Richard Drutchas wrote:
>
> I bring up this subject of more money for the board stricty to encourage
> some discussion and not to try to derail anything...... From what I gather,
> most of the promotion is going to General Mills ect. that are using
> imported honey, let the importers pay for what they get. As far as
> giving the importers more power on the board I don't know, what do you
> think? Again I hope somebody out there can call me a fool and explain
> why I should gladly vote this extra penny in.
 
Some thoughts on all this-
1. As near as I can tell neither proposition is favored by the present
board.
 
2. Neither proposition has to be implemented. The board can continue as
is.
 
3. The workings of the board is far from a democratic process. More on
this after I digest more of the law.
 
4. In my opinion, as one who earns his entire income producing, that's
producing,
honey, the only important honey market stat. that matters is the price
of honey in the barrel. Remember folks, packing your honey or even
selling it direct does not increase the value of your crop. The extra
income is due to the increased value your additional labor has added.
The value of the crop itself is determined by the market. You could add
the same value to any barrel of honey and in fact many ex beekeepers
have found it more profitable to do so.
 
5. It seems to me that there should somewhere exist, a group dedicated
to the interests of producers. Not packers, not producer/packers, not
producer/pollinators, and not producer/syrup feeders disguised as honey
producers- actual producers of real honey who are only concerned with a
fair price for honey in the barrel. Neither NHB or ABF do so.
 
6. Some of the NHB members designated "producers" are producer/packers,
pollinators, or, even worse, are agents of packers. Beekeeper does not =
honey producer.
 
7. The producers, not the packers should oversee quality assurance.
Blending other sweeteners with honey results in a cheaper and lighter
(color) product. The practice also increases supply and depresses price.
Sounds like a benefit to packers to me.
 
8.  Honey is a commodity. Commodity producers are price takers, not
price setters. We have no opportunity to pass on expenses to our
customers. Honey packers can. And since the packers benefit directly to
increases in consumption, they should pay the assesment rather than us.
At least with the present NHB setup. The price of all honey would
increase the same amount. That increase would be uniformly passed on.
    I think the present situation is absurd. The producer, who cannot
pass on expenses, pays an assessment designed to increase consumption.
His customer, the packer, who could pass on expenses, then enjoys the
higher price realized by incresed consumption. And he does'nt even have
to patronize his benefectors, he is free to make even more profit by
buying from their competitors- imports! Beekeepers wake up!
 
9.  The only thing I can say about the commodity that I produce, and
distinguish it from the millions of pounds of the same commodity
produced elswhere, is that its made in the USA. I would support a plan
to promote honey produced in the USA - with or without the packers.