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: 12090" data-attributes="member: 44"><p>The concept of making an external agent (Dept of Agric, Min of Agriculture, PMP Mgmt Agency) ultimately responsible for the identification and destruction of AFB is not a new idea. Nor is it one that has ever shown any particular degree of success, and certainly not as a cost effective way of doing it. Here's a quote from 1939 that sounds sort of naive now:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Bkprs are the ones who should, and mostly do, find the AFB in their hives, hopefully much more often than an AP2 might. Bkprs are responsible for the spread of AFB within their outfit, and they are responsible for spreading AFB to neighbouring beekeepers through poor practices.</p><p></p><p>The Mgmt Agency is there to ensure that bkprs have 'the tools' to fulfill their AFB obligations, and that bkprs are using their DECAs effectively to manage AFB identification and control.</p><p></p><p>Yes, new ideas are always needed. The use of both dogs and qPCR, integrated into an inspection programme, are two good examples. Either are now available for bkprs to use, and they can and should lead to a reduction of AFB in an outfit if used effectively. But to bring the Mgmt Agency into it could be both arduous and expensive.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NickWallingford, post: 12090, member: 44"] The concept of making an external agent (Dept of Agric, Min of Agriculture, PMP Mgmt Agency) ultimately responsible for the identification and destruction of AFB is not a new idea. Nor is it one that has ever shown any particular degree of success, and certainly not as a cost effective way of doing it. Here's a quote from 1939 that sounds sort of naive now: Bkprs are the ones who should, and mostly do, find the AFB in their hives, hopefully much more often than an AP2 might. Bkprs are responsible for the spread of AFB within their outfit, and they are responsible for spreading AFB to neighbouring beekeepers through poor practices. The Mgmt Agency is there to ensure that bkprs have 'the tools' to fulfill their AFB obligations, and that bkprs are using their DECAs effectively to manage AFB identification and control. Yes, new ideas are always needed. The use of both dogs and qPCR, integrated into an inspection programme, are two good examples. Either are now available for bkprs to use, and they can and should lead to a reduction of AFB in an outfit if used effectively. But to bring the Mgmt Agency into it could be both arduous and expensive. [/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…