Jump to content

Pasture/clover honey prices


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 439
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A reality check for those with rose tinted memories.   Here is the payout schedule of the NZHPCoop.   Taking the reserve bank inflation calculator https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-poli

All honey is capable of doing great things to the throat. I’m gonna start having a spoon a honey regular thru the day. It can’t do any harm and it potentially will do much good. I’m not short of the s

MPI's manuka standards are complete and utter rubbish. I had some very good manuka last year with a high UMF and it was graded as non-manuka yet mix enough clover with it and it becomes multi floral m

Posted Images

17 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Your high manuka pollen counts is because you guys include kanuka pollen as manuka pollen.

The big Cross! Apparently it's possible to distinguish between K and M.

When I was down south we didn't want to know too much when using pollen counts. Just had to be M or similar.

A lot of K is produced though. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gino de Graaf said:

The big Cross! Apparently it's possible to distinguish between K and M.

When I was down south we didn't want to know too much when using pollen counts. Just had to be M or similar.

A lot of K is produced though. 

My lack of I.T. skills don’t allow me to share but recently a Lab person shared images on this forum of Manuka and Kanuka pollen showing how difficult it is to distinguish between the two - near on impossible.  Maybe someone more tech savvy could find it and share @Alastair??

Kate R
   On 22/01/2020 at 9:38 PM,  Maggie Jamessaid: 

The latest labs have good equipment and when I have seen the microscopy slides the pollen is a different shape. Maybe someone that works in a lab could comment on this with an experienced opinion.  

 

228314179_Manuka3.jpg.fa251fa48fa5b15b76ddcf02c4184e44.jpg

Kanuka.jpg.ee43d1b2705c00ae0f8749920300b7c6.jpg

 

One of these photos is manuka pollen grains and the other is kanuka, both taken from the actual plants. The colour difference is just because they are two different samples (nothing to do with the type of pollen). To the best of my knowledge, GNS Science in Wellington are the only lab that can differentiate between the two types with confidence. Xun Li has presented about this at the api conference in the past. 

 

We're always employing pollen technicians if anyone wants to give it a crack!! 😄

 

This is what an actual honey sample looks like...!

 

pollentypes.jpg.3e634638afe3b103d8554c7a7bc242fe.jpg

 

Edited January 23 by Kate R 
added extra photo

Not quite right but you get the idea!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ted said:

My lack of I.T. skills don’t allow me to share but recently a Lab person shared images on this forum of Manuka and Kanuka pollen showing how difficult it is to distinguish between the two - near on impossible.  Maybe someone more tech savvy could find it and share @Alastair??

 

I'm not that person TED, pollen ID is not my field at all.

 

I've heard some knowledgeable people say that the two pollens are near impossible to tell apart, and other knowledgeable people say that they can be told apart. My own take is they can be told apart, but it's difficult and in a commercial setting where time is of the essence, it's time consuming.

 

So Airborne Honey have chosen not to distinguish between the two.

 

Which matters little. Airborne Honey were the innovators in NZ in using pollen counts to determine the purity of honey varieties, and were doing this long before manuka was a "thing", and long before the MPI standard.

 

Honey that Airborne determines to be manuka by their pollen count method, that is sold in NZ, is the same, or better, than most other "manuka" honey being sold in NZ. If Airborne choose to export honey as manuka, regardless of what Airbornes own methods are, their honey will have to meet the MPI standards, same as everyone elses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Maggie James said:

Like many things in life difficult, but not impossible

So you commented that when you’d looked at microscopy slides the grains were a different shape.  The slides attached look very similar to my untrained eye and would be indistinguishable when combined with other pollen grains as in the 2nd slide.  Are they the same as what you’ve previously seen??

2 minutes ago, Alastair said:

 

I'm not that person TED, pollen ID is not my field at all.

 

I've heard some knowledgeable people say that the two pollens are near impossible to tell apart, and other knowledgeable people say that they can be told apart. My own take is they can be told apart, but it's difficult and in a commercial setting where time is of the essence, it's time consuming.

 

So Airborne Honey have chosen not to distinguish between the two.

 

Which matters little. Airborne Honey were the innovators in NZ in using pollen counts to determine the purity of honey varieties, and were doing this long before manuka was a "thing", and long before the MPI standard.

 

Honey that Airborne determines to be manuka by their pollen count method, that is sold in NZ, is the same, or better, than most other "manuka" honey being sold in NZ. If Airborne choose to export honey as manuka, regardless of what Airbornes own methods are, their honey will have to meet the MPI standards, same as everyone elses.

Sorry Alastair, I was meaning your I.T skills may have been better than mine and you could find the post.  I did manage to (sort of) share it.  Looking at those slides if you can differentiate Manuka from Kanuka your a better man than me - particularly as you say under a commercial environment where time is money!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, i get you now Ted. Anyhow the ones you show are good.

 

And that is the route Airborne have chosen to take. And at least they are totally up front about it and discuss it on the web.

 

But as per Gino, a lot of kanuka is produced....

.

1 hour ago, Gino de Graaf said:

The big Cross! 

 

LOL, she does tend to throw those my way 😄

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alastair said:

Oh, i get you now Ted. Anyhow the ones you show are good.

 

And that is the route Airborne have chosen to take. And at least they are totally up front about it and discuss it on the web.

 

But as per Gino, a lot of kanuka is produced....

Yes totally agree.  I really like the philosophy of distinguishing honey type by pollen identification provided it can be done with accuracy as it can with most honey types.  In the case of Manuka/Kanuka pollen I just don’t believe it can be done with any degree of accuracy which has created the illusion in some beekeepers minds that they have been historically producing predominantly Manuka honey and now due to the MPI standard they are not.  Is it actually the MPI standard at fault or is it the previous pollen identification methodology at fault??  Any way as you rightly say any Manuka honey being exported has to meet the MPI standard regardless of pollen count.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Oh, i get you now Ted. Anyhow the ones you show are good.

 

And that is the route Airborne have chosen to take. And at least they are totally up front about it and discuss it on the web.

 

But as per Gino, a lot of kanuka is produced....

.

 

LOL, she does tend to throw those my way 😄

 

I don't have a problem with the Big Cross.  It just says that the person giving the post disagrees with you.

Heck, it would be a very boring life if everyone agreed with everyone else.  We might even have peace and love in the world.

 

Now that last sentence should be able to generate a heap of Big Crosses.  Pretty please.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue being given red crosses either, depending on who is the giver. Especially when the person is unable to explain themselves so the cross is given in lieu of anything sensible. 😉

 

Give that a big red  cross. 😆

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve said it many times in the past, our pollen guy could tell the difference and I remember two things he said one was that ( Kanuka or Manuka don’t remember which one ) had more pointed ends the other more rounded and the same one with the more pointed ends Was more concave on each side.

 

we regularly got a note on the bottom if one polllen type was more dominant than the other

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frazzledfozzle said:

I’ve said it many times in the past, our pollen guy could tell the difference and I remember two things he said one was that ( Kanuka or Manuka don’t remember which one ) had more pointed ends the other more rounded and the same one with the more pointed ends Was more concave on each side.

Could he?  How do you know?  Looking at those slides can you tell the difference - particularly when you look at the whole sample.  As the Lab expert said the only one she knew who could tell the difference with any confidence was GNS Science in Wellington.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...

 

There has been the odd post from someone who says they submitted a sample that they knew was a particular honey, but it came back with a result of high pollen of some other type, which the beekeeper knew the honey was not.

 

To me this highlights an issue with the pollen analysis method. Every so often we'll put a comb through the extraction line that is clogged up with pollen. Or maybe a bunch of combs with a few cells each. This has potential to dump pollen into the honey that may, or may not, represent the main floral type of the honey, and could skew the results.

 

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

image.jpg

@Alastair yes Kanuka Manuka as one because that’s what Manuka honey used to be for as long as Manuka honey had been produced the two were were considered one. 

Have a look at the analysis look at all the pollens he identified.

he also did a taste profile etc.

many pollen analysis done today have a very high percentage of unidentifiable pollen probably because the technicians can’t be faffed learning more than the most prevalent which is a real shame IMHO

He was identifying weird “crud” in our honey which was willow dew meliotoze (sp) before we even knew the willow aphis existed.

 

He was very interesting and full of information we miss him a lot :( 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

image.jpg

@Ted how did he know ?

because he was a pro had been doing it for many many years.

 

 

No - how do you know he could - because he told you?  And then provides a hand written analysis with Manuka/Kanuka combined?  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ted he had no reason to make it up Kanuka Manuka it didn’t matter to the buyer.

 

Honey was sold on the pollen analysis anything with too much dew was harder to sell and we got a lower price because of low total pollens and high conductivity.

 

The buyers don’t want the honey separating out on the shelf.

 

not sure why you think a handwritten analysis is somehow inferior to someone’s PA tapping it out on a “puter“

 

@Ted I get the impression you have been beekeeping for a long time I could be wrong feel free to correct me.

how did you differentiate between Manuka and Kanuka before the MPI standard ?

Edited by frazzledfozzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

@Ted he had no reason to make it up Kanuka Manuka it didn’t matter to the buyer.

 

Honey was sold on the pollen analysis anything with too much dew was harder to sell and we got a lower price because of low total pollens and high conductivity.

 

The buyers don’t want the honey separating out on the shelf.

 

not sure why you think a handwritten analysis is somehow inferior to someone’s PA tapping it out on a “puter“

 

@Ted I get the impression you have been beekeeping for a long time I could be wrong feel free to correct me.

how did you differentiate between Manuka and Kanuka before the MPI standard ?

I have been beekeeping for over 30 years.  Pre MPI standard our Manuka honey was sold based on UMF.  Manuka honey only took off because of the discovery of UMF so that is what the consumer were wanting.  It could have been any honey - if it had the “magical properties “ it would have taken off.  So.... however Manuka/Kanuka was historically classified it is irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alastair the price for that particular batch I don’t know I’m not the best book keeper.

for most of the boom the prices we received were between $9 kg and $25 kg.

 

before the boom average of $2.50 with payments spread over 9-10 months.

I remember our first real honey check it was $24,000 and that was super exciting pretty much a years gross wages  :) 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Ted said:

I have been beekeeping for over 30 years.  Pre MPI standard our Manuka honey was sold based on UMF.  Manuka honey only took off because of the discovery of UMF so that is what the consumer were wanting.  It could have been any honey - if it had the “magical properties “ it would have taken off.  So.... however Manuka/Kanuka was historically classified it is irrelevant.


yes it’s irrelevant now but you are questioning me on Kanuka Manuka pollens and Kanuka adulterating Manuka etc etc ignoring the fact that before MPI told us what Manuka is Kanuka was and will always be part of Manuka honey.

 

Your honey may have been sold based on UMF but having UMF doesn’t mean your honey is solely or mainly Manuka. 
So on one side you say before the MPI standard we shouldn’t have sold honey on pollen count Because Kanuka was being sold as Manuka but then you tell me you sold your honey on UMF content no matter the floral sources

 

I’d say pot-kettle to that.

 

If UMF is what the consumer wanted and was buying Manuka for then what of the high UMF honey produced in Northland that is now not passing the standard ?

 

If UMF was the magic ingredient why was it not the first cab of the rank when it came to MPI and a Manuka standard ?

 

just for the record I completely agree with you that UMF/NPA/MG /MGO and any other iteration of activity is what customers want so I feel for the beekeepers who have been producing this honey and now are told by the office wollers in Welly that their honey no longer fits the profile. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pity the guy is deceased. He had so much knowlege. I sent him a sample asking for a pollen analysis and it can back with a trace of sodium chloride even though the site was 5 kms from the sea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bighands said:

What a pity the guy is deceased. He had so much knowlege. I sent him a sample asking for a pollen analysis and it can back with a trace of sodium chloride even though the site was 5 kms from the sea.


he’s very much missed around these parts. Every beekeeper top of the South used his services and a lot from all round the country did also. 

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

@Alastair the price for that particular batch I don’t know I’m not the best book keeper.

 

Oh sorry Frazz, i meant how much to have the analysis done? 

 

It's obviously very thorough.

 

I didn't realise it was from some years back, who was the guy who did it?

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

I don't have a problem with the Big Cross.  It just says that the person giving the post disagrees with you.

Heck, it would be a very boring life if everyone agreed with everyone else.  We might even have peace and love in the world.

 

Now that last sentence should be able to generate a heap of Big Crosses.  Pretty please.

I just don't like that it's big red and a cross. Angry school teacher response. Youre wrong! That's why I never use it.

Can @Grant change it to something less emotive?? Though I am finding it hard to think of something different.. a melting ice cream? 

  • Like 1
  • Disagree 2
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...