BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Cliff Van Eaton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 4 Mar 1994 15:43:38 +1200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
If you have any anecdotal evidence from visiting New Zealand
beekeepers that New Zealand bees have 1) tracheal mite, 2)
varroa, 3) European foulbrood, 4) tropilaelaps, 5) braula, I
would be very interested in hearing more.  Otherwise, I think you
owe an apology to the New Zealand beekeeping industry, via BEE-L,
if you are insinuating otherwise.
 
As to American foulbrood, while it is true that New Zealand has
its fair share of this disease, our industry has choosen what I
believe is the very sensible approach of controlling its spread
by "search and destroy" methods, not through the use of
chemicals.  I don't want to enter into a debate on the pros and
cons of this drug-free AFB control in this forum, but from my
experience, both in NZ and in North America, one often
over-looked advantage of this approach is that the thorough
examination of hives which is required tends to also lead to
better over-all hive management, at least in commercial outfits.
 
What can be said without reservation, however, is that the NZ
approach has resulted in one of the best apiary registration and
inspection systems found anywhere.  Beekeepers here are required
by law to return a yearly inspection statement, giving full
details of every apiary site (including topo map grid
references), and the findings of their AFB inspections.  The
industry also levies its members to pay for an
independently-administered AFB control programme.  Although
government personnel carry out programme services under contract
to the industry, absolutely no government funding is provided.
Upwards of 10% of all registered apiaries in the country are
inspected each year under that programme.
 
This is not to say, of course, that we don't have our share of
beekeepers with AFB problems; beekeepers who cause ecomonic
damage to their fellow beekeepers, and who often require
counselling by government apiculturalists (which has to be paid
for by the industry itself).
 
Just recently, however, the NZ Beekeepers Association has been
given the opportunity, under a new piece of government
legislation (called the Biosecurity Act), to write its own
legally-binding procedures for the control of American foulbrood
(since it is, of course, their disease).
 
The legislation will allow for the collecting of levies to pay
for an AFB control programme, and should provide, in the system
that the beekeepers are proposing, sufficent financial incentives
(in the form of lower levies) for beekeepers who actually do a
good job in their AFB control.  Under that same system, the other
type of beekeeper may soon find it economically quite difficult
to carry on.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2