Jump to content
jamesc

Manuka standards

Recommended Posts

On 23/02/2018 at 5:09 PM, Dennis Crowley said:

What's the DNA on this sample

26cq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/02/2018 at 6:48 PM, frazzledfozzle said:

@tom sayn it's only the multi floral manuka that has to have 3pla between 20 and 399. Mono has to be over 400. I have no idea why multi can't be over 400 when mono has to be.

You would think that if mono was over 400 to meet the standard then multi would be good at that level. 

But I'm a beekeeper not a scientist 

I hadn't considered this. I wonder if 400 is a ceiling or if you can exceed this. 400+ means monofloral manuka and there's no upper limit for monofloral. Suggests that there's no reason why higher amounts would indicate a floral source other than manuka. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John might have some ideas, but it's not my area and dare I say it, precious little to do with science. xD

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎22‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:48 PM, frazzledfozzle said:

@tom sayn it's only the multi floral manuka that has to have 3pla between 20 and 399. Mono has to be over 400. I have no idea why multi can't be over 400 when mono has to be.

You would think that if mono was over 400 to meet the standard then multi would be good at that level. 

But I'm a beekeeper not a scientist 

I had a sample come back with 3 pla of 580 and 2 map of 4.2, all other markers ok meaning that this sample didn't comply with either mono or multi standard even though it was 10.7 UMF. I wonder if this issue is an oversight by mpi which may make them look even less competent than they already do.

 

I have also had manuka / kanuka blend honey with umf of 4.5 easily pass as monofloral manuka. Interesting times indeed.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More test results. This is for my sites that are more bush/manuka. Generally all of it could be blended down by half with pure clover and MPI would still call it monofloral manuka

Screenshot_20180312-190435.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Jamo said:

I had a sample come back with 3 pla of 580 and 2 map of 4.2, all other markers ok meaning that this sample didn't comply with either mono or multi standard 

 

Very similar results as we got for a couple of our batches.

Edited by frazzledfozzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

 

Very similar results as we got for a couple of our batches.

If it doesn't comply and gets lumped in with multifloral, send it up my way I'm pretty sure I could combine it with another batch to lift it to monofloral. Kanuka seems to have very high 3pla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Good article in latest Beekeeper mag on blending.

 

@Dennis Crowley

Can you share the guts of what it says and who wrote it 

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

 

@Dennis Crowley

Can you share the guts of what it says and who wrote it 

Please ?

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixing batches of predominantly manuka together to make a uniform product is ethical.
Deliberately blending non-manuka honey with predominantly manuka honey and still calling it manuka is not.
The new standards were supposed to stop this sort of behaviour. It won't.
There are still plenty of ethical beekeepers and packers out there but it is a struggle to compete against those that are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read economist article a few years ago regarding counterfeit goods.  They were saying that it is a major source of funds for organised crime groups for eastern Europe and Russian mafia.  Larger than drugs and weapon sales combine. One of the products they were doing was fake Manuka honey.  They were taking dark honey of any origin and labelling it Manuka and selling it.  The standard was also brought in to stop this. Thinking that this is a nz based problem is missing a larger part of the picture.  Probably more fake Manuka honey produced overseas than from nz.  It goes well beyond blending of honey. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be fair we should acknowledge that it is probably not possible at this stage to source the needed chemical markers to turn  non manuka honey into manuka other than blending with manuka honey.

with mgo that was possible and apparently also happened.(?)

but huge expense for this little achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

 

@Dennis Crowley

Can you share the guts of what it says and who wrote it 

It is about blending of different levels of manuka honey to come out with a set level at the end to pack. It was giving a maths equation based on how to blend the different known chemical markers, activity levels. From Analytica Labs 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Mixing batches of predominantly manuka together to make a uniform product is ethical.
Deliberately blending non-manuka honey with predominantly manuka honey and still calling it manuka is not.
The new standards were supposed to stop this sort of behaviour. It won't.
There are still plenty of ethical beekeepers and packers out there but it is a struggle to compete against those that are not.

MPI's best and brightest have come up with a definitive test for monofloral manuka at great cost to beekeepers and that's the final word as far as I'm concerned. 

I don't currently have the gear to homogenise batches of honey (although I'm looking at the economics of it) so it's just an academic quest for me currently, but let's say I did...

... If I produce a uniform blended product that meets that MPI definition (using only pure honey) and claw back some of the losses we incurred thanks to MPI's incompetence then I don't see the ethical issue there. 

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laws are something you have to follow whether you want to or not.
Ethics are something you want to follow whether you have to or not.
Nice picture of manuka honey. It's not rocket science to tell if honey is manuka or not and if everyone in the industry had been ethical we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I dont think its unethical to blend non manuka with manuka to get a product that fits with the standard.

I think its unethical to promote a product as being better than other honey when eaten.

Blending honey in the shed is pretty much doing what the bees do in the field.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blending honey in the shed to me is better than selling to buyers (at lower costs) for them to blend it and make bigger margins. 

We do no blending but can see drums that only just miss the mark going out the door with honeys that fly through and sure as eggs they will all end up as a good legal batch somewhere no doubt about it. 

Why shouldn't the beekeepers running honest operations recover that themselves instead of the middle men? 

 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two pots of honey left behind by guests.

People tasting them find it hard to tell any difference .

WP_20180313_22_18_46_Pro.jpg

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
  • Stirrer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2018 at 12:14 PM, flash4cash said:

I read economist article a few years ago regarding counterfeit goods.  They were saying that it is a major source of funds for organised crime groups for eastern Europe and Russian mafia.  Larger than drugs and weapon sales combine. One of the products they were doing was fake Manuka honey.  They were taking dark honey of any origin and labelling it Manuka and selling it.  The standard was also brought in to stop this. Thinking that this is a nz based problem is missing a larger part of the picture.  Probably more fake Manuka honey produced overseas than from nz.  It goes well beyond blending of honey. 

Hence why we should only pack manuka honey in nz and nowhere else

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2018 at 6:48 PM, frazzledfozzle said:

@tom sayn it's only the multi floral manuka that has to have 3pla between 20 and 399. Mono has to be over 400. I have no idea why multi can't be over 400 when mono has to be.

You would think that if mono was over 400 to meet the standard then multi would be good at that level. 

But I'm a beekeeper not a scientist 

I got an email from Steve Howse at analytica yesterday explaining that they're classifying this type of honey as straight multifloral (not multifloral manuka) because it doesn't meet either category in the MPI standard. It's  a huge oversight in my opinion and heads should roll at MPI and Apinz because of it. I could be wrong here but I think I was @john berry saying that his group was responsible for lowering the 2map limit for multi manuka down from 2 to 1, (which doesn't make much difference in practice) when perhaps their efforts would have been better spent on the wording of the 3pla regs.

It should read: mono manuka must not have less than 400 3pla; multi manuka must not have less than 20 3pla.

 

There fixed it. 

Edited by Merk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merk said:

I got an email from Steve Howse at analytica yesterday explaining that they're classifying this type of honey as straight multifloral (not multifloral manuka) because it doesn't meet either category in the MPI standard. It's  a huge oversight in my opinion and heads should roll at MPI and Apinz because of it. I could be wrong here but I think I was @john berry saying that his group was responsible for lowering the 2map limit for multi manuka down from 2 to 1, (which doesn't make much difference in practice) when perhaps their efforts would have been better spent on the wording of the 3pla regs.

It should read: mono manuka must not have less than 400 3pla; multi manuka must not have less than 20 3pla.

 

There fixed it. 

 

There must be a reason that it is worded as it is, as it is different from the other definitions.  Could it be because it picks up kanuka in the 3pla and so a top limit is specified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...