Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Bbee

  • Rank
    Nu Bee


  • Business name
    Coast to Coast Honey Limited
  • DECA Holder
  • Beekeeping Experience
    Commercial Beekeeper
  • Business phone
  • Business email


  • Location
    West Coast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That is a good question ... at that purchase rate the backlog of the the various honeys in NZ will be used up quite soon? If that is indeed the case, then why should anyone need a Cooperative to assist with marketing and moving NZ honey - or am I just being unnecessarily churlish?
  2. Being not so old to have lost all my memory, was there not a move towards geographical honey identification some 8 years ago? I recall perhaps it was Airborne (I may be quite wrong here though) who were looking to identify specific regional varieties - partly to stand up to robust testing on typical analysis from XYZ region - to back up traceability and give a marketing edge to specific honeys from bona fide sites? or was this like that Dallas episode with the Bobby Ewing's dream sequence ...
  3. Asked and apparently there is enough inventory right now Adam and our 'quality' honey (although it matches the product lines nicely) will just be sitting right here in the cleared out sheds waiting for sale ....
  4. Hmm, but the many who do both non and manuka would have to pay double fees? That's hardly fair either given the current market challenges for non.
  5. And that makes perfect common sense - no manuka seller wants to be caught out with product that dips out of spec on random testing. The industry needs us both 'specialist producers' and also 'specialist sellers' - whilst some of us take the plunge and sell directly it is often too much of a compliance paperwork headache and costly set up to run more processes (buildings/infrastructure/separate processes/more staff/more paperwork...) and so each to their own I guess. The hard part is when we produce a crop (to the best of our ability) of what appears to be excellent manuka from the organoleptic perspectives but it doesn't make the grade for mono (but theoretically should fly in for multi? - if anyone wants to buy?) and every year's crop is a whole new gamble. I wouldn't like to gamble on this any of this year's manuka offerings though especially around here .... very uninspiring non-manuka year on the whole. In fact, an uninspiring year all round ...... perhaps it shall be like old Queenie said once, this is "our annus horribilis..."
  6. I haven't yet talked with any buyer who wants anything else but exactly that too!
  7. At a meeting with Plant and food once, they were saying that wasps cost councils millions of dollars in eradication and having to close parks etc till they dealt with. I was quite surprised by how much they were costing. Hmm - yes, wasps .... a careful weighing up of how much beekeepers would be paying vs council rates (public) - if not careful then the larger part of the "cost" might be sideways shifted onto our industry in the name of 'research' (cynical Sunday feeling)
  8. The idea of a commodity levy is perfectly fine - in fact I think MOST people agree that it is part of the plan going forward. How this particular commodity levy offer was presented is the problem. Sure, there were roadshows and talk fests, but these were almost all done during a time when the entire industry was far more bouyant and for some, the sudden truncation of sales made for different short term objectives coupled with the onset of the spring and early summer time, effort, energy and money input to getting the new season off the ground take precedence. Then the race to maximise crop and dodge adverse weather etc etc etc. About now, there is breathing space and due to the poor crops many are finished up with the grind hours slightly earlier. Faced with the prospect of a levy on stock (yes from the next season not this and last) rather than actual sale proceeds became one of the major contention points as I see it. The widening inequity gap of volume vs value and the reality of who the large levy payers would be (non-manuka producers) and how that could also split the levy allocation decisions on where the funds should be applied going ahead. I can't help but wonder (and the results will be known soon anyhow) if the levy had been laid out as a % of kg sold (like I believe all other primary levies are) then it would have had an easier passage. But then again, the inequity comes for the fore from the other side perspective. Maybe, if the levy does indeed go ahead, then it is truly time for a concentrated effort of those who opposed it to get board representation to ensure democracy (read - the views of the grass roots businesses) gets properly exercised. As Dennis Crowley states above - some thoughts.
  9. That is one major thing being held over our heads is it not? And its a big one too - that "access' to greater funding is part of the appeal of having a levy to springboard such things. Historically, passing around the hat hasn't been that successful.
  10. Two things for me - levies should be on point of sale (pretty much the standard isn't it) not declared volumes (struggling also with actual legality of the proposed 'auditing' aspect) and the run on issue from declared volumes - the inequity of high volume low value (large levy payer) vs low volume high value (small levy payer). I'm all for some unity and having a peak body (professional effective and proactive intermediary) - and was essentially "for it" also. BUT .... I can't get past these things either.
  11. @Frederick I'm new to the forum and learning my way around the driving of posts so bear with me. I absolutely have no problem with part of the levy going towards administration because it has to replace the subs part of the budget to run APINZ. Agreed, volunteers cannot shoulder this one going ahead, it is not part of the make up of the world we live in now that it can be any other way. And arguably if non-Manuka producers are paying the bulk of the levy then surely they get more say perhaps I need to read again the information on the levy and see if it is hive numbers only or eventually could encompass production-driven representation. The relative profitability of each type of honey is important though, just a little, and should not be lost sight of in the bun-fight. Somewhere on this forum people did comment on relative per kg costs to break even and it is somewhat higher in many cases than the current $4 to $6 for most honeys, if indeed a sale can be made. That does appear to be intrinsically linked to the application of the standard however.
  12. @Frederick - Is that the problem in a nutshell - "providing commercial beekeeping with fantastic representation" - the issue seems to be that many do not feel that they are actually "commercial" - and certainly by past hive number definitions some were classified as hobby, some small commercial and then commercial (under the old system NBA) but there seems to be a prevailing feeling that APINZ is only there (or going to be there) for BIG commercial i.e thousands of hives and essentially only Manuka producers? We all know that volumes of hives does not equal good crop statistics nor does it equal good management and best practices in the field. The major concern for me is that the lion's share of any levy will be paid by those of us who produce quite large volumes of non-Manuka honeys (as we have always done) and are actually concerned we will be left wanting when it comes down to the focus of the spend budget. There is the inevitable bone tossed around of finding 'another Manuka honey' but I am not entirely sure that the buying public will go for that. Any South Island beekeeper will know which honey should have got the go, but is there any room for another honey from New Zealand that should or could be a medical product just like high-grade Manuka? Are the buying entities going to accept it either - perhaps in the past but in today's rigorous testing regimes and potentially unmeetable MPI type standards, it just might be too hard... after all, they are just trade tariffs dressed up as standards. I understand that once the Levy is in place, all levy payers will automatically become members of APINZ and that the subs fees currently paid will be ceased and presumably the 10% gazetted for administration is the sum that is budgeted to cover what the industry subs already pay to it for its continued administration? If a commodity levy is not able to be used for the running of an organisation, then how does this work out? The rest of the budget suggested by APINZ - that is apparently up for a total rewrite if that is what the board dictates and with a viable representation of beekeepers who are "grass roots" as a voting bloc it should be a go-ahead system. That is, if I have I understood the information correctly anyhow. Some incredibly dedicated, long-serving and well-experienced people are backing the commodity levy and I have to consider that when the decision is made to click Yes or No. I think I understand how it is not possible to levy off Manuka production separately in this first instance because of the issues with the standard (MPI must come back to the table and sort this out and is the carrot that we must unify as a body first?) and I definitely question 10 cents per kg if in fact your honey sells (or doesn't right now) for $4 per kg and you produce 3 times the national average crop. Anyone who I have spoken to isn't really able to answer the inequity of that particular question because there isn't an answer that is palatable. Almost a disincentive to produce honey volumes of what are currently unsaleable bush, multi-floral and even mono-floral single sources honeys but then again, there simply isn't enough Manuka in all of NZ for us all to be feeding from that trough. If there was, then it wouldn't be a rare high value honey, would it? But, we need to stop the bickering and get on with being unified sometime and a peak body is needed for our industry.
  • Create New...