Name and shame bad management"

[Teemore]

Dan,

As MBC says a good and reasoned post.

Its nice to see that the same issues are coming up in your working group as have arisen in NI. I fully agree that disease recognition is an education issue and have commented on this elsewhere. The ability to spend time with a bee inspector is invaluable however, their role is currently much more limited in NI as compared to GB: I gather that the NBU and bee inspectors in GB have hosted disease recognition roadshows over the past year or so whereas in NI, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is pretty dogmatic in its insistance that the role of the bee inspectors does not involve "education" and presently there seems to be little appetite to press for the reallocation of funding that might allow education on disease recognition to enter their remit.

You are spot on in your analysis of the fact that some people are keen to follow some sort of formal 'education' or development programme with accreditation at the end: still others only want the knowledge but not the accreditation. Probably the larger number stand outside the infrastructure of associations and formal courses so how do you reach them? I think the NBU roadshows are one way to go.

Like yourself I have had opportunity to see a lateral flow device 'confirm' AFB and I'll never forget the musty smell that goes with AFB....

Here's hoping your involvement with the working group for the Healthy Bees Plan is productive and that you can reflect some of the concerns raised on this forum.

 

[Teemore]

why would bees visit a black comb outside of scouting for a new home????

They are looking for honey to rob....

 

[Poly Hive]

It's been interesting to see how the mention of an old comb, which was stated to be "clean" kicked off disease issues instantly.

Is this a prejudice I wonder or something that is being taught erroneously?

A clean comb is a clean comb no matter whether pearly white or coal black.

PH

 

[Chris B]

Secondly IMHO the only way to bring all ( or most ) of the murky characters out of the woodwork and into the open is to fundamentally change the compensation scheme we have.

Stats from 2009:
In England alone the bee inspectors dealt with 584 cases of EFB and 74 AFB.

Over that period BDI paid compensation of £8k nationwide on around 120 cases averaging less than £70 per claim. (Bees are not insured, only lost kit!)

So only around 20% of known foulbrood cases result in a claim, and those claims are chicken feed.

BDI Balance sheet 2009 (abridged)
Beekeeper premiums/subs = £48k
Claims paid = £8k
Admin = £19k (inc. £6k honoraria)
Finance income = £45k (from investments)
Net profit = £65k

It should be noted however, that BDI is not a BBKA scheme.

 

[mbc]

With so many different types of hives used in this country that would be some big van.
Getting everyone on board with that idea sounds good but the problem you have is will everyone register and who will end up paying for it ?

It wouldnt take a huge van to keep a box of national, 14x12, commercial, langstroth and a dadant ready.
I think the majority of beekeepers would jump on board with the incentive of hassle free clean new equipment for their bees.
Who do you think pays for the insurance assessing for the BDI at the moment ?

 

[Poly Hive]

Most beekeepers including myself insure themselves. Given that if you are running a reasonable number of colonies then replacing frames and wax is not a massive issue and nor are the bees so why pay out good money?

It is the fact that the equipment is not insured that is the problem, and until there is a decent insurance scheme an awful lot of beekeepers will not join anything.

And for them with longer memories it has always been that way.

PH

 

[OXFORDBEE]

It's been interesting to see how the mention of an old comb, which was stated to be "clean" kicked off disease issues instantly.

Is this a prejudice I wonder or something that is being taught erroneously?

A clean comb is a clean comb no matter whether pearly white or coal black.

PH

True, However there have been a couple of comments....

..As for black combs. this shouldnt act as a vector for afb even if they are infected..

and

..black comb with afb has no reason to be infective to passing bees aslong as there is no honey...

That have raised my eyebrows, especially as AFB is a notifiable disease.

 

[DanBee]

Most beekeepers including myself insure themselves. Given that if you are running a reasonable number of colonies then replacing frames and wax is not a massive issue and nor are the bees so why pay out good money?

That's certainly how it is for all the commercial beekeepers I know - cover your own losses due to disease, vandalism, falling trees, etc.

 

[mbc]

That's certainly how it is for all the commercial beekeepers I know - cover your own losses due to disease, vandalism, falling trees, etc.

I think most commercial beekeepers would still welcome free replacement frames and foundation if they had to destroy some. It would certainly go some way to lessening resentment at spending lots of valuable time with bee inspectors.

 

[OXFORDBEE]

I think most commercial beekeepers would still welcome free replacement frames and foundation if they had to destroy some. It would certainly go some way to lessening resentment at spending lots of valuable time with bee inspectors.

But the premiums are high if you have over 40 colonies and the payouts can be low. On a long term basis it could actually be cheaper to put the premiums in your own piggy bank and draw on them when you have a problem...

Don't forget, once you get a problem the premiums will go up

 

[mbc]

But the premiums are high if you have over 40 colonies and the payouts can be low. On a long term basis it could actually be cheaper to put the premiums in your own piggy bank and draw on them when you have a problem...

Don't forget, once you get a problem the premiums will go up

#39 "In my view, it would be far better if beekeepers were compensated fully and directly from FERA for any losses due to foul brood treatment leading to destruction/shook swarming."

No premiums for any beekeepers.
The whole cost of replacing all destroyed frames annually would cost considerably less to the tax payer than one smart bomb dropped on some other mothers son.

 

[OXFORDBEE]

BDI was set up so that once statutory destruction of infected hives was implemented beekeepers would get some form of compensation. The aim was to encourage beekeepers to inform the Min of Ag that they had a notifiable disease.

It wasn't funded then and as it's still up and running I can't envisage FERA wil ltaking it over, especially at the moment.

I do like your argument though!

 

[alanf]

Stats from 2009:
In England alone the bee inspectors dealt with 584 cases of EFB and 74 AFB.

Over that period BDI paid compensation of £8k nationwide on around 120 cases averaging less than £70 per claim. (Bees are not insured, only lost kit!)

So only around 20% of known foulbrood cases result in a claim, and those claims are chicken feed.

BDI Balance sheet 2009 (abridged)
Beekeeper premiums/subs = £48k
Claims paid = £8k
Admin = £19k (inc. £6k honoraria)
Finance income = £45k (from investments)
Net profit = £65k

It should be noted however, that BDI is not a BBKA scheme.

Thanks for the data.

It does not appear to be a cost effective scheme. I was aware of the limited risk it covers: not vandalism, theft, fire, storm damage or accident for instance. I had heard the payouts were low, but 70 quid is not going to replace much. Given the chance of an actual payout and that all payouts total only 8 thousand of a 93 thousand turnover, it seems reasonable to bear any risks myself and opt out. Fundamentally insurance is to cover losses which you cannot bear yourself like your house burning or damaging some else's property or person in a car. This, like mobile phone loss or electrical goods cover is easier to bear yourself.

I can see why it's contentious, although I can also see how it might have arisen from the idea of shared association apiaries. There is a slightly reduced incentive to hide infection or try ineffective treatment.

How many under declare? That is, pay the compulsory element for 3 hives because of the other advantages of a local association but have many hives which they are happy to cover themselves?

 

[mbc]

Essentially, bee inspectors also do a lot of the legwork for BDI at the tax payers expense.
65k profit ! Mmh

 

[DanBee]

I, for one, am happy to take my bee inspector round to see all my hives but I'd point blank refuse if he wanted to show my out apiaries to Joe public.

The etiquette locally is that you ask one of the inspectors, they ask their scheduled visits if an observer would be acceptable, arrangements are made accordingly. Usually helps if the observer is willing to travel to the other side of the county or region, a bit of distance helps reassure that it's not somebody nearby looking for good apiary sites etc.

In my view, it would be far better if beekeepers were compensated fully and directly from FERA for any losses due to foul brood treatment leading to destruction/shook swarming.
This would lead to any beekeepers interested in getting compo registering with beebase and having to cooperate fully with their inspectors.

Fair point and this too has come up. The current worst-case is that repeat offenders have no incentive to declare their losses because compensation is paltry. I think if compensation were generous (i.e. market value of colony/kit in good health/condition) then we might see the opposite end: the beekeeping 'benefits cheat', who realised it was far easier to raise (or buy in and split) diseased colonies and then claim good compensation because they were in a "disease pocket". Remember these are the small number of rogues present in any walk of life that we are talking about.

We speak of how the beekeeper is the primary vector for brood disease spread, and yet we always assume that is an unwitting spread; what if it were intentional?! Fundamentally, the compensation would need to be modest to prevent abuse, and actually the BDI rule of 'kit not bees' is pretty fair when you think about it - far more notifiable disease can be contracted by poor practice than by poor luck, so place the onus on the beekeeper to be disease free.

As someone who has never claimed for losses, I don't personally feel a sense of entitlement for compensation even if it were a government inspector deciding upon destruction. I take the view that it is for the greater good, both for my other colonies and those of the beekeepers around me, just as I would not grieve over the loss of a queen heading a vicious colony.

 

[DanBee]

I gather that the NBU and bee inspectors in GB have hosted disease recognition roadshows over the past year or so whereas in NI, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is pretty dogmatic in its insistance that the role of the bee inspectors does not involve "education" and presently there seems to be little appetite to press for the reallocation of funding that might allow education on disease recognition to enter their remit.

Our Inspectors are hired for their beekeeping skills, not as educators, but there is an increasing awareness that their people skills & 'hive-side education' abilities are key parts of the job. It is true that the Inspectors can and do include talks & demonstrations to associations as work hours, which I fully support. I don't think they'll ever morph into mobile mentors, but much of the good rapport that they have fostered comes down to how they approach people and their ability to include a bit of gentle training and skills transfer rather than just inspecting and announcing problems and solutions.

 

[victor meldrew]

Essentially, bee inspectors also do a lot of the legwork for BDI at the tax payers expense.
65k profit ! Mmh

Not entirely profit ?
Don't forget the public liability cover for third parties against damages from bees and also hive products to the tune of £5,000,000 .
This has to be vectored in . I suspect it would show in the accounts if the risk were laid off. (in bookie terms ) ?
VM

 

[Chris B]

As someone who has never claimed for losses, I don't personally feel a sense of entitlement for compensation even if it were a government inspector deciding upon destruction. I take the view that it is for the greater good, both for my other colonies and those of the beekeepers around me, just as I would not grieve over the loss of a queen heading a vicious colony.

Swarming and drone laying queens are greater causes of financial loss to beekeepers and we wouldn't dream of asking for compensation for those.
On the other hand, I would insure against catastrophic losses, if such a policy were available at reasonable cost.

 

[mbc]

Swarming and drone laying queens are greater causes of financial loss

By my calculations the biggest hit by far is winter losses, though I suppose some of these are due to drone layers.

 

[alanf]

Not entirely profit ?
Don't forget the public liability cover for third parties against damages from bees and also hive products to the tune of £5,000,000 .
This has to be vectored in . I suspect it would show in the accounts if the risk were laid off. (in bookie terms ) ?
VM

To quote the BDO FAQ document on the BBKA website

Bee Disease Insurance Ltd. (BDI) is an Insurance company set up and run for beekeepers by beekeepers. It promotes research, education and disease control methods for honey bee disease. It also compensates subscribing beekeepers and their bee colonies in England and Wales in respect of losses caused by statutorily notifiable honeybee diseases and pests. Currently these are American Foul Brood, European Foul Brood, Small Hive Beetle and Tropilaelaps mites. Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different bee health inspection service to England and Wales and different compensation schemes in operation.

The liability insurance is not claimed to be covered by BDI or be reliant on the premium, the BBKA site lists it entirely separately.

According to the description, BDI could (and should?) be sponsoring research and education into bee diseases, but the accounts don't show that they are. Their largest expense by far is administration. Above that, the BDI net profit level at 70% of turnover is far higher than other businesses that have come in for a lot more public criticism such as Homeserve http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...erve-says-mis-selling-will-cost-millions.html. Is this another insurance mis-selling scandal?