Contributing to the industry
- Thread starter JohnF
- Start date
This is the issue. You can't jump from one thing to another - these things take time (esp in the case of marketing). Look at the glyphosphate - we have no-one looking at how that is getting into our honey, how wide-spread the issue is and how it might be mitigated.
You might bash ApiNZ for whatever reason - but there will be plenty of people who are just waiting to ride on the coat tails of whatever work is done by industry bodies. Is that fair and reasonable?
As has been said earlier on there is lots of stuff being done by the grass roots.
To say people are riding on coat tails is a bit strong. Not everybody agrees with some of the research being done. I my case the willow tree aphid has often saved a poor season. The honey dew might be iffy but its better than nothing. I am dead against any research in this area, does this make me coat puller ?
The coat tailing whine has worn away its coat, maybe a new cause to follow might be needed
Fine. This point comes up regularly. I never see any realistic funding solution for this? There seems to be little understanding of the cost associated? I never see any cohesive realistic 'Marketing Story' other than same old clean, green, beautiful. The only people that appear to put their hands in their pockets and commit to marketing are a few of the larger packers.
Then a multiple of comments come forward on this forum complaining about the price per kg and all the money going to the packers. Please tell me who is going to pay for all this marketing. If the packers were not funding this individually there would be none of any consequence.
Any grass-root stuff you know of Stephen, that can be shared in terms of work being done? Would be good to know. Don’t need to know the results. Not on the scrounge. . .
If you think riding on coat tails is a bit strong, then you probably won’t like the free loading comment either. I am not criticising individual people (and am in no position to do so).
Good to hear the comment about the willow aphid. How do you find extracting the cement honey? Also, what about the damage to the willows? Spoiling of sheep wool? Sorry - another thread.
Not sure what you mean about cost tailing wearing - but riding cost tails is across industry bodies.
Nice one John .... I mean that ...... and I'm sure that deep down we all want to paddle the Waka to the destination ..... we just need to put aside our differences and focus on the destination.
How powerfull would that be ....
And as Frazz says, we need a marketer to work for the common good ..... or failing that, our current buyers and marketers to take up the lead and call the stroke for the Waka that all us Hill Billy beekeepers in the back blocks paddle.
We who are good at what we do can then flourish under the skill of the marketers, and support our local communities with employement, and broken machinery that needs fixing , and up grades on trucks and gear , and socialising with our neighbours at the local watering hole ......
There is a place amongst the hills
We like to call Fort Arthur
It's a rugged place
A gentle place,
Where man and bee forget man's race
Content to kneel on bended knee
With furroughed brow
And forward lean
In humble supplication to his queen.
Here endeth the Epistle
Praise be to the Queen.
You know, I'm not even sure you need to put aside the differences James (how boring would *that* be?) - in my opinion, its more recognising that there are indeed differences but realising that a rising tide floats all boats and move forward . . .
Perhaps that's a bit Kumbaya . . . but if you want to think more coldly about it - what are the other options?
Ah ,,, the rising tide ..... and Grant's not gonna like me again for sidetracking .......the naming of Whakatane happened when the waka beached on the shore and the Wahine went off to gather food and water, and left Tane to keep an eye on the waka, but Tane wandered off to check out the next bay. The boat was lifted by the incoming tide and started to drift aimlessly ,and on the Wahine's return the cry to be heard was where the Whak'a'Tana.
Just saying.
Just saying.
riding on coat tails ? Like when I pay the fee for our beekeeper listing ?
like paying for tests so a lab can tell me if we have MPI derived manuka honey, like our AFB levy etc etc ?
Theres plenty of people riding our coat tails welcome to our world .
The term 'free-rider' for me has has always related to people who do not contribute to an overall industry good being paid for by their peers in an industry body, and get a free ride. It was one of the principles of the Commodity Levies Act - a levy might be more likely to allowed if it could be shown that there was likely to be a significant free-rider problem with voluntary membership.
"Investment in such goods and services [research and extension] is likely to result in benefits (spillovers or positive externalities) to people who do not pay for them (free-riders). Therefore, firms behaving rationally in a free market are likely to provide fewer of these goods and services than is socially optimal." (https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/3736/direct)
Go, the free market, @James !
"Investment in such goods and services [research and extension] is likely to result in benefits (spillovers or positive externalities) to people who do not pay for them (free-riders). Therefore, firms behaving rationally in a free market are likely to provide fewer of these goods and services than is socially optimal." (https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/3736/direct)
Go, the free market, @James !
That's not riding on coat tails - that's your professional/legal requirements Frazz.
Riding on coat tails is achievements from a person or group that benefit someone without that someone having contributed (financially or otherwise) to that person/group.
And there's the thing - you seem to refuse to believe that you're part of a bigger industry. I don't think the suppliers of varroa treatments or hiveware think 'damn beekeepers - riding on our coat-tails again'
I don’t really get that ?
we pay for varroa treatments and hiveware and the company supplying make a profit.
as for professional legal requirements those were non existent a few short years ago and The world still turned without them.
when this whole idea of the commodity levy came up and a survey was done about what research beekeepers would like to see money spent on it made my blood run cold.
there were all sorts of things wanted but hardly anyone wanted to spend money on marketing and getting honey sold.
I don’t want our hard earned money being forced off us under the pretext of a research levy and being handed out to others to research stuff that doesnt help get honey sold.
If beekeepers can’t sell their honey they are stuffed plain and simple.
Sorry Frazz but that's just simply skewed. You are re-writing history and using the current market climate as an indicator for the levy back in 2019. The research funds were for looking at bee health (varroa controls, AFB etc), honey etc . . .there were separate funds in the commodity levy for market access and the benefits for other honeys. But yes, the largest percentage was for science & research. And look how that science & research has benefitted other primary industries.
What I meant here, is that the industry is greater than just beekeepers. Packers and suppliers could see the benefit of contributing to a levy (even if not obliged to) - its the beekeepers that cant. That's the choice of beekeepers. But you simply cant have it both ways - who do you expect to pay for the marketing of your honey ?
John F, do you pay a hobbyists contribution to ApiNZ? Not sure how much of your business is dependent on Beekeeping.
Could the Ecrotec/Ceracell type businesses not contribute some type of levy?
How about those queen breeders?
Could the Ecrotec/Ceracell type businesses not contribute some type of levy?
How about those queen breeders?
Yep, I have 5 hives scattered around the place, in the most inefficient manner possible and pay the hobbiest fee of about $85 per year from memory. While we have some of our income from bees/honey, we have also spent considerable money on the development of new methods for e.g. varroa resistance testing, new pathogens such as Lotmaria and a substantial multi-year AFB testing project.
I understood that some of the suppliers were looking at contributing but the issue was that honey was the commodity that the levy applied to - I cant remember all the details but @Dennis Crowley was heavily involved.
I think you're asking Gino - would we have contributed to a levy? As both commercially involved and also a hobbiest who benefits from a strong industry then yes.
With ApiNZ, it is based on your hive numbers
I understood that some of the suppliers were looking at contributing but the issue was that honey was the commodity that the levy applied to - I cant remember all the details but @Dennis Crowley was heavily involved.
I think you're asking Gino - would we have contributed to a levy? As both commercially involved and also a hobbiest who benefits from a strong industry then yes.
With ApiNZ, it is based on your hive numbers
"Back in the old days" as many of my posts start...
Even when there was a compulsory levy in place (c.f. Hive Levy, Commodity Levy) the National Beekeepers' Assn purported to represent the entire industry, even those interests that were not being levied. That is, the hobbyist element 'back then' was significant, but the NBA worked on many issues hobbyists benefited from.
But the other "back in the old days" is the relationship with the packing end of the industry. Though there was always some degree of mistrust, packers were seen to be an integral part of 'the beekeeping industry' back then. Many were producer/packers, and their long term interests were for the most part aligned to that of the NBA. Now there seems to be so much more distrust. Of packers. Of other beekeepers. Of organisations that could be used for the good of the industry...
Even when there was a compulsory levy in place (c.f. Hive Levy, Commodity Levy) the National Beekeepers' Assn purported to represent the entire industry, even those interests that were not being levied. That is, the hobbyist element 'back then' was significant, but the NBA worked on many issues hobbyists benefited from.
But the other "back in the old days" is the relationship with the packing end of the industry. Though there was always some degree of mistrust, packers were seen to be an integral part of 'the beekeeping industry' back then. Many were producer/packers, and their long term interests were for the most part aligned to that of the NBA. Now there seems to be so much more distrust. Of packers. Of other beekeepers. Of organisations that could be used for the good of the industry...
That's an excellent document @NickWallingford - in terms of wider perspectives and also real-life examples e.g. the passionfruit industry:
"The New Zealand passionfruit industry is a very small industry, with less than 50 commercial growers. The industry is worth around $1 million in annual orchard-gate return and generates $25,000 in levy income annually. The New Zealand Passionfruit Growers’ Association was able to use its levy income to part-fund a research and development project on passionfruit disease control at a total project cost of $447,700. This was a three year project, undertaken from 2006 to 2009 in conjunction with Plant and Food Research (Grant 06/094). The project studied a range of passionfruit diseases, their controls, and then prepared a field guide for growers. The total cash contribution of $260,000 for this project over the three years consisted of $200,000 Government contribution (Sustainable Farming Fund), levy contribution of $30,000 and $30,000 from the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Charitable Trust. There was also an in-kind contribution of $187,700, mainly from the industry"
So for $30,000 of levy funds, they got nearly 8 times that in co-funding.