Jump to content

David Yanke

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

David Yanke last won the day on June 21

David Yanke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

265 Excellent

1 Follower

About David Yanke

  • Rank


  • Beekeeping Experience
    Bee Breeder


  • Location
    Far North

Recent Profile Visitors

790 profile views
  1. David Yanke

    NZBF Honey bound hive

    I think you need to visit Specsavers before you reinvest in a new camera.
  2. David Yanke

    Incubator temperature fluctuations

    I am in the '34 is best' club as well.
  3. David Yanke

    September 2018 Apiary Diary

    This old timer mixes maxi strength ACV @ 1%. A load is 300 litre of syrup and 3 litres of ACV, maybe 4 litres in the winter. A cheap tonic!
  4. David Yanke

    August 2018 Apiary Diary

    Hopefully no damage done, except to the gorse! The penetrant probably worse than the Tordon, and the penetrant would only affect the bees that were hit while flying. If he was doing it with a handgun then little worry, but if it was an aerial attack when the bees were actively flying then it might have knocked down some foraging bees.
  5. David Yanke

    What does 'pure manuka' mean?

    China is testing for 1080 not because of any risk of contamination from aerial 1080 operations, but because an Anti-1080 Fanatic, like yourself, tried to blackmail the dairy industry and Federated Farmers into dropping their support for the use of 1080, by threatening to contaminate Baby Formula with 1080.
  6. David Yanke

    What does 'pure manuka' mean?

    Never any mention of Pollen DNA. But first, I must apologise, I jumped into this thread, and got it wrong. I saw the graph, it was very irritating, didn't investigate, jumped to the conclusion that you were pushing a domestic line of 'Manuka' on 3-PLA alone, and made some unfair comments. I have since looked at your website, again irritating, but sort of within the bounds of overly enthusiastic marketing. Looked at the graph for all the markers, and scrolled down to the image of one of your retail packs- 5plus, 100MGO described as 'Pure, Raw, Manuka Honey', very irritating, and we all know totally untrue, but that is marketing I guess. Even though I looked carefully, no mention of the Pollen DNA test. 4 out of 5 ain't good enough, without all 5(even with all 5), it makes it easy for your master blenders to turn Sow's Ear Honey into Silk Purse Honey and do so using very little silk.
  7. David Yanke

    What does 'pure manuka' mean?

    Show me the results, and I will apologise profusely.
  8. David Yanke

    What does 'pure manuka' mean?

    If you truly want to give the consumer piece of mind, give them proof that what they are buying is Manuka Honey- show the results for the other 3 markers and the pollen DNA. I dare ya. You won't because you know it wouldn't even pass as multi-floral. You are flogging a Kanuka blend and presenting it as Manuka, simple as that.
  9. David Yanke

    What does 'pure manuka' mean?

    I doubt you believe the crap you spout, but pray others will and in doing so buy the snake oil you are pedalling- your behaviour meets the science definition of a Con man. On the other hand, MPI's science definition for Manuka Honey uses 4 chemical markers and a Pollen DNA test, a test failing any one of the 5 means that Honey can not be called Manuka Honey. You can not use any of the 5 on their own to meaningfully represent the honey you are testing. You know 3-PLA is a Kanuka marker as well, and is found at much higher levels in Kanuka then it is Manuka. Your Ad is misleading at best- only you know if it is dishonest and intentionally misrepresents what you are flogging. Honey tested to meet the 3-PLA claim in your Ad would not have to contain even one drop of Manuka.
  10. David Yanke

    What does 'pure manuka' mean?

    Without the other markers that graph is meaningless, could just as easily be a very average Kanuka/bush blend with no Manuka at all in it.
  11. David Yanke

    Watch what you say.

    '85% of the world's 1080', a meaningless statistic only thrown around for shock value and to damage NZ's environmental reputation. New Zealand has a very unique environment, and it is under grave threat from introduced mammals. Unlike virtually any other place on earth, NZ ecosystems evolved mammal free(except for the odd bat), when humans introduced themselves and other mammalian pests, they unleashed an environmental apocalypse. We have realised the error of our ways, and we are trying to turn things around. Because our natural environment has no native mammals, and because all the pests that are out of control are mammals, the use of aerial 1080 becomes an option that can only be used in NZ because of its' unique situation. So maybe the 85% of the world's 1080 stat may be right, but it comes off a small base. 1080 isn't used for the fun of it, it is only used in desperation to try and save what we have left, and try to hold on until we have more tools in our pest control toolbox.
  12. David Yanke

    Watch what you say.

    Beekeepers are not promoting the use of 1080, glyphosate, or any of the neonics.
  13. David Yanke

    Watch what you say.

    I was wrong about 1080 naturally occurring in Watercress, but it does naturally occur in Puha. You were wrong about the research showing that there was risk to humans from eating either Puha or Watercress that has had 1080 baits land within the root zones of either plant. At its' highest levels during the trial period, a person would have to eat 2.2 tonnes(at one sitting!) of Watercress to achieve the LD50 dose of 1080, and 9.3 tonnes of Puha. The risks to humans was obviously negligible.
  14. David Yanke

    Watch what you say.

    Naturally occurring in some NZ Plants as well- Puha and Watercress
  15. David Yanke

    Watch what you say.

    Did you not read the document Daley attached to the post that you just responded to. They did test, and 1080 was NOT detected- those hives that were part of the trial were put right in the drop zone, the machine spread right over the top of them. That research, like all the research that has been carried out on the aerial application of 1080 shows that the risks to Humans and bees is zero. It does not contaminate water, it biodegrades quickly, and is metabolised quickly should there be any trace contamination. All the research has shown that the impact on the environment of areas that have had aerial 1080 drops is only positive. Introduced mammals are the target, and the 1080 shows no mercy. Hunters are against 1080 because it takes out deer and pigs, but they know they have no argument against 1080 with that because the pigs and deer are introduced pests, so they grasp at any crazy conspiracy theory they can to try and discredit 1080. Amazingly, pig hunters using dogs suddenly become animal welfare activists when it comes to 1080. As several of us have been trying to tell you, Stop raising the alarm when there is no fire.