small cell foundation

[jim lyon]

I am not here to defend the practices of others, no doubt there are some shady ones out there, I hope they get busted. But you have spoken to my very point why not let testing be your criteria you apparently dont have a problem testing your competitors honey.

[deknow]

....and while we are talking about "implying" perhaps you could be more specific about why you used this analogy in response to my post? Has the conversation really morphed from honey purity to social awareness?

Sorry Jim...I meant no offense or parallel. This was an example using extremes (union labor vs slave labor) in a common object. I deliberately didn't use a "fair trade" analogy because I'm not sure how fair they are.
Regardless of how you feel about the social issues, it remains that two shirts have different values on the market....if they are marketed honestly.

I was only trying to use an analogy of extremes to illustrate my point. I wasn't trying to make any kind of social point.

deknow

[squarepeg]

i don't believe anyone here is against seperating the wheat from the chaff dean.

i do believe the majority here are all about marketing great honey, and would take exception with the examples you provided in your last post.

the problem arises when wheat = treatment free, and chaff = not treatment free.

it's difficult to see how you are not implying this based on what you have posted.

[deknow]

No, I didn't have any problems testing honey that I purchased off the shelf. It was during a brief time when I had access to some free testing by Polarmetrics.
We tested our own honey, and honey from several beekeepers that don't feed...came back pure.

We tested honey that came from a local sideline beekeeper who does feed and is very conscientious....came back pure.

We tested honey from a few local beekeepers/farms that all bought in from the same source...15-30% adulterated.

We tested honey from a larger local honey producer..came back 5% beet or corn....the producer said "that sounds about right" when I told him.

We tested honey under the label of the large beekeeper who supplied honey to the beekeepers above...tested pure.

Also worth noting is that when they were originally calibrating the machine, they asked local hobby beekeepers for samples so they could see some different kinds of pure honey...the developers were not beekeepers and didn't know about beekeeping practice, and couldn't figure out why these samples kept coming up adulterated, when they knew they came from hobby beekeepers that weren't using commercial practices....they didn't know about the feeding.

I'd love to be testing honey....the Polarmetrics machine we would like to get is about $40k, and I'd have to do a bit more research before commiting that if I had it. The nice thing about this device is that (unlike the pesticide tests) there are no expensive disposables (reagents that might cost the tester $200/each), and can be done in 4 minutes without a heavy duty lab.

It remains, I can only do what I can do.

[jim lyon]

Dean: What does it cost to test a sample for the three most commonly used antibiotics (tetracycline, tylosin and fumagillan plus the leading miticides (amitraz, coumaphous and fluvalinate) plus of course an adulteration test? Plus anything else an ethical packer would be concerned about.

[deknow]

i don't believe anyone here is against seperating the wheat from the chaff dean.

Ok...so how are you going to do it? You want to test? Go ahead. I can't afford that... You want to promote all honey as being equal like the NHB? Go ahead....it isn't true.

I remain able only to do what I can do.

deknow

[deknow]

Dean: What does it cost to test a sample for the three most commonly used antibiotics (tetracycline, tylosin and fumagillan plus the leading miticides (amitraz, coumaphous and fluvalinate) plus of course an adulteration test? Plus anything else an ethical packer would be concerned about.

My recollection is that the Penn State pesticide profile is about $285/sample.

Sugar adulteration tests vary by method and LOD (limit of detection)...my recollection is that it was about $45 for the cheap sugar test (down to 15% LOD) and something over 100 for something more sophisticated. Last I heard, no lab contract lab has been willing to claim to identify rice syrup (I think some in house packer labs probably do identify rice syrup internally).

deknow

[Acebird]

Ace, you're going off topic again.

It is only off topic if I answer a question that is posed to me. If anyone else goes off topic for what ever reason it is not going off topic.
Is that how it works Barry?

[squarepeg]

Ok...so how are you going to do it? You want to test? Go ahead. I can't afford that... You want to promote all honey as being equal like the NHB? Go ahead....it isn't true.

I remain able only to do what I can do.

deknow

good question dean.

i guess the bigger question is, is it fair to represent one's honey as superior to any other honey, without having the tests? which as you point out is not practical.

the jeckyl in me would want to approach that by not saying anything derogatory about a competitor's honey, or the practice's he employs to produce that honey. i would rather explain how careful and responsible i was with my practices to ensure the quality of my honey.

the hyde in me would rise up about the time one of my competitors was claiming his honey was superior to mine because of a difference in practice, that may not necessarily result in a better product.

[squarepeg]

welcome to the discussion ace.

[Acebird]

the jeckyl in me would want to approach that by not saying anything derogatory about a competitor's honey, or the practice's he employs to produce that honey. i would rather explain how careful and responsible i was with my practices to ensure the quality of my honey.

Everyone hates the mud slinging around election time but it is hard to educate a consumer on the differences if you don't explain what is wrong with someone else's product.

[Oldtimer]

Provided you got tests to show that there actually ARE any differences.

[deknow]

the hyde in me would rise up about the time one of my competitors was claiming his honey was superior to mine because of a difference in practice, that may not necessarily result in a better product.

Really? You would be upset that a competitor told a potential customer the truth about what you are actually doing?

I only get upset when competitors lie about what I am doing to my customers.

deknow

[Oldtimer]

It is only off topic if I answer a question that is posed to me. If anyone else goes off topic for what ever reason it is not going off topic.
Is that how it works Barry?

My reply is off topic, of course, but just so you know Ace, I've been warned by Barry, had posts deleted, and generally been roughed around, for my tendency to go off topic.

It's not only you. I think the standard of moderation is pretty good.

[Oldtimer]

I only get upset when competitors lie about what I am doing to my customers.

deknow

Well that's begging competitors to get upset when you imply their honey is not as good as yours, when it is.

Same thing isn't it?

[squarepeg]

Really? You would be upset that a competitor told a potential customer the truth about what you are actually doing?

I only get upset when competitors lie about what I am doing to my customers.

deknow

not at all dean. i would never have a problem with a competitor telling a potential customer the truth about what i am actually doing, (not sure how a competitor would know what i am actually doing).

i am 100% open to any potential customer about what i am doing anyway.

i said, i would take issue with a competitor claiming his honey was superior due to a difference in practice, which may not necessarily be the case.

i have no idea what you say to your customers.

i only see that you market treatment free honey as superior to nontreatment free honey.

[deknow]

Who's honey did I imply was not "as good" as anyone elses honey?

I tell my customers that the honey comes from bees that aren't treated.

I educate my customers truthfully and accurately what that means.

There has been a lot of talk of what I'm "claiming" and what I'm "implying". I don't think it's too much to ask that if you are going to accuse me of something, that you be specific. I can't be responsible for what the voices in your head tell you I'm doing or saying. I don't think I could be any more open about what I do.

deknow

[Oldtimer]

Oh Purleeees.

You have posted often enough about how you "educate" your customers.

Seems all honey except what you sell is painted with the same brush. You've even posted that if somebody elses honey is perfectly good, but he doesn't actually take the time to differentiate himself, then he, in your words, "deserves what he gets", when you "educate" your customers.

[Michael Palmer]

Mike, I want to make sure that I express to you _exactly_ how I feel about you:
Attachment 3693
Sorry, couldn't resist

deknow

Good one Dean.

[squarepeg]

fair enough. like i said, i have no idea what you say or don't say to your customers.

i don't know what educating customers 'truthfully and accurately' means.

so, let's get past the claiming and implying, and cut straight to the chase.

dean, yes or no, do you think honey harvested from treatment free bees is superior to honey harvested from bees that have been treated, and should it be marketed to consumers as superior?