Define "treatment free"

[Barry]

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

[TWall]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.