Agency that ordered burning of $2m in bee boxes defends process

The national agency that ordered a beekeeper to burn $2 million of equipment without compensation has defended its process — saying it’s fair.

It comes after fierce criticism from Springbank Honey owner Steven Brown, who says he was forced to burn 10,000 bee boxes last weekend under threat of imprisonment.

The AFB Pest Management Plan Management Agency had identified spores of American Foulbrood – or AFB – at his shed in Canterbury.

The disease has been in New Zealand for more than a century and can be fatal for hives.

But Brown has portrayed the agency’s approach – testing equipment that is not in use – as excessive and an overreach of power.

He says in the past beekeepers were only required to monitor working hives by watching for signs of sickness – rather than testing empty boxes for spores.

His argument was backed up by New Zealand Beekeeping Incorporated, which represented many beekeepers across the country.

Its president, Jane Lorimer, said the test had only been developed in recent years, and argued it was not what beekeepers signed up for in the country’s pest management plan.

The AFB Pest Management Plan Management Agency responded to those claims in an interview with 1News today.

Chairman Mark Dingle argued the practice was fair and said it would continue to safeguard "all beekeepers".

"[Brown’s case] is probably at the extreme end but it's what's required in order to manage AFB," he said.

"If we don't take this destruction method then we run the risk of AFB affecting other hives of other beekeepers, and the problem will just proliferate."

He stood by all of the decisions the agency made in Brown’s case, but would not respond to specifics.

However, he said testing was never the first step it took.

"It really requires individual beekeepers to be vigilant in terms of managing AFB within their own operations," he said. "If they do that and do what's required of them then it doesn't require the intervention of the management agency."

One of the central points to the argument was the destruction of gear that was "potentially" contaminated.

Brown claimed he spent $50,000 a year fighting AFB and followed protocol when his hives became infected.

The beekeeper said a group of abandoned hives near his sites, near Glentui in North Canterbury, contracted the virus. The abandoned hives then passed it to his bees.

He claimed that when he told the agency, it decided to test empty boxes in his shed for spores – and two of the six tests came back positive.

A destruction notice showed he was ordered to burn two full bays worth of boxes. Brown said there were 10,000 in all – worth $2 million.

There was no compensation. Thousands of the boxes were never tested and were instead burnt on the basis they were "potentially" contaminated.

"It's like you're ripping your soul out," Brown said earlier this week.

"A good part of them were brand-new boxes – they'd never, ever been on a beehive. There's no disease in them.”

Dingle refuted that allegation.

"We would never issue a destruction order for new equipment," he said.

Dingle denied the agency had a lot of power. It was industry-funded but had certain powers given to it by government, including the ability to enter property without permission and demand gear be burned within seven days.

Asked whether beekeepers had any way to contest an order to destroy gear, he said, "I don’t know".

"I’ve never been in that situation before," he added.

There have also been concerns that other beekeepers may be caught by destruction orders due to the long life of the spores.

The spores could live for decades and critics, including New Zealand Beekeeping Incorporated, believed many hives across the country would have a residual amount.

But the company that manufactured the test, dnature, disputed this.

"We've found, having tested hundreds – in fact, thousands – of beehives, that this is not the case," technical director John MacKay said.

"Most beehives do not contain any trace of the bacteria at all."

MacKay said his company tested for a wide variety of people, but its customers were primarily beekeepers wanting to check their own hives.

"It doesn't replace the visual inspection, which is the responsibility of every beekeeper," he said.

Dingle confirmed that the agency would continue using the test.

"It's for the benefit of all beekeepers in the country. If we don't, we put their livelihoods at risk," he said.

"It's not just about one beekeeper, it's about all beekeepers and our ability to manage AFB."

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.