People are getting all in a kerfuffle again about “treatment” or “no-treatment” beekeeping.
By “treatment” the general reference is to applying some type of chemical control inside a bee hive. However, that word is also used synonamously with “manipulation” or introducing changes in a variety of ways to a bee hive.
First off, do I beelieve in implementing chemical controls into a bee hive? The short answer is that yes, I do see a possible case scenario for introducing a chemical control into a bee hive.
The long answer is that I see a spectrum of a myriad of possibilities that don’t easily fit into a dichotomy. It’s more like following an “if-then” flow chart the way I approach it.
In regard to use of toxic chemical pesticides being used as a control tactic…. It’s not likely for me. I see those as a last ditch, worst case scenario that “might” be usable on a case by case approach.
I am just as likely to terminate a colony in such a situation as try to implement a toxic chemical control. It depends on a variety of things that affect that particular hive and the apiary and environment that it’s in.
I have total and utter disregard for those who insist on making “treatment” or “no-treatment” a simple and absolute false dichotomy.
I prefer, as I think most do, to have colonies that do not need to have certain types of control tactics introduced such as toxic chemical pesticides. I implement IPM in my overall beekeeping and apiary planning from the beginning.
I try to have the best understanding of natural bee biology and behavior so as to let the colonies tell me when they need help and then only give the help they need, nothing more, nothing less.
Playing political games of unnecessary absolutes is a waste of thinking people’s time, efforts and resources.
That’s just how this apiarist sees it.