Jump to content
Daley

Are you a member of APINZ?

Are you a member of APINZ  

186 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you a member of APINZ



Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, CraBee said:

 

Sorry, why do you say this?

There is a serious risk that the money makers (the corporates if you like but it includes a number of other larger operators too) would like to see the beekeeping industry go the way of the crayfishing & fishing industries. They are models for the elimination of the smaller operator and creation of incredible wealth (for a few) by way of quota ownership.

Commercial quota for cray is better than gold, land, or most other things one can think of.

"Over stocking" as is sometimes a problem in some areas at some times is a great vehicle to be used as a rationale for the imposition of a quota system.

How many family beeks would be able to out bid the large operators to acquire holdings of hive quota to allow placements of hives?

I think we are extremely naive if we don't see that this is part of the future unless we prevent it.

APINZ has to my mind demonstrated a disregard for the small operator and an attitude of arrogantly pushing their agenda (and thus the agenda of the largest operators) on the smaller beek. They are remarkably quiet and vague on a lot of the most important issues at stake for all of us. Beware!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ali said:

There is a serious risk that the money makers (the corporates if you like but it includes a number of other larger operators too) would like to see the beekeeping industry go the way of the crayfishing & fishing industries. They are models for the elimination of the smaller operator and creation of incredible wealth (for a few) by way of quota ownership.

Such a regime could be on a corporate wishlist, but considering the size of the bureaucracy that administers the fishing industry and the apparent  lack of government interest in the honey industry the infrastructure for a quota system will never eventuate. Don't forget the underpinning of the fishery quota system is biologic sustainability of the resource not profit. The current problem is too many bees, they don't need such protection. And just out of interest Ali, how many hives do you run or plan on running ?

Edited by yesbut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ali, if we look at other primary producers, we have seen significnt amalgamation of land and farms in the dairy sector.

25 to 30 years ago  a family dairy farm could get by with 150 cows. Today you will need 400 cows plus labour and to succeed 1000 cows with full time staff.

Over the same time period we have seen the formation of large beekeeping corporates.

In both the above examples, the establishment of corporates has involved willing sellers from the smaller owner operators.

You are correct this has happened in fisheries and horticulture. 

I cannot see how any organisation can prevent this happening, other than the Government by legislation, and no one will like that as a solution.

 

Your comparison with the fishing industry is very well made. Beekeepers are like fisherman, theny take their hives to where they hope to get a good crop of honey.

Fisherman set their nets where they expect to catch fish. In the past 20 years they have over fished the inshore fishery resource, and the small local fisherman has mostly got out of the business. 

 

The problem with two many bees in this type of extractive (take all) economic model is that the cost of sugar (feeding bees) is going to soon exceed the returns of honey (falling price, no new honey valuation research, no new marketable product).

My expectation is that it will be the bankers who will slow hive growth and seek a return to lower hive numbers. They have that power, and to many financially insecure beekeepers will be told to get another job. It will not be Government (they do not want to) or the Beekeeping industry (they cannot agree how) that will sort out the overstocking issue.

 

This is why the 40% research levy is important for all beekeepers, because the intellectual property of new discoveries will be owned by the Beekeepers (not the corporates). 

Without a levy the corporates own research will make some new discoveries and that intellectual property will belong to them. 

So you either go with the flow or get left leaning on the padlocked gate. 

That is why supporting the levy is very important.

 

If Peter Molan and Waikato University had patented all his Manuka research work on behalf of all NZ beekeepers, we would have a business that we could have protected from overeas predators.

Only if.

 

 

Edited by Don Mac
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ali said:

There is a serious risk that the money makers (the corporates if you like but it includes a number of other larger operators too) would like to see the beekeeping industry go the way of the crayfishing & fishing industries. They are models for the elimination of the smaller operator and creation of incredible wealth (for a few) by way of quota ownership.

Commercial quota for cray is better than gold, land, or most other things one can think of.

"Over stocking" as is sometimes a problem in some areas at some times is a great vehicle to be used as a rationale for the imposition of a quota system.

How many family beeks would be able to out bid the large operators to acquire holdings of hive quota to allow placements of hives?

I think we are extremely naive if we don't see that this is part of the future unless we prevent it.

APINZ has to my mind demonstrated a disregard for the small operator and an attitude of arrogantly pushing their agenda (and thus the agenda of the largest operators) on the smaller beek. They are remarkably quiet and vague on a lot of the most important issues at stake for all of us. Beware!

 

I remember hitch-hiking back from Hamilton to Whangarei in the early 90's.  A fisherman picked me up, and he told me about how he was basically trying to catch as much fish /tonneage as he could at that time as that was one of the factors that would result in his quota level being set the next year.  As I recall it, fisher-people big and small got awarded quota.  If smaller fisherman no longer exist to the extent they did it is because they sold one of their most valuable assets - quota.  Having a quota IMO is a good thing, it creates an asset and wealth for the holder, and is readily tradeable.

 

We have over-stocking big-time, resulting in bk's big and small getting reduced or non economic returns.  Perhaps an award of quota followed by bk's selling up / retiring etc etc is what the industry needs.  You don't HAVE to sell your quota.  Perhaps some consolidation from a highly fragmented industry into a number of larger, better resourced entities is what is needed.....

 

Regardless of whether you want the industry as it is now or dominated by bigger companies, I still would have thought all bk's would be supportive of a quota for commercial reasons...

 

  • Like 1
  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yesbut said:

Don't forget the underpinning of the fishery quota system is biologic sustainability of the resource not profit.

Sorry @yesbut, but I think most folk have realised that is all about profit rather than how it should be about sustainability. Our fish stocks are sitting at 10% of 100 years ago. It is pillage in a respectable guise. The scandals of last year? Do you recall? No one was held to account!

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still struggle to see how one could administer a quota-type system when the vast majority of beehives are on private property. Quotas may work for the fishing industry where the fish/crayfish etc live in the sea and you go there to catch your quota. How would you administer quotas on private properties? I doubt the government would have any interest in trying to set such a scheme up. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ali said:

Sorry @yesbut, but I think most folk have realised that is all about profit rather than how it should be about sustainability. Our fish stocks are sitting at 10% of 100 years ago. It is pillage in a respectable guise. The scandals of last year? Do you recall? No one was held to account!

Yes some of the tv adverts that Sealord have been running are somewhat bad taste, like this one

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Mac said:

Over the same time period we have seen the formation of large beekeeping corporates.

In both the above examples, the establishment of corporates has involved willing sellers from the smaller owner operators.

You are correct this has happened in fisheries and horticulture. 

I cannot see how any organisation can prevent this happening, other than the Government by legislation, and no one will like that as a solution.

In part it is the way of the world/business I know. I simply do not agree it is a good thing and cannot support the way of it.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CraBee said:

Regardless of whether you want the industry as it is now or dominated by bigger companies, I still would have thought all bk's would be supportive of a quota for commercial reasons...

 

Really?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Otto said:

I still struggle to see how one could administer a quota-type system when the vast majority of beehives are on private property. Quotas may work for the fishing industry where the fish/crayfish etc live in the sea and you go there to catch your quota. How would you administer quotas on private properties? I doubt the government would have any interest in trying to set such a scheme up. 

Legislation regarding what you may do on private land is not new. Try clearing scrub from a steep face these days.

I do believe there is enough vested interest by some to pursue a quota/licence scheme and that it may come to pass in our time. 

While there may be argument for control of hive numbers, it is the large operator that has brought about the incredible numbers of hives and I can't help but feel they are the ones that need to be curbed. Irresponsibility in the name of profits/greed abounds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some who sold out the corporate's were willing sellers and some were leaned on pretty heavily but the big difference between the corporate's and individuals is corporate's use somebody else's money and we have to use our own. It would be financial suicide for an individual to try and match the kind of money they were throwing round for hives and sites.

Some of those hives are now coming back on the market, some of those apiary sites have changed hands two or three times in the last five years. Bankers seem to be totally naive and continue to finance corporate's that are losing millions of dollars every year and at least two of those operations are run by people that have been bankrupt before. Family businesses make far more profit per hive and pay far more taxes to keep the country running. Some of those corporate's also have a special relationship with the MPI which I also find deeply concerning.

  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

@JohnF can you put together a list of things research has contributed to beekeepers on the ground over say the past 5 -10 years.

 

Im thinking of research findings that have made a difference to beekeepers in their every day beekeeping life.

We already know about Manuka what else is there that maybe we don’t know ?

 

 

Yes, I can list a few things @frazzledfozzle. Although I read your email as suggesting there has been no research that has been of direct use in the past 5-10 years?

Good, I like a challenge !

 

So here's a few:

 - DNA methods developed to show good genetic diversity in NZ bees  - work by @Otto and others in Dunedin

 - Discovery that very high levels of Nosema ceranae and Nosema apis were collapsing hives in Coromandel, Wairarapa and other places (dnature  ie us)

 - Heating combs not only overcame these pathogens but also resulted in 15% more honey ! (James and team @ plant and food)

- new pathogens found e.g. Lotmaria passim, various new viruses that place a drain on the hive

 - new AFB detection methods to detect AFB before clinical signs ( @Rene Gloor @jamesc and Richelle, dnature and Plant and Food - different projects)

 - testing published methods for varroa resistance markers  = 30% less varroa  (James @ plant and food)

 - rapid detection of Bayvarol resistance (dnature)

 

Other work can be seen on the  - dare I say it - of course I do . .ApiNZ website with all the recorded science session talks. New work (funded by government) on genetic improvement of bees will be one to watch, as well as hunting viruses to attack AFB. Not to mention great work by Plant and Food showing that NZ manuka (L scoparium) is different from the Australian L. scoparium.

 

Most of this work has been either self-funded, funded by Australia or elsewhere.

 

8 hours ago, Otto said:

@frazzledfozzle@JohnF

Yes, John can probably do this. Maybe he could also put together a list of all the co-ordinated funding the industry has put into getting such research done? The amount of money the industry has put into research during our boom cycle is ridiculously close to $0. I find it hard to believe that you can expect researchers to contribute to your bottom line when this is the case. Yes, there have been contributions from some beekeeping businesses but, considering the money that has been made in the industry over the last 10 or so years, this is a very small percentage of that.

 

What he said. . . . !

 

8 hours ago, Otto said:

@frazzledfozzle@JohnF

The amount of money the industry has put into research during our boom cycle is ridiculously close to $0.

 

Oh, my mistake . . I seem to have quoted Otto twice . . .oops

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have established that there is no problem with a levy for science and research, the problem lies with the people who want to collect the proposed levy, and all the other things they want to spend it on.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daley said:

I think we have established that there is no problem with a levy for science and research . . .

 

No Daley - you lnow, we really haven’t established that at all. A couple - OK, maybe a few - people have supported the idea of research that’s all - hardly a majority. 

 

If you support NZ Beekeeping’s notion that ‘others are doing the science so we don’t need to’ or whatever their original proposal was, then there is still the need to establish whether people back R&D as being useful to an industry or not . . .

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnF said:

 

No Daley - you lnow, we really haven’t established that at all. A couple - OK, maybe a few - people have supported the idea of research that’s all - hardly a majority. 

 

If you support NZ Beekeeping’s notion that ‘others are doing the science so we don’t need to’ or whatever their original proposal was, then there is still the need to establish whether people back R&D as being useful to an industry or not . . .

Because it lacks transparency, and people don’t like that.

 

I appreciate that you are very forward with what’s going on. But the problem is that APINZ are not, they are pushing their own agendas and I don’t believe they have our best interests at heart, they are worried about big business, not small ones and that’s glaringly obvious.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean R&D lacks transparency ? Proposed commodity levy lacks transparency?

 

this reminds me of a large business and shareholders. And a number of people like Bill Gates have said they’d rather have a small percentage of something large than 100% of something small. 

The levy - and ApiNZ membership as a result - could have the benefits of both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

38 minutes ago, JohnF said:

 

 

 And a number of people like Bill Gates have said they’d rather have a small percentage of something large than 100% of something small. 

 

Bill Gates screwed over (financially) anyone he could, including those that originally developed Windows and Microsoft with him, perhaps an unintentionally interesting choice of people to compare APINZ with. Once Windows was thing, he stopped any real work and proceeded to make a fortune out of skimming a margin off anything he could, to the point where whole countries sued him for his business methods.

Edited by Sailabee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like everyone has their hand out and the beekeeper is the one being asked to pay.

we are out there day after day doing the hard yards and they truely are hard yards.

taking honey off hives that we probably won’t be able to sell.

its soul destroying to do the work when you know there’s a good chance of no return.

And now Apinz are pushing for more money from us, money that isn’t going to be there this year because it will be sitting in drums in the shed.

@JohnFI understand you pushing for a levy because you will benefit from maybe getting funding for some research and that’s fine because that’s the way the world works but imagine for a minute if you were working every day for no wage and then were asked to donate a percentage of that wage ( that you don’t even have) to some entity out there that you dont belong too and for the most part had ideas and policy’s you were opposed too?

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

money that isn’t going to be there this year because it will be sitting in drums in the shed.

 

That is my biggest gripe. The Levy could really be collected at the 'buyer' point.  They deduct the Levy from the account and hand that over to APInZ.  Not difficult is it?  Could even be based on the $ value instead of Kg's.  

I am open to the idea of a beekeeper lobby group.  Not so interested in the buyer/packer been involved though, they probably got different agendas to us beekeepers. Their involvement is no different to including a kiwifruit, avocado, propolis, wax, farmer, apple.. representative.  They all benefit from bees.  Why include the buyer/packer of honey then?? Honey is a by product of bees, as are apples, kiwis... (suppose without bees = no honey;  but you can harvest some fruits just not very nice ones) 

 

Bad timing/luck for APINZ. Overnight, beekeepers are focused on honey returns.  

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frazzledfozzle said:

taking honey off hives that we probably won’t be able to sell.

its soul destroying...

 

Imagine that Marmoted stink bug getting a hold here..  It has been found.  Will hit kiwifruit hard, and if bad enough I won't survive. Hate to say it, our bio security hasn't really worked that well lately... 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JohnF said:

Do you mean R&D lacks transparency ? Proposed commodity levy lacks transparency?

 

this reminds me of a large business and shareholders. And a number of people like Bill Gates have said they’d rather have a small percentage of something large than 100% of something small. 

The levy - and ApiNZ membership as a result - could have the benefits of both

APINZ as an organisation lacks transparency.

 

I don’t trust them.

I have zero faith in them.

If I wanted to join APINZ I would’ve done so.

 

I went and joined NZ Beekeeping Inc and SNI, simply because they oppose APINZ.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

 

@JohnFI understand you pushing for a levy because you will benefit from maybe getting funding for some research and that’s fine because . . 

 

 

Thanks frazz - so I answer your request about research that has benefitted beekeepers in the last few years and your only response is that I’m for the levy because I’ll benefit personally. 

 

Its unlikely our company or I will benefit- if I am still on the Science and Research group then there will be a conflict of interest. 

Our research into pathogens and varroa resistance has been totally self-funded from money paid for commercial pathogen and AFB testing. 

 

As stated before - I am not for ior against the levy - I am for industry-led research, having seen its benefits in other industries we work in. 

Apiculture has a number of issues and ‘hoping it’s better next season’ isn’t going to help most of these. 

 

Please do feel free to comment on any of the research things I listed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JohnF said:

Please do feel free to comment on any of the research things I listed

 

I did want to comment but thought it would read as being bitchy so I didn’t.

basically I’m thinking that yes research has found some lurgys but identifying them hasn’t actually helped us in our beekeeping operations.

Re the Bayvarol resistance I know there was a thread on here somewhere about it with beekeepers sending in samples but nothing seemed to come from it, do you have an update?

point taken about you benefiting indirectly from the levy that was rude and I apologise for that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

 

I did want to comment but thought it would read as being bitchy so I didn’t.

basically I’m thinking that yes research has found some lurgys but identifying them hasn’t actually helped us in our beekeeping operations.

Re the Bayvarol resistance I know there was a thread on here somewhere about it with beekeepers sending in samples but nothing seemed to come from it, do you have an update?

point taken about you benefiting indirectly from the levy that was rude and I apologise for that. 

 

Your view is your view frazz. But I don't think you read down the whole list and/or haven't been updated on the research (conference and elsewhere)

 

Yes, some lurgys have been identified in the Cororapa issue. How does this help in an operation?

 - when a particular set of symptoms are seen then the culprits are known  ie it is not some new virus, PMS or karaka as other BEEKEEPERs (sorry @Daley - I like that  ) said

 - based on the known culprits and other work done, Plant and Food did some fantastic work (yes, together with a member of the @ApiNZ Science & Research group in her day job) to show how heating combs can mitigate the effects.

- if you don't know the syndrome and re-use the combs from 'just a deadout' then that split will likely get infected and collapse as well

 

I have seen the syndrome firsthand and seen the benefits of the work in a couple of hives I tested. Long story short  - as presented by Plant and Food - latest work shows 15% more honey after comb heating.

 

There's one example of research . . .and are you using Philbee's staples? How did they come about?? Yup, research.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to swing your vote frazz - your view and others are fixed. But if you want to talk about the benefits of research . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...