3 ms·
As a few comments have pointed out there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the article and the state of things on the ground. For more on AFB, since th
by cameron_b 2y ago
As a few comments have pointed out there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the article and the state of things on the ground.
For more on AFB, since the article doesn't describe it or the treatment protocols well - https://beeinformed.org/2013/10/21/american-foulbrood-afb/ https://beeinformed.org/2013/10/21/american-foulbrood-afb/
Apart from rules particular to NZ, because I do not know them, a key factor is that honey and wax containing AFB spores can transmit AFB to other bees in other colonies. The reason this is important is that beekeepers ( speaking as one ) move equipment between hives to balance their growth and give more space to make honey as needed. This is especially true after the honey harvest, when we empty frames of honey and give the wax honey comb back to the bees for them to get ready for the winter.
That makes the timing of this crucial, as it will be less likely for the beekeeper to reduce the damage if the boxes have been removed for harvest, and disassociated from their hive of origin when AFB is discovered. If you can't say where it came from and where it didn't, then it came from everywhere.
It isn't a fun hand to be dealt, and certainly it is worthy of more visibility and research, but it isn't worth wishing he didn't have to destroy it. Even the treatments available need to be used before adding equipment that will be used for honey, because the honey will shield the spores from the treatment and preserve the transmissibility of foul brood.
- fnordpiglet 2y agoThe article as I read it seemed less about being fun or not or regret / wishing etc. It seemed more about the economic toll on their business and the lack of backstop for the beekeeper. I was frankly surprised there was no government discussion of this - it seemed more rationalizing why the regulation exists rather than acknowledging the lack of insurance or assistance. I didn’t hear them wishing they didn’t have to destroy the hives, but fear of what it’s going to do to their business to lose millions in equipment then millions in revenue in the next season. The discussions of “why can’t we do X instead” were rooted in that economic concern. It seems like a pretty legit concern. A reasonable government response could be establishing a government backed insurance for beekeepers against hive loss.
- balderdash 2y agoEspecially given the massive financial assistance given to farmers in most countries, and the importance of bees to farmers
- palata 2y agoNot blaming the beekeeper (I don't know), but in that particular case I would really like to know how it happened. I am a beginner beekeeper, and I know many beekeeper who have had AFB in one hive without having to kill the entire apiary. And 10 000 hives means many apiaries (I assume?). Could it be that the beekeeper took too long to react and let all their colonies get infected? That surely takes some time.
- fnordpiglet 2y agoI think they hint at the answer in the article. They mix and match stuff between the different hives during operations so it’s assumed to be infected everywhere within a single operation plus they detect it at a time that you can’t attribute it to a single hive. Maybe the cost of testing each individual hive is too great and the cross contamination issues too likely to have hives infected but not yet observable via tests?