Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

Emissary last won the day on April 16

Emissary had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

97 Excellent

About Emissary

  • Rank


  • Beekeeping Experience
    Honey Marketer


  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We have now had 3 iterations of the standard. The interpretation around the 3-PLA changed with the change from the second to the 3rd. Before that being over 400 had no adverse implications. However the last iteration meand that the 2-MAP had differing levels and suddenly being over 400ppm 3-PLA and below 5ppm 2-MAP meant a non manuka. The first iteration was "scientific", "statistically robust" etc. and portrayed as completely fit for purpose in a country wide road show. The second iteration was because "we've got more data". So just how robust were those first statistics really? - and if any other shortcuts were taken/hidden from view. The third iteration, which caused the over 3-PLA anomaly, was a direct result of threated court action on the standard. The choice of chemical markers to say a honey is or isn't predominantly from a named plant source is problematic. In the case of manuka we have 4 markers, and two of them are used to determine the difference between mono and multi manuka. i.e. more 2-MAP drives a multi into a mono and the same with 3-PLA. So one would expect if this belief system is correct, that as the 2-MAP goes up, so must the 3-PLA... at least kind of.... mostly..... . Since we have nectar data we can eliminate any contributions from other unknown sources for these compounds and can test the theory that an increase in one substance is (at least partly) supported by an increase in the other substance Using a correlation coefficient we can test this statistically. A correlation coefficient has a result from negative 1 to positive 1. A positive 1 inidicates that they are related in lock step. An exact increase or decrease in both. A negative 1 indicates that the relationship is the exact opposite and a zero indicates there is absolutely no correlation. So what does the nectar data say in each of the two seasons? 14/15 season Correlation coefficient -0.10382 16/16 season Correlation coefficient 0.19814 These two numbers (both close to zero) show there is virtually NO correlation between 3-PLA and 2-MAP in the nectar. Pick a value of one marker in the nectar, and you can make no related prediction for the other. And for people who like to see it visually..... hint, for there to be a correlation you need to be able to draw a line close to or through most of the dots! Because of this huge variability in the levels of these two substances, both in seasons and between seasons, there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind using these markers as the basis of the manuka standard - and particularly these two because of they determine proportionality for the purposes of defining mono and multi manuka.
  2. The markers were chosen by looking in the nectar. The levels of the markers were derived from a CART statistical analysis (the review of the analysis was not very complementary) of honeys sumbitted as manuka. There was no correlation drawn between the levels found in the nectar data and the levels found in the honey. Bit of pulling ones self up by one's bootlaces. Looking at the nectar data taken of two subsequent seasons, the mean of the 3-PLA varied by 5.6 times and the 2-MAP varied by 13.3 times. "Scientific" is a bit of a stretch.
  3. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12207556 "The company's stock closed $1.03, or 20 per cent, lower at $4.14 after Te Puke based Comvita announced a $2.7 million loss for the first half to December 31 compared.... "
  4. Some older data from the Sunshine Coast Uni. Interesting to note their levels for L. scoparium at 3,000 ppm when work published by UMFHA show 5,000 ppm here in NZ. L. polygalifolium is widespread and a great coloniser of significant areas of sand mined country along the Australian coast. It seems they took a reasonable number of samples and think genetics is a big driver of variability.
  5. I think there is more heat than light in this discussion. Some historical perspective might be useful - we've been here before!! We had an apiary levy that followed a hive levy (applied under The Hive Levy Act). The apiary levy was one of the first commodity levies under the new Commodity Levies act. We had many good things come from these levies including research, marketing initiatives and industry planning. Without a levy most of these would not have been done. "Manuka" was a significant initiative from the work funded by these levies. The AFB management programme was another. The NBA executive was taken over by a faction whose politics discouraged many from standing for election, so we ended up with appointed executive members (no elections) and the whole lot descended into a morass of nepotism and political infighting. The Apiary levy failed to be renewed at a vote of the levy payers. The vote against the levy mostly reflected the desire to get rid of the NBA incumbents and their appalling behaviour. Many of the names that were part of that NBA are now against the levy.... These divided politics today are likely to cause the levy vote to fail again. If you want good things to happen, you need money to do them. You need a levy. If you vote no for the levy, then another proposal and vote will be years away. If you think the industry is going well and doesn't have a need for collective action requiring funding, vote no. If you disagree with the politics, efficiency, application of the levy etc, stand for election and fix those issues. Disclaimer: As a marketer (no hives) I have no levy to pay, but will also have no decision over how one is applied. FWIW.
  6. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/110554586/levy-on-beekeepers-uncertain-as-campaign-intensifies-to-oppose-it
  7. Nick was the 3rd of 3 NBA presidents starting with Ian Berry followed by Allen McCaw, then Nick that embraced a "Management by Objective" (MBO) process of industry planning. The MAF pepole of the day; Murray Reid, Andrew Matheson and Ted Roberts (plus others I don't recall) presented the MBO process to industry with annual planning meetings and a published industry plan. That industry planning lead to supporting the work of Peter Molan and employing a marketing consultant (Bill Floyd) who had a profound effect on the uptake of "Manuka" by the media, in NZ and overseas. These presidents were followed by Francis Trewby and Dudley Ward who in turn carried on the good work. Without the foresight of these people and the path they put the industry on, the manuka phenomenom may never have happened.
  8. This discussion started with me giving some data that gives many people on here a good idea of the scale of the problem facing us. You said that information was full of holes and supplied a statement from the MPI website to support your argument. However AsureQuality are the source of honey crop information information in New Zealand, not MPI. Using their data: This graph Times this graph gives you a very good idea of what the coming crop is likely to be. Quoting a bland statement from MPI's website ( out of date and does not look at the hive number trends) to downplay the crop potential is a poor and highly misleading argument. You also offer no information to support your contention that supermarket sales are not a meaningful amount of sales in the New Zealand domestic market. Perhaps you overlooked that I had quoted consumer surveys responding to the amount of honey they purchased and where they purchased it. To recap and elaborate.... Supermarket sales are 2,150 tonnes and that represents (lowest survey) 70% of consumer purchases, making 3,071 tonnes for total consumer purchases. Adding another 2,000 tonnes to our domestic consumption for other ("Adam") outlets is an optimistic amount. Domestic sales..... 5,000 tonnes, tops. And here's where context is important.... even if we double "Adam" sales to 4,000 tonnes, it does little to affect our current position.... A 27,000 tonne crop with 12,000 tonnes of domestic and export markets (or 14,000 if you prefer) on top of a very large surplus carryover. World markets for bulk honey ranging from US$2,000 to US$3,000 per tonne (NZ$2.90 - NZ$4.35/kg) landed in the buyer's market. Unsubstantiated quotes such as your poorly chosen MPI website quote are self refuting arguments and are not useful to people on this forum that need good information to make some very hard decisions. Some of us here have been through this before in 1987 when the World honey market last collapsed. Many went broke. Hive values collapsed as did the NZ domestic price. We are in for a very rough ride. Fortunately most good beekeepers have been extremely profitable, are cashed up with little or no debt, and will survive. But they need good information.
  9. AsureQuality survey beekeepers throughout NZ and average their survey for each region. They then multiply the production per hive by the numbers on the apiary register for each region. So we are reliant on the honesty of beekeepers being surveyed for the production per hive. Being variable and somewhat suspicious characters with egos, large tax bills etc, one wonders if they will over or under state their production. Perhaps it averages out..... The apiary register is almost certainly understated. In Nelson during the EFB scare around 25% to 30% more hives were found that were not on the register. Similar numbers turned up when Varroa arrived, and apiary surveys by the NBA etc. using helicopters support that again. So how might these numbers pan out? The highest crop in the last 10 years was 39.4 kgs, the lowest was 18.7kgs. The lowest hive "estimate" is the register number of 879,578. The highest is that number plus 30% or 1,143,685 hives. So our likely crop range is between 16,451 and 45,061 tonnes. So how "accurate" are the AsureQuality figures? Over time, not too bad. Taking numbers between two years where there is a very low carryover, one can assume that all production disappears into the export or domestic market. Given the accuracy of the export stats and the local scan data, plus others, we can get a feel for how accurate the crop estimates are.
  10. Today.... https://www.windy.com/-Temperature-temp?temp,-41.121,170.112,6,i:pressure,m:cpPakRy Tomorrow https://www.windy.com/-Temperature-temp?temp,2018-12-08-03,-41.121,170.112,6,i:pressure,m:cpPakRy Sunday https://www.windy.com/-Temperature-temp?temp,2018-12-09-03,-41.121,170.112,6,i:pressure,m:cpPakRy Monday https://www.windy.com/-Temperature-temp?temp,2018-12-10-03,-41.121,170.112,6,i:pressure,m:cpPakRy Then cooler mid week and good again Friday, Saturday, Sunday..... With half of December and January to go.....
  11. Unfortunately this makes things worse for the "stock" position. Supermarket sales of product including pallet lots across the dock are counted in the scan data. They then get counted again as an export when the export entry is created. Unless someone is fraudulently declaring goods at export (why would they?) i.e. sumuggling, we now have two sales entered from the same honey, once in the scan data and again as an export.
  12. In a decreasing value market, decreasing volume creates a decreasing total value. All are going down. Unless you provide some data and its source, you are simply provding annecdotes supporting your preferred belief system. This does not help us. In the past supermarket sales have been surveyed (3 that I know of) to be 77-88% of consumers' purchases of honey. The data is what is available. I used simple arithmetic to process it. The data and I have no "opinion". It is what it is. You on the other hand provide no source data, and no calculations... yet say this information is "full of holes". If honey in jars is not the largest volume, then something else is larger. Care to share and substantiate that claim with some data? The 2019 crop is predicted by multiplying the hive numbers by the average production per hive. MPI don't "suggest" anything. The data is derived from the apiary register, and are understated ( hands up those that are declaring more hives than they have) and AsureQuality's annual crop assessments. The trouble with now stating that these "aren't right" is that in the past the numbers would have put us into negative stock.... an impossibility. Quoting "some packers" as though this will make the surplus go away overlooks the whole picture. The exports this year are down 20% on last year. The domestic packed honey sales in supermarkets are down on last year. The biggest issue is our hive numbers and the crop they now produce. We have produced over 30 kgs/hive in 12 out of the last 16 years with a high of 40.7 kg/hive in 2003 (and 40.8 in 1994) Conditions are now looking excellent across the country.
  13. This statement is not supported by the data. Scandata - Total supermarket sales..... Moving Annual Total (MAT) July 2018 volume sales of honey were down 7.1% on a year ago. MAT to November 2018 volume sales of honey are down 5.8% on a year ago. Last quarter sales to November are down 0.5% on same quarter a year ago - the decline appears to be slowing... maybe due to the lower pricing starting to show up in supermarkets. Total annual honey sales in supermarkets - 2,154 tonnes (MAT to November 2018) Per capita consumptionm of honey sold in supermarkets is 450gms. 10 years ago this was 900gms and 20 years ago 1.5kgs. Total Exports this year will be around 7,900 tonnes ( 6,573.4 tonnes to October) Last year 9,635 tonnes. Total production less exports for last 5 years - 65,839 tonnes (2013 - 2018 AsureQuality report and export statistics). Total domestic markets?? I'm going to be really optimistic here and say 5,000 tonnes/yr, leaving a 40,000 tonne surplus from the 66,000 tonnes. 879,758 registered hives (August). 10 year average crop 30.5 kg/hive. Expected average crop for 2019 - 26,800 tonnes. Total supply 40,000 tonnes plus new crop - 67,000 tonnes. Doubling supermarket sales will have a negligible impact on this situation.
  14. Someone's going to get some honey...... https://www.windy.com/-Show-add-more-layers/overlays?rain,-38.048,167.651,5,i:pressure
  • Create New...