the honey. So, for example, if drone brood removal has been used as a treatment, the honey could be advertised as treatment free because there would be no unnatural residue in the honey, for practicle purposes the honey is "free of treatment".

Here it gets murky though because honey from hives treated with formic acid would not be treatment free if it contained some of the FA used during the treatment. However it can be legally advertised as organic, provided FA is below a certain threshold in the honey, because FA occurs in honey naturally. 

Go figure!


----------



## valleyman (Nov 24, 2009)

Since Oldtimer has started this back up, I have a diffierient opinion also on treatments. At least until someone can tell me why we would include treatments for our own problems created for the bees. Specifically I am talking about nosema. Why should Fumigilan be grouped with treatment other pests. I understand that nosema is not a natural occuring disease, but isn't it normally an effect of bad management or moisture in the hive. 
Beyond this I have no problems with chemicals that are being used to help the bees survive being considered as chemical treatments. I do not believe that feeding for prevention of starvation, or early build up are anything more than management tools.
What about SHB traps that use crisco or oil, are they teaatments?


----------



## beekuk (Dec 31, 2008)

*To me, the use of anything not normally found in a beehive is a Treatment.*

I would go along with this,but regards chemicals,residues found in wax ect,athough most are not applied by the beekeepers,it seems we have no choice.
http://mbka.info/documents/American Report.pdf


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Why should Fumigilan be grouped with treatment other pests. I understand that nosema is not a natural occuring disease, but isn't it normally an effect of bad management or moisture in the hive._ 

Are you thinking of nosema apis? Fumigillan is for treating nosema ceranae.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

valleyman said:


> I understand that nosema is not a natural occuring disease, but isn't it normally an effect of bad management or moisture in the hive.


i'm not sure what you mean by 'not naturally occurring disease'. if it were so easily preventable ("good management", well ventilated box) it wouldn't be a problem that required treatment.

fyi, fumidil is used both for nosema a and c. it is a toxin produced by the same fungus that causes stonebrood in the hive, and was originally devleoped for human use until the resulting birth defects were discovered.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

While we are defining what treatments are, I definitely agree that oils and acids definitely are treatments. I've heard them called "natural" treatments and that's totally bogus too. If they were natural, they'd be naturally occurring.

I wouldn't consider feeding anything not containing some sort of medicine (a substance whose purpose is other than nourishment) to be a treatment.

In essence adding anything to the hive which is not already there. For instance not including foundation of choice, wood, wire, nails, bottom board of choice, ventilation of choice, removal of drone brood, etc. Adding a substance for honeybee consumption or external application which the bees themselves wouldn't normally eat or come in contact in the wild is a treatment. That's my view.


----------



## Blackwater Bee (May 1, 2008)

I have a headache now:doh:

but otherwise, a great thread :thumbsup:


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I believe this is wwhere BArry(thank you) directed us to discuss definitions. 

There may be a phrase that we could somewhat agree on. It is "synthetic chemicals". That would be any chemicals man has created that where not found in nature before, or in the cincentrations not found before. Therefore any of the miticides including Thymol, Apistan, formic acid, oxalic acid would be considered "synthetic". Thymol, when used at a .44 millimole concentration in syrup , is at similiar level as what would be found naturally in the plant Thyme. Powerdered sugar is a plant extrative, and is concentrate, but not an order of magnitude more that cane syrup. 


So I could say that I am "synthetic chemical free" and still use physical means of mite control. Where you call that "treatment free" is a nother matter. 

Your opinions?

Crazy Roland


----------



## Desert Viking Ranch (Mar 1, 2011)

Forgive me for my newness, but honestly couldn't "treatment" be defined as simply this:

If you give anything to the bees you are in a sense "treating" them. Regardless of whether or not its a naturally occurring chemical or a synthetic one - you are giving it to the bees in a method that wasn't natural (meaning they sought it out themselves) therefore you are treating them. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ted Kretschmann (Feb 2, 2011)

There is no such thing as treatment free beekeeping. Treatment free beekeeping ended the day the first curious human started tinkering around with bees thinking he could "domesticate" them. TK If I say any more Barry will delete me off the post.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good post Jim.

However there is still argument over definition. To the more extreme, some people would even say using a screened bottom board is "treatment". Yes, that's been said. Those people would say that ANY intervention by us is a "treatment".

But to me that doesn't hold water. Because a lot of those people will proclaim themselves treatment free, but will use small comb foundation to force the bees to build cells of a size 4.9mm's, a practise far more intrusive into what the bees would naturally do, than say, a screened bottom board. But they'll call themselves treatment free.

Far as I'm concerned, treatment free means no unnatural chemicals. That's it.
Why? because to the general non beekeeping public, who buy honey, that's what they expect when they buy honey that claims to be treatment free. Simple.

I think what we have is treatment free snobbery. Many will define treatment, as what everybody else does, but manage to exclude whatever they themselves do, so they, in their own eyes, can be in the treatment free club, while at the same time excluding as many others as possible.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann (Feb 2, 2011)

Old timer, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If you use HARD chemicals (Checkmite, filipronil,Amitraz) then you are not treatment free but if you use SOFT chemicals (Thymol, Formic Acid, Nosevit) then you are treatment free. These are natural occuring substances. I use them in my IPM program. By your diffenition, I am a treatment free beekeeper then, except for the TM I use and the Apistan I rotate out with every three years. There seems to be a gray area in the symantics. TK


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Oh it's very grey.

To me, it would be better to say CHEMICAL treatment free. But then, thymol etc are still a chemical so if you use them you would not be chemical treatment free. You would however, be organic.

The further you go with this, the greyer it gets. It will never be resolved to everybodies satisfaction.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> You would however, be organic.


According to whose standards?

When I started this thread, I didn't have the intent to please everybody. The goal is to decided on a definition so when it's used, we all know what it means. For sure some won't like it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Is it time to rap this up? After reading through this thread again, I think we will only make matters worse by trying to divide the term into three categories. The term "treatment free" is already in use, so the need is to define what that means. I think by and large, the word treatment in this case means the use of any of the items listed here:

Apiguard (thymol)
Mite-away II (formic acid)
Apistan (fluvalinate)
Sucrocide (sucrose octanoate esters)
Mite-A-Thol (menthol)
Terramycin/Tetra-B (antibiotic)
Tylan (antibiotic)
(?) Gardstar (permethrin)
Fumagilin (antibiotic)
Paramoth (p-dichlorobenzene)
Checkmite (coumaphos)
Oxalic Acid (dicarboxylic acid)
Formic Acid (carboxylic acid)
Mineral Oil (food grade mineral oil)
Sugar Dusting (sucrose)
HBH (essential oils)
MegaBee (diet formula)
Honey Bee Healthy (feeding stimulant)
Bt Aizawai (bacteria)
Essential oils (in general)
Sugar/HFCS

My only concern is including the feeding elements like sugar/hfcs, hbh, pollen patties. Perhaps a poll would be helpful on this matter.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

As to the last post, I agree totally with that definition and believe in the mind of the majority, treatment equates with chemical treatment.

As to your last sentence, hbh is covered by organic oils so is a treatment. Pollen substitutes is a feed, not specifically a mite treatment. When bees are living in some areas in an environment so unbalanced they cannot even collect enough pollen I see no wrong in giving them some, it is not a mite treatment.


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

My thought is dose it really matter, other than having clarity when discussing the topic with others? There seems to be a lot of time, effort and hard feelings on this subject, disproportionate to the practical importance. I guess i just don't understand the passion on whether you treat your bees or not. 

Dan


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

HBH's active ingredients are essential oils. you can feed bees essential oils either in syrup (like HBH) or in sugar/crisco(veg oil) patties, which they also will eat. I do both, taking advantage of both the feeding stimulant aspect and the possible mite effects of essential oils.
Personally, I don't think you can categorize 'essential oils' differently from HBH...it becomes too much like splitting a hair.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Sorry, when I typed hbh, I was referring to Honey Bee Healthy. I see there is also HBH which do have essential oils.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

I think the big problem is trying to put a square peg, treatment, into a triangular hole. Each persons definition of treatment is different. Some think of treatment as adding any chemicals to the hive. Others look at treatment as any management practice done to the hive. Talk to a researcher and they think anything you do to a hive can be called a treatment.

I think the word treatment needs to be abandoned and more descriptive terms used. In agriculture there are already a number being used with other animals/crops that could be used..organic, sustainable, Integrated Pest Management, etc. I realize there is some debate about organic honey. However, if you look at other certified organic products they look at the practices and products used in production. 

Some like to segregate "hard" and "soft" chemicals. I don't. Some of the nastiest toxins known to man are natural.

If you have to describe what you mean when you say treatment than it is not a very descriptive term. I think we need better terminology.

Tom


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

That's exactly what this thread is for.

I have been thinking of some catetories into which things we do to hives could be divided.

My ideas are Stimulation, Manipulation, Treatment, Soft Treatment, Non-Chemical Treatment.

Stimulation: All types of feeding, may include Treatments and/or Soft Treatments depending on the case.

Manipulation: Anything we do to the hive, boxes, frames, queens, drones, etc.

Treatment: All the typical chemicals, miticides, antibiotics, and chemicals we know well.

Soft Treatment: Essential oils, FGMO, acids, things that are not considered to 'contaminate' the hive or wax, often called 'organic' or 'natural'.

Non-Chemical Treatment: Treatments to kill mites or diseases within the hive but not using a chemical or foriegn substace, drone freezing, broodcycle breaking, burning the hive, etc.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Wired, I myself think the actions you list under 'non-chemical treatment' should go under 'manipulation'. Isn't a split a manipulation, but isn't it also often brood cycle breaking? I consider drone removal to be a 'manipulation' too.
Another problem is that many folks use essential oils like HBH as feeding stimulants, while others use the very same oils in similar concentrations fed in sugar patties as _both_ stimulants and a 'possible' mite discourager. The grease can 'possibly' encourage more self grooming too, but can hardly be considered a miticide.

One issue i find difficult is when people tell me formic acid treatment is 'natural' and 'organic'. It kills brood and you have to wear a mask and gloves or it will eat through your skin. Personally, I don't consider that a 'soft' treatment. Sure, formic occurs naturally in a hive, but not at those massively strong concentrations where it can kill stuff! Water is natural and organic too and occurs in our bodies... but if we drink 5 gallons of it at once we die.

This is all just my personal view of course.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I totally understand your frustrations. This isn't my ideal list either, it's a compromise. I would never consider ANY chemical or substance placed into a hive to kill something 'natural' or 'organic' be it oils, acids, sugar, or anything else. Yet, beekeepers I respect call them "natural treatments." It seems like an oxymoron to me.

I think I shall need to respectfully disagree with you about drone brood being a manipulation. In freezing drone brood, one removes something from a hive, treats it (with cold, pretty innocuous, but a treatment nonetheless) and then returns it. That's why I included it under "non-chemical treatment."

As far as feeding, I should have said "contain" rather than "include" because I don't consider oils and whatnot to be included in food. Bees wouldn't typically 'eat' oils.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

There is still obviously major difference as to definition.

However the current poll the questions just aren't doing it.

I didn't comment on the "poll" thread so as not to interfere with it. But the questions asked are quite narrow. I'm assuming Barry is using this just for openers, and having got a result on that particular question will expand further with another poll or two to define it better. Or I hope that is the plan.

Despite all the apparent interest in the subject and apparently strongly held views, after all the time the poll has been there there are still less than 50 votes total to date. I'm just wondering how much interest there really is in the subject, or is it that the questions are narrow and don't really encompass the subject.

The other thing is the object is to arrive at a majority consensus so we can have a "standardised" definition. Can a majority view be claimed on such a small voting turnout.


----------

