Jump to content

Which way do I vote on the honey levy ?


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

@ApiNZ Science & Research

 

I’m sure you know that every beekeeper that has their honey extracted in someone else’s facility also has to be registerd in MPI’s beekeeper list ( yet another fee) 

because of this list I have had many unsolicited emails why wasn’t that list ApiNZ’s first port of call ?

I see the email addresses on that website are no longer public but as far as I’m aware they could be given to ApiNZ if they asked for them.

failing that there are physical addresses a letter could be sent too. 

 

with a subject as important as this one ApiNZ should be making every effort to reach as many beekeepers as possible 

 

 

 

my thoughts too => they're either incompetent or lying, neither is a good look

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Given ApiNZ do not represent the majority of bee keeping enterprises the above is no surprise. @ApiNZ Science & Research perhaps you can offer some insight as to how it is ApiNZ feel so free

Thanks for the answer. in you initial post you said  “our key stakeholders have made it clear that they wish to see a more united and engaged industry” what I’m asking is who are these already

It has occurred to me , and correct me If I am wrong , that a lot of the issues with modern bee keeping are caused by over stocking . Caused by modern corporate bee keeping practices , who now wa

8 hours ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

When we read some of the negative comments towards the proposed commodity levy it reminds us of the greatest threat that we see to getting it passed the vote. That is often called the Tragedy of the Commons combined with sometimes deliberate misinformation. The negative comments also convey to us a vision of the future for our industry that is much less than aspirational

i don't object to a levy on honey.

i do object on the backhanded, backdoor, and morally corrupt approach taken by an organisation with no mandate to represent beekeepers trying to claim such a mandate and funding

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

i leave it to others to judge if these guys have a mandate, but i think the honey/kg based fee is totally off.

take $1 of a umf20 manuka and the guy will hardly feel it.

take 10cent of a $4 honey (before it's even sold) and you pack up.

put a levy on the landowner fees. 

bring it out in the open what some guys stick in their pocket because they happen to be lucky enough to live next to a public reserve or reckless enough to disrespect their neighbors.

and that "minister" should get behind this if he really wants to tidy up with wild west.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ali said:

The very careful structuring of the levy proposal by ApiNZ could simply be inept to the extreme, which I sincerely doubt, or a deliberate considered and carefully thought out plan to assume control of mostly all available funding means and essentially placing control of the industry in the hands of a few larger beekeepers with a vested interest.

It is structured so that a very large part of the current 8000 or so beekeepers do not get a say or really as much as a look in!

It really is time for a call to action on the part of the entire beekeeping register.

 

Assume control of available funding? And what funding would that be? There is none currently.

Some other post asked whether there was a vested interest here? Yes - this is the Science & Research group of Api NZ. And 40% of the levy if it were passed, would go to this area.

Someone else asked why the government aren't helping? because they're not going to help an industry that isn't prepared to help itself.

So its possible that nearly a million dollars would go to science and research. Double that with government money and the industry can do something.

 

Most people would have no idea of the research being done - nearly all of it funded by companies or internally to organisations. Some of theserecent examples:

 - confirmation of comb sterilisation from nosema pathogens. Who heard the 15% honey increase in the later trial?

 - American Foulbrood technologies - various work going on largely funded by private companies here in NZ or Australia ! ! One SFF project (ie government funded)

 

I look at the work done by the chairman of this group who has gone around larger companies, beekeepers essentially begging for money for various projects - until out of some pride and respect the rest of the group put a halt to it. On a big salary? How does zero sound.

And then a bunch want to suggest the controlling of available funding or similar words? It would be a joke if it wasn't already a tragedy. [JM]

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

Someone else asked why the government aren't helping? because they're not going to help an industry that isn't prepared to help itself.

Be  careful with your words mate.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/08/2018 at 9:15 AM, Otto said:

I do however fully agree with the maths on a "simple" system of 10c per kg of honey produced. This will get a lots of beekeepers that produce lower value honey anti the proposed levy because they will very rightly feel they are paying more that their share. The levy needs to be a flat percentage on actual sales (as in Gino's example). Why come up with a proposal that is immediately going to cause a them versus us mentality to prevail? This is something the industry needs to be united on. 

 

Let me just add that I am in favour of a commodity levy for the beekeeping industry. I think we desperately need a pot of money that can be used for research, marketing etc. 

I agree in theory with what you’re saying but what if we don’t sell our honey for a coupe of years. Or sell it cheap to a holding company and then sell it on to a packer for a better price. It also add paperwork and admin to the extractors work and will put their prices up too. 

I some ways by the kilo is more straightforward. However I think they should find a way to levy the whole industry. What about Apinz include a levy on hobbiest membership or assure quality on hive  registrations.   So confused !! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

 

Assume control of available funding? And what funding would that be? There is none currently.

Some other post asked whether there was a vested interest here? Yes - this is the Science & Research group of Api NZ. And 40% of the levy if it were passed, would go to this area.

Someone else asked why the government aren't helping? because they're not going to help an industry that isn't prepared to help itself.

So its possible that nearly a million dollars would go to science and research. Double that with government money and the industry can do something.

 

Most people would have no idea of the research being done - nearly all of it funded by companies or internally to organisations. Some of theserecent examples:

 - confirmation of comb sterilisation from nosema pathogens. Who heard the 15% honey increase in the later trial?

 - American Foulbrood technologies - various work going on largely funded by private companies here in NZ or Australia ! ! One SFF project (ie government funded)

 

I look at the work done by the chairman of this group who has gone around larger companies, beekeepers essentially begging for money for various projects - until out of some pride and respect the rest of the group put a halt to it. On a big salary? How does zero sound.

And then a bunch want to suggest the controlling of available funding or similar words? It would be a joke if it wasn't already a tragedy. [JM]

Are you Saying the Apinz chairman isn’t getting paid ???? Or the science group??) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One very good option would be to defer this issue for 9 months.
Continue the road show though because it may be just the first of a few

Give ApiNZ and the Beekeepers time to get  aquainted but also allowing the govt time to fully disclose its position.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

When we read some of the negative comments towards the proposed commodity levy it reminds us of the greatest threat that we see to getting it passed the vote. That is often called the Tragedy of the Commons combined with sometimes deliberate misinformation. The negative comments also convey to us a vision of the future for our industry that is much less than aspirational 

 

If your vision of the world is at ground level then something coming at you will be onto you much sooner than if you could scan the horizon much farther out than at ground level. Think of biosecurity threats and science & research in this manner. Which position should we take reactive or proactive?

 

In addition to this, our key stakeholders have made it clear that they wish to see a more united and engaged industry.  Having a peak industry body has gone a long way to making this happen.  The next logical step in our journey is to secure industry funding to help protect and grow this important industry.  

 

For those who didn’t go to conference the science forum on Monday 23rd July delivered seventeen presentations on current science projects from around the country. All but three of these wonderful projects were devised and funded outside of our industry. In other words, a researcher came up with an idea sought funding for it and is implementing it without any input from our industry. You can see abstracts of these presentations on this link http://apicultureconference2018.co.nz/programme/ 

plus they will be placed on the ApiNZ web site in due course. 

 

We don't denigrate any of them as they are superb projects with many being collectively and individually transformative to our industry over time. Some will likely deliver annual gains to our industry well in excess of the $2 million that a commodity levy might cost. We were left at the end of the science forum with the idea that they painted a picture of a future if we choose to embrace it. Even better if those seventeen science projects could become 34 projects or more with 50/50 funding from a commodity levy and government money as likely they would be under a commodity levy. 

 

At this point our industry would begin to sit with other primary industries that have comprehensive research programs and are gaining hugely from them. This where you begin to stand on your own two feet as an industry and begin to imagine, plan, shape and develop how your own future might be. You can see emerging threats, opportunities and practice well before they arrive. 

 

 

For those who can still remember it the last commodity levy that was dropped in the early 2000’s helped to enable the work that the late Dr Peter Molan and his colleagues did with the bio actives in manuka honey. No one should dispute that this research hasn't transformed our industry. The beekeeping world is envious of us yet we risk squandering our gains.

 

Our plea to you all is to get out of the trench if you are indeed still in it, stand up and in the vision of the late Sir Paul Callaghan ‘lift our horizons’ and begin to imagine what science & research could deliver to our industry through a commodity levy and above all don't sweat the small stuff because we still have time to adapt this levy to best fit how most of us would like to see it. 

 

The current proposal was devised from communications with other primary industries that have commodity levies. The best advice that we were given was to employ the KISS principal to any levy. Keep it simple, transparent, verifiable and uncomplicated. Other industries such as forestry deduct $0.27 per ton of logs and the wine industry deducts 0.75% of the farm-gate price, notional price or FOB value per ton of grapes delivered to the winery. Most growers see this as a seamless and almost minor cost that appears on their payout notices. So why could we not do the same? 

 

We have a rare opportunity with this vote for a commodity levy to bring considerable benefits and future resilience to our industry and hobbies over time. We just need to envisage and embrace the positives that this will bring.

 

BF & JM

 

“our key stakeholders have made it clear that they wish to see a more united and engaged industry.” So who are our key stakeholders?? 

I would support a levy that focused on science and research, but I feel the budget for spending the levy gives a very low percentage of funds collected to the science team. My main beef is that too much money is being absorbed by admin. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nikki watts said:

“our key stakeholders have made it clear that they wish to see a more united and engaged industry.” So who are our key stakeholders?? 

I would support a levy that focused on science and research, but I feel the budget for spending the levy gives a very low percentage of funds collected to the science team. My main beef is that too much money is being absorbed by admin. 

Our key stakeholders would be all of our members now including clubs. Under a levy they would all become members plus members who are not levy payers. We also have a responsibility to the wider industry because the work we do in the science area as an example often is applicable to everyone in the benefits gained from it. A gain in bee health is a gain for all so why shouldnt the cost of obtaining that gain be shared throughout the whole industry?

 

 If you look on the ApiNZ web site / levy at https://apinz.org.nz/levy/ you will see that some 40% of the levy collected will be allocated to science & research. This 40% can then be doubled or more with government and funding from other industries in say the case of a project on research into a bio-controls for passion vine hopper as an example. While that 40% will not meet all of our challenges now and into the future it is a very good start and the leveraging with other funds will enable some very good science work to be done. The pay off to beekeepers over time could be huge. As just one example just think of what tutin costs us already in terms of testing and sometimes rejection of our honey for sale. If the tutin in honey challenge could be almost eliminated over time then the gains to the industry as a whole would be way in excess annually of the cost of the levy. This is just one example of what a well funded science program backed by industry could bring. Think of varroa, think of nosema, think of wasps, queen performance and other challenges to our bee health that cost us alot annually. A reduction or mitigation of any of those bee health issues has the potential for significant pay offs to beekeepers and the industry as a whole. Then think of the costs of doing nothing because things will not stay the same as they are now. Change is constant. Beekeeping in NZ is different now than is was 5, 10 or 20 years ago and that pace of change will only get greater. It is one thing to look at the costs of a levy but it is equally important to consider its benefits as well. BF

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

 

Assume control of available funding? And what funding would that be? There is none currently.

Some other post asked whether there was a vested interest here? Yes - this is the Science & Research group of Api NZ. And 40% of the levy if it were passed, would go to this area.

Someone else asked why the government aren't helping? because they're not going to help an industry that isn't prepared to help itself.

So its possible that nearly a million dollars would go to science and research. Double that with government money and the industry can do something.

 

Most people would have no idea of the research being done - nearly all of it funded by companies or internally to organisations. Some of theserecent examples:

 - confirmation of comb sterilisation from nosema pathogens. Who heard the 15% honey increase in the later trial?

 - American Foulbrood technologies - various work going on largely funded by private companies here in NZ or Australia ! ! One SFF project (ie government funded)

 

I look at the work done by the chairman of this group who has gone around larger companies, beekeepers essentially begging for money for various projects - until out of some pride and respect the rest of the group put a halt to it. On a big salary? How does zero sound.

And then a bunch want to suggest the controlling of available funding or similar words? It would be a joke if it wasn't already a tragedy. [JM]

Respect your views and there's nothing wrong with vested interest as you've put forward.

 

However there's a monumental issue with the self proclaimed righteous APINZ feeling they have the exclusive right to instigate a Levy (in collusion with the minister) without winning the hearts and minds of the commercial sector and taking them on the mission with them!

 

[...Assume control of funding...]: Of course they're assuming they will control the funding from the levy.

 

[...An industry that won't help itself...]: Pretty much a one eyed view however with the purported $5 billion input into the economy where is the governments input on behalf of the other key players (hey beekeepers share of the pie's less than 10%) 

 

[...And then a bunch want to suggest controlling of available funding...]: Precisely the industry's issue with APINZ

 

I've been involved with this industry all my life having actively commercially farmed bees since the 1970's: I was one of the first to join APINZ as I considered them a great chance for the industry to move on collectively: However APINZ has dropped the ball the commercial sector isn't with them!!!

 

My suggestion is that they defer the Levy vote and work vigorously at winning the hearts and minds of the Commercial sector, inviting them to share the vision and come along for the ride:

 

If they can't do this then they're simply not the correct entity to be in charge of any imposed Levy!!!!!!!

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please explain exactly where the %40 will go to how much is admin and other costs and how much will leave the ApiNZ office and go into science and research. 40 percent sounds like a good number but so far you have not even been able to tell us how many members you have that are actually beekeepers? This should be a no brainier tell the facts without the bovine fecal matter and you might not be pushing the stinky brown stuff up the incline. 

This plan sounds as well thought out as Vaughn the Viking when he ordered 200000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kaihoka said:

It has occurred to me , and correct me If I am wrong , that a lot of the issues with modern bee keeping are caused by over stocking .

Caused by modern corporate bee keeping practices , who now want the whole industry to pay to research ways that unsustainable bee keeping can continue .

Congratulations @kaihoka, that's it in a nutshell, and they won't risk a meeting in Auckland because the 'dump site' factor is impacting hobby and commercial beeks alike in the rural areas.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kaihoka said:

It has occurred to me , and correct me If I am wrong , that a lot of the issues with modern bee keeping are caused by over stocking .

Caused by modern corporate bee keeping practices , who now want the whole industry to pay to research ways that unsustainable bee keeping can continue .

Large beekeepering operations such as the corporates you mention will by the fact that they produce more honey pay more of the overall levy. Everyone will have a say in how it is spent. Landcare Research are currently running a survey with the aid of their economist and ApiNZ Science & Research Focus Group member Pike Brown who has posted this link before here on priorities for research. See it

: https://survey.landcareresearch.co.nz/jfe/form/SV_0ihcgcrJl1TXAwJ 

In addition to this if the levy gets past a very important part of research is the extension and engagement of it with beekeepers so that it becomes most applicable to their needs and the scientists and researchers themselves gain from the iteration between beekeepers and scientists. Other countries do it quite well with extension programs so why couldnt we?

Overstocking is a major issue and science & research can definitely help with finding some solutions to it. The problem is of course bigger than just a science issue. As an example of one part of a solution to this I personally have found planting Trees for Bees around my wintering / spring apiary sites to pay off. There is alot more that Trees for Bees could do in terms of research and extension if it recieved greater funding. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nikki watts said:

Thanks for the answer.

in you initial post you said  “our key stakeholders have made it clear that they wish to see a more united and engaged industry” what I’m asking is who are these already signed up stakeholders who have given the board this mandate ?? I understand if the levy comes in we will all become stakeholders. 

 

You have stared several times that this levy will be great for the whole  industry yet it’s the commercial beekeepers only who will be paying it. What are Apinz’s plan for attaining funding from other stakeholders ??

 

For the record I’m not against a levy but I do feel there needs to be transparency from Apinz, particularly the question of how many current Apinz members are beekeepers, it seems to be a sticking point for many of us. 

To help answer this question


1. ApiNZ represents more than 50% of beehives and honey production in NZ
2. When we refer to stakeholders we don’t only mean ApiNZ members.  We work with a variety of stakeholders, including Government, Scientists and other industry bodies – they have all given us feedback that Apiculture would be better represented with one industry voice. I have heard this time & again when talking to scientists if only we had a levy much more could be done. What's more having levy funds available gives us greater chances of securing government contributions through programs such as the Sustainable Farming Fund. I have personally seen this with the example of the research into a bio-control for the giant willow aphid which I chair. It took three applications being turned down before the four application was successful. Having levy funds in place to co-fund with government money would have likely made it easier to get government funding at the first application rather than the forth.
3. In the event of a successful levy vote, all levy payers will become members, finally uniting industry under one umbrella. 
4. We don’t levy packers and marketers as we can’t!  The honey they purchase, however, has had a levy paid on it.
5. This is very similar to how other industry good commodity levy organisations work.  For example, HortNZ
6. 91% of our members are beekeepers currently.

BF
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

To help answer this question


1. ApiNZ represents more than 50% of beehives and honey production in NZ
2. When we refer to stakeholders we don’t only mean ApiNZ members.  We work with a variety of stakeholders, including Government, Scientists and other industry bodies – they have all given us feedback that Apiculture would be better represented with one industry voice. I have heard this time & again when talking to scientists if only we had a levy much more could be done. What's more having levy funds available gives us greater chances of securing government contributions through programs such as the Sustainable Farming Fund. I have personally seen this with the example of the research into a bio-control for the giant willow aphid which I chair. It took three applications being turned down before the four application was successful. Having levy funds in place to co-fund with government money would have likely made it easier to get government funding at the first application rather than the forth.
3. In the event of a successful levy vote, all levy payers will become members, finally uniting industry under one umbrella. 
4. We don’t levy packers and marketers as we can’t!  The honey they purchase, however, has had a levy paid on it.
5. This is very similar to how other industry good commodity levy organisations work.  For example, HortNZ
6. 91% of our members are beekeepers currently.

BF
 

Thankyou Barry - one question still goes unanswered.  It’s a very simple question so please don’t let me down!!

Of all the registered Beekeepers in Nz how many are ApiNZ members??

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

To help answer this question


1. ApiNZ represents more than 50% of beehives and honey production in NZ
2. When we refer to stakeholders we don’t only mean ApiNZ members.  We work with a variety of stakeholders, including Government, Scientists and other industry bodies – they have all given us feedback that Apiculture would be better represented with one industry voice. I have heard this time & again when talking to scientists if only we had a levy much more could be done. What's more having levy funds available gives us greater chances of securing government contributions through programs such as the Sustainable Farming Fund. I have personally seen this with the example of the research into a bio-control for the giant willow aphid which I chair. It took three applications being turned down before the four application was successful. Having levy funds in place to co-fund with government money would have likely made it easier to get government funding at the first application rather than the forth.
3. In the event of a successful levy vote, all levy payers will become members, finally uniting industry under one umbrella. 
4. We don’t levy packers and marketers as we can’t!  The honey they purchase, however, has had a levy paid on it.
5. This is very similar to how other industry good commodity levy organisations work.  For example, HortNZ
6. 91% of our members are beekeepers currently.

BF
 

Basically with your fall off of membership this year representation of more than 50% of beehives must encompass every corporate beekeeper in the country and as they generally produce well below the average per/hive honey production of the commercial sector it's highly unlikely this qualifies as representation of anywhere near 50% of the honey crop.

 

As I associate with a large number of commercial beekeepers and seem to have trouble finding any number that back APINZ representing their interests lets see the numbers of current commercial beekeepers (other than corporates) that are members of APINZ! The questions been asked infinitum on these Forum's and obstinately ignored by APINZ representatives

 

The ignorance purveyed in your message that by forcing the majority of small to medium commercial beekeepers to pay an imposed Levy you will somehow unite the industry is naïve at best and downright arrogant at worst

 

You quote 'Industry Good Commodity Levy Organisations': Again quite bluntly you're taking so much upon yourselves: What damn good will come of the imposition of this Levy and what moral right have APINZ got to claim it if it is imposed.

 

Message to APINZ:

  1. Please have the decency to win the hearts and minds of the commercial sector prior to claiming to represent the industry and then and only then pursue your Levy aspirations.
  2. Don't quote HortNZ as being similar i.e. how big is their hobbyist voting block (members with an apple tree in the back yard)
  3. I'll back you if you can convince me you're good for the bulk of the commercial beekeepers of NZ and beekeeping in general: Just sell yourselves to us; don't move the Levy vote forward and sell the commercial sector out by way of convoluted voting majority's.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kaihoka said:

It has occurred to me , and correct me If I am wrong , that a lot of the issues with modern bee keeping are caused by over stocking .

Caused by modern corporate bee keeping practices , who now want the whole industry to pay to research ways that unsustainable bee keeping can continue .

Let's not get carried away with putting all the blame for industry woes on the Corporate Sector

 

OK they're not my idea of how beekeeping should be undertaken but there's plenty of Commercial operations pushing the overstocking button and at the end of the day if an area can't sustain the hives in it someone will just have to move (not hard to research that!)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ted said:

Thankyou Barry - one question still goes unanswered.  It’s a very simple question so please don’t let me down!!

Of all the registered Beekeepers in Nz how many are ApiNZ members??

So 91 percent of your membership is bee keepers and you only give them how much of a percentage of your voting. Or put it another way 9 percent of your membership has over 50 percent of the control over what we do 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ted said:

Thankyou Barry - one question still goes unanswered.  It’s a very simple question so please don’t let me down!!

Of all the registered Beekeepers in Nz how many are ApiNZ members??

 

Yes this is the question I want answered!

its all very well to say members of ApiNZ make up 51% of the registered beehives in NZ but we all know most of those beehives are owned by corporates a lot of them with offshore owners who wouldn’t know a beehive from a hot cross bun. 

And most of them producing and selling their own product for a whole lot more than $4.50 a kg !

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...