Jump to content

NickWallingford

  • Posts

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by NickWallingford

  1. Oh, and the mini-conference in Taupo has been cancelled: Hello Everyone, The NZ Beekeeping Mini Conference Committee have advised that as a result of the threat of COVID-19 the Organising Committee has decided to cancel this event. As the Conference numbers exceeded the 100 people gathering threshold, they had to consider how the friendly conference atmosphere would disappear. Due to the need for social distance the decision was inevitable, but the Committee believe the right one to make. They are committed to refunding everyone their money paid and will be in touch to outline the refund process from here. The Organising committee’s biggest fear was holding a conference that resulted in a COVID cluster being formed, then pollination being affected due to beekeepers not being able to meet their obligations. The Waikato team are disappointed that they have had to cancel the conference, but look forward to organising a future event. In conjunction with the Mini Conference the Annual General Meeting was to be held on Sunday 23rd August. The Executive will now discuss how and when the Annual General Meeting will be held and you will receive further notification. We thank everyone for your valued support to NZ Beekeeping. Kind regards Jane Lorimer PRESIDENT
  2. "Back in the day" they were a lot more than just inspectors. They provided an important extension service for a government that ("back in the day") would overtly support industries to be successful... In later years, parts of the industry castigated them, saying they were only interested in seeing what beekeepers were doing so that they could sell that information overseas. And then, for most purposes, they were gone... Ironically, I have heard NZBeekeeping Inc call for them to be re-instated so that *they* could run/manage the PMP, rather than the beekeeping industry itself.
  3. 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...
  4. 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...
  5. 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...
  6. 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...
  7. 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?
  8. 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...
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. While me, I am a member, and I only got it after writing to ask... Go figure...
  13. As I am a member of NZ Beekeeping Inc, I would have hoped that I, too, might have received this registration...
  14. 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...
  15. Has there been more information released about it? I thought I had read an initial announcement, but can't find it just now.
  16. 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...
  17. 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...
  18. Neither APINZ nor the AFBPMP Management Agency could fix it 'in-house'. MPI made the mistake, and MPI decided to fix it. But as @Alistairsays, "the levy everyone pays will remain unchanged". This seems to have been something of a distraction to things that are important for the industry, and driven as much by a desire to embarrass APINZ as anything to do with the levy.
  19. Biosecurity (American Foulbrood—Beekeeper Levy) Amendment Order (No 2) 2020 (LI 2020/155) – New Zealand Legislation WWW.LEGISLATION.GOVT.NZ This order, which comes into force on 10 July 2020, amends the Biosecurity (American Foulbrood—Beekeeper Levy) Order 2003 (the principal order). The principal order imposes a levy on beekeepers to fund the implementation of the National American Foulbrood Pest Management Plan. This order corrects errors that were introduced into the principal order on 16 April 2020 by certain amendments made by the Biosecurity (American Foulbrood—Beekeeper Levy) Amendment Order 2020 (the previous amendment order). Those amendments changed the requirements for when certain things had to occur under the principal order. The effect of correcting the errors is that the management agency must, when fixing and charging a levy for a levy year, do the following things before the levy year starts on 1 June: consult with beekeepers on how the levy money is to be spent (see clauses 10 and 16 of the principal order); and fix and notify the rate of levy after the consultation, but before 20 January (see clauses 10 and 12 of the principal order); and calculate the levy on the basis of the number of bee colonies owned by a beekeeper on 31 March (see clause 7 of the principal order); and send an account for the levy to each beekeeper at least 28 days before 1 June (see clause 13 of the principal order). The beekeepers must then pay the levy on or before 1 June (see clause 13 of the principal order). An effect of the previous amendment order was that the levy calculated on the basis of the number of bee colonies owned by a beekeeper on 31 March 2020 was said to be for the levy year that started on 1 June 2019 and ended on 31 May 2020. This levy, however, should be for the levy year that started on 1 June 2020 and ends on 31 May 2021. This order includes amendments to Schedule 1 of the principal order to correct the error and to provide for the payment of outstanding amounts of that levy.
  20. Sorry, Dennis, I didn't express it clearly. By quarantine, I was meaning to refer to practices to return the same gear to the same hive (or same apiary, or same unit of a business, etc). So generally involving some sort of marking system, some method of storing so you can get at the ones you want, etc. So with a history of no AFB in your own outfit, the decision might be "don't bother to mark anything". No nearby outbreaks that might indicate that marking one apiary's honey supers to go back to that apiary might be useful?
  21. OK, I've been out of touch with the bee industry for about 20 years. And, yes, things are quite different. But at least I could (mostly from the outside) see how some of the changes have come about. I must say, the sheer scale of the increase in beekeeper and hive numbers is the most remarkable for me... So one thing I'd like to 'catch up on' is asking what sort of conscious management decision to restrict equipment interchange - based on your hives' AFB history, knowledge of the areas, current hot spots, etc - to restrict the spread of AFB within your own hives. But what I would like to hear is some of the current practices, and the rationale for choosing to use them in your own situation. When we talked about it nearly 30 years ago, beekeepers felt it was too cumbersome and unnecessary. But I'd think now there might be some innovative ways of ensuring some sort of quarantine - by hives, apiary, area, etc. - and systems to get the equipment back to whatever degree of confidence you are after re: this aspect of your own AFB management plan. So what are you doing and why?
  22. I am not clear on the expectations that some beekeepers have of the work of APINZ. It appears that APINZ is being help responsible for current lower prices and various aspects of not being able to sell honey at the desired price. Industry organisations can do many things, but making beekeeping profitable is not, IMHO, one of them. Here is something I wrote back in 1994. Though referring to the NBA, the same applies today to APINZ: --------------------- The NBA cannot make beekeeping more enjoyable or profitable... Sound like heresy? Let me explain what I mean. I hope it will help focus on what we expect from our organisation as we 're-design' it over the next few years. As a beekeeper you can manage your beehives. You feed them, re-queen them, replace worn out equipment. You site them in areas that you hope will have good honey flows. You manage them by understanding the bees' natural impulses; you get to know their capabilities and their limitations. You take advantage of the opportunities while trying to minimise the threats. You probably can't eliminate the threats, but you can try to anticipate them and plan for how you might deal with them. Even the effects of the weather, which you can't control, can lead you to contingency plans - if it gets too dry, you could move the bees to another location. But no matter how you look at it, you can't MAKE the bees produce a crop of honey for you. You can create as favourable an environment as you can, you can anticipate as many problems as you think is prudent. But ultimately, the production of honey is not really within your control - only the bees can make honey. Sounds pretty obvious, doesn't it? Now take a couple of steps back and consider the beekeeping industry. The NBA (using the Executive, the branch structure and the hard work of its members) can try to manage the affairs of the overall industry. The NBA can (and DOES) do a number of useful things, including: · representing the beekeeping industry's interests to government · maximising opportunities available to beekeepers and making sure the information is communicated to them · identifying and trying to remove obstacles · anticipating potential threats to the industry and trying to minimise or eliminate them Again, no matter how you look at it, the NBA can't MAKE beekeeping more profitable or enjoyable. Only beekeepers can do that. The NBA can assist by making the environment as favourable as possible. The NBA can try to minimise the threats (organise lobbying against Australian honey imports, developing a Pest Management Strategy). It can maximise the opportunities (marketing activities, ensuring market access for bees and queens). But ultimately it is only you as individual beekeepers who can make your beekeeping more profitable or more enjoyable. I am committed to the use of effective planning and sound management practices to make the NBA as an organisation that can help beekeepers as much as possible. Having said that, I am realistic about what the National Beekeepers Association CAN do, HOW it can do things and HOW MUCH IT COSTS to do things - only after you examine each of those can you really decide what SHOULD be done, and get on with doing it. And though most of the work done by our organisation is done by volunteers, I don’t believe that we need to appear unprofessional! Admitting that the NBA cannot do something like ‘make beekeeping more profitable’ is not a weakness, or an admission that the NBA is inadequate. It helps to focus on what CAN be done by the NBA to assist beekeepers to assist the bees to produce that crop of honey!
  23. July 1995 NZ Beekeeper - Peter Molan awarded his MBE
  24. Which people involved in the bee industry have been recognised with a Queen's Honours List award through the years? I've not looked it up, but think that Sir Edmund's recognition was for something else other than beekeeping, and not sure if that was mentioned in the award or not. Peter Molan is one that clearly comes to mind, with the recognition specific to his work with honey. Ivan Dickinson got an award, but I can't remember whether bees or beekeeping was mentioned. He was very involved in community matters. John Hartnell for both service to beekeeping and the community. But that's all that come to mind to me immediately. Who can we add to this list, then?
×
×
  • Create New...