BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:57:05 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (126 lines)
> Allen, you grabbed the detail and missed the message.  I could have cited any
> one of a number of examples of specific component behaviour in a specific
> honey, but chose HMF because it is so widely discussed.

No.  I think I got your point, and I also think your response illustrated one of
my points better than I ever could: (we) commercial honey producers and handlers
are thinking inside a box.

The box is shaped by what is easily, conveniently, cheaply and universally
feasible and the boundaries of that box are what is currently practiced and
demanded.  Incomplete and selected science provides an illusion of solidity to
the walls to that box.  Whenever regulators and consumers devise and enforce a
new test or criterion to detect abuse of honey, the box expands, grudgingly, by
only that much.  We know that there is much more to the subject than what lies
in this familiar cube, but most of us don't want to go there until we are forced
to do so -- and even then we resist.  When confronted with the inadequacy of our
understanding and methods, we fall back on straw man arguments that bring the
debate back inside the familiar box.  It usually works.

Many of us -- maybe all of us if we open our minds for a moment -- think that
honey is not just a bunch of chemicals any more than we think that people are
just a bunch of chemicals, however those of us who are faced with producing and
handling honey must compromise our views to be able to function daily -- and
defend our compromised position.  Simple reality, short-term considerations and
focus on maximizing profit often dictate that we must adopt practices that are
less than ideal.  The real problem IMO shows up when we convince ourselves that
we cannot and should not somehow, someday, do better.

Most of us start out idealistic but somewhere we lose our innocence.  Without
idealism, over time, bad practice drives out good and the common denominator
settles lower.  Cynicism takes over: blending and filtering, heat darkening, and
loss of volatiles in extracting rooms and melting boxes and tanks are accepted
as perfectly 'normal'.  Even adulteration no longer draws outrage as many market
participants quietly try to figure out how much they can get away with.

I'm afraid that commercial honey producers and packers the world over are the
worst enemies honey could have, due to their insistence on regarding honey as a
just a commercial product.  Our  casual familiarity, monetary focus and
consequent lack of respect for this amazing and delicate treasure allow us to
defile it daily, while claiming to be custodians of its quality and purity.
Most amateurs follow along with the thinking and those who don't often fail to
do  so out of ignorance, not enlightenment.

I realise that there are many who think in the mechanistic terms that are used
to excuse what is going on, and I'm hoping to convince them to think
differently.  I also understand perfectly well what you are saying.  I am merely
saying that this is not the whole story and we can't pretend that it is.

> The point is still that the real, measurable changes that happen in honey,
> increase in speed with increases in temperature (apart from the killing of
> yeast - as pointed out by Bob) - but are still occurring at hive
> temperatures.  In fact hive temperatures (we data logged over 38°C in honey
> supers) are too high in my opinion for long term storage of honey.  6 months
> at these temperatures causes far greater change than 5 minutes at 63° e.g. an
> order of magnitude difference for colour change.  And this is a real problem
> for producers in warmer climates.

Sorry.  What I see here is that -- if what you and Dave say is true -- your
hives and warehouses are too hot and need redesign, along with commercial honey
handling and packing thinking and practice.  I started out thinking that the
processing of honey is flawed, and now I am learning that perhaps the
traditional housing we use for our livestock is not properly designed for hot
areas of the world.  We know it is not adequate for cold areas like Alberta at
some times of year. I think you are arguing that since the honey receives abuse
in some hives, that lesser abuse in the honey house and packing plant is
justified.  I don't see this as a valid argument.  Maybe David Eyre's ventilated
hives are what is required -- and I owe him an apology.

> Most statements about "lack of heating" in their honey come from people that
> don't actually have any other point of difference in selling their product.

I am not convinced of that.  It appears to me that your approach is that of an
engineer/marketer.  There are many other ways to view honey.  Although I tend to
give the organic guys a hard ride for fuzzy thinking, I have a lot of respect
for their ideas.  I am regretting my lack of poetic talent at this moment.  I
think a poet is needed to say some of what I am trying to express.

> Most (but certainly not all) producers/processors don't cause a significant
> degradation in the quality of the product from heat alone.  Certainly not the
> damage that used to occur back in the days before pumps, capping rendering
> systems like spin floats, plate heat exchangers for flash heating etc. Today
> I believe far more damage is done by microfiltering the flavour and
> microscopic particles out, and as Allen said, (and I am in complete agreement
> with him) it is no longer honey.

Although we do agree on many important points -- including that one -- we are
talking two different languages and, at least in what we are publicly expounding
here, have two different philosophies.  As a honey producer and part owner of a
large honey producing plant, I have to understand and even argue convincingly
the viewpoint you are expressing in order to function.  I'm just stepping back
here and trying to be objective.

>...you have been painted into a corner by the promotion of sparklingly clear,
> light coloured, liquid honeys, devoid of all pollen, flavour and turbidity -
> and the holding up of these as the ideal.  Then to achieve this "ideal"
> product in the mass market, you have to ultra filter, ultra heat treat
> etc.....  Your marketers have done you no favours at all.

We do agree.

The path from here is downward and increasingly slippery.  If we embrace the
idea -- as so many of us seem to -- that honey is just a bunch of chemicals and
a mass market item and can be manipulated any convenient way that does not break
the rules in any detectable way, we will soon get to zero market share -- and
deserve it.  Our only hope is to embrace the understanding that honey is a
mystical, magical substance and treat it and handle and market it that way.

> In this greater picture, of a difficult market, the constant referring to
> "heat treatment" as the main point of difference indicates to me that the
> average honey marketer does not have a clue about the real potential
> differences of the honeys that can be produced from his/her hives, and how to
> go about promoting/marketing them.  To further make generalized, sweeping and
> incorrect statements regarding "heat" only furthers my belief in their lack
> of understanding of the true qualities of their product.

If I could convince you just to take another look at heat, maybe we could be in
complete agreement.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/
---
I went down the street to the 24-hour grocery. When I got there, the guy was
locking the front door. I said, "Hey, the sign says you're open 24 hours." He
said, "Yes, but not in a row." -- Steven Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2