3 ms·
The 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 ba
by fnordpiglet 2y ago
The 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?