Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

Ted last won the day on September 21 2019

Ted had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

367 Excellent

About Ted

  • Rank
    House Bee


  • Beekeeping Experience
    Commercial Beekeeper


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. And what about non Manuka?
  2. Ahem - Manuka/Kanuka pollen count!!🤣
  3. With the benefit of hindsight it’s a pity we didn’t market it as UMF Honey or Medical Honey - taking any floral reference out of the name and valuing it entirely on its umf rating. Problem solved!!
  4. Why was that though - because they couldn’t tell the difference based on pollen??😉 I actually like pollen counts to be used to identify honey types as long as it’s accurate and I think of M & K as two different types. I was paid for my honey based on umf content but I take your point. Yes umf is what they wanted. MPI obviously aren’t concerned about that and appear to be solely concerned with making sure it is just Manuka that is sold as such - codex presumably comes into the equation.
  5. 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.
  6. No - how do you know he could - because he told you? And then provides a hand written analysis with Manuka/Kanuka combined?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?? 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!!
  10. 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?? Posted January 23 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...! Edited January 23 by Kate R added extra photo 1 1 5 Not quite right but you get the idea!!
  11. The point I was making regarding $30 honey was just because it’s sitting on a shelf doesn’t mean consumers are actually buying it or if they are the volume would be insignificant. As to where our pasture honey is going - no idea - is it going anywhere at the moment??
  12. I’m sorry but I most certainly didn’t make a personal attack on you. What you are saying is 100% incorrect and I am simply ensuring anyone else reading these posts knows it. Just as well it’s your last post on this subject or you might find Comvitas lawyers knocking on your door!!😉
  13. Showing your ignorance here and providing false and fictitious information. The partly paid share scheme offers staff shares at 10 cents each but as the name suggests they are only partly paid and not in the staff members control. If they are sold the staff member has to pay the balance of what they were purchased at - for example if the share price is $9 at the time of purchase they will have to pay $8.90 at time of sale. At the current share price they are obviously not doing very well in that scheme!!
  14. OMG - have you actually had a look at Comvitas independently audited results for the last 3 years?? They do not make pretty reading and most certainly do not show “great profits” - quite the opposite!! That’s why the business has had a major restructure with a large number of job losses. $30 a kg honey sitting on a shelf in Singapore doesn’t mean it’s actually selling. What was the brand and when was it packed?
  15. Yes I hear you but distribution to where?? Sounds like your talking about a bulk commodity distribution centre - still at the mercy of the world market price (which is pretty much where we are now).
  • Create New...