Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Good to see amicable discussion. Hopefully this is how the industry will solve some of the issues we are experiencing.
  3. Today
  4. Thanks for that info Maggie. My point was to demonstrate the effects of a worst case scenario A system that can still remain effective in the face of extreme abuse is a robust system
  5. We have intense surveillance programmes - AFB PMS & exotic. If beekeepers were understating their hive numbers, shouldn't this misrepresentation be shown up by AP2s comments? If hive numbers consistently were understated and not matching surveillance forms as noted by AP2s, then surely these beekeepers would be targeted for audity. In the past I have undertaken huge amounts of surveillance and I have never come across any commercial outfit understating their hives more than the occasional one hive, in the occasional apiary. And when I inspected commercial outfits, there were always a number of apiaries in their outfit.
  6. Apiweb Also, If the total number of Hives in NZ is to be reduced by say, 40% and a large portion of that reduction is due to attrition, then this reduction will likely be seen substantially as a reduction total site numbers. Sites that exist but are not registered are much easier to identify than Hives per legal site. So, If every Commercial Beek understates their actual Hive numbers by 15% (which is far more acceptable and likely than having unregistered sites) then the total mismatch between actual total and listed total would be a rather modest number of 90000 Hives based on a listed total of 600000. So instead of having 1 million or more hives we would have between 600000 and 690000. Any system that requires a payment based on Hive numbers is going to include a budget for auditing anyway.
  7. My point. No such 7 - 10 year cycle has occurred or can be demonstrated in the beekeeping industry. There is no 7 - 10 year cycle lurching from one form of unsustainability to another, and there is no need to draft laws to protect us from something that does not actually exist. . There has been a once in 150 year event.
  8. Not promoted on this thread, but over several others. As far as Philbee question, he was a new hobbyist as I remember it when he joined back in 2014, and while he has really concentrated on beekeeping, would surely agree that it's not quite the same as some who have several decades of experience to draw on.
  9. I may be blind, but I cannot see any post on this thread promoting a quota. Philbee in another thread is the only post promoting a quota. Is @Philbee a new entrant ?
  10. Easy, follow the posts, those with real time in the industry have already considered most ways to solve the overcrowding and other problems several times over the decades, and have worked out the downfalls to it, and it shows in their posts.
  11. I very much doubt that there are any current economic models that would use anything near a 150 year cycle. 7-10yrs is far more realistic
  12. Found a really strong nasty hive at one of my sites the other day so I decided to alc wash it and it came back to me with 5 stings and 13 mites from 400. Mite bomb! I added new staples and placed them in the cluster, the other hive tested got 3 from 350 so I just replaced anything worn and re place the rest to the cluster.
  13. Can you share where you sourced this please ?
  14. Things worked back when there were 200,000 hives in NZ, rather than the million or so we have now. Rather than a perpetual cycle of swings from one form of unsustainability to another, there has only been one unsustainable swing in NZ bee numbers. The one we are in now. It will be resolved by economic reality and it will be back to the way things worked the last 150 years. Perhaps in another 150 years there will be another bee industry swing of some kind, however i suspect there will be a lot of other things to worry about by then.
  15. Blasted slave labour. $4.00 for how many hours work. What about the living wage. and food and clothing and shelter.
  16. Pre manuka, there was an unwritten code of practice, and it has only been since manuka madness that things have gotten out of hand. In earlier times it would have been recognised as laughable for someone to decide, without any or very little experience in beekeeping to set up a beekeeping business by just throwing a heap of money at the idea. Much like any other profession or trade, you 'served your time' with someone whose skills you respected and tried to emulate, often initially for very little pay, much like an apprenticeship. Truth is, that those old hands who lived that process will mostly do well or at least live well on savings even under the current circumstances until the market/stocking levels sort out. They have little to gain from a quota system the new entrants would like to foist on the industry.
  17. Put that in terms of sustainability. Its likely we will see a substantial drop in Hive numbers over the next 2 years and not only a drop in numbers but a substantial change in Hive distribution. For many farmers this will represent a shortage of pollinators So in my mind the lack of structure allows or facilitates a perpetual cycle of swinging from one form of unsustainability to another.
  18. Bees are not about to go extinct so rules are not needed to protect them. The problem is too many not too few.
  19. A good mornings work. The boys both earned $4 and a sore scissor hand for cutting up half the new staples. Next half tomorrow...
  20. No, it's a cap on national hive numbers. Regional densities are a second tier consideration. As for who decides who pollinates your crop, that would be decided by you of course, and your choice would be from a pool of Beeks who have the required Hive numbers to do your job. In some countries, If the train is full you climb onto the roof In New Zealand if the train was full then you would wait for another train. In the modern world in general terms, no one gives a hoot about a species that goes extinct, unless of course the threatened happens to be a valuable commodity. So on this basis, fishing quotas are not about saving a species, they are about saving a resource. Bees are a resource in that they are pollinators so rules to protect them are vital.
  21. I think it is the nature of many people to want to become bigger/better, make more and more money etc. It is not just a few in my opinion @Christi An in this industry, it is quite a few that act without regard (or in ignorance) to all others. We all have a vested interest including myself of course and that of course colours our view and actions. I have said it elsewhere on the forum and will repeat it here. I think a code of practice with penalties for non compliance is required. Licensing (a revokeable license) is the thought that dominates my thinking currently. There could be a better way of course but other than quota I have not heard another solution as yet.
  22. Ouch! I'm a beginner not a hobby beek. So Philbee's quota idea is number of hives in a particular area. The quota isn't the number of fishing boats (hives or trucks) nor the number of fisherwomen or nets (bees or apiarists in a business), rather, it's the quantity of fish ( nectar pollen propalis ). The resource is on both public and private land. Some agricultural businesses ( farms, orchards) see beekeeping as an extractive industry from which the farmer clips the ticket; others pay for a pollination service and presently decide who they engage to do that job.As land use changes so may the need for pollination services. Does someone want the government to decide who provides pollination services to my specialised crop? If deciding on how quota is to be set up is a commercial idea for commercial discussion, then growers of all shades and owners of patented plant material should be included in this discussion. @Dennis Crowley those who require specialist pollination services or have protected plant material should be consulted on apiary rules anyway because we have thoughts that can help make the whole thing work. There is a code of practice at https://apinz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ApiNZ-Beekeeper-Code-of-Conduct.pdf You could go through it and sort things out. The past mistakes were to get rid of the rules. Anybody old enough who still remembers what we used to have (of that which was good)?
  23. Quota is a disaster proposal in my opinion, to be avoided utterly and completely. I think I have said this in one way or the other already. A code of practice with penalties for non compliance is probably called for to bring sense to the industry. There certainly needs to be a sort out. Alternatives need to be explored to achieve a workable platform that encourages the industry without creating a repeat of past mistakes.
  24. Yesterday
  25. If it's not actually honey, does that mean they could put DHA and MGO in it? 🤔
  26. Then there is the scenario, a quota doesn't have an allowance for losses. A lot of oufits know what their per centage of hive losses will be, and carry top splits or nucs over winter. What happens if things are rosy with no hive or nuc losses. Come spring, the outfit could well be over their quota. Who on earth is going to police all this? No doubt the cost would be passed onto the beekeeper.
  27. So. Quotas are assigned. A beekeepers hive numbers have slowly increased, and he finds he is now right on his quota. He goes to his apiary and finds 5 swarms hanging in nearby trees. He finds other hives about to swarm and the only way to prevent that now is to split them. But he is at his quota. What does he do?
  28. You're wrong @Ali 😁.In context of this thread, a quota is simply one of the options put forward in reply to the OP.
  1. Load more activity
  • As a guest to the NZ Beekeepers+ website, you can only see the public information we publish and you can't yet participate. Become a website member (free) and you can join in and participate with the discussion or ask any questions.


  • Create New...