# What is Treatment-Free Beekeeping?



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Where? I don't see it.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Sorry, it took a minute partially because your submission was too long and I had to edit it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I think #1 could be worded better, but it's closest to what I'd define as treatment.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

What's the difference between 1 and 5?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Original wording of 5. It was too long, so I had to remove the details.

Treatment: Applying or feeding some substance to either kill or repel parasites or treat disease. This includes such things as formic acid, oxalic, obvious pesticides, fungicides and miticides, antibiotics and other medications, sugar shakes, mineral oil applications, or using strong essential oils (including thymol) as a mite treatment. Feeding, nutritional supplements, requeening, drone culling, checker-boarding, splitting, queen excluders, grafting, foundation use, frame swapping, honey extraction, etc. are not treatments.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

What is the difference between 3 and 6?

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Doesn't the Title of the Survey ask for definitions of three different terms?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

It does Mark, and all the choices address those different terms. Do you like to approach it by defining what treatment-free is, or do you prefer to define what a treatment is? Several ways to arrive at the same point.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

So, I guess by choosing a def for one you are byu default choosing a def for another? What ever works.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Precisely. I asked for definitions for "treatment" and we got all manner of definitions. So the best thing to do is accommodate everyone's views, even those who don't believe in the premise.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

WiredForStereo said:


> Original wording of 5. It was too long, so I had to remove the details.
> 
> Treatment: Applying or feeding some substance to either kill or repel parasites or treat disease. This includes such things as formic acid, oxalic, obvious pesticides, fungicides and miticides, antibiotics and other medications, sugar shakes, mineral oil applications, or using strong essential oils (including thymol) as a mite treatment. Feeding, nutritional supplements, requeening, drone culling, checker-boarding, splitting, queen excluders, grafting, foundation use, frame swapping, honey extraction, etc. are not treatments.


But doesn't #1 also cover all the above?
I still don't see a difference between #1 and #5, but I guess that not too important since they both seem to say the same thing to me. I voted for #1 though I could have easily voted #5 I suppose.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Yes, but they are different even though they are similar. Remember, these are submissions, I didn't make them up. Leaving some out because they are similar could be misconstrued, so it's best to let it ride.


----------



## NasalSponge (Jul 22, 2008)

I voted for the last....it best discribes my view.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Ok, so there are now several threads about various people's definitions of treatment-free, plus now this poll.
Does this all mean there is going to be a consensus of some sort concerning the definition that will be used in this forum? Or maybe that wasn't the goal?
I'm a little confused.
Another thought- I do think it might be good to tighten up the forum description just a bit- it's somewhat long, legal-sounding and redundant, isn't it?...


> Discussion of information and application concerning the keeping of bees and production of honey using biological methodology. We seek to understand how the bees operate biologically and then formulate management methods that cooperate, as much as possible, with the bees biology without resorting to the use of chemicals and drugs.


How about? something more like simply:


> Discussing and formulating honeybee management methods that cooperate as much as possible with natural bee biology without resorting to the use of chemicals and drugs.


just a thought.


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Seems to be a lot of splitting of hairs. So I opted for doing anything to a hive is a treatment. So the fact that you would add a queen, a frame of honey, a package, a frame of brood or anything to the hive would of course disrupt the the bees and be considered treatment...so other than observing a feral hive in the wild, everyone treats no matter what they claim. (in the purest sense of course)


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Omie said:


> Does this all mean there is going to be a consensus of some sort concerning the definition that will be used in this forum?


Yes, that is precisely the point. The purpose is to have an official definition for the purpose of the forum. It seems at times that those who are not treatment free are those who consider everything done in the hive a treatment. On the other hand, it seems most who are treatment free consider treatments as substances and the rest as manipulations. There needs to be a definition, "this is what we mean by treatment free, period." That way we can get past all the arguments about what is/isn't. I hope we're already working getting past the for/against arguments.

Your definition reads pretty good. But that's not my department.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

From a related thread:



> These purist treatment vs. treatment free arguments are over in this forum, enough arguing. Accept what is, and let it go.


It's time to "Accept what is, and let go".


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

I find it interesting that those who treat and want to be treatment free change the definition. You can call it manipulation, but that is intervention and intervention in the medical sense is considered a treatment. Look it up. That's how I came by my conclusion, not because I am not "treatment free." If you are looking for the true definition of treatment free than you can't ignore the use of the words you are using. If the goal is to be substance free and allow manipulations than perhaps a better title is needed, like Substance Free Beekeeping. This would allow manipulations as a management tool and dis-allow the introduction of any foreign substance to treat or feed the bees.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

alpha6 said:


> You can call it manipulation, but that is intervention and intervention in the medical sense is considered a treatment. Look it up... If you are looking for the true definition of treatment free than you can't ignore the use of the words you are using.


But maybe we are not looking for a definition 'in the medical sense'. The medical field by its very nature is pretty much _all_ about 'treatment', isn't it?
If one considers all manipulations to be treatments (as in the medical sense you describe) then there is no such thing as treatment free beekeeping at all- because even the very act of putting bees in a box is a 'treatment' or intervention then, regardless of whether you use 'substances'.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

And that's why it's up to a vote.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

We need to rap this up, settle on the definition, include the list from my thread that gives a list of what treatments include, and get it in a sticky.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

_How about this one, refinement of the top one with wording from some of the others._


_Treatment: A substance introduced by the beekeeper into the hive with the intent of killing, repelling, or inhibiting a pest or disease within the hive or afflicting the bees._


_Treatments include but are not limited to: _

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)


_Treatments do not include things like manipulations including but not limited to the following:_
Frequent queen replacement
Systematic splitting
Frequent replacement of comb/foundation
Small cell foundation
Drone comb and removal
Screen Bottom Boards


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

You could include grease patties/Crisco patties under treatment substances.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Omie said:


> You could include grease patties/Crisco patties under treatment substances.


And thymol could be added as well...

IMO thymol crystals and feed or fogging solutions made from thymol crystals shouldn't be considered as "essential oils".


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Easily done. 

I was also thinking of including unique forum rules as are mentioned in the main forum rules. I would include things like the prohibition of the advocation of treatments, and against pro/anti treatments arguments.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Okay, there is now a unique forum rules thread. It includes this definition and some rules as well. I would be happy to edit it if anyone has good suggestions on how to streamline it.


----------



## crcaudle (Feb 5, 2011)

I personally would have liked to see this one as an option in the poll:

"Discussing and formulating honeybee management methods that cooperate as much as possible with natural bee biology without resorting to the use of chemicals and drugs."

It is brief and to the point and provides for different points of view.

Perhaps you can take the top 3 or 4 terms receiving votes, tweak them based on the great input from this thread, and have a final poll to conclude this issue. As a beekeeper striving for treatment free beekeeping (regardless of the definition), I am thankful for this forum.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

That's already the description of the forum. We were looking for a working definition for treatment. I believe the guy who wrote that wording voted in the poll and voted for the current working definition.

I'm not sure 'occlude' was the word you were looking for. However, finalizing the issue has been in the works for a month now. In fact, it's pretty much done. The overwhelming majority of voters consider a treatment to be primarily a substance and that treatment free beekeepers should not place such substances in the hive.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Personally, I'm with that. The great majority of the non beekeeping, honey buying public, will consider the bees and the honey they buy, treatment free, long as there's no artificially introduced chemicals put in the hive.

But.... for us, methods such as drone brood harvesting, screened bottom boards etc. may be considered a treatment, because there will be some beekeepers who use none of those methods, and will want to dsitinguish their bees, from another beekeepers bees that are not chemically treated, but only survive because of other methods such as drone brood harvesting.

So if we use Treatment Free only in relation to chemicals, the beekeeper who practises no treatment at all not even mechanical, may feel put out, to be in the same box with someone else who does have to use mechanical methods to keep his bees alive.

Therefore we should be using the term Chemical Treatment Free, to describe bees that have no artificial chemicals put in the hive. This allows the beekeeper who uses nothing at all not even mechanical, to be recognised.

Case in point, I have bees that are susceptable to mites, but have had no chemicals in the hives for 2 years because mechanical methods are used plus they are queen breeding hives and have periodic broodless periods. Theoretically I could describe them as treatment free. But it wouldn't really be honest. If I sold them to someone else who didn't treat they would likely get mites and die.

My 2 cents, it's worth what you paid for it!


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I am hesitant to address the demands of a group which has not yet shown itself to exist. 

For instance, I am one of those strictly treatment free beekeepers, but I have decided to abide by the popular definition which by chance I also wrote in all incarnations. Perhaps I have a skill for knowing what people want. I don't see any strictly treatment free beekeepers requesting to be addressed as such and separated from the chemically treatment free beekeepers. 

In the end, this definition is just for this forum. I'm really serious when I say you can do whatever you want outside the forum. I'm not spying on you.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Solomon Parker said:


> Perhaps I have a skill for knowing what people want.


You are an awesome guy!



Solomon Parker said:


> I'm really serious when I say you can do whatever you want outside the forum.


Phew!! That's good of you Sol, a great relief to me!


----------



## ccar2000 (Aug 9, 2009)

It looks like too many definitions of the same thing to me. Don't know which to select!


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

Personally, I'd leave BT off the list. Its not a treatment for the bees. Its used on comb in storage, not to help the bees in some way.
I do understand residues left on the comb when returned to use, might be the issue.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Solomon Parker said:


> I am hesitant to address the demands of a group which has not yet shown itself to exist. I don't see any strictly treatment free beekeepers requesting to be addressed as such and separated from the chemically treatment free beekeepers.


Excellent. As I have a whole yard of bees that has not been treated, with CHEMICALS, for 2 years, looks like I'm now a fully fledged Treatment Free beekeeper!

Who woulda thought!


----------

