Paul Hosticka writes:

> For THIS LIST in order to promote accurate communication I propose
> that we all agree that any hive manipulation, chemical application,
> apiary location, or any other intervention preformed for thepurpose
> of controlling the naturally occurring varroa population be defined
> and recognized as a treatment.

My reaction is rather similar to that of Jerry Bromenshenk, who writes:

> Taken to the extreme, TF would consist of quitting beekeeping and
> reverting to only having feral honeybee colonies - the simple act
> of putting colonies of bees in a box voids the TF concept

Precisely!

As soon as we "keep" bees, we perform manipulations, even if only to
inspect or to take honey.  For example, according to Paul's proposed
definition above, if I make splits in order to prevent swarming or
to increase my number of colonies, I'm not "treating", but if I do the
exact same thing with the aim of reducing varroa, I'm "treating".  And
what if my primary purpose is to prevent swarming, but I'm aware of
the side benefit that the broodless period after my split may help
control varroa?  Am I treating or am I not treating?

I don't think that the definition of "treatment" can reasonably
hinge on the intention of the person performing the action - the
definition has to "classify" the action (as a treatment or not a
treatment) regardless of intention.


So... why *are* we trying to avoid or reduce "treatments", however
we define them?

  - Commercial reasons: treatments cost time and money.

  - Environmental reasons: treatments have undesirable side effects
    on the treated bees and possibly on other species.

  - Philosophical reasons: we'd like to let the bees live "naturally"
    insofar as possible, despite the fact that our supplying a hive
    and taking honey could be called "unnatural", depending on how one
    sees the position of humans and their actions as part of nature or
    outside nature.

So depending on our "why", "treatment free" could have different
definitions:

  - For commercial purposes, if we don't have to spend time and money
    dealing with varroa mites, we're treatment free.  But it strikes
    me that even if we manage to breed a varroa resistant/tolerant
    bee, someone will have to keep an eye on the genetics of these
    lines, and we'll still be paying the queen breeders to do that
    work.  There's no free lunch.

  - For environmental purposes, perhaps we don't mind spending a bit
    of time and money of "doing things" to combat varroa, but if we
    can manage to do what needs to be done without significant
    undesirable side effects, we're treatment free.  Perhaps someday
    someone will invent a fantastic mite trap that catches all the
    varroa mites and has no effect on any other species.  I'm not
    holding my breath.

  - For philosophical reasons: someone else will have to take a stab
    at this.  I don't know what's "natural" and what isn't any more.
    I'm still reeling from the finding out that bacteria exchange DNA
    across species.  This isn't your grandfather's high-school
    biology.  Heck, it's not even *my* high-school biology, and I'm
    not a senior citizen yet!

I think that if we try to define "treatment free", we'll succeed
about as well as the blind men describing the elephant.


Anne, backyard beekeeper, Montreal.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html