Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

So when I read that so called research, which involved one trial with 6 men 2 of which had a mild transient headache,  led to such a big reduction in the tutin limit ,which in turn has affected our business it makes me distrust the process and lump it in with the kids not climbing trees basket.

I agree 100%.  A stupid overreaction by the food safety outfit.

As far as I can glean from the information, it was not even run by a scientific outfit.  

I appears to me that it was 6 guys sitting around with some (marginal) honey and had a taste to see if they got a result.

2 said yes a mild headache and that was enough.  Lies I say.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You think extracted honey has problems at .7 .

I have had several batches of comb honey fail this year because they were at 0.02 or even 0.01  .

When I queried this with MPI and told them that  0.035 should have been the new level as this was one 20th of 0.7 (the old level was 2.0 and for comb 0.1 which is 1/20) I was told that comb honey is failed at 0.01 because that is the new level of detection. I then asked if improved detection down to 0.00001 would also mean my honey would fail .

I have offered them as much of this comb honey as they want to test so that they can prove or disprove their hypothesis that one little piece of comb honey might contain a dangerous amount of toxin but so far I've heard nothing back. The change is not based on science so is in my opinion invalid but we still have to put up with it.

By the way the levels are set at 100 times lower than what could be expected to cause a reaction and this makes my comb honey at 0.01   7 thousand times below the harmful limit.

Dangerous stuff!

Edited by john berry
spelling
  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where was Apinz when the change was made ?

why was there no outcry and why are we continuing to put up with it ?

 

its hard enough to make a living beekeeping with all the interference from government  over the Manuka standard without having to put up with a tutin standard that isn’t fit for purpose.

 

funny how both the Manuka standard and the tutin standard are both regulatory standards not scientific standards.

someones being a lazy arse taking the easy road and to hang with the consequences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So where was Apinz when the change was made ?

Frazz with all due respect, APINZ was not around when these levels were set, stop trying to blame all your woes on APINZ, APINZ was formed so we could come together and try to fix these issues, but this industry still cant even decide what it wants to be, so in the mean time we have to keep fighting others outside this industry as they make the rules for us, stop complaining and start to come up with ways to fix the issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Frazz with all due respect, APINZ was not around when these levels were set, stop trying to blame all your woes on APINZ, APINZ was formed so we could come together and try to fix these issues, but this industry still cant even decide what it wants to be, 

 

OK so where was the NBA when these levels were reduced ?

was there any consultation with industry ?

Did we just sit back and take what was dealt to us without a murmur yet again ?

As for complaining, I’m not, I’m trying to understand why our industry body let this happen.

what’s the point in belonging to an industry organisation if they can’t look out for the people they are supposed to represent. 

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where were you when these levels where introduced, there was lots of discussion and meetings about this and when the initial levels were set.

The change to the new levels were decided after the "new science was discovered" and the then standard amended after a some more consultation.

I was a member but not on the board when all this happened, but remember at a meeting in Te Puke, Jim Sim the govt lacky running this consultation, telling the beekeeping industry to get on board and come up with an answer to this issue or with a stroke of a pen he would sort it for us.

As an industry we still haven't learned, we still have others with a stroke of a pen deciding what is good for us, when we can grow up and realize that we stronger together and that includes all stakeholders of this industry that move honey from a flower to the kitchen table, then perhaps we can get to hold that pen ourselves.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like he sorted the line for testing for tutin.I believe the officers travelling around the country saw 2 vine hoppers in Westport and put the line from just south of fox river .Now this is 20km as a bee flies from Westport ,with no consultation from the beekeepers

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dennis Crowley if the NBA was the industry body at the time then it was up to them to query the limit surely ?

I have queried it in the past but there’s nothing an individual can do about anything.

Dont make this about the levy failing because this should have been dealt with at the time by the NBA that’s what we paid our subs for.

We were discussing this back in 2015 

shame the organisation that could have made a difference weren’t .

 

 

 

https://www.nzbees.net/forums/topic/5222-new-tutin-limitswhy/page/2/

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do about the levy, but more about how this industry is so busy shooting each other in the foot and cant/wont take the time to stop and see who we all should be aiming together.

Fed bees, NBA were in discussions as well as individual submissions were all looked at, and the consensus (if you can call it that) was the first limit. The second limit was an amendment/change after afterwards so not so much submissions etc for that change.

For someone who has been in the industry for a long time I'm assuming you were around at the time and either agreed to the submissions or voiced your opposition to them, either way you would have been aware of these i'm once again assuming here.

Anyway they have been in place for a few years now so you should know how to run your business with these guidelines.

But since you brought up the levy, if we had one, with some of that money we could have partner with Zespri and fight the vine hopper, which is the real problem, but just to let you know APINZ science group have had initial talks with Zespri, nothing confirmed at this stage as there is very little money in the tin.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the vine hopper a kiwifruit menace ? i didn't know that..

Share this post


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

Is the vine hopper a kiwifruit menace ? i didn't know that..

I'm not an expert but I have heard that it costs  the kiwifruit industry many millions every year. When you consider the damage to other horticultural crops and quite a few native species you have to wonder why the government doesn't fund a study into the importation of suitable parasites for this Australian invader.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the harlequin ladybird would be likely to add them to their diet 

Share this post


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

I wonder if the harlequin ladybird would be likely to add them to their diet 

Seen  no signs of that up here , haven’t seen any type of ladybirds on tutu and other shrubs infested with fluffy bums 

  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, yesbut said:

Is the vine hopper a kiwifruit menace ? i didn't know that..

 

Yes they cause sooty mould on the fruit so its rejected. Can be quite bad at times, orchardists spends lots of dollars spraying shelter belts and their orchards trying to deal with it.

Speaking with one of Zespri team a few years ago if it was just the orchardists dealing with it by them selves, they would probably look to a more effective spray to just deal with in their orchard boundaries, but with other industries on board then a bio control is worth looking at eradication.

  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

This has nothing to do about the levy, but more about how this industry is so busy shooting each other in the foot and cant/wont take the time to stop and see who we all should be aiming together.

Fed bees, NBA were in discussions as well as individual submissions were all looked at, and the consensus (if you can call it that) was the first limit. The second limit was an amendment/change after afterwards so not so much submissions etc for that change.

For someone who has been in the industry for a long time I'm assuming you were around at the time and either agreed to the submissions or voiced your opposition to them, either way you would have been aware of these i'm once again assuming here.

Anyway they have been in place for a few years now so you should know how to run your business with these guidelines.

But since you brought up the levy, if we had one, with some of that money we could have partner with Zespri and fight the vine hopper, which is the real problem, but just to let you know APINZ science group have had initial talks with Zespri, nothing confirmed at this stage as there is very little money in the tin.

 

 

 

Yes we did voice our concerns..

and yes we do run our business in a way that minimises the risk of tutin contamination but it’s pretty hard in some years to meet such a stupidly low threshold .

It doesn’t matter how many years this particular tutin level has been in place it’s still a crock and our industry body which ApiNz has promoted itself to be should be talking to the powers that be to get it changed.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Trevor Gillbanks   off topic but do you ever check your  pm in box ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, yesbut said:

@Trevor Gillbanks   off topic but do you ever check your  pm in box ?

Yes.  Whenever a message shows up.  I usually get a notice saying there is a message or reply.

 

Nothing there at present.

 

Edited by Trevor Gillbanks

Share this post


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

Yes.  Whenever a message shows up.  I usually get a notice saying there is a message or reply.

 

Nothing there at present.

 

There should be, I inquired about the echium seeds 22 hrs ago.  It appears in my sent..

Share this post


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

There should be, I inquired about the echium seeds 22 hrs ago.  It appears in my sent..

Not in mine.  Just checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29 April 2019 at 7:08 AM, frazzledfozzle said:

 

Yes we did voice our concerns..

and yes we do run our business in a way that minimises the risk of tutin contamination but it’s pretty hard in some years to meet such a stupidly low threshold .

It doesn’t matter how many years this particular tutin level has been in place it’s still a crock and our industry body which ApiNz has promoted itself to be should be talking to the powers that be to get it changed.

 

As this standard is based on possibly someone being poisoned, probably not going to happen yet, a young child dead/sick from eating nz honey is not a look APINZ is going for.

Dealing with the bug that is the cause of the issue well thats a possibility, if we can get the funds.

But if you want to try your own hands-on experiments on what level of tutin in honey will kill someone, not sure how to set that up, but can supply a list of names for who to be guiniea pigs. 

  • Haha 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


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

As this standard is based on possibly someone being poisoned, probably not going to happen yet, a young child dead/sick from eating nz honey is not a look APINZ is going for.

Dealing with the bug that is the cause of the issue well thats a possibility, if we can get the funds.

But if you want to try your own hands-on experiments on what level of tutin in honey will kill someone, not sure how to set that up, but can supply a list of names for who to be guiniea pigs. 

 

Lol really ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem the new standard is trying to solve, is that the research found that there is a much larger amount of unmeasured tutin bound up in an oligosaccharide than the free tutin that is measured by the current test method.  The current regulation is on the free tutin, there is no calculation for the bound tutin in the current reg.  On ingestion the free tutin contributes to a rise in serum levels in a few hours, whereas the bound tutin only starts to cause a [much larger] rise after digestion of the oligosaccharides in the lower intestine 18 or more hours after ingestion.  The ratio of these two sources of tutin in the honey also varies and may change over time.  So testing for free tutin (as happens now) does not give an accurate value for the bound and thus total tutin.  Since the testing for both sources would significantly increase the cost of testing, and not necessarily significantly reduce the uncertainty in a very complex system of dose rate, body weights, time of absorbtion, metabolism rates  etc., MPI opted for a reduced limit.

 

Perhaps in the future, methodology could be developed that measures both sources of tutin and a new limit expressing total tutin (bound and free) could established.  This would be a considerable expense that may not be warranted if the current method/systes working.

 

In the history of recorded tutin poisonings, bulk honey has only contributed to one significant poisoning.  All the rest have been caused by comb honey.  Since comb honey is completely non homogenous, it is arguable that even testing for levels at the limit of detection in one part of a comb may give little assurance that another part of the comb has been filled with tutu honeydew.  In a World that requires near absolute safety of food, the uncertainty and risk of tutin in comb honey is "problematic".

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

But if you want to try your own hands-on experiments on what level of tutin in honey will kill someone, not sure how to set that up, but can supply a list of names for who to be guiniea pigs

I doubt that you can legally trial potentially poisonous ingestion on humans, or an animal, just cos it's a good idea to try  your own hands on experiment. For a starter, the people supplying and producing the honey would end up in court.    I would imagine that this type of research is covered by legislation, and maybe the NZ Ethics Committee would be the first point of enquiry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/05/2019 at 5:43 PM, yesbut said:

There should be, I inquired about the echium seeds 22 hrs ago.  It appears in my sent..

About echium seeds you sent me .

I sowed some in spring and none came up so I sowed the whole lot in a tray and left them.

About a month ago they started  sprouting .

Some I planted as seedlings straight from tray but they do not much l like being transplanted .

So I pricked out the new seedlings at the 4 leaf stage into  6 plant cell packs .

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...