Continuing with the "honey prices" thread, in response to the price
paid for Argentine honey James Fischer wrote:
 
> ... Welcome to the wonderful world of NAFTA ...
 
This is not a NAFTA issue, it's a world market issue.  The only part of
Argentina I know of in the northern hemisphere is the Malvinas.
 
> US honey producers may also soon suffer from a self inflicted wound.
> They have done nothing to make the US consumer aware of even the
> basic fact that US honey is at least under the watchful eye of the
> USDA and agricultural inspectors from hive to their mouth, while
> imported honey is not...
 
This is closer to the point to address deflated domestic prices and may
offer reasons why the US consumer should look for and be willing to pay
higher prices for domestic honey.  An even stronger argument is
pollination - imported honey provides no benefit for domestic crops.
However the domestic pollination arguement will be made to the same
consumers buying Mexican tomatoes.  But the real solution for domestic
problems is heightening public awareness to buy locally.  Unfortunately,
> the four little words on retail honey labels:
> "100% Pure USA Honey" ...
only works if the consuming public gives a damn!  The other day I
was driving and saw the bumper sticker, "Buy U.S. Goods!".  The guy was
driving an Isuzu Trooper!  Figured he was either clueless or a really
funny guy!
 
> ... Consumer-awareness campaigns could be created to remind the
> consumer ...  one need look no further than the "Got Milk?"
True, but do you have any idea on the magnitude of difference in the
budget between the Dairy Council vs the National Honey Board!!!  The NHB
can't even touch Dairy's check book!  And US beekeepers everywhere
scream at the prospect of increasing the assessment.  We can't have it
both ways.
 
> What do the dairy farmers have that beekeepers don't?
An organized voice?  A flush Dairy Council?  Lobbiests?
$$$$,$$$,$$$.$$?
 
> I might suggest that beekeepers need to band together with the dairy
> farmers,
Well, this is a good idea but I doubt the Dairy Council is going to
shout the National Honey Board's message without the dollars to do so.
 
> and join their very effective lobbying efforts,
Dairy has a VERY effective lobby, Honey hasn't been able to get their
act together.  Surprisingly (to me), honey has NEVER had its political
act together from the very beginning of modern beekeeping (the invention
of Langstroth's hive), but that's another story.  Dairy has BIG bucks
and organization.  Honey has small bucks and split factions who can't
agree amongst themselve what they want, let alone lobbying their
representation in Washington, DC!
 
> It seems a natural partnership, "Milk and Honey".
I LIKE IT!!! But who's gonna pay?  There ain't no free.
 
>> U.S. producers must sell their honey so they will
>> match Argentina prices.
>>
>No, US producers need only match the DELIVERED
>price of your honey, FOB somewhere in the US.
 
No this is where both arguements are wrong.  ALL producers have the
option of accepting (or not) the price buyers offer.  If a buyer offers
too low a price the seller can say no (if they can afford to sit on
their commodity).  If enough sellers say no, buyers will have to entice
them with a higher offer.  Buyers can only buy cheap if sellers sell
cheap.  As long as buyers can find sellers willing to accept low prices,
prices will stay low.  This is not US vs Argentina or US vs China or
packer vs producer, it's basic economics.  As long as enough producers
have enough honey and are willing to sell it cheaply enough to meet the
packers' needs, prices will remain depressed.  Who's the bad guy here,
the buyer who offers a low price or the seller who accepts the low
offer?
 
And responding to Martin's latest post:
 
> I am really delighted to have a serious debate on world honey trade.
I too am enjoying this exchange.
 
> ... it is evident that Northamerican beekeepers take for granted their
> production costs (are) much larger than Argentina's.
 
I make no such assumptions and readily admit I have no idea of
production costs in Argentina.  My assertion was that Argentina and the
US are not the only game in town, there are many places where honey can
be produced for less than what it costs me.  Furthermore, my assertion
was that if US and Agrentine beekeepers were to stand firm in their
demands for a decent price for honey, the commodity brokers would meet
their needs by seeking out the producers willing to accept the lowest
offer.  I am making no assualt on Argentina or China or the domestic
producer who sells low.  I am observing that commodity brokers are able
to fill their orders in spite of the fact that they pay a pittance for
what they buy.  Who's the bad guy, the broker who offers a low price or
the producer who accepts a low offer?
 
> Aaron, you are a either a semiologist or a psycologist, aren't you?
Neither.  The point I was making was I was surprised that your response
to "Apimondia anyone?" turned into a discussion on world honey prices,
which was so readily picked up by so many other contributors.  Obviously
honey prices is a hotter topic than Apimondia.
 
> ... I do not understand what you aim to deduct of my communication to
> the list ... do you still think that a "deflated price" is a great
> price for Argentine beekeepers?
Do not turn what I wrote into an assualt on Argentina, I was very
careful in my writing not to make it so.  For your understanding, I
offered the observation that as long as there are producers who accept
"deflated prices" there will be deflated prices.  Not until producers
EVERYWHERE say no to deflated prices will there be no deflated prices.
Elementary Business Administration?  Yes!  You DO understand what I was
saying!
 
What I still don't understand is how Argentine producers standing firm
at 85 cents per pound so struggling US producers can buy it up is going
to bring I.H.E.O. to its knees.  Explain to me why IHEO and other
brokers won't simply buy from other markets!
 
I do not think "deflated prices" are great prices for ANY honey
producers.  But obviously there are a lot of producers who don't agree
with me because enough are accepting the deflated prices to keep the
commodity brokers in business.  You wrote:
> the true and most important interest of beekeepers is to make a decent
> living by making the most money out of your honey.
I simply offer that your definition of a "decent living" is not the
same as others would define it.  I agree that if one sells their crop
to brokers at brokers' prices they are not going to make what you and I
would call a decent living.  Frankly, I don't see how anyone can make a
living on what brokers pay.  But some are willing to eek out a living on
brokers' current offerings.  Either those producers have lower
expectations or they're in it for something besides the money.
 
> Another serious problem that American beekeeping will face is the lack
> of young people engaged in the beekeeping industry.
This is not just a problem facing beekeeping, it's a problem facing
agriculture in general.  In the states you just can't keep 'em down on
the farms.  However in a supply and demand economy this will be self
correcting.  As more get out of it supply will fall, prices will rise
and more people will get into it - or we'll buy our honey from
Argentina ;)
 
Sincerely,
Aaron Morris