Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New listings
New media comments
New resources
New calendar events
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Calendar
New events
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Classifieds
New listings
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
Commercial Beekeeping in New Zealand
Entering the industy...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Welcome to NZ Beekeepers+
Would you like to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rob's BP" data-source="post: 11436" data-attributes="member: 251"><p>The other thing the govt did wrong was to set those markers & levels. They disqualified the highest UMF honey i.e. Northland's. </p><p>If the govt did what Winston Peters (among others) wanted they would have said that UMF honey = Manuka, which makes sense to the market and provides official support to the strongest advocate for MH. Instead they've informed the market that UMF doesn't necessarily = Manuka, thereby creating doubt in the market. Manuka was in high demand and got big bucks for its efficacy not for its Manukaness (however that was defined), the govt redefined the game as Manukaness and consumers shrug and say 'so what'. </p><p>Additionally, the market and pricing was created from Dr Molan (and others) published research and promotion of "Manuka"'s efficacy against external wounds & burns. There has been very little significant research produced showing Manuka's efficacy over the last 20 years. Consumers need new research, new reasons to buy, and they haven't had it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rob's BP, post: 11436, member: 251"] The other thing the govt did wrong was to set those markers & levels. They disqualified the highest UMF honey i.e. Northland's. If the govt did what Winston Peters (among others) wanted they would have said that UMF honey = Manuka, which makes sense to the market and provides official support to the strongest advocate for MH. Instead they've informed the market that UMF doesn't necessarily = Manuka, thereby creating doubt in the market. Manuka was in high demand and got big bucks for its efficacy not for its Manukaness (however that was defined), the govt redefined the game as Manukaness and consumers shrug and say 'so what'. Additionally, the market and pricing was created from Dr Molan (and others) published research and promotion of "Manuka"'s efficacy against external wounds & burns. There has been very little significant research produced showing Manuka's efficacy over the last 20 years. Consumers need new research, new reasons to buy, and they haven't had it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What type of honey is New Zealand famous for?
Post reply
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
Commercial Beekeeping in New Zealand
Entering the industy...
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…