1940
The editorial for the first issue of the 1940 NZ Beekeeper marked the centennial year of “organised settlement and colonisation of the Dominion”. The editorial was positive in tone, indicating that “prospects for both local and export markets are at the present time really good” notwithstanding “the state of war in which the Dominion finds herself”.
The limit of 240 tons of honey for export to the United Kingdom had been recently removed, and the demand for honey was expected to improve further due to war conditions. That limit was less than one-third of the volume required to meet the established overseas’ business. The Editor urged support and supply of honey to the Marketing Division to allow for continued orderly disposal of honey both overseas and domestic, with the warning that “…the unorganised individual producer-seller’s activities on the local market can do nothing but tend to break this system down.”
The Manager of the Auckland Branch of the Internal Marketing Division, Mr AH Honeyfield, warned that even with a seal levy in place, it was possible that price cutting would still take place. The market level fixed by the Department would become a point from which concessions could be given, making the setting of a market level very difficult, particularly in a year with a large crop.
One suggestion put forward by the Editor was the introduction of a minimum price-fixation (according to grade) for domestic honey sales. Arguments had been made that this might ultimately oblige the Division to accept from producers the honey the producers were unable to sell at the prices fixed. With the addition of a compulsory grading scheme for all honeys, the Editor felt that such a price-fixation scheme could be made workable, protecting both consumer (in terms of “getting just what was paid for” and honey producer (from the effects of price cutting).
The first advance payment for the present season was announced by the Internal Marketing Division as 5d pro rate, according to grade. This half-pence increase was only one third of the three half-pence asked for, but was still welcomed in the editorial.
The Internal Marketing Division’s new packing depot in Auckland was in progress, designed to be capable of handling, packing and blending all the honey sold overseas as well as all of that sold on the local market by the Division. A warning was made that if supplies of honey to the Division were to drop, the plant could become uneconomic. The aim for the industry was to do the whole of the export and storage for export through the new plant, as well as 700 to 800 tons for the New Zealand trade.
In the correspondence column, the Mr Wallace Nelson, Chairman of the NZ Honey Control Board, informed the NBA that the £100 subsidy would not be made. The Editor replied with a sense of regret at the decision. The publication of the magazine would continue in the meantime, however, with the Editor foregoing that portion of his remuneration which had been allocated to cover the Editorial part of his duties to the General Executive.
An article reprinted from a Hawke’s Bay newspaper highlighted a problem that was to become major in years to come – the spraying of fruit trees with arsenate of lead sprays while the trees were still in flower. The beekeepers were appealing to orchardists to use restraint to avoid the massive mortality that had occurred in previous seasons when the sprays were applied too early.
The last season was one of the worst on record, and the Marketing Division had hardly any “carry over” honey. There was considerable pressure to obtain adequate supplies quickly enough to meet the overseas commitments, especially in regard to “Imperial Bee” brand requirements for England. A warning was made that some beekeepers had sold honey to “speculative interests”, resulting in stocks of honey existing while the overseas business (operated entirely in the interests of the beekeepers) was suffering from short supplies.
A reprint of an overview article on the honey bee from the Cawthron Institute Bulletin noted that there were approximately 112,350 hives of bees, located in 4,672 apiaries. Total honey production was estimated at 2,000 to 2,500 tons, with average production per hive of 40 to 50 pounds.
The editorial policy of the magazine was explained in the April 20, 1940 issue of the magazine. The Editor clarified that he published (editorially) only that to which he believed the majority of the Executive would not object, even if they do not all completely approve. He quite expected some of the editorials to prove provocative and promote discussion.
The matter had arisen after criticism from Mr W Nelson, Chairman of the Honey Control Board over all call for an increase in the seal levy from 1/2d to 1d per pound. The Editor pointed out that he did not, in fact, believe this to be necessary or desirable, but it was an example of a further step that could be taken to combat the evil of competition against the Internal Marketing Division.
Canterbury beekeepers were worried by the appearance during this season of a new disease. It appeared to be European foulbrood, but definite identification had not yet been announced. In years to come this “Canterbury disease” would continue to be reported, even after it was confirmed that it was not European foulbrood.
The posting of two dozen queens from Nelson apiarists to the Baty Brothers in Jackson, West Coast, was unusual enough to warrant a mention in the journal. The queens, valued at 6/6 each, were sent in a container which “…comprised a number of small wooden cells, in each of which was a queen bee and several workers, for company. It was open at the top, a small hole at the top of each cell being covered by wire gauze.”
At the Annual Conference, beekeepers passed a special resolution calling for all suppliers of honey to the IMD to have the right to vote in the elections of the Honey Control Board. A further resolution called for the Board to have a co-opted member from the National Beekeepers’ Association.
The Minister was now indicating that he intended to appoint a Honey Marketing Advisory Committee, and suggested that the members of the present Honey Control Board should form the first committee, with other appointments or replacements to be made “after consultation with representatives of the beekeepers.”
The Editor expressed considerable opposition to this idea, which took away the democratic election of beekeeper representatives and left it to the discretion of the Minister. He suggested that the General Executive of the NBA was better placed to act in this advisory capacity to the Minister, being both better informed and having better contacts than the existing Board.
Branches were reminded that rather than taking direct action in approaching Ministers of the Crown, it was important to refer such matters to the General Executive. The General Executive had recently dealt with an instance where a Branch President had written to a Minister advocating a line of action opposed to the policy of the Association, as expressed in resolutions to the annual conference. The person concerned, Mr HR Penny, had written as “President of the Taranaki Beekeepers’ Association”. In his defence, he pointed out that his branch had never, by formal resolution, changed its name after being accepted into the National Association as a branch! The issue involved the prosecution of a beekeeper for a breach of the Apiaries Act, with Mr Penny calling for the proceedings to be discontinued.
The Annual Conference occupied a full three days at the Centennial Exhibition at Wellington in April. It was attended by about 120 beekeepers, and a full attendance of Departmental officers, the Marketing Division and the Agriculture Department. The election of officers resulted in Dominion President Mr EA Field (Manawatu), Dominion Vice-President Mr LK Griffin (Southland), and General Executive members Mr JR Barber (Auckland Central), Mr Frank Holt (South Auckland), Mr TF Penrose (Canterbury) and Mr DG Hamilton (North Otago). Mr WG Short and Mr LF Robins did not offer themselves for re-election.
Mr Leslie Irwin of Winton, Southland, was elected an Honorary Life Member having been secretary and later president of the Southland Branch, served on the General Executive and as a director of NZ Honey Ltd.
Mr WK Dallas, the Director of the Horticulture Division, announced that Mr TS Winter, formerly Chief Honey Grader (Auckland) had been appointed Senior Apiary Instructor and Honey Grader (Wellington). Mr Winter had been, at one time, the General Secretary of the NBA. Mr Dallas also noted that the Association had 24 branches representing 548 members with 58,500 colonies.
In his address to Conference Mr EA Field, the Dominion President, stressed the importance of the Association. He also proposed that all remits should be in the hands of the General Secretary several weeks before Conference in order than branches could discuss them adequately, as this was not normally the case.
A classified ad in July 1940 began an ongoing story that wound end in sadness. The General Secretary and Editor, Mr GS Kirker, placed an advertisement for a 16-17 year old youth to learn apiary work. The advertisement was to appear a number of times in subsequent issues of the magazine, indicating the difficulty of finding helpers in the beekeeping industry.
Extracts from the Annual Reports of the Primary Products Marketing Department for the years ending 31 March 1938 and 31 March 1939 contained a well-presented history of the regulation of honey marketing in New Zealand. It noted that a very short season in 1937 was offset by a particularly good one in 1938, but the 1939 season had been disastrous for some important production areas. The Government had, through the IMD, made advances to honey producers for the purpose of buying sugar to get colonies through the winter months. Of the 1,218 tons of honey received by the Auckland depot, 801 tons were shipped overseas.
In late November a meeting of the Canterbury branch was held in Timaru. Mr WW Nelson, Chairman of the Honey Control Board attended the meeting. At a previous meeting of the branch a vote of no confidence in Mr Nelson had been watered down to first allow Mr Nelson the opportunity to address a meeting of producers. The split within both the branch and the industry on the question of marketing was clear in the resolutions carried by the meeting.
A similar meeting was held several days later with beekeepers from Otago and Southland attending a meeting in Gore. The meeting discussed a remit carried at the last conference granting the IMD sole selling rights in proclaimed areas. The IMDs intention was to declare the four main centres as Proclaimed Areas in order to enforce a degree of controlled marketing.