Jump to content
Frederick

Commodity Levy / Fight for the Industrys future?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Adam Boot said:

Your comment 'The system has not been a success from a poorly researched and rushed manuka standard' is not helpful or entirely accurate. The industry had years to come up with a Manuka standard and could not agree. The government and MPI in order to safe guard an industry introduced a standard that would satisfy global markets and prevent export barriers closing the door to Manuka. The definition may not be perfect but it now represents a cornerstone in the Manuka Trade mark battle with Australia and other countries. Without the definition there would be no chance of success. 

My opinion was formed with the benefit of a couple of decades standing at a laboratory bench, both in research but mostly product development in chemical manufacturing, which usually involved developing and implementing the quality control systems, and any company you tried to convince to use a set of 4 or 5 tests which are mathematically unrelated to each other to define it's purity  would have had you down the road before you finished speaking, no matter how gold plated you tried to make it sound. You may benefit from the current definition, while real beekeepers are seeing their quality product fail testing because numpties thought something was better than nothing.

Edited by Sailabee
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't fault MPI for moving on a standard when like Adam says beekeepers had been failing to agree for years but I can fault them for getting it wrong and I can fault Apinz for not trying to correct the mistakes. A lot of fairly low grade manuka passes with flying colours and it looks like 20% of relatively high grade manuka fails.I also call MPI to fault for failing to stop the deliberate adulteration of manuka honey with other honeys . You have to fill out all sorts of harvest declarations et cetera and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that when a Packer buys 50 ton of manuka and 50 ton of honeydew et cetera and then sells 100 tons of pure manuka someone is telling Porky's. What's the use of all the paperwork if they can't use it. I'm sure if there was the will they could go back through a lot of records and if not prosecute at least name and shame so that we all knew who helped bring dishonesty into the beekeeping industry.

Times of certainly changed ,I remember when one packer used to sell his honey as CITRUS  Apiarys  HONEY  To try and disguise the fact that it was manuka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last few days to vote, weather it’s a yes or no. Today or tomorrow is the last day before you can send it in and make sure it gets there on time to be counted. Happy voting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23 February 2019 at 7:49 PM, john berry said:

I can't fault MPI for moving on a standard when like Adam says beekeepers had been failing to agree for years but I can fault them for getting it wrong and I can fault Apinz for not trying to correct the mistakes. A lot of fairly low grade manuka passes with flying colours and it looks like 20% of relatively high grade manuka fails.I also call MPI to fault for failing to stop the deliberate adulteration of manuka honey with other honeys . You have to fill out all sorts of harvest declarations et cetera and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that when a Packer buys 50 ton of manuka and 50 ton of honeydew et cetera and then sells 100 tons of pure manuka someone is telling Porky's. What's the use of all the paperwork if they can't use it. I'm sure if there was the will they could go back through a lot of records and if not prosecute at least name and shame so that we all knew who helped bring dishonesty into the beekeeping industry.

Times of certainly changed ,I remember when one packer used to sell his honey as CITRUS  Apiarys  HONEY  To try and disguise the fact that it was manuka.

Sorry John APINZ and HUMFA and we thought NZBeekeeping were trying to change things, but the threat of the court case stopped MPI in their tracks, they changed their tune a little and declared that it is all sorted. We have still been talking to MPI to change the standard as we are not happy where it is at.

Share this post


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

@Dennis Crowley what was the standard going to be before it was changed at the last minute?

It looks like you will not get an answer to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2 MAP was originally set at 5 and is now 1. .

Under the original definition my honey would've romped home as mono floral manuka but with a 3PLA of 590 which is fine for pure manuka but too high for mono floral manuka it fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the consultation stage 2MPA was going to 1 and was put to 5 when the rules were coming in and the court case resulted in multi being put back to 1 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had 1 sample last season that had 2MAP at 4.9 and 3PLA at 400 which made it non Manuka  so not either by the definition 

on retest 2MPA went 5 and 3PLA to 410 which made it mono Manuka 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rob Atkinson said:

Had 1 sample last season that had 2MAP at 4.9 and 3PLA at 400 which made it non Manuka  so not either by the definition 

on retest 2MPA went 5 and 3PLA to 410 which made it mono Manuka 

Did you retest straight away ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After discussion with Lab when I got 1st result I got the same sample tested again 

Share this post


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

The 2 MAP was originally set at 5 and is now 1. .

Under the original definition my honey would've romped home as mono floral manuka but with a 3PLA of 590 which is fine for pure manuka but too high for mono floral manuka it fails.

 

Other way around John . . originally at 1 and then set to 5.

And you 590 3PLA would have made it too high for *multi* manuka  (kanuka being a contributor to 3PLA). 

  • Good Info 1

Share this post


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

 

Other way around John . . originally at 1 and then set to 5.

And you 590 3PLA would have made it too high for *multi* manuka  (kanuka being a contributor to 3PLA). 

Why was 3-PLA ever chosen as one of the Manuka Markers- just had a batch of straight Kanuka test at 3100 for 3-PLA.  It is an amazing marker for indicating purity of Kanuka, it does nothing to indicate the purity of Manauka, only adds to the confusion, and allows fraudulent behaviour by the blending masters out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

After discussion with Lab when I got 1st result I got the same sample tested again 

So incorrect result  first time around ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, David Yanke said:

Why was 3-PLA ever chosen as one of the Manuka Markers- just had a batch of straight Kanuka test at 3100 for 3-PLA.  It is an amazing marker for indicating purity of Kanuka, it does nothing to indicate the purity of Manauka, only adds to the confusion, and allows fraudulent behaviour by the blending masters out there.

 

The standard is not based on levels of any one marker - it was the statistical modelling of all 5 markers (this is after using the CART model for many different markers that were assayed across manuka and other variety honeys). As such, 3-PLA does a very good job at contributing to the standard.

That's as I understand the standard anyway

  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nikki watts said:

So incorrect result  first time around ??

 

No - there is always a variability in quantitative testing. . . .and a result so close to the threshold would have made the lab suggest a re-test I would say.

@Jacob has mentioned this before and would be better placed to comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, nikki watts said:

So incorrect result  first time around ??

I would say with in margin of error, which is why I got a retest done for my own education. Got it over the line to mono and buyer took it as that having been informed it was retested 

there was also a suggestion I find a mate with a drum of nice kanuka 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Rob Atkinson said:

I would say with in margin of error, which is why I got a retest done for my own education. Got it over the line to mono and buyer took it as that having been informed it was retested 

there was also a suggestion I find a mate with a drum of nice kanuka 

Just sold my 'nice Kanuka' for $19/kg- was being blended to create much larger batches of both Mono and Multi Manuka,  so the Kanuka becomes Manuka, and allows other honeys in the blend to become Manuka as well. This blending is just normal behaviour and accepted now- it should be seen for what it is- fraud.  The Standard with 3-PLA playing such a pivotal role encourages this.  3-PLA does not contribute in any positive way to the Standard.  The Standard was meant to bring confidence to the Manuka Market Place- it just adds to the uncertainty and distrust. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Trevor Gillbanks said:

It looks like you will not get an answer to this.

Are you happy with the answer Trevour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Yanke said:

Just sold my 'nice Kanuka' for $19/kg- was being blended to create much larger batches of both Mono and Multi Manuka,  so the Kanuka becomes Manuka, and allows other honeys in the blend to become Manuka as well. This blending is just normal behaviour and accepted now- it should be seen for what it is- fraud.  The Standard with 3-PLA playing such a pivotal role encourages this.  3-PLA does not contribute in any positive way to the Standard.  The Standard was meant to bring confidence to the Manuka Market Place- it just adds to the uncertainty and distrust. 

That's a good price! 

You say it's fraud but sold it anyway.  Not sure what I mean, I guess money talks and needs must. 

Share this post


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

Are you happy with the answer Trevour

It was not me asking the question. @frazzledfozzle asked that same question several times. 

It has drawn quite a lot of discussion which is very good.

Thanks to all the contributors.

Edited by Trevor Gillbanks
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Yanke said:

Just sold my 'nice Kanuka' for $19/kg- was being blended to create much larger batches of both Mono and Multi Manuka,  so the Kanuka becomes Manuka, and allows other honeys in the blend to become Manuka as well. This blending is just normal behaviour and accepted now- it should be seen for what it is- fraud.  The Standard with 3-PLA playing such a pivotal role encourages this.  3-PLA does not contribute in any positive way to the Standard.  The Standard was meant to bring confidence to the Manuka Market Place- it just adds to the uncertainty and distrust. 

 

I guess though that you wouldn't have got $19/kg unless it was being used this way.  Better than $6/kg!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Yanke said:

This blending is just normal behaviour and accepted now- it should be seen for what it is- fraud.

At least it's rotten scurvy packers doing it and not honorable beeks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have honey that has admittedly not pure manuka. It has a potential UMF of 10+ and yet it is classified as having no manuka in it at all. How can anyone justify that as good science.

PS  I didn't add sunscreen to it.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the 5 should have been left a one and no multi category 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be advised that this topic is currently being actively monitored by moderators and it may be locked at any time.

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...