BEEKEEPER FINED

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 April 1935, Page 5

BEEKEEPER FINED

FOUL BROOD IN APIARY. An apiarist at Otira, Henry Bryan, was charged in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, to-day, on the information of the Apiary Instructor (Mr G..F. Page), with failing to take effective measures to rid his apiary at Otira of foul brood, by a general McEvoy treatment, before December 1, 1934, in. accordance with warning notice given on September 28. Mr T. F. Brosnan, for defendant, pleaded guilty. Mr Page stated that foul brood was present in every colony he examined at defendant’s apiary, although it was not in an advanced state. The trouble was due to carelessness and lack of precautions, and the disease had apparently spread from defendant's apiary to that of his son. No reasonable effort was made by defendant to carry out witness’s instructions. Until recent years, the apiary had been comparatively free from disease, and it was only through the absence of reasonable precautions that the disease had spread. It was now a serious source of infection in the district. Mr Brosnan stated that defendant had been an apiarist for 25 jrears. E 0? 16 years, he had been selling large quaitities of honey, some of which had been exported. He had a large apiary of 170 or 180 colonies. It was quite true, as Mr Page had said, that there was some evidence of the disease in September last year. Defendant at that time was in the employ of the Public Works Department, and he made arrangements for six weeks’ leave from his employment, with the idea of giving special attention to the hives. At the end of the six weeks he had not satisfied himself that the apiary was clean, and right up to the present time he had been attending to his hives. The loss sustained this year was serious, as no honey at all had been sold. An estimate .of a loss of £7O up to the present time would be conservative. The McEvoy treatment, defendant thought, would not be applicable to his apiary at Otira, as the result would be probably the total loss of the bees, which would have died owing to the weather conditions. He used a modified treatment, and, although on the last occasion Mr Page was there, there was still some evidence of foul brood, defendant said that at present there was no evidence of disease. He hoped that, next season, his apiary would be quite clean, and that he would be able to sell honey again. It was difficult to put one’s finger on the actual cause of the disease. It was possible that it came from some flowers, or the introduction of outside hives into the district. The practice had arisen recently for apiarists in Christchurch to transfer their hives to Otira, to get the benefit of the rata season. The existence of the disease itself did not render honey unfit for human consumption, but to get rid of the disease the honey was destroyed, and the treatment also called for the destruction of the frames. Defendant had been cleaning the frames, and felt that his apiary would be free from disease next season.

The S.M.: You say that he did adopt some treatment. Did he collaborate with the instructor, before doing so? — I do not think he did that, but, on the other hand, he is an apiarist of 25, years’ experience. The industry itself, from a commercial point of view, has only in recent years become important. The S.M.: On the West Coast? Mi’ Brosnan: Generally in New Zealand. , , The S.M.: I do not know about that. There has been export of honey for years, and the industry is well established, I understand. Mr Brosnan.: Here is a ease of a man who has been in the industry for 25 years, and has never had any trouble. A man of that experience does understand bees, their habits, and the diseases which affect the hives. , The S.M.: It occurs to me, if he has been 25 years in the industry, what does he know about foul brood, and why should he take upon himself to say that his treatment is correct, and the instructor’s is not? Mr Brosnan said that foul brood was simply a condition which arose when some of the bees were born dead An apiarist knew the condition of his bees. Practical experience must go a considerable way. He suggested that the instructor might see fit to inspect defendant’s hives again. The information v was laid in February.

Mr Page said defendant was notified in 1925, 1927, 1928, 1930, and 1931, so that the disease had been cropping up in his apiary from time to time. The McEvoy treatment was the only one adopted by the Department, that was effective. The germ was not contained in flowers, but was carried by the honey from bees entering the hives. It could be carried by bees from one district to another, but the bees could not be transferred to another district without a permit. Bees were brought from Canterbury to Otira under a permit. The S.M.: Is the disease likely to spread rapidly?—Yes. What is the effect? —it kills the young brood, and it has a serious aspect at present. There is a possibility that West Coast honey will be excluded from the markets, unless the disease can be eradicated, and the cooperation of the beekeepers is necessary. ~ . The S.M.: Honey from diseased apiaries is not exported?—lt is, at present. Is the honey affected? —Not tor human consumption. The disease can bo carried in the honey to other

people’s bees. The S.M. said it was quite clear that defendant had not complied with instructions to apply expert treatment, to get rid of the foul brood. He would be fined £2, with 10/- costs On the application of Mr M. P. McCarthy, similar cases against, two other apiarists were adjourned until May 13.