Honey price 2024

[Antipodes]

What a crock of crap - Organic honey production, non medicated bees bla bla bla - if you wanna laugh this morning make sure you click on the homegrownhoney link in Antipodes post.

80 to 100 tonnes of honey a year from 200 hives. It's brilliant!
I'm crying not laughing

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

but what's the point if they're giving it away?

 

[jeff33]

80 to 100 tonnes of honey a year from 200 hives. It's brilliant!
I'm crying not laughing

To put it into perspective, I get around 500kg a year from around 15 production colonies + stragglers so not sure how they anticipate 400kg surplus per colony....if I was to leave my colonies 'organic' to produce more honey than my treated colonies (as stated on the link), I would probably have 6-8 colonies left within 2 seasons!!

Something doesn't really add up to their story or I am doing something really wrong!!

 

[jeff33]

but what's the point if they're giving it away?

Bought from China at £1/lb?

 

[Antipodes]

To put it into perspective, I get around 500kg a year from around 15 production colonies + stragglers so not sure how they anticipate 400kg surplus per colony....if I was to leave my colonies 'organic' to produce more honey than my treated colonies (as stated on the link), I would probably have 6-8 colonies left within 2 seasons!!

Something doesn't really add up to their story or I am doing something really wrong!!

No doubt they are skilled beekeepers but my understanding is that those areas around Brisbane ... Logan and around Tamborine etc. are brilliant for bees. Look at where his sites are and the floral sources. Aussie beekeepers move colonies all the time chasing the flows. It's not a stationary thing like over there (save for your heather honey). There is no real winter up there around the Brisbane coast either. Their winters are like your summers.
I heard him on the radio last week. He is competing against low cost imports. Good on him I say. I do feel for him with the workload of 80-100 tonnes a year though

 

[Curly green finger's]

No doubt they are skilled beekeepers but my understanding is that those areas around Brisbane ... Logan and around Tamborine etc. are brilliant for bees. Look at where his sites are and the floral sources. Aussie beekeepers move colonies all the time chasing the flows. It's not a stationary thing like over there (save for your heather honey). There is no real winter up there around the Brisbane coast either. Their winters are like your summers.
I heard him on the radio last week. He is competing against low cost imports. Good on him I say. I do feel for him with the workload of 80-100 tonnes a year though

Not just heather, I’m moving bees to beans osr , low ground to high for clover extending spring/summer flows because it flowers later

 

[pargyle]

Not just heather, I’m moving bees to beans osr , low ground to high for clover extending spring/summer flows because it flowers later

Poor little beggars must get travel sickness ... Do you have them mounted on an old caravan chassis' like Bill Bielby did ? Are all these sites more than 3 miles from each other ? Seems a bit excessive - can't you just site them in a single apiary in the geographic middle of them all - bees will fly miles for a beneficial crop.

 

[Antipodes]

Not just heather, I’m moving bees to beans osr , low ground to high for clover extending spring/summer flows because it flowers later

Brilliant! Proper beekeeping.
Do you provide any pollination services there, say apples for example?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Brilliant! Proper beekeeping.

Yep! Lot of cider made in Shropshire

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Bought from China at £1/lb?

Australia are notorious for honey laundering - some years ago the US banned Australian honey imports for that reason

 

[ericbeaumont]

"spiced honey" wouldn't be acceptable like that

Unless it was classified as a food, under different regs.

Words like raw and natural are not permitted, because they are not specific

Raw is not permitted because it suggests that the honey has attributes beyond those defined by the Honey Regs. https://www.bee-craft.com/beecraft-extra/articles/raw-honey

Natural is an abused term that has no meaning in law, so permission can hardly be given or taken. Two years ago MEPs attempted to persuade the EU to define the word in law, but the matter has gone to earth.

word like 'creamed' would be permitted because it is specific

Doubt it: the confusing dairy reference is relevant because the composition of cream is defined by legislation, and I see no benefit to beekeepers or consumers in hanging on to an old term that may mislead, when the words soft set describe that honey more accurately.

Food Labelling Regs. 1996:
The name specified in column 1 of Part III of Schedule 8 shall not be used in the labelling or advertising of any cream as the name of the cream, whether or not qualified by other words, unless the cream complies with the requirements specified

A UK prosecution of a honey retailer by a local authority is underway to flush out the use of raw; judgement was reserved 10 months ago and the verdict is now crawling its way through a backlog. My take on it is that a cash-strapped local authority (perhaps with the support of ACTSO) would not have taken such expensive barrister action unless the outcome had wider benefit to UK consumer law.

Until now action by TS has been variable and dependent on the vigour of a TS officer to follow the view of ACTSO, or following a public or malicious competitor complaint, but if the local authority wins the current case it is likely to clarify the freedom for TS to act more widely.

 

[Dodge]

Unless it was classified as a food, under different regs.


Raw is not permitted because it suggests that the honey has attributes beyond those defined by the Honey Regs. https://www.bee-craft.com/beecraft-extra/articles/raw-honey

Natural is an abused term that has no meaning in law, so permission can hardly be given or taken. Two years ago MEPs attempted to persuade the EU to define the word in law, but the matter has gone to earth.


Doubt it: the confusing dairy reference is relevant because the composition of cream is defined by legislation, and I see no benefit to beekeepers or consumers in hanging on to an old term that may mislead, when the words soft set describe that honey more accurately.

Food Labelling Regs. 1996:
The name specified in column 1 of Part III of Schedule 8 shall not be used in the labelling or advertising of any cream as the name of the cream, whether or not qualified by other words, unless the cream complies with the requirements specified

A UK prosecution of a honey retailer by a local authority is underway to flush out the use of raw; judgement was reserved 10 months ago and the verdict is now crawling its way through a backlog. My take on it is that a cash-strapped local authority (perhaps with the support of ACTSO) would not have taken such expensive barrister action unless the outcome had wider benefit to UK consumer law.

Until now action by TS has been variable and dependent on the vigour of a TS officer to follow the view of ACTSO, or following a public or malicious competitor complaint, but if the local authority wins the current case it is likely to clarify the freedom for TS to act more widely.

Glad to hear the court case is happening.

Amy details as how we can keep track of the progress / verdict

 

[pargyle]

Raw is not permitted because it suggests that the honey has attributes beyond those defined by the Honey Regs. https://www.bee-craft.com/beecraft-extra/articles/raw-honey

Until now action by TS has been variable and dependent on the vigour of a TS officer to follow the view of ACTSO, or following a public or malicious competitor complaint, but if the local authority wins the current case it is likely to clarify the freedom for TS to act more widely.

I suspect that TS will not bother ... even if one case is found the likelihood is that the cost of prosecution will dissuade TS from progressing to that level unless is it is a major retailer. There are bigger issues in the beekeeping and honey world than getting our knickers in a twist over the word raw ... the daftest part about it is that the discerning consumer recognises the word raw and some actively seek out product indentified as such.

Pursuing anyone over the current honey labelling regulations is a gross waste of public money - they would be better concentrating their time and effort on seeking out those products purporting to be 'honey' and which come (often laundered) from dubious sources and are potentially diluted with 'not honey'. The EU are on to this issue and are looking at the labelling requirements - as usual, in the UK, our Authorities are spending resources policing an issue which only beekeepers seem to have any concerns about ... ridiculous.

 

[ericbeaumont]

details as how we can keep track of the progress / verdict

Not yet...

 

[BeeKeyPlayer]

Raw is not permitted because it suggests that the honey has attributes beyond those defined by the Honey Regs. https://www.bee-craft.com/beecraft-extra/articles/raw-honey

My point almost. It's not that the honey has attributes beyond those defined by the Honey Regs but rather that it is not (in the words of the Honey Regs) a specific criterion. This is a quality that applies (or should apply) to all honeys. Good article from BeeCraft (readable, reliable, authoritative and usual).

Natural is an abused term that has no meaning in law, so permission can hardly be given or taken. Two years ago MEPs attempted to persuade the EU to define the word in law, but the matter has gone to earth.

I didn't know about this issue with 'natural'. However, though it may have no meaning in law, it does have meaning in everyday use. My point is the same as above. It cannot be used because it can be applied to all honeys.

Doubt it: the confusing dairy reference is relevant because the composition of cream is defined by legislation, and I see no benefit to beekeepers or consumers in hanging on to an old term that may mislead, when the words soft set describe that honey more accurately.

Food Labelling Regs. 1996:
The name specified in column 1 of Part III of Schedule 8 shall not be used in the labelling or advertising of any cream as the name of the cream, whether or not qualified by other words, unless the cream complies with the requirements specified

I disagree. You are talking about the noun 'cream', and the 1996 regs. you refer to do not once mention the verb 'creamed'. Although we can never know what view might be taken by a TSO, any suggestion that 'creamed' should not be permitted because of a reference to dairy has the weight of many dictionaries against it, where it is defined as something like 'to make food into a smooth thick liquid'.

There is also the fact that, although honey shows are not interested in it, some people produce 'creamed' honey - soft-set honey which is not completely set, like a thick sauce rather than butter.

 

[ericbeaumont]

where it is defined as something like 'to make food into a smooth thick liquid'.

Yes, but sources are variable: Wikipedia has it as When a dish is described as being "creamed", it may mean that it has been poached in milk, cream or a similar liquid, whereas Oxford Languages defines the word as prepared with cream or served in a cream sauce.

some people produce 'creamed' honey

Perhaps, if they must, but I can hear the customer now: have you added cream? Mistrust of source and identity of food is a significant global issue and as the meaning of creamed is fluid (you should see some of the others!) I reckon it's time to retire it, to simplify and reinforce the message to consumers that our product has not been fiddled with.

 

[Mint Bee]

I suspect that TS will not bother ... even if one case is found the likelihood is that the cost of prosecution will dissuade TS from progressing to that level unless is it is a major retailer. There are bigger issues in the beekeeping and honey world than getting our knickers in a twist over the word raw ... the daftest part about it is that the discerning consumer recognises the word raw and some actively seek out product indentified as such.

Pursuing anyone over the current honey labelling regulations is a gross waste of public money - they would be better concentrating their time and effort on seeking out those products purporting to be 'honey' and which come (often laundered) from dubious sources and are potentially diluted with 'not honey'. The EU are on to this issue and are looking at the labelling requirements - as usual, in the UK, our Authorities are spending resources policing an issue which only beekeepers seem to have any concerns about ... ridiculous.

https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk...Pint-can-trading-standards-debate-rumbles-on#

never underestimate the pettiness of individuals

 

[ericbeaumont]

never underestimate the pettiness of individuals

Lucky for us that they're not running a petrol station, because the Tempest Brewery response was daft and unprofessional: When we released it in cans we did get a few people on Twitter saying 'oh, it's not a pint' and we just sort of laughed it off.

 

[ericbeaumont]

EU are on to this issue and are looking at the labelling requirements

https://www.eurofins.de/food-analys...letter_24_02_en&utm_content=03_honey-label_en

 

[Dodge]

Lucky for us that they're not running a petrol station, because the Tempest Brewery response was daft and unprofessional: When we released it in cans we did get a few people on Twitter saying 'oh, it's not a pint' and we just sort of laughed it off.

Reminds me of petrol stations that say that petrol is inflammable.

Wasn't that an error in the House of commons that changed the definition from being not flammable to meaning flammable?