Jump to content
Alastair

Should I Care?

Recommended Posts

If I had paid out dollars to join ApiNZ , I'd be spitting tacks...

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yesbut said:

If I had paid out dollars to join ApiNZ , I'd be spitting tacks...

was there ever the slightest chance of you joining ApiNZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChrisM said:

was there ever the slightest chance of you joining ApiNZ?

If I could sell honey at my gate without all the NP1 etc palaver, I probably would join, but what sort of a chance is that ?

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, yesbut said:

If I could sell honey at my gate without all the NP1 etc palaver, I probably would join, but what sort of a chance is that ?

What you mean as they can do in the United States of America? One of the most risk averse and litigous countries in the world? Where problems surrounding the sale of honey don't make it to our NZ news, but every game of the NBA does...

 

I think that is called a 'snowballs' chance.

 

To be fair, I don't think ApiNZ have any pull over previous or current governments, so even if they had wanted to remove honey out of the food act 2014, they don't have the muscle to do it. We'd all have to (re) join Federated Farmers for that :) haha.

 

Assuming you could sell your own honey without regulation, then what would be the point of joining ApiNZ exactly?

 

Back to the OP.

I heard Bruce Clow speaking at the NZ Beekeeping Inc day at Waikato Uni. I was impressed with his enthusiasm but it isn't my area and at the time I couldn't see a direct path forward. I now think there is scope for regional co-op's to work on the problems, I don't see much scope for a national one, except that maybe if there are series of vibrant regional co-ops then they might much later look at some combined forays overseas. It was interesting in the international honey price thread to discover so much domestic honey is actually exported in suitcases of overseas visitors. It turns out you only need NP1 to export!! I think that provides a genuine growth market / opportunity that smaller local beekeepers could target. It is great that NZ Beekeeping has since jumped into support of Mark Goodwin's talk at the same event. It would be super cool if NZ Beekeeping could take a close look at co-ops and some of the ideas people have. 

 

In contrast I'm happy that I did join NZ Beekeeping Inc, but I only consider it second after my local focus in the BoP Beekeeper Group.

Edited by ChrisM
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really a Manuka driven agenda? 

Most Manuka operators also produce non Manuka, and plenty of it. 

Our family enjoyed years supplying the south island honey coop. For 4 odd bucks a kilo. But they took it all, paid freight and supplied tanks. 

We still didn't buy the shares. 

I would support a government decision to fund a possible honey coop. Maybe gov got feeling it was anti-competitive? Bit like backing a business model to compete with current businesses. Too similar. 

What I would like to discover, is the desire for Manuka honey waning? 

Is export dropping? A passing Coconut butter fad. The big boys won't want a negative feeling. But a beekeeper geared up for M with high staff/costs would want to know. What happens if this season we have a bumper M crop? 

A lot of questions, and all guess work.

What I do know, the Manuka chasers are committed to the adventure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruces proposed coop was not anti competitive. The plan was for it to be the opposite, ie, to unify everyone and stop beekeepers having to stab each other in the back.

 

No manuka producers would have been harmed, which is why i don't see why they had a problem. I thought beekeepers would support beekeepers, obviously not.

Edited by Alastair
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with a coop you will still have plenty of independent businesses who don't want more competition.

M is high value export honey, the sellers may not want to 'cheapen' that market with non M. The focus is on M. 

At 5$ surely a company can eke a niche. It's not sustainable long term but could develop.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gino de Graaf said:

M is high value export honey, the sellers may not want to 'cheapen' that market with non M. The focus is on M. 

 

So you think that was the motive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no co-op... why are we not looking at a online auction system like fonterra or a marketing board. Bruce has lead the charge for change and that takes balls. With Aussie weather there must be opportunity for sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capilano import from all over the world, in my view there is not huge potential for NZ honey over there, although it is on the shelves.

 

The recent fires might be a blip but the long term potential for Australia to produce "manuka" far exceeds our own in terms of quantity, especially if they remain unregulated which they probably will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Alastair said:

 

So you think that was the motive?

No idea, all speculation. 

If my business was M focused, how would a cheaper non M be perceived? If labeled as same provider.

You can have several brands, one M the other non owed by a business. To separate, look at milk. You don't see Anchor selling cheap, even if it's maybe packing the same milk as cheaper option. 

2 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Capilano import from all over the world, in my view there is not huge potential for NZ honey over there, although it is on the shelves.

 

The recent fires might be a blip but the long term potential for Australia to produce "manuka" far exceeds our own in terms of quantity, especially if they remain unregulated which they probably will.

Does capilino import comvita product? And sell it as M there and overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gino de Graaf said:

If my business was M focused, how would a cheaper non M be perceived? If labeled as same provider.

You can have several brands, one M the other non owed by a business. To separate, look at milk. You don't see Anchor selling cheap, even if it's maybe packing the same milk as cheaper option. 

.

Interesting thought, a possible motive maybe. Although i think attempting to sabotage all NZ honey except their own would be unlikely although not impossible i guess.

 

To me it seems that high grade manuka and non manuka are 2 completely different markets that are not in competition. 

 

12 minutes ago, Gino de Graaf said:

Does capilino import comvita product? And sell it as M there and overseas.

 

Yes they do, although Comvita has part ownership in Capilano, which i think was set up to facilitate this.

Edited by Alastair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Dennis if you are correct i take it all back i did not know APINZ were in support of the idea.

 

Two different stories from two different sources i guess.

 

Please note though that i didn't name APINZ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta Dennis. Tough words but true enough. 

You have any thoughts regarding demand for Manuka? Is there a quantity of good last season  M mono sitting in sheds unsold? 

Sure, some say going gang Buster's but is it? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gino de Graaf said:

Is it really a Manuka driven agenda? 

Most Manuka operators also produce non Manuka, and plenty of it. 

 

The real money is made from M... other honeys are a by-product or at best a small petty-cash earner.

2 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Fine out what the world wants and then go produce it. Just because you produce honey dosent mean people have to but it.

The world didn't want Manuka honey until it was researched and marketed did it? 

51 minutes ago, cee-bees said:
2 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

dosent mean people have to but it.

The world didn't want Manuka honey until it was researched and marketed did it? The world didn't know it wanted iPhones until they were developed and marketed.

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cee-bees said:

real money is made from M... other honeys are a by-product or at best a small petty-cash

Yes, tho money can be made with volume. Huge amounts of dough was made with M using relatively small volume. Hence M has become king. 

Your thinking that non Ms are a byproduct is probably shared by buyers, and unhelpful. 

Sure would be nice to sell all honey under a banner turning over large amounts of pots to make a dollar. Sheer volume of product will work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gino de Graaf said:

Sheer volume of product will work.

 

Good for your work life balance too....not.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Good for your work life balance too....not.

I think in countries like Hungary , Argentina , Canada you can achieve sheer volume of product with a lot less labour than NZ.

I think that applies to lots of things in NZ where you have to work much harder to achieve the same level of productivity of other countries .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly in Canada that is the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alastair said:

es they do, although Comvita has part ownership in Capilano, which i think was set up to facilitate this.

Edited 14 hours ago by Alastair

Are you sure about that??  The reason Comvita initially got into bed with Capilano was they saw them as a source of high umf Manuka honey (10 plus) which they were desperately short of to meet their contractual obligations for medical grade Manuka.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure about which? That they are part owners, or that they did it to facilitate the sale of honey.

 

If you mean about selling honey, that was my assumption only, sounds like you probably know more. Medical grade manuka has to be processed in Australia so what you say would make sense.

 

Also, your description "got into bed with", may be more accurate than what i said. 😉

Edited by Alastair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alastair said:

Sure about which? That they are part owners, or that they did it to facilitate the sale of honey.

 

If you mean about selling honey, that was my assumption only, sounds like you probably know more.

 

Also, your description "got into bed with", may be more accurate than what i said. 😉

Ha ha - yes to facilitate the sale of honey.

That certainly wasn’t their intention at the start of the “relationship “ but with our current Manuka definition I wouldn’t be surprised if they were shipping drums of multifloral Manuka over to Capilano to be packed and exported as Manuka.  Pure speculation of course.😉

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, what you point out is a big loophole.

 

An overseas person recently asked me about a pretty cheap jar of manuka they found that said "product of New Zealand", but had been packed somewhere else.

 

My reply to them was the only way to know they are getting the genuine article is to get manuka honey that was packed into the jar in NZ.

  • Agree 2

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...