Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, glynn said:

Yes there's still time so I only feed just enough I believe bees winter better on there own grub although I do like a shot of agrosea's good stuff in the brew. I want to give some hives and go on the mushys this winter

I thought you had rain .

Will that help things ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 595
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@tommy dave it is very easy for beekeepers who extract their own honey to identify Manuka. Firstly the hives location. Then when extracting It's sticky as, has a distinct aroma & taste and is some

I have to respectfully disagree with this ladies assumption, the person she was working with may have been pouring sugar into hives during honey gathering time, but to then lump all commercial operato

You met one beekeeper. you don't know her full name or who she worked for. She said some nasty stuff about her former employer. Based on her testimony and your experience to date ... the entire NZ bee

Posted Images

I hope so that's why I feed just enough to get them by in the hope of another flow.

I was aways told to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

A old beekeepers that let me hang out with when I was a kid used to live in March St in Spring Creek I learned so much much better than being at school. He used to be the president of the Blenheim nzba. It's going back a year or to before mites and feeding and mushrooms ECT ECT when a swarm was a problem not something to chase after. If you got greedy and a hive starved to death you just came back at the end of summer and took of less 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kaihoka said:

I thought you had rain .

Will that help things ?

Yep .... we had good rain and little clover flowers popping up out of the ground. Should be game on in a week or so ...... except more rain is forcast.

What did I say in the spring ..... If the Ash's before the oak , then you're in for a .....

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jamesc said:

Yep .... we had good rain and little clover flowers popping up out of the ground. Should be game on in a week or so ...... except more rain is forcast.

What did I say in the spring ..... If the Ash's before the oak , then you're in for a .....

well out here daisys rule and its been dry. :14_relaxed:

but we did have 20 mls in the last couple of days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised that MPI came back with such a minor tweak to the revised standard. 

The issue that was causing most problem for high UMF honey was the DNA test. The thinking was that perhaps high levels of MGO was degrading or changing  the DNA tested over time, and/or that the DNA test was a problem. Since UMF only comes from Manuka, you can only get high UMF from high purity Manuka (and yes there may also be high purity honeys of other Scoparium varieties that may not have high MGO), therefore to say high UMF is not Manuka made sense that there was a problem with the test and/or standard. Therefore this needed revising. 

Then for MPI to come back after a few months and not make any change to the DNA part of the standard was surprising. 

Also, and perhaps more surprising, did you notice how those calling for changes to the standard, especially re. the DNA part of the standard, have been silent on the matter????

I expect they are working away in the background refining their evidence. We haven't heard the last on this, I predict there will be more to come. Watch this space haha!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rob's BP said:

The issue that was causing most problem for high UMF honey was the DNA test. The thinking was that perhaps high levels of MGO was degrading or changing  the DNA tested over time, and/or that the DNA test was a problem.

I read that the high MGO was affecting the DNA testing process (buffer solution?) rather than corrupting the DNA itself. Modifying the process would have cleared that up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rob's BP said:

Also, and perhaps more surprising, did you notice how those calling for changes to the standard, especially re. the DNA part of the standard, have been silent on the matter????

 

 

Yes I noticed and I imagine you are right about not hearing the end of it.

what concerns me is if MPI are pressured into revising it again what does that tell the market about the standards reliability ?

in the meantime Australian manuka is flooding into the same countries as NZ Manuka and actually displacing NZ Manuka in some stores.

While NZ fights over what is or isn’t Manuka honey and therefore putting doubt in people’s minds about the quality of our product Australia is going ahead in leaps and bounds with no such doubt surrounding their product.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rob Stockley said:

I read that the high MGO was affecting the DNA testing process (buffer solution?) rather than corrupting the DNA itself. Modifying the process would have cleared that up. 

You could be right on that. The main point is the part of the standard that was most protested about wasn't changed, and those protesting haven't protested since. 

Ya think that equates to passive acceptance? Yeah right... [reaches for a Tui!]

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rob's BP said:

You could be right on that. The main point is the part of the standard that was most protested about wasn't changed, and those protesting haven't protested since. 

Ya think that equates to passive acceptance? Yeah right... [reaches for a Tui!]

I recall they changed the testing process then offered to retest failed samples for free. Getting the labs sorted for the changed test contributed to the delay. 

  • Chill Out 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob's BP said:

I was surprised that MPI came back with such a minor tweak to the revised standard. 

The issue that was causing most problem for high UMF honey was the DNA test. The thinking was that perhaps high levels of MGO was degrading or changing  the DNA tested over time, and/or that the DNA test was a problem. Since UMF only comes from Manuka, you can only get high UMF from high purity Manuka (and yes there may also be high purity honeys of other Scoparium varieties that may not have high MGO), therefore to say high UMF is not Manuka made sense that there was a problem with the test and/or standard. Therefore this needed revising. 

Then for MPI to come back after a few months and not make any change to the DNA part of the standard was surprising. 

Also, and perhaps more surprising, did you notice how those calling for changes to the standard, especially re. the DNA part of the standard, have been silent on the matter????

I expect they are working away in the background refining their evidence. We haven't heard the last on this, I predict there will be more to come. Watch this space haha!

 

So what is your view on the final definition and how it is likely to effect existing operators, and do you see pricing for bush / pasture non-manuka honey being maintained at previous years pricing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly suspect that the increase in the level of 2-Methoxyacetophenone  is solely to exclude Jelly Bush honey that does not reach this level of content. Thus the 5 requirement.

If I am right this will make NZ Manuka more unique perhaps and allow it's image/perceived value to be preserved. 

Edited by Ali
spelling!
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ali said:

I strongly suspect that the increase in the level of 2-Methoxyacetophenone  is solely to exclude Jelly Bush honey that does not reach this level of content. Thus the 5 requirement.

If I am right this will make NZ Manuka more unique perhaps and allow it's image/perceived value to be preserved. 

 

I think you are right in that this would be a serious concern. To be honest, having a 5star top level standard would be fantastic and a huge boost in credibility for industry.

The big but is there must be another tier created that provides a creditable home for great tasting naturally produced Manuka or Manuka/Kanuka.

 

There is a "Manuka Blend" classification in new standards, but it still relies on getting to 5 on 2-MAP test, and from statistics used by MPI this is going to be very difficult.

 

One of the hardest aspects to understand is the top 25% of samples will be the big winners but it has already been acknowledged that these samples will change from region to region and year to year. None of that is new, but have fun explaining that to the bank manager.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ali said:

I strongly suspect that the increase in the level of 2-Methoxyacetophenone  is solely to exclude Jelly Bush honey that does not reach this level of content. Thus the 5 requirement.

If I am right this will make NZ Manuka more unique perhaps and allow it's image/perceived value to be preserved. 

 

That will only happen if Australia can’t label  their honey Manuka, if they can use the word Manuka they can pack any of their leptospermum honey as Manuka they don’t have to comply to the NZ standard.

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yesbut said:

One could presume that recipient export countries would be unlikely torequire "certified' honey from here but then accept "uncertified" honey from elsewhere ?

 

Australian manuka hasn’t had the drama and questions about authenticity surrounding it the way NZ Manuka has.

Im sure they will continue to sell it as easily as they have been up till now, probably increase their exports considerably while we sit back and bicker and fight over what is and what isn’t Manuka meaning increasing numbers of people will steer clear of NZ Honey even when they do agree on a standard 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesc said:

Big Hmmmmm here.    Maybe we need to reinvent the NZ honey industry, marketing our product, whether that be Clover, Dew or kanuka  with an X factor to the elite of the world who will happily pay the premium that we desire

"pure New Zealand honey" - and on the label two nice photos - one of a nice dry canterbury stream bed sucked dry by irrigators, another of a nice lake suffering an intense algal bloom and a couple of dogs that drank the water lying dead nearby

  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kaihoka said:

True. 

But if Aussies can eat gum honey they may well cope with Manuka .

Try Yellow Box honey (Eucalyptus melliodora) its is stunningly good, closely followed by Leatherwood.

When you visit Oz, or course  ...

But who in their right mind would eat strong manuka honey ?

It's like believing that medicine must taste 'orrible to work.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...