Jump to content

NickWallingford

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

NickWallingford last won the day on June 16

NickWallingford had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

162 Excellent

About NickWallingford

  • Rank
    Larva

Converted

  • DECA Holder
    No
  • Beekeeping Experience
    Retired

Location

  • Location
    Tauranga

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You referred to this trial earlier, but I am not sure of any reference. Can you find any more info on the trial? I'm not too sure how manuka honey is able to tell an arm from a leg...
  2. Another storm in a teacup, it seems to me. Going back to the original vote for an NBA Commodity Levy, back in 1996, it was the same situation. MAF (MPI of the time) held and maintained the apiary register. In order to conduct a reliable ballot for support/non-support of a levy proposal, an attempt has been made to ensure that any beekeeper who would potentially have to pay a levy would have the opportunity to vote. In that case (and with this?) the ballot papers were sent out by a third party. Remember, a Commodity Levies ballot is for the Minister to be convinced that those who would have to pay a levy should have the opportunity to vote on it. (Interestingly, this is not the case for PMP or the PMP levy - these do not face a 'support' ballot...) The NBA (and now APINZ) worked through the issues of privacy - they are not insurmountable. During my time with the NBA, when the magazine was to be sent out to all beekeepers, rather than just NBA members, it was sent using the apiary register. The NBA did not send them, did not receive the database or mailing labels - that was all done under bond by the printers. I am not aware that anyone is suggesting that APINZ should have access to the apiary register for its projects. But I'm sure you can continue to repeat that claim...
  3. A high infection rate is not a sudden thing. It indicates a breakdown in the inspection systems (frequency and/or quality) that are expected of responsible beekeepers. And if, in the interim while the infection rate grew, the beekeeper has not put some serious traceability into place, it seems to me that the supers will pose a real and significant and ongoing risk, both to this beekeeper and to all the other beekeepers who are nearby...
  4. Congratulations, @Dennis Crowley. A bit over 20 years ago we set off on the *possible, practical and preferred* option for dealing with AFB. The introduction of varroa into the mix only a few years later took the focus away, I feel. But with the ownership of the beekeeping industry, and confidence that if you want to eliminate AFB in your own outfit, you can, the goal of the AFB PMP can be achieved. The knowledge that a combination of more and better inspections, and some degree of equipment quarantining, can cost effectively eliminate AFB - that is what it takes... I look forward to your contributions to the work, Dennis...
  5. The concept of "needs someone or a group to keep it in check" strikes to the heart of it, IMHO. This is a PMP developed by beekeepers for beekeepers. It was not imposed from 'the outside'. My understanding is that APINZ has offered NZ Beekeeping Inc the opportunity to have someone join the Mgmt Agency Board. If NZ Beekeeping Inc is serious about a positive contribution to the elimination of AFB, surely this should be a step forward?
  6. Yes, indeed. The powers of compulsory inspection of beehives on private land go back to the Apiaries Act 1906. And yes, it is a serious power, and one that the Govt does not let loose of easily. The ability to enter onto private land to inspect beehives for AFB is one of the essential powers of the AFB PMP if AFB is to be eliminated, I would suggest...
  7. I take an interest when I hear statements that can potentially undermine the efficacy of the AFB PMP. I know that if those statements get repeated often enough with no one challenging them, that some people can end up believing they are true regardless. In this case - asserting that the Mgmt Agency should not use powers from both the PMP and the Biosecurity Act - it simply leaves a taint on the PMP, even though what is being done is fully being done with the legal powers available. I recall something in the original drafting of the OIC relating to us having to spell out all of the specific powers relating to beehives, and the specifics of beekeeping and AFB. But if a general power was already spelled out in the Biosecurity Act itself, we did not have to repeat that in our PMP.
  8. I heard something of a complaint, a cry to "this should be wrong", regarding the powers being used by the AFB Pest Management Plan... The issue was that some of the powers being used were specifically spelled out in the AFB PMP order, but that other powers were being used that were authorised by the Biosecurity Act. "This type of thing is not under the AFB PMP but under the Bio Security Act. They seem to be switching things around to suit their agenda to target beekeepers." (Source: Waikato Branch of New Zealand Beekeeping Inc., AGM and General Meeting, 25 May 2019) The implication was that "This should be wrong!". Can someone clue me in on the actual issue? It seems to me that if there are powers available to the AFB PMP Management Agency to achieve the goal of AFB elimination, then they are legitimate powers, and why would NZ Beekeeping Inc call these into question?
  9. If nominated, I will not stand; if elected, I will not serve. (No, those aren't my words, but the sentiment is there.) Richard Bensemann was the best vice president one could ever expect to have. I miss his good humour.
  10. While me, I am a member, and I only got it after writing to ask... Go figure...
  11. As I am a member of NZ Beekeeping Inc, I would have hoped that I, too, might have received this registration...
  12. All honeys have the hydrogen peroxide effect. And for many types of healing, that is enough, when combined with the hygroscopic effect of the honey on the wound. That hygroscopicity (sorry - I just had to structure the sentence so I can use that word...) is what helps to keep the wound moist. I clearly recall Peter Molan describing this aspect. And then he followed up with a sudden, jarring photo of using honey for mastitis and other absolutely 'uhhh...' inspiring slides. He was a delight to listen to, for sure. You came away believing in the powers of honey, and manuka honey, in healing. But also with some images that still disturb my mind...
  13. Has there been more information released about it? I thought I had read an initial announcement, but can't find it just now.
  14. Yes, it would be nice from a marketing point of view. But ultimately if bee products were to be banned from import, it would need to be on sanitary/phytosanitary grounds. We would need to show that any import would pose an unacceptable risk to the health of our bees. Pricing? I'm always amazed when any prices achieved are more than the world price. And to maintain that premium price would take (as someone else said) a good "story", and a lot of on-going work...
  15. NZ Beekeeping Inc said "As the Management Agency the buck stops with them, they should have ensured that the amendment to the levy Order was correct and fit for purpose." It wasn't so much new wording introduced by the amendment - the wording at "fault" has been there since the levy was first created. The irony is not lost on me that Jane Lorimer was president of the NBA when the wording for the levy was first put into place back in 2003. For more than 15 years, clause 7 described the levy on apiaries/hives "...as at 31 March of the levy year for which the levy is payable". Now, MPI has decided to amend that to "... as at 31 March of the previous levy year." So it has been wrong, and not "fit for purpose" for more than 15 years, and only now does NZ Beekeeping Inc want to call for accountability - but for APINZ, rather than the people who were responsible when the 'mistake' was first made. But I reiterate - it has no practical import. It simply cost a lot of time, effort and money for all the parties involved. And some of that money could have been used to contribute to the elimination of AFB instead - that's what makes me sad...
×
×
  • Create New...