Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New listings
New media comments
New resources
New calendar events
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Calendar
New events
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Classifieds
New listings
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
Commercial Beekeeping in New Zealand
Matters of concern.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Welcome to NZ Beekeepers+
Would you like to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NickWallingford" data-source="post: 12049" data-attributes="member: 44"><p>Any bkpr who would like to use an AFB-trained sniffer dog is able to do so. Any bkpr can allow another party to use an AFB-trained sniffer dog. If the dog indicates as 'positive', the bkpr can choose to either destroy the hive without further examination or the bkpr can inspect for visual signs of AFB. If any visual signs of AFB are found, the hive must be destroyed. If the dog says 'positive' and your eyes say no, you are not required by the PMP to destroy the hive.</p><p></p><p>All that can be done without reference to the PMP. No further research into sensitivity or specificity is required. </p><p></p><p>The further research would be needed if the results of the dog's work is to be taken at face value, without further visual confirmation. The Mgmt Agency would find it hard to argue to use this (or any other) 'new' method of AFB identification without that additional information. </p><p></p><p>But that additional work and expense is only needed if the intent is for the Mgmt Agency to use the capability of dogs without any visual inspection at all, or with the expectation that the bkpr would no longer need to do more/better inspections to identify AFB.</p><p></p><p>Identification and destruction of AFB infected hives is an important bkpr responsibility in the plan to eliminate AFB. Each bkpr - however many hives - must 'front up' to that obligation by either maintaining a DECA or by (paying?) an approved person to inspect the hive. </p><p></p><p>It is not the role of the Mgmt Agency to <strong>inspect</strong> hives to identify AFB. The Mgmt Agency is responsible for <strong>auditing</strong> the on-going progress of a bkpr to reduce that bkpr's own AFB level to zero. A more effective auditing system would not necessarily lead to a more likely AFB elimination scenario. On the contrary, it seems as if bkprs are wanting the Mgmt Agency to find their AFB for them... The Mgmt Agency will not eliminate AFB from NZ; only bkprs can do that.</p><p></p><p>So long as a bkpr meets the conditions of their DECA esp. in terms of nature/frequency of visual inspections, the bkpr can use a sniffer dog all they want, as I said at the beginning.</p><p></p><p>Dogs could be (are currently?) used by bkprs to identify AFB. No further research is needed, unless bkprs are asking for the Mgmt Agency to use dogs entirely to replace visual inspections.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NickWallingford, post: 12049, member: 44"] Any bkpr who would like to use an AFB-trained sniffer dog is able to do so. Any bkpr can allow another party to use an AFB-trained sniffer dog. If the dog indicates as 'positive', the bkpr can choose to either destroy the hive without further examination or the bkpr can inspect for visual signs of AFB. If any visual signs of AFB are found, the hive must be destroyed. If the dog says 'positive' and your eyes say no, you are not required by the PMP to destroy the hive. All that can be done without reference to the PMP. No further research into sensitivity or specificity is required. The further research would be needed if the results of the dog's work is to be taken at face value, without further visual confirmation. The Mgmt Agency would find it hard to argue to use this (or any other) 'new' method of AFB identification without that additional information. But that additional work and expense is only needed if the intent is for the Mgmt Agency to use the capability of dogs without any visual inspection at all, or with the expectation that the bkpr would no longer need to do more/better inspections to identify AFB. Identification and destruction of AFB infected hives is an important bkpr responsibility in the plan to eliminate AFB. Each bkpr - however many hives - must 'front up' to that obligation by either maintaining a DECA or by (paying?) an approved person to inspect the hive. It is not the role of the Mgmt Agency to [B]inspect[/B] hives to identify AFB. The Mgmt Agency is responsible for [B]auditing[/B] the on-going progress of a bkpr to reduce that bkpr's own AFB level to zero. A more effective auditing system would not necessarily lead to a more likely AFB elimination scenario. On the contrary, it seems as if bkprs are wanting the Mgmt Agency to find their AFB for them... The Mgmt Agency will not eliminate AFB from NZ; only bkprs can do that. So long as a bkpr meets the conditions of their DECA esp. in terms of nature/frequency of visual inspections, the bkpr can use a sniffer dog all they want, as I said at the beginning. Dogs could be (are currently?) used by bkprs to identify AFB. No further research is needed, unless bkprs are asking for the Mgmt Agency to use dogs entirely to replace visual inspections. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What type of honey is New Zealand famous for?
Post reply
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
Commercial Beekeeping in New Zealand
Matters of concern.
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…