# "Treatment Free" Poll



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry, have you pinned down what the word "treatment" means? Is that partly what you are trying to do w/ this poll?

In my opinion, feeding is not a "treatment". One is not "treating" their hive w/ syrup and/or pollen substitute.

May I cast a vote? Not, imo, really being a "Treatment Freee Beekeeper".


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I can't vote in this one, there are not enough options.

HFCS is a chemical byproduct of a long process of processing corn not fit for human consumption. Other than the stray soda can, a bee would never come in contact with it in nature.

Bees come in contact with sugar or sugars containing various ratios of glucose and sucrose all the time. Most are sourced from rotting fruit. And of course, there is nectar.

I also see a difference between feeding as a treatment (starving), feeding splits and swarms, and feeding as a stimulant. In the first instance, it is a treatment to prevent death, in the second case, it is not. In the third case its purpose is to cause the bees to do something they should not normally do.

There is not likely a consensus on the above, HFCS is not okay in a hive to my eye.

I define treatments as substances placed into the hive with the purpose of killing living things. Feeding doesn't really fit that paradigm.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

I think this poll is spot on.
If one was to look at treatments the way the tax man does when we file our farming statements, feed is a separate category than treating. Hate to beat a dead horse here...It is how cow, sheep, lama, goat, horse, and any other livestock farm is looked at.!!!
Another way to look at it is Hive/herd health and hive/herd nutrition.

Treating is in effect anything "vet" related. Any thing used to keep the hives in good health, for example, Drugs, chemicals to treat bugs, EO's, sugar dusting for mites....these in the AG business would be considered vet related.
Vet related includes:
AFB treatements
Nosema treatments
In hive pest treatements (TM, VM, SHB)
To include EO's, Sugar dusting.

Feeding for supplementation is all together different. It is nutrition based. It is what the tax world for farming calls rations or feed expenses. Does not matter if it is chemically made like HFCS, or if it is manufactured pollen. It is classed as a ration.
Rations include
Syrup sugar, sucrose or HFCS
Pollen patties, powder, or the stuff guys on here buy to make their own patties. 

Now for some of the IPM ideas like drone removal frames and screen bottom boards....capital expenses...meant for the long term usage or if you just buy a few....small tools expense.


So instead of picking this poll apart, come to some sort of common ground...follow the math...follow the tax man... If one choses to place rations as a treatment...that is personal...but for the vast majority of "livestock producers" this is how it is.

Find some common ground people


----------



## gkervitsky (Nov 20, 2008)

I consider my bee operations to be a "treatment free" and have to agree with sqkcrk 

"feeding is not a treatment. One is not "treating" their hive w/ syrup and/or pollen substitute"

I think you can be "treatment free" and "artificial supplement free". I define treatments and the inclusion of chems, meds, oils, and/or acids inside the hive, to be treatments. Whether or not they are natural treatments is a different shade of gray in MHO. Moving frames, checkerboarding, and adding supers, are not treatments, they are equipment manipulations designed to achieve some desired result. They are part of a "Equipment Management Strategy". Natural pollen, whether you trap it or some else has, is not an artificial supplement in a bee hive. I would consider Mega Bee, a man-made mixture with a recipe/formulation for bee nutrition, to be an artificial supplement despite the fact that it is comprised of natural ingredients. These and the meds are part of your "Bee Health and Nutrition Strategies". Requeening and head pinching...."Genetic Improvement Diversity Strategy". 

If we are calling spades-spades or hearts-hearts, could treatment-free be broken down to more accurately definitions such as "chemical-free", "pharmaceutical-free", and "artificial nutrition free"? I do not like the latter, but "artificial nutrition" would cover artificial proteins and artificial carbohydrates. These can be further divided into major categories. To some anything other than 100% honey is artificial, others draw the line somewhere between sugar-water, invert syrup, and HFCS.

Summary, all beekeepers need to follow some set of best practices that work for them. Smart beekeepers constantly observe what the bees are teaching and they work to improve/hone those practices to stay relevant, competitive, and good managers of the bee. These practices further delineate into a: Equipment Management Strategy, Integrated Pest Management Strategy, Bee Health and Nutritional Strategy, Genetic Improvement/Diversity Strategy.

Does any of this make sense to anyone else? What have I missed?

From the perspective of the poll, please count my vote as an abstention. 

George
Kensington, Maryland, USA


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WiredForStereo said:


> HFCS is a chemical byproduct of a long process of processing corn not fit for human consumption.


Is this your personal opinion? Because it isn't a fact. I have never seen a tanker of corn syrup which said "Not Fit for Human Consumption".

Sol, you have a unique perspective on things, imo.


----------



## ArkansasBK (Mar 5, 2011)

I use a new, clean garden type blower to blow powdered sugar up into the hive to "treat" for mites. So, am I treatment free? NO. Am I chemical free? YES


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> Is this your personal opinion? Because it isn't a fact.


It's the corn that's not fit for human consumption, not the syrup.

After you've tried the corn that they make HFCS from, feel free to express that opinion again. I guarantee you won't finish the ear.


----------



## Grant (Jun 12, 2004)

The question is simple, the concepts are not. 

In my opinion, a treatment is anything we do that alters the hive to correct something we don't like or changes something we feel will harm the bees or benefits the bees to be healthier and more productive. Reversing boxes is a treatment. Requeening is a treatment. 

Any intervention, any interruption is, by definition, a treatment. It has nothing to do with chemicals or medical science or vet medicine. Smoke is a treatment though inadvertant.

I'm not against treatments. I need treatments, but I strictly favor the "soft" or "natural" approaches (and those words need clarification as well). But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're not altering the hives with our best management practices.

Maybe we can adopt the chiropractor's management of our bodies and call it "an adjustment." That way we can still be treatment free.

Likewise, everything is made up of chemical compounds so suggesting we are "chemical-free" without clarifying what kind of chemicals or assuming we're only talking about hard, synthetic chemical is mis-leading. We assume too much.

Grant
Jackson, MO --


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

If we expand that thought, it would be like saying that by fencing cattle away from a road, we are treating the cattle for cars. 

I believe there is a difference between management and treatment.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WiredForStereo said:


> It's the corn that's not fit for human consumption, not the syrup.
> 
> After you've tried the corn that they make HFCS from, feel free to express that opinion again. I guarantee you won't finish the ear.


Oh, okay, now I see what you mean. It's not the HFCS that you object to, it's the CORN that the HFCS is made from. The HFCS is fit for human consumption. Have I got that right now? 

If HFCS is thhe byproduct, what is the product? I thought that HFCS was the product of processed corn.

There must be something I'm missing here.


----------



## Desert Viking Ranch (Mar 1, 2011)

> Reversing boxes is a treatment. Requeening is a treatment.


I am going to have to agree with RiodeLobo's comment about this statement - that isn't treatment, it's management.

While I am still learning and absorbing everything on this post and my opinions are being formed and changed, that in fact seems to be the most important lesson I have taken away from this discussion. Everyone will answer slighted to their opinion and for their benefit. Without hard lines drawn there will always be room for debate; with hard lines drawn some people won't be happy. You can please most of the people most of the time but not all the people all of the time.

Quite frankly, the best solution seems to find us all in the middle with "natural" or "treatmentless" as long as we don't lose our crop and some "treatment" or "assistance" when some sort of profit is at stake due to outside circumstances.

If it's just a hobby with no money concerns involved then just let them "bee" - no "treatment" necessary


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Grant said:


> Any intervention, any interruption is, by definition, a treatment. It has nothing to do with chemicals or medical science or vet medicine. Smoke is a treatment though inadvertant.


I don't think we can adopt this extreme definition. There is treatment and there is management. Treatment has been explained. Management would include feeding, manipulations, replacing queen, SBB, checkerboarding, etc.

So far, the vast majority are unified in their understanding of the word "treatment". Perhaps we can put together a final definition, post it here and close the thread. That way it can be referred back to in other discussions if need be.


----------



## MARBIS (Jun 10, 2010)

Barry said:


> Management would include feeding, manipulations, replacing queen, SBB, checkerboarding, etc..


Agree, anything else would be a treatment.IMO


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

How about

Treatment: The introduction of any substance for the purpose of reducing, managing or eliminating a disease or pest.

With sub categories for Natural (Soft) Chemical treatments and Advanced (Hard) chemical treatments?
I agree with Barry about the manipulations.
Dan


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries (Jan 16, 2010)

I use syrup patties etc and I am treatment free. OK guys lets take the folks that voted yes and not feed them for a couple of days, and see how their health is. I think that my success with this revolves around fat bees, i.e. feed feed feed and oh did i mention feed. 

My .02

mike


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

Kingfisher Apiaries said:


> OK guys lets take the folks that voted yes and not feed them for a couple of days, and see how their health is.
> 
> mike


Voting yes indicated you thought you could be treatment free and feed.

Dan


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries (Jan 16, 2010)

Sorry got confused and forgot to look. Been one of those days, venom overload.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Barry said:


> So far, the vast majority are unified in their understanding of the word "treatment". Perhaps we can put together a final definition, post it here and close the thread. That way it can be referred back to in other discussions if need be.


Drafts?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann (Feb 2, 2011)

Barry, in all my years of beekeeping, I considered treating my bees to keep them healthy,with what ever was USDA or FDA approved a form of management that was worked into the everyday practices of beekeeping in my operation. The fact that some people are not treating their bees because they believe it makes a healthier bee is also a management practice. There is too much hair splitting with what constitutes treating or not treating. If you feed your bees-it is managment. If you treat, it is managment. If you do not treat, it is managment. You made those choices for your bees for better or worse. Honey bees will survive with out beekeepers. The bees could care less. TK


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Ted, take your issue elsewhere. You don't have to go by any definition we come up with. Please don't try to derail what we're working on here.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Barry, I like your lists, they should certainly be included with the nice definition.


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

WiredForStereo said:


> Drafts?


Treatment: The introduction of any substance for the purpose of reducing, managing or eliminating a disease or pest.


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

If we expand that thought, it would be like saying that by fencing bees to keep out bears , I"m treating the bees to keep out BEARS . 

I believe there is a difference between management and treatment.



BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

No. We've spent plenty of time discussing what treatments are and are not, and I think I speak for everyone who takes the issue seriously when I say a fence is not a treatment.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

I believe this thread is an excellent idea. For years there have been discussions / debates over the meaning of "treatment free" and while there are excellent arguments supporting the various views, I believe we, as beekeepers, and members of this forum, should settle on a definition that is most widely accepted. 

If we are not capable of defining "treatment free" then it will be defined for us...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yes it will, and who better to define it than those who are treatment free?!


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

That is kind of a lop sided view. If one is to define something which effects how we all view beekeeping then there should be more than just one group who defines what treatment free is.
And i still maintain go to what the the IRS and Revenue Canada say
Define treatment via "vet" "health" related and leave the feed off the topic. Feed then becomes a management issue. Which by IRS and Revenue Canada is termed Rations.

Anything in between is just personal bias then.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

honeyshack said:


> If one is to define something which effects how we all view beekeeping then there should be more than just one group who defines what treatment free is.


Not quite. We are looking for a definition for this forum. Something we can point to and use as a standard so when we use the word, we all know what we are talking about. No one is saying that once a definition is decided upon, all beekeepers must abide by it.

"In this forum, a treatment is thus:................" That way we can avoid pointless circular firing squad arguments and get on with talking, learning, sharing, and beekeeping.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yep, only interested in making this forum wide. That's hard enough!


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

I'm certainly not going to get into this one... but I would like to give you guys something to consider while your at it... the initial intent of being "treatment free" is to ensure that you colonies are able to survive and thrive without any human assistance that could lead to future contaminants and/or dependant stock, correct?

If this is so, then feeding for stimulation or otherwise would have to be omitted as feeding lessens the foraging distances of colonies after only two seasons. I think MB would agree fully with that as he completely stopped feeding. HFCS has many chemical traces in it including but not limited to fipronil as the field corn stores traces of this pesticide and has since the beginning of its use... harmful? It's not considered to be... this corn is what is used to produce nearly everything that we eat (corn mill, livestock feeds etc...) graduated sugar also carries small traces of chemicals from both the processing (breaching agents) and the production of beets (pesticides)... the food industry is very vague on their definitions..."pure cane sugar" actually means 12% of the contents of the bag came from sugar cane..."organic" usually means shipped from some country that claims they did not use pesticides, or grown in fields where the farmers have to wear full Chem suits and the soil can never (that's right never) be inhabited by mammals again because the copper that they can use as "organic" growers never, ever for a away, and the soil is left toxic to all mammals... not that any of the traces in any of these foods are high enough for medical concern, but still something to consider when trying to cover all bases...

Sorry for rambling... not on either side in this one... just staying on the fence and watching the show.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

What we want to avoid is getting into this very small area of beekeeping and letting it control the rest. I'm certainly willing to not go the extreme for sake of not losing the 'war.' Feeding sugar in rare times when it is needed for survival is OK in my book. Making a practice of taking honey off in the fall and then feeding for winter stores is not. If we stay away from the fringe and try to embrace the commonsense stuff, we shouldn't have to make this into a big ordeal.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I did end up voting. I couldn't reconcile in my mind how HFCS could be a treatment. Not a good idea, but not a treatment.


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Barry said:


> Feeding sugar in rare times when it is needed for survival is OK in my book. Making a practice of taking honey off in the fall and then feeding for winter stores is not.


Well there you go... just make that a clause for the understanding of what "feeding" is considered in your definition...

I agree with your statement by the way... 

One last point to consider is that "feeding" for this definition, should be limited to sugar, water, natural pollen and HFCS... the addition of anything else would fall directly into the treatment category.. not that I am personally against it, but to be truly "treatment free", it would need to be void of all pest and disease control aids...


----------

