# What is raw honey?



## sultan

I read some where in the this forum about the concept "raw honey" without further explnation. What does that concept mean? Does it mean that unheated honey? My mentor in beekeeping Olof from Sweden told me that they heat honey in the USA much higher than what is allowed in Sweden (they do not heat honey in Sweden, they whip it into creamy honey).


----------



## Vance G

My definition of raw honey is unheated honey not subject to filtration to remove pollen and propolis particles in the honey. My honey is strained only. Now I warm honey to slightly over 100 degrees to reliquify crystalized honey but I do not consider that heating.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

There is no _legal _definition of "raw" honey in the United States. Many people would interpret raw honey to mean minimal (if any) heating and the honey is essentially _unfiltered_, but is likely more _strained _to remove at least bee parts and chunks of wax.


I make a distinction between filtering and straining because _some _forms of _filtering _may be used to remove some or all pollen grains from honey. _Strainers _are relatively coarse and are not likely to affect any pollen in honey. Also, as bees maintain at least the brood nest area of their hive at 94 degrees Fahrenheit, it is reasonable that even raw honey could be warmed to at least that temperature for bottling, in my opinion.


----------



## Michael Bush

There is no "legal" definition for "raw honey". In theory it means it has not been heated. In practice I think an honest definition is that it was never any hotter than it would get in the hive, which in a super is probably about 95 F or slightly above. The concerns people have are flavor and enzymes. Heating destroys both. The way the Europeans measure heating is by measuring HMF (Hydroxy Methyl Furfural aka 5-(Hydroxymethyl)furfufural) in the honey. If it is high then the honey was heated too much.


----------



## Nabber86

sultan said:


> My mentor in beekeeping Olof from Sweden told me that they heat honey in the USA much higher than what is allowed in Sweden (they do not heat honey in Sweden, they whip it into creamy honey).


I don't consider whipped honey to be raw.


----------



## Vance G

What is whipped honey? If it is just mixed to be seeded with the small crystal structure required to end up creamy, It certainly hasn't had anything done to it to make it NOT raw. 

What we don't need are guvmint regulations defining all these nuances, something some people seem to demand.


----------



## Nabber86

Vance G said:


> What is whipped honey? If it is just mixed to be seeded with the small crystal structure required to end up creamy, It certainly hasn't had anything done to it to make it NOT raw.


I wouldn't call whipped honey raw honey because following changes that occur while whipping the honey: 

1 - mixed with air = oxidation

2 - seeded with small crystals = change of state (liquid to solid)

3 - Creamy = change of texture


----------



## Santa Caras

besides all the above.....raw honey at its best is straight out of the hive and into the mouth! Ummmumm good!


----------



## burns375

I call my honey raw. It is strained, not heated, below 18.6% moisture and liquid without feeding or treatments. Basically straight from the extracted comb to the bottle


----------



## KQ6AR

I looked for that answer for a long time. Some states do have definitions of raw honey.
The most common answer seemed to be. Not heated over 115F, & not filtered. It may be strained to remove bee parts.


----------



## sqkcrk

Vance G said:


> Now I warm honey to slightly over 100 degrees to reliquify crystalized honey but I do not consider that heating.


How do you warm honey w/out applying heat? Seems like you are parsing words to fit your own definition. Why don't you simply say that you consider honey raw if it has not been heated above a temperature that negatively effects that honey, say 100 degrees.


----------



## snl

Nabber86 said:


> I wouldn't call whipped honey raw honey because following changes that occur while whipping the honey:
> 
> 1 - mixed with air = oxidation
> 
> 2 - seeded with small crystals = change of state (liquid to solid)
> 
> 3 - Creamy = change of texture


IF the definition of raw honey is that it is minimally strained and not heated to but a couple of degrees of what it normally is in the hive, why would not creamed honey that met that definition, not be considered raw?


----------



## sqkcrk

Agreed, Larry.


----------



## cryptobrian

sqkcrk said:


> How do you warm honey w/out applying heat?


Just remove the cold.


----------



## sqkcrk

crypto, Brian.


----------



## zhiv9

Truthfully, comb honey is the only really raw honey. Most people consider 100deg F or less to be raw. If you are heating your honey above 100deg it is for convenience not necessity.


----------



## zhiv9

Nabber86 said:


> I wouldn't call whipped honey raw honey because following changes that occur while whipping the honey:
> 
> 1 - mixed with air = oxidation
> 
> 2 - seeded with small crystals = change of state (liquid to solid)
> 
> 3 - Creamy = change of texture


All honey that is extracted gets mixed with air. The crystallization of honey occurs naturally.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Do what you want with your honey. Heat it or strain it, or nothing at all. The only raw honey is just as the bees made it....


----------



## sqkcrk

Aye-up.


----------



## Acebird

The comb is not honey so I have no problem with the definition of raw honey being honey that is extracted and packaged without the beekeeper adding heat. I don't consider a temperature value as a threshold for honey because you can pump a lot of heat in using a bottling tank (or whatever) without the majority of the honey reaching some threshold temperature. If that be the case the most sensible system would be to measure HMF as Michael suggested. The Europeans are always one step ahead of us.


----------



## Daniel Y

I consider "Raw" Honey to be counter to pasteurized and ultra filtered. As far as honey being pasteurized you wil have to look up how it is done and the temperatures necessary. To many people simply say honey is heated and the enzymes are destroyed. this leads to confusion over what heated means. This is not an accurate description. Honey is heated to a minimum temperature for a minimum period of time. this destroys the enzymes. so it is not heated that is the problem necessarily but the altering of the honey. Once altered I no longer consider it "Raw". For some there is actually a medical differentiation so it is not simply a subjective issue. I know a couple of people that need to eat unpasteurized honey for medical reasons. there body does not correctly produce the enzymes necessary and they get it substituted in part through the honey. They never find the supply reliable though.


----------



## Nabber86

zhiv9 said:


> All honey that is extracted gets mixed with air. The crystallization of honey occurs naturally.


Whipping goes far beyond simple exposure to air. I think that the term "minimally processed" needs to be included in the definition. 

Also, I find it hard to believe that if I put whipped honey in a jar and labeled it simply as "Raw Honey" nobody on BeeSource would have a problem with that?


----------



## zhiv9

Nabber86 said:


> Whipping goes far beyond simple exposure to air.


Does it? Everyone stirs their creamed honey to some extent when making it. I would still argue that it is exposed to the most air when flying out of the comb as a droplet to the wall of the extractor. Is air exposure really a problem?

Extracting, settling, filtering, stirring, pumping. It's all processing.

Whipped, creamed, creamy, firm, solid all mean different things to do different people and yet can all refer to same thing.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

It frustrates me that there is no agreed upon definition of raw honey. There seem to be some that go with as it comes from the extractor - http://www.reallyrawhoney.com - me, I "lightly strain" (another undefined term!) and do not heat at all. Could I call my honey raw and get away with it? Probably.

I hate the idea of misleading the public, even though I probably am by using "lightly strained." The term organic is used all the time with meanings that are closer to the intent of CNG then USDA Organic.


----------



## sultan

zhiv9 said:


> Does it? Everyone stirs their creamed honey to some extent when making it. I would still argue that it is exposed to the most air when flying out of the comb as a droplet to the wall of the extractor. Is air exposure really a problem?
> 
> Extracting, settling, filtering, stirring, pumping. It's all processing.
> 
> Whipped, creamed, creamy, firm, solid all mean different things to do different people and yet can all refer to same thing.


Agreed!


----------



## WBVC

My understanding is that creamed honey is not whipped. Seed crystals are gently stirred in. You then use some of that creamed honey to cream the next batch. Creamed honey is simply a means of controlling the natural process of crystallization.



Nabber86 said:


> I wouldn't call whipped honey raw honey because following changes that occur while whipping the honey:
> 
> 1 - mixed with air = oxidation
> 
> 2 - seeded with small crystals = change of state (liquid to solid)
> 
> 3 - Creamy = change of texture


----------



## gjt

The US Honey board defines it as "Raw Honey: Honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining without adding heat."

EU does not appear to allow "raw honey" labeling. 
It is comb, chunk, drained, extracted, pressed, filtered honey or baker's. No raw that I can find.

"love" it how they defined honey is only from Apis mellifera, and no other. I wonder what they call the A. cerana stuff? Bee barf?


----------



## Daniel Y

The reason there is no definition of Raw honey is that Raw honey does not exist. It is a term born form the consumers awareness of how honey is adulterated in the market place and there concern to avoid the "Fakes". I mention something to this effect to my customers and then tell them my honey is unaltered. It is extracted strained and bottled just as it was made by the bees. I have not added corn syrup to it I have not pasteurized it and I have not collected it from the far corners of the earth and blended it.

I find that most have no idea what sort of things could be wrong with honey but they know there are often things wrong. I have a few that are very concerned about getting pure honey. I simply tell them they can trust me or I can provide honey in the comb. I have actually had a couple of takers on the comb offering.


----------



## sqkcrk

A consumer misunderstanding on how honey is produced and what the term "raw" means? Perhaps? Does anyone sell cooked honey? Or does everyone who heats their honey sell cooked honey. "Oh, that honey is cooked. You don't want that, you want this raw honey."


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> I consider "Raw" Honey to be counter to pasteurized and ultra filtered. As far as honey being pasteurized you wil have to look up how it is done and the temperatures necessary. To many people simply say honey is heated and the enzymes are destroyed. this leads to confusion over what heated means. This is not an accurate description. Honey is heated to a minimum temperature for a minimum period of time. this destroys the enzymes. so it is not heated that is the problem necessarily but the altering of the honey. Once altered I no longer consider it "Raw". For some there is actually a medical differentiation so it is not simply a subjective issue. I know a couple of people that need to eat unpasteurized honey for medical reasons. there body does not correctly produce the enzymes necessary and they get it substituted in part through the honey. They never find the supply reliable though.


I don't understand, Daniel. Doesn't pasteurization destroy bacteria in whatever medium one is pasteurizing, like milk? What is there in honey that can be effected in a pasteurization way?


----------



## zhiv9

Daniel Y said:


> The reason there is no definition of Raw honey is that Raw honey does not exist. It is a term born form the consumers awareness of how honey is adulterated in the market place and there concern to avoid the "Fakes". I mention something to this effect to my customers and then tell them my honey is unaltered. It is extracted strained and bottled just as it was made by the bees. I have not added corn syrup to it I have not pasteurized it and I have not collected it from the far corners of the earth and blended it.


Exactly! Be honest with your customers about your process if they ask and let them decide. If you warm your honey, explain what temperature and why. If you filter/strain it explain how. A lot of my customers want crystal clear liquid honey that is "raw" without realizing that this is impossible to keep year round without apply heat. Other's want a crystallized product that has been coursely strained with bits of wax, etc that has floated to the top.

"Raw honey" is part of the public's push back against impersonal and unscrupulous commercial agriculture practices in general. It could easily be grouped in with "organic" and anti-GMO sentiment. People want to be more connected to their food.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> What is there in honey that can be effected in a pasteurization way?


This is not a serious question is it Mark?


----------



## Barry

Daniel Y said:


> The reason there is no definition of Raw honey is that Raw honey does not exist.


Of course it does. The definition of raw is: in its natural state; not yet processed or purified. My hives are full of raw honey. When I stick my finger into a piece of comb and put that dripping honey into my mouth, that's raw honey I'm tasting. Anyone selling cut comb honey is selling raw honey.


----------



## gjt

When I think of "raw honey", I think as you describe it, except . . . it is subjective IMHO.

To some raw honey might be that is in comb, and does not involve extraction. To some extraction okay, but never filtered. To some filter okay, but never heated. To some heated is still raw, but never above 35C.

We can go the other way too. To some it is no longer "raw honey" if the bees were treated with commercial chemicals. To some no longer raw if it was treated at all.

And, so on. We can also dissect it linguistically, and that would result, again in a completely different set of subjective definitions.



Barry said:


> Of course it does. The definition of raw is: in its natural state; not yet processed or purified. My hives are full of raw honey. When I stick my finger into a piece of comb and put that dripping honey into my mouth, that's raw honey I'm tasting. Anyone selling cut comb honey is selling raw honey.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> What is there in honey that can be effected in a pasteurization way?

Even the National Honey Board recognizes that pasteurization physically changes honey.



> Pasteurization also affects yeast cells which considerably reduces the possibility of fermentation.
> 
> http://www.honey.com/images/downloads/shelflife.pdf


The only reasonable interpretation of "_affects_" in that quote is that the yeast cells are killed. If you value the role of active yeast cells in "natural" honey, then pasteurization results in a lower value product.


----------



## gjt

I guess than according to the US National Honey Board pressure filtering is also makes it non-raw as it removes something from honey that occurs naturally in it.

From the following paragraph in your referenced document, my emphasis:


> Filtering under pressure enhances the clear brilliant color of honey and _*removes*_ some potential crystallization nuclei such as undissolved glucose crystals, air bubbles, pollen grains or any other large particles.


----------



## Barry

gjt said:


> . . . it is subjective IMHO.
> 
> To some [snip]
> To some [snip]
> To some [snip]
> To some [snip]


It's not subjective. The word _raw_ has a specific definition; in its natural state; not yet processed or purified. That limits the use of the word to honey still in the comb. People can take liberty with it all they want to, but it doesn't change the meaning of the word. People need to say "extracted raw honey" if they want to be using the word _raw _honestly.


----------



## gjt

But, by your statement would it not follow that honey sold on shelves often should be labeled "extracted, filtered, heated, raw honey"?


----------



## deknow

Such definitions are not helpful.

If I have a barrel (or jar) of honey that is at 80F and it cools down to 60F in the evening, there is no way the honey can go above 60F without adding get heat somehow....in your warming get room, your car, the sun, your pocket, in your cabinet with a light underneath.....heat is being added....the honey is being heated.



gjt said:


> The US Honey board defines it as "Raw Honey: Honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining without adding heat."
> 
> EU does not appear to allow "raw honey" labeling.
> It is comb, chunk, drained, extracted, pressed, filtered honey or baker's. No raw that I can find.
> 
> "love" it how they defined honey is only from Apis mellifera, and no other. I wonder what they call the A. cerana stuff? Bee barf?


----------



## Barry

gjt said:


> But, by your statement would it not follow that honey sold on shelves often should be labeled "extracted, filtered, heated, raw honey"?


Yes, if someone insists on using the word _raw_ on their label. Otherwise, call it whatever you want, like _honey_.


----------



## deknow

When I eat sushi (raw fish) or a Raw carrot there is no requirement that the fish still have scales guts and eyes, nor does removing the carrot greens make it not raw.

A slice of watermelon is most certainly raw, even though it is sliced.

Deknow



Barry said:


> It's not subjective. The word _raw_ has a specific definition; in its natural state; not yet processed or purified. That limits the use of the word to honey still in the comb. People can take liberty with it all they want to, but it doesn't change the meaning of the word. People need to say "extracted raw honey" if they want to be using the word _raw _honestly.


----------



## gjt

I think raw in your sense refers to uncooked, while with raw honey it refers to 'in natural state'. A shade?

This is interesting for someone whose native language is not English.


----------



## Barry

Can't help you out there, Dean. Convince the wordsmiths to change the definition of raw. In its natural state, honey is stored in wax, not glass or plastic. One must employ a process to get the honey out of the comb and into a container.


----------



## deknow

Pasteurization has a very specific temp and definition...heating to 160F is not pastureizing.

I've never run across honey that had actually been pasturized, but learned that some medical conditions require no viable yeast or mold organosms/spores...which is one reason why hospitals and meals on wheels type kitchens rarely use honey...they must buy pasturized honey.

I doubt any beekeeper or packer on beesource actually pasturized their honey.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> nor does removing the carrot greens make it not raw.


I've never seen a bag of carrots at the store say "raw carrots." Or raw watermelon, or . . .
We're talking about labeling here, are we not?


----------



## FollowtheHoney

At a minimum isn't there a huge difference between heating honey fro 60 to 80 degrees and pasteurization? I believe in milk is pasteurized at 140 to 160 degrees F. In the heat of summer I would think some honey houses get quite warm but still produce raw honey by any reasonable definition. 

Be open about your process and you'll have the most loyal customers and best word of mouth advertising.


----------



## David LaFerney

I consider my honey to be raw and of highest quality, but any which is processed more than mine is no longer raw.

I think that is probably the most prominent use of the term.


----------



## zhiv9

deknow said:


> I doubt any beekeeper or packer on beesource actually pasturized their honey.


The larger grocery store brands here like Billybee and Beemaid pasteurize their honey. Here's Beemaid's description of why:

http://www.beemaid.com/honey-pasteurization


----------



## Acebird

Barry said:


> People need to say "extracted raw honey" if they want to be using the word _raw _honestly.


Barry, if you jammed your finger into a comb and licked off the honey you did extract it so by your definition your eating extracted raw honey. Even most comb honey is extracted from a frame. I can't imagine anyone would object to an extraction process if that is all it was.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> This is not a serious question is it Mark?


Yes, it is. You cannot pasteurize honey like you do milk. Maybe you know something I don't or missed or misunderstand?


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Anyone selling cut comb honey is selling raw honey.


Which is why, when I sell comb honey, I add a label stating "The Only Truly RAW Honey".


----------



## deknow

http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm114222.htm

This chart labels things like stalks of celery and chopped onions as raw....by the FDA.

Barry, check the dictionary....meaning one is uncooked, meaning two is at or near natural state.

By any definition, if cut comb were actually in its natural state, it would be warmed to 80-100 degrees probably with some bees crawling on it....not at room (or freezer temp...remember comb honey is frozen which requires adding heat later) and in a plastic box.


----------



## FollowtheHoney

http://www.beemaid.com/pasteurization-of-honey
Sweet Fact 5

How is honey pasteurized?

We pasteurize our honey by a “flash heating” method, to minimize the amount of time that the honey is exposed to the heat and to reduce the risk of damaging or burning it. The honey is heated very quickly to about 160°F and then rapidly cooled, which will kill the yeast cells without damaging the product. This process is done on our production line during the packing procedure. 

Pretty much identical to milk.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > What is there in honey that can be effected in a pasteurization way?
> 
> Even the National Honey Board recognizes that pasteurization physically changes honey.
> 
> 
> The only reasonable interpretation of "_affects_" in that quote is that the yeast cells are killed. If you value the role of active yeast cells in "natural" honey, then pasteurization results in a lower value product.


Okay, thanks, I see what is meant by pasteurization of honey. The killing of yeast cells.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Such definitions are not helpful.
> 
> If I have a barrel (or jar) of honey that is at 80F and it cools down to 60F in the evening, there is no way the honey can go above 60F without adding get heat somehow....in your warming get room, your car, the sun, your pocket, in your cabinet with a light underneath.....heat is being added....the honey is being heated.


I understand that. But there is something I don't "get".


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> I understand that. But there is something I don't "get".


Mark, you just do not understand what the transfer of energy is. No one is going to hold it against you. I thought you were kidding me about pasteurization. Pasteurization of milk is used to kill micro organisms so they don't grow in the milk (so fast). You pasteurize honey when making mead to kill the yeast that is in the honey then you add just one kind of yeast (a campaign yeast maybe) so one yeast doesn't compete against another in the fermentation process. If you just let honey ferment on its own with the yeast that it has in it you will get mead but it may or may not be what you like. Killing the yeast that is in honey and adding the yeast you want makes the process more predictable.


----------



## JW Fletcher

Remember that the internal temp of the hive is in the 90's


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Mark, you just do not understand what the transfer of energy is. No one is going to hold it against you. I thought you were kidding me about pasteurization. Pasteurization of milk is used to kill micro organisms so they don't grow in the milk (so fast). You pasteurize honey when making mead to kill the yeast that is in the honey then you add just one kind of yeast (a campaign yeast maybe) so one yeast doesn't compete against another in the fermentation process. If you just let honey ferment on its own with the yeast that it has in it you will get mead but it may or may not be what you like. Killing the yeast that is in honey and adding the yeast you want makes the process more predictable.


What I didn't get was why the word "get" appeared in Deans Post in places where it made no sense.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Apparently Ace didn't _get _it either! :lpf:


----------



## sqkcrk

I guess get he did get not.

Was it a sent from cell phone thing, Graham?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

My guess is that it may have been an _autocorrect _issue - regardless of the specific device Dean was using. 


Here are some possibilities ...



> ... there is no way the honey can go above 60F without adding that heat somehow...





> ... there is no way the honey can go above 60F without adding heat somehow...





> ... there is no way the honey can go above 60F without getting heated somehow...


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> 60F without adding get heat somehow....in your warming get room, your car,


The "get" before "heat" and before "room" is what I was getting at.


----------



## cryptobrian

> People need to say "extracted raw honey" if they want to be using the word raw honestly.


Bah. Raw Milk. It isn't labeled as "extracted" or "expressed" raw milk. It's just raw milk ... nothing dishonest about that, even when it comes without the udder. There is nothing dishonest about calling extracted honey "raw" when it doesn't include the comb. Particularly when this is an entirely and obviously visible characteristic of the product. The clarifying labels help consumers appreciate the things they can't see ... like pasteurization. And even if I couldn't see it, I don't think I would expect a blind purchase of "raw honey" to mean honey with a bunch of wax included.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> What I didn't get was why the word "get" appeared in Deans Post in places where it made no sense.


You focus to much on words and spelling and grammar. Try to grasp the ideas, the concepts or the jest of the conversation. Maybe you would be much happier teaching English instead of beekeeping. Except if you were teaching English you would have students that could give two craps about spelling, grammar and English so you would still be frustrated. I guess you are destine not to be happy.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Acebird said:


> You focus to much on words and spelling and grammar. Try to grasp the ideas, the concepts or [HIGHLIGHT]the jest[/HIGHLIGHT] of the conversation.






As you wish .... :lpf: :ws:


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> By any definition, if cut comb were actually in its natural state, it would be warmed to 80-100 degrees probably with some bees crawling on it....not at room... temp


What?


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> You focus to much on words and spelling and grammar. Try to grasp the ideas, the concepts or the jest of the conversation. Maybe you would be much happier teaching English instead of beekeeping. Except if you were teaching English you would have students that could give two craps about spelling, grammar and English so you would still be frustrated. I guess you are destine not to be happy.


You have no idea how happy I am or am not. I was simply asking out of curiousity why those words were there when Dean, someone who knows how to communicate what he means clearly, would not have intentionally put them where they appeared. By no means was I trying to correct him. Just because you may have thought I was.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> As you wish .... :lpf: :ws:


Shirley, you jest. :banana:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

... and don't call me Shirley. :wiener::wiener:


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay, Leslie. :banana::banana::banana:


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> I don't understand, Daniel. Doesn't pasteurization destroy bacteria in whatever medium one is pasteurizing, like milk? What is there in honey that can be effected in a pasteurization way?


Enzymes for one. The same as in a tobacco leaf when it is being cured. Overheat the leaf and it destroys the enzymes that are converting sugars. Destroy those enzymes and it is no longer possible to get further curing of the tobacco. Very very nasty tasting tobacco is the result. much more like smoking hay that has in part already passed through the horse. Some would make a similar comparison to pasteurized honey as well. Other elements in the honey are also altered. Pasteurization is not simply heating something. Yes it destroys bacteria among other things. in some cases many other things. it also makes the substance less suitable to bacteria permanently. In the process it breaks down nutritional elements and renders them non beneficial. It also straight up alters the taste.


----------



## Daniel Y

Acebird said:


> You focus to much on words and spelling and grammar. Try to grasp the ideas, the concepts or the jest of the conversation. Maybe you would be much happier teaching English instead of beekeeping. Except if you were teaching English you would have students that could give two craps about spelling, grammar and English so you would still be frustrated. I guess you are destine not to be happy.


Spelling is an ancient concern. No longer considered significant. Worse it is widely accepted by many that spelling is some sort of measure of intelligence. Usually touted by those that cannot demonstrate intelligence by any other measure. Such as simply being able to grasp the topic of a conversation. This is why there is reading and then there is comprehension. they are not the same. there is also writing and then there is communication. again not the same thing. I do not find much value in spelling when communication is the primary element needed. and no longer does the board of education. In fact stress from requirements to spell interfere with development of effective communication skills. Such as in willingness to speak is suppressed due to be criticized for how one speaks. it is not conducive to nurturing of speaking. And for the most part it is no longer done and in many cases not tolerated.

In addition our society no longer promotes spelling. such as the use of such words as Dawg, Shoppe, Kewl, etc. Any spelling that is pronounced with near proper vocalization is now considered correct. Exact spelling is an old concept.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Daniel Y said:


> Selling is an ancient concern. No longer considered significant.


So after you have produced a significant quantity of honey, what are you going to do with it? After all, you can only eat so much.


Maybe then it is time to _sell _some honey? And then there might be a significant focus on _selling_?  Selling might be significant when you want to raise some cash. 


Doesn't seem so old-fashioned to me!


----------



## Barry

Daniel Y said:


> Exact spelling is an old concept.


And lazy grammar and spelling is a new concept.


----------



## jim lyon

Barry said:


> And lazy grammar and spelling is a new concept.


Proper grammar and word usage can make a big difference in a sentence.......the difference between feeling you're nuts and feeling your nuts.


----------



## Acebird

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Doesn't seem so old-fashioned to me!


Wow, I didn't even see that Daniel misspelled "spelling" until you made fun of him. I guess that proves he is right.



> Usually touted by those that cannot demonstrate intelligence by any other measure. Such as simply being able to grasp the topic of a conversation.


----------



## Daniel Y

Barry said:


> And lazy grammar and spelling is a new concept.


Who's grammer? What part of our country do you say defines our grammer? In our area we use something like a grunted "Huh" as a "yes" in a conversation. Drives people crazy when I go home to visit. They think I didn't hear them and repeat the question.

Writing is an inadequate means to symbolize speaking. Who is to say that your inadequate way is better or worse than anyone elses? "A" is meaningless. It is a symbol that represents a sound in speech. But it is incapable of expressing tone. spirit, inflections of the spoken word that alter meaning.

"I love how ignorant the average person is" Now exactly how do you interpret my use of the word love? Is it a word of endearment? One of annoyance? One of amusement?

In Grahams example above. what does that missing "P" represent? My in ability to speak or the quality of my keyboard? And what does it lead to anyone knowing in an accurate intelligent since? You can rely on what you think. it is a dangerous thing because in my experience no ones ability to think is that accurate. or you can search for the truth. The concept that correct spelling has any value at all is so widely accepted that not one person in this conversation believes they need to give it a serious defense. Explain to me why on single missing symbol makes any difference in what I wrote above? Are you that dependent on a symbol? Incapable of even that much independent thought?

Lets make it a different subject. suppose I write to someone. Rear your own queens. What is missing from that statement? How capable are you of filling in those gaps? Is it necessary for me to write out every detailed symbol in that process? Can I tell you to go to the hardware store or must I come and paint you a line from your foot to the door of the store? Now just exactly who is being lazy? I say most simply want a nice convenient complete picture painted for them. and will grasp at the smallest thread to be confused. Yes there are those that would take the above and see it as a comment about the importance of making money. I am not communicating with them. they are eaves dropping on a conversation that is not intended for them.


----------



## burns375

Digging in....my sentenances r short ans sweet. Dont mind misoelling of meaning. We arnt publishing books on the web...


----------



## cg3

Daniel Y said:


> Who's grammer?


He was the psychiatrist guy on "Cheers".


----------



## Daniel Y

This was posted this morning and adds to what is changed when honey is processed.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?303521-Bacteria-and-Our-Amazing-Bees


----------



## jim lyon

Well actually it is "whose grammar".  Unless, of course you are attempting to personify the term. 
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/whos_whose.htm


----------



## cryptobrian

Daniel Y said:


> Who's grammer?





cg3 said:


> He was the psychiatrist guy on "Cheers".



:lpf:


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Spelling is an ancient concern. No longer considered significant. Worse it is widely accepted by many that spelling is some sort of measure of intelligence. Usually touted by those that cannot demonstrate intelligence by any other measure. Such as simply being able to grasp the topic of a conversation. This is why there is reading and then there is comprehension. they are not the same. there is also writing and then there is communication. again not the same thing. I do not find much value in spelling when communication is the primary element needed. and no longer does the board of education. In fact stress from requirements to spell interfere with development of effective communication skills. Such as in willingness to speak is suppressed due to be criticized for how one speaks. it is not conducive to nurturing of speaking. And for the most part it is no longer done and in many cases not tolerated.
> 
> In addition our society no longer promotes spelling. such as the use of such words as Dawg, Shoppe, Kewl, etc. Any spelling that is pronounced with near proper vocalization is now considered correct. Exact spelling is an old concept.


What about looking at what I was asking about and answering my question? Think you could do that? Dean is an intelligent and careful writer. There is no way in my mind that he himself intentionally put the word "get" where they appear twice. They make no sense and have no reason to be there. Was this an electronic e-correction glitch? It is simply a curiosity of mine and in no way an attempt to correct or criticize.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Wow, I didn't even see that Daniel misspelled "spelling" until you made fun of him. I guess that proves he is right.


I guess it's a matter of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter. It matters to some of us who do their best to say what they mean.

If someone speaks to me and I can't/don't understand them because their accent or use of slang is so heavy, whose fault is it that I can't understand them? Mine?

If someone writes something and I have to assume I understand what they meant and it turns out my assumption was wrong whose fault is it that I did not understand?


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Who's grammer? What part of our country do you say defines our grammer?
> 
> Writing is an inadequate means to symbolize speaking. Who is to say that your inadequate way is better or worse than anyone elses? "A" is meaningless.


Oh, my, GOD. Are you serious? You did that on purpose, didn't you? Didn't you? You didn't? "Who's grammer?" Who is grammer? If you meant, "Whose grammar?", then the answer is English grammar. Common usage found taught in all countries that use the English language.

"A" is meaningless? Hardly. "A" is both a letter and a word. A word whose meaning can be found defined in a Dictionary.


----------



## mathesonequip

I am not sure I understand how all this relates to the term "raw honey", but then again I get confused at times.


----------



## sqkcrk

.weiv fo tniop 'sklof emos s'tahT .rammarg hsilgnE reporp esu ro yltcerroc sdrow lleps uoy fi rettam t'nseod ti sthguoht ruoy etacinummoc ot tnaw uoy fi lleW


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> Oh, my, GOD. Are you serious? You did that on purpose, didn't you? Didn't you? You didn't? "Who's grammer?" Who is grammer? If you meant, "Whose grammar?", then the answer is English grammar. Common usage found taught in all countries that use the English language.


I started a reply several times and then cancelled it. You summarized my thoughts just fine.


----------



## sqkcrk

Accidents do happen. :lpf:


----------



## Barry

Daniel Y said:


> Writing is an inadequate means to symbolize speaking.


Iʇ,s ɐll ndsᴉpǝ poʍu ʇɥᴉuʞᴉuƃ¡ It sure beats smoke signals.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Writing is an inadequate means to symbolize speaking.


Writing is not speaking. "*Writing is a medium of communication that represents language through the inscription of signs and symbols. In most languages, writing is a complement to speech or spoken language. Writing is not a language but a form of technology. Within a language system, writing relies on many of the same structures as speech, such as vocabulary, grammar and semantics, with the added dependency of a system of signs or symbols, usually in the form of a formal alphabet. The result of writing is generally called text, and the recipient of text is called a reader. " 
*
I am not listening to what you write, I am reading what you wrote. Do you stand a loan or stand alone, when you stand for what you believe? Why did you write your tag line using correct spelling and grammar? Was it so the meaning would be clear and what you meant of little doubt?


----------



## Acebird

I sure hope someone who wants to engage in written conversations that pertain to beekeeping are not discouraged from expressing their thoughts the best they can by the English Natzi's. I will do my best to understand them and if my posts indicate that I didn't understand them correctly I wouldn't mind anyone on the forum setting me straight.


----------



## clyderoad

Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man.
Francis Bacon


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> I sure hope someone who wants to engage in written conversations that pertain to beekeeping are not discouraged from expressing their thoughts the best they can by the English Natzi's. I will do my best to understand them and if my posts indicate that I didn't understand them correctly I wouldn't mind anyone on the forum setting me straight.


No 't" in Nazi, Brian.


----------



## crofter

Methinks it is the ones who can't spell worth a crap that claim it isn't of any significance. Kind of brings question to their objectivity, lol! I have some relatives with professionally diagnosed dyslexia. Proper spelling would take an inordinate amount of time to develop letter associations and work arounds. I excelled at spelling but I do a really rotten job of retaining numerical sequences; go figure!

I see a ways back the forum spell checkers missed the "gist" for "jest" substitution. As long as you get the gist of the idea you are not too likely to totally lose the scents of the game, (unless mockingly in jest!) 

My honey labels state "Unprocessed Wildflower Honey From the Bees of xxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxx". Substitute the Xs for my wife's and my name. I never considered extraction to be an adulteration of the honey. You can tell I am not big on _chawin'_ up beeswax!


----------



## mathesonequip

:shhhh:I can tell you for sure that even mild dyslexia makes posting a bear. my brothers, sister and I all have some to can not really read much. the one that can not read much got an academic scholarship to college but he did not like it , most of the rest of us completed college somehow. if I get to a word I can not figure out I rewrite the sentence to avoid the word. I type one letter at a time and sometimes stare at the key board because I can not find the letter. a manual typewriter was a night mare. in high school they gave me a "D" in typing, I tried real hard, I just could not do it , I had to promise not to tell anyone I took typing in order to get the "D". I reread and fix my posts after doing something else for a few minutes to try and get it right. I just can not see the mistakes sometimes, it looks ok but sometimes it isn't. dyslexia is a bear....:shhhh: I never heat the raw honey, I still have some to extract and it has turned cold , might have to park it near the wood stove but I do not want it over 100f. not sure how this is going to work.... I just fixed a missing letter spelling error from last night, my brain gets the idea but misses individual letters.


----------



## crofter

Mathesonequip

I can tell that you have been there, done that, and have the Tee shirt! My sister was a special ed teacher and has the problem herself. It made her good at understanding the problem and devising workarounds for her students. She spotted it early in my son. I wouldn't be surprised to find it in a lot of people who are drawn to beekeeping.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> No 't" in Nazi, Brian.


If you listen to what most people say there is. How did you know what I was trying to communicate if you just read and don't listen?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

There is no point trying to correct Acebird's spelling. He seems to take pride in his "_technique_". 



Acebird said:


> I spell everything wrong.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> How did you know what I was trying to communicate if you just read and don't listen?


Didn't you write this? Or did you speak it?


Acebird said:


> I wouldn't mind anyone on the forum setting me straight.


I can't hear anything you write. I can understand and comprehend your meaning, when it is clearly written. But I can't hear you any more than you can here (incorrectly spelled on purpose) me. Can you hear me now? Do you read these words hearing my voice? That would be creepy.

If you listen to how people pronounce words you might have written many of your sentences differently. Such as: "Howe deed ewe no whut ah wus trying two camunicate ..."

Writing isn't speaking.


----------



## LSHonda310

sqkcrk said:


> Didn't you write this? Or did you speak it?
> 
> I can't hear anything you write. I can understand and comprehend your meaning, when it is clearly written. But I can't hear you any more than you can here (incorrectly spelled on purpose) me. Can you hear me now? Do you read these words hearing my voice? That would be creepy.
> 
> If you listen to how people pronounce words you might have written many of your sentences differently. Such as: "Howe deed ewe no whut ah wus trying two camunicate ..."
> 
> Writing isn't speaking.



well said, or should I say: "wale ritton"?


----------



## Acebird

You guys make me laugh. Consider my posts texting ... no grammar rules, no spelling rules. I think it is writing but not all that sure now.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> I sure hope someone who wants to engage in written conversations that pertain to beekeeping are not discouraged from expressing their thoughts the best they can by the English Natzi's.


Well, Brian, as a German American I am quite insulted by you referring to me as a Nazi.

And if you are going to write Nazi the way most people say it, wouldn't "Notsi" be more accurate?


----------



## Acebird

Mark, not every German was a Nazi. My father was born in Germany got drafted and was sent to Italy in the second WW and fought against the Nazi's in Germany. I consider myself 50 % German and 0% Nazi.


----------



## sqkcrk

I guess you didn't understand what I wrote. I thought I was clear. Unless you were referring to someone else and not me, you called me a Nazi. Maybe you didn't realize that what you wrote is an ethnic slur. Perhaps a poor choice of words on your part.


----------



## Acebird

I guess you did't understand what I wrote. I used the expression "English" Nazi and did not single you out. When used this way it refers to someone who is more interested in rules and regulations then what someone is trying to write about. Sorry that you took it in a way I did not mean.


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> I guess you didn't understand what I wrote. I thought I was clear. Unless you were referring to someone else and not me, you called me a Nazi. Maybe you didn't realize that what you wrote is an ethnic slur. Perhaps a poor choice of words on your part.


Mark you seem to be the one that does not understand. Nazism is a political party not a nationality. Insulting? take it as you will. 
Nazism was known for it's promoting such things as racism, socialism, and condemned others for there association with other nationalities. It also promoted racial superiority. Hince the notion of superiority being associated with spelling. Spelling Nazi has nothing to do with the political platform of a Nazi. so it is your error that you make that comparison. It is a common term for those with the opinions you have made perfectly clear you have. and it is your lack of understanding of both a Nazi and a Spelling Nazi that has created your insult. A Spelling Nazi is not a reference to a nationality of any kind nor the actions of the Nazi party. A Spelling Nazi believes there is some benefit to spelling greater than there really is. they then tend to police others and chide them about those benefits. With a common response being. "I don't care". They then proceed to take the conversation off into debate about spelling and the importance of language rather than continuing on the topic. I have no idea where anyone got the idea that could happen.


----------



## sqkcrk

I just found it ironic that Brian was calling me, a German/American, a Nazi. Spelling Nazi? That's a better way of putting it. Plus, I really wasn't being serious. I did not actually take insult or feel insulted.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Well, Brian, as a German American I am quite insulted by you referring to me as a Nazi.


You sure fooled me.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yeah, words can do that.


----------



## sqkcrk

Raw honey is honey, when extracted, that has not been heated to a temperature any higher than found in Nature. Like many things this is a convention, not a Law or Definition which is regulated. And it should not be. If a customer is curious about what one means by Raw, use that as a stepping point to a further in depth conversation. if you feel the customer is open to it.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

My guess is that Ace didn't put any more thought into his Nazi comment than he does with the rest of his posts ....



Acebird said:


> Practically everything that I suggest is speculation with the intent that someone will correct what is wrong with the idea.





(click the blue arrow in the quote box to see the original post/thread)


----------



## sqkcrk

Kind of like what might be called "Raw Thinking"? For example?


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> Raw honey is honey, when extracted, that has not been heated to a temperature any higher than found in Nature. Like many things this is a convention, not a Law or Definition which is regulated. And it should not be. If a customer is curious about what one means by Raw, use that as a stepping point to a further in depth conversation. if you feel the customer is open to it.


A good start, and back to the point. Now we can debate the finer meaning of that description and hopefully do as thorough of job as we have the merits of spelling.

Here is my description which both expands and alters in some details yours.

Raw Honey is a substance produced by the Honey Bee. Harvested,extracted, Strained and packaged by various mechanical means that does not heat the honey to more than 110 degrees or a temperature that does not harm the enzymes or alter the original chemical properties of the honey or filter or strains the honey to a smaller particle than 400 microns.


----------



## Acebird

I like your definition Daniel, it covers the objections that most people have with "processed" honey.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Daniel Y said:


> Raw Honey is a substance produced by the Honey Bee. Harvested,extracted, Strained and packaged by various mechanical means that does not heat the honey to more than 110 degrees or a temperature that does not harm the enzymes or alter the original chemical properties of the honey or filter or strains the honey to a smaller particle than 400 microns.



I guess that means that comb honey is _not _raw. :scratch:


----------



## Hops Brewster

I think OP bailed on this thread a long time ago.


----------



## cryptobrian

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I guess that means that comb honey is _not _raw. :scratch:


I suppose it would be "raw comb honey" instead of "raw honey".


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

You mean to make it clear that it isn't "_processed_" comb honey?


----------



## cryptobrian

Exactly. Important to differentiate from the pasteurized honey that has been poured into molded parafin wax combs.


----------



## cg3

Daniel Y said:


> ... or strains the honey to a smaller particle than 400 microns.


Strained through 200 microns is no longer raw?


----------



## Acebird

It will remove some of the pollen.


----------



## mathesonequip

97% of the customers can not tell the difference, but you do want to be truthful.


----------



## cg3

What pollen is larger than 200 microns?


----------



## cryptobrian

cg3 said:


> What pollen is larger than 200 microns?


From the Honey Board:
http://www.honey.com/honey-industry/honey-and-bee-research/honey-without-pollen-is-still-honey

They reference pollen being from 5-200µ. 

And a quick google search would lead you to this list:

http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/pollen/index2.htm

It's probably not exhaustive.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> A good start, and back to the point. Now we can debate the finer meaning of that description and hopefully do as thorough of job as we have the merits of spelling.
> 
> Here is my description which both expands and alters in some details yours.
> 
> Raw Honey is a substance produced by the Honey Bee. Harvested,extracted, Strained and packaged by various mechanical means that does not heat the honey to more than 110 degrees or a temperature that does not harm the enzymes or alter the original chemical properties of the honey or filter or strains the honey to a smaller particle than 400 microns.


But my Raw Honey isn't heated over 100 degrees and isn't strained. I have no desire to define raw honey for anyone other than myself. Heat yours to 112 degrees and filter it and call it raw if you want to. I sell raw honey, I don't buy it.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

cg3 said:


> What pollen is larger than 200 microns?


Note that on the pollen list linked in post #125, there is only ONE pollen producing plant listed that has pollen grains of 200 microns - all the rest are smaller than 200 microns. 

And that one 200 micron plant is an evergreen flowering plant, _Pavonia × gledhillii. _While some plants of the Pavonia family are listed as attractive nectar sources for honeybees, the Gledhilli plant is not.

The odds are, IMHO, that a 200 micron filter is unlikely to remove pollen from typical _raw _honey.


----------



## sqkcrk

http://www.theunknownbutnothidden.c...old-grocery-stores-contains-honey-definition/

Seems to me that this should have been titled "75% of honey sold in grocery stores contains no pollen". There is no Standard of Identity for Honey. Not a National one anyway.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I guess that means that comb honey is _not _raw. :scratch:


Of course it is. Never been strained or artificially heated. More raw than any other honey, by far.


----------



## Acebird

cg3 said:


> What pollen is larger than 200 microns?


A 200 micron filter traps particles smaller than 200 microns because the debris builds up and closes off the holes. This happens especially when you strain. By adding pressure you can force some particles out of the way and more will pass through but not all. A dirty filter filters finer particles than a clean one. If you do not want to remove particles 200 microns or smaller you should use something larger (300-400).


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> If you do not want to remove particles 200 microns or smaller you should use something larger


You could simply change/clean the filter when it clogs.


----------



## Acebird

Excellent idea Rader and when you do there goes the pollen.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Well, Ace, if you change/clean the filter when the flow decreases why should there be an issue?

If you had reviewed that pollen list linked in post #125 you would see that pollen particles from _most _plants are nowhere near as big as 200 microns.



Acebird said:


> A 200 micron filter traps particles smaller than 200 microns because the debris builds up and closes off the holes.


----------



## Daniel Y

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I guess that means that comb honey is _not _raw. :scratch:


Not as I wrote it. That is becasue I consider comb honey comb honey. The question concerning Raw begins when honey is removed from the comb. Comb honey speaks for itself. It needs no definition or defense as Raw, Pure, Unprocessed. Sort of like answering a question that was never asked or defending against an accusation never made. 

Once again a case of starting to get side tracked on details that do not exist. When has anyone ever asked if comb honey was unprocessed?


----------



## Daniel Y

cg3 said:


> Strained through 200 microns is no longer raw?


Quote the entire definition, is is clear as written. 200 would still be raw, 600 would not.


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> But my Raw Honey isn't heated over 100 degrees and isn't strained. I have no desire to define raw honey for anyone other than myself. Heat yours to 112 degrees and filter it and call it raw if you want to. I sell raw honey, I don't buy it.


Please explain you interest in participating in a conversation about Raw Honey then.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Daniel Y said:


> Once again a case of starting to get side tracked on details that do not exist.


Here is the original statement:


Daniel Y said:


> Raw Honey is a substance produced by the Honey Bee. Harvested,extracted, Strained and packaged by various mechanical means that does not heat the honey to more than 110 degrees or a temperature that does not harm the enzymes or alter the original chemical properties of the honey or filter or strains the honey to a smaller particle than 400 microns.


If that is the definition of _raw honey_, then comb honey does not qualify. :no:

Given that, perhaps the above definition is still a little _*raw*_! :lpf:


----------



## cryptobrian

Daniel Y said:


> Quote the entire definition, is is clear as written. 200 would still be raw, 600 would not.


Huh? This seems backwards. Are you saying that honey filtered through a 200 micron filter would be raw, but allowing LARGER particles, as would be the case if strained through a 600 micron filter, is not raw?

From the definition:



Daniel Y said:


> filter or strains the honey to a smaller particle than 400 microns.


A 200 micron filter would not fit in this definition as it would filter out particles smaller than 400 microns.


----------



## Barry

Daniel Y said:


> Quote the entire definition, is is clear as written. 200 would still be raw, 600 would not.


Neither would be raw, you're filtering it. If you want to get picky, straining might pass, but filtering changes the raw honey from it's original form in the comb.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

An interesting graphic, from the National Honey Board ...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Sorry, can't edit the post above for some odd reason.

The chart shown in post #140 came from this publication: http://www.honey.com/images/uploads/general/filtration.pdf
.


----------



## crofter

Wax crystals and other matter collects on screens and then the spaces between these particles become the functional filtering medium rather than the mesh of the screen. To get true sizing and segregation you have to filter multiple times through a graduated series of meshes from coarse to fine. If you truly want to include all the pollen you have to use a fairly coarse screen.

You wont play to everyone in the audience. A lot of people want "clear"; hazy, murky etc., would be put offs except to connoisseurs of "real, raw honey"


----------



## cg3

Barry said:


> Neither would be raw, you're filtering it. If you want to get picky, straining might pass, but filtering changes the raw honey from it's original form in the comb.


Where does filtering end and straining begin? Seems like 200 microns gets the sand out but lets most of the asbestos through.


----------



## cryptobrian

Barry said:


> Neither would be raw, you're filtering it. If you want to get picky, straining might pass, but filtering changes the raw honey from it's original form in the comb.


The point in question is based on a proposed definition with an allowance for filtering 400 micron and above. You can take a step back and challenge the definition, but this comment I think was specific to the proposed definition.

That said, you say straining might pass. So, I would think then what you are really saying is that you thing straining allows particles lager than 600 microns to pass. So, how large? What do you propose for a particle size to differentiate between filtering and straining?


----------



## cg3

If it's passing through a screen, by gravity, it's straining.


----------



## Acebird

cg3 said:


> Where does filtering end and straining begin?


40 um

http://www.sungov.com/faqs.html


----------



## cg3

You can't just say micron? And I think it's μm.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Perhaps "_micron_" is simply too much work to _spell _correctly? :scratch:


----------



## cg3

Um, maybe he intended a comma.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

A different perspective ...



> *What’s the difference between a filter and a strainer?
> *
> A filter is a device that removes particles from a given liquid or gas. It includes a disposable medium for removing particles of specified micron sizes.
> 
> Simply stated, a strainer is also a filter; however, it uses a perforated plate or screen mesh to remove larger particles from a process stream. The major advantage of a strainer is that it is reusable.
> 
> http://www.cpesystemsinc.com/data/WebSite/Filters & Strainers\FilterStrainer.pdf


CPE Systems (quoted above) sells pumping and filtering systems to the food industry, including for honey, as you can see here: http://cpesystemsinc.com/cpeproducts.asp?rcdno=1130


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Please explain you interest in participating in a conversation about Raw Honey then.


I guess I am interested in whether we here who wish to participate in this discussion will come to some sort of consensus or simply go off on our own and continue calling whatever we as individuals decide whether what we label and sell as Raw is Raw.


----------



## sqkcrk

cg3 said:


> If it's passing through a screen [or a nylon cloth] , by gravity, it's straining.


Edited by MarkB. I don't use screen.


----------



## sqkcrk

cg3 said:


> You can't just say micron? And I think it's μm.


I can't find that letter on my computer, Charlie. Where did you find it? (this is not a question about spelling or grammar)


----------



## cg3

sqkcrk said:


> calling whatever we as individuals decide whether what we label and sell as Raw is Raw.


That's certainly what I have in mind.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Perhaps "_micron_" is simply too much work to _spell _correctly? :scratch:


And is is?


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> A different perspective ...
> 
> 
> 
> CPE Systems (quoted above) sells pumping and filtering systems to the food industry, including for honey, as you can see here: http://cpesystemsinc.com/cpeproducts.asp?rcdno=1130


Now I am more confused. If I read that correctly, a strainer removes larger particles than a filter?


----------



## sqkcrk

What is Raw Honey? Um, honey that is raw?


----------



## cg3

sqkcrk said:


> a strainer removes larger particles than a filter?


Sure, try running honey through a coffee filter.
(Actually, a filter removes smaller particles than a strainer.)


----------



## sqkcrk

cg3 said:


> Sure, try running honey through a coffee filter.
> (Actually, a filter removes smaller particles than a strainer.)


Then what does this mean? From Graham's Post. "Simply stated, a strainer is also a filter; however, it uses a perforated plate or screen mesh to remove larger particles from a process stream. The major advantage of a strainer is that it is reusable."


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> I can't find that letter on my computer, Charlie. Where did you find it? (this is not a question about spelling or grammar)


http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/accents/codealt.html
http://tools.oratory.com/altcodes.html


----------



## Acebird

How many people reuse a paper paint strainer?


----------



## cryptobrian

cg3 said:


> You can't just say micron? And I think it's μm.


As if this thread isn't already filled with enough pedantisms (why not?), I think you mean micrometre.

Brian


----------



## cryptobrian

sqkcrk said:


> Edited by MarkB. I don't use screen.


Is "screen" a specific material now? If it is made of a flexible woven plastic is it less a screen than a stiff molded plastic? Is "screen" now defined not only be the size of particle that passes through it but also the manner in which it is constructed?

What verb do you use to describe the action of the honey going through the nylon cloth? Are you clothing it or screening it? Or filtering it? Or straining it? Or sieving it? Or?

:scratch:


----------



## Acebird

I think if your clothing it you have to take it home and explain to the wife where you got it.


----------



## sqkcrk

cryptobrian said:


> Is "screen" a specific material now? If it is made of a flexible woven plastic is it less a screen than a stiff molded plastic? Is "screen" now defined not only be the size of particle that passes through it but also the manner in which it is constructed?
> 
> What verb do you use to describe the action of the honey going through the nylon cloth? Are you clothing it or screening it? Or filtering it? Or straining it? Or sieving it? Or?
> 
> :scratch:


Are you asking me? Then, I strain my honey trough a dampened nylon cloth stretched across a five gallon bucket, held in place w/ clothes pins. Okay? Clear?


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> I think if your clothing it you have to take it home and explain to the wife where you got it.


Which wife is "the" wife?


----------



## Acebird

Mark, why do you dampen the nylon cloth?


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Which wife is "the" wife?


Well gees Mark I have only had one wife at a time.


----------



## cryptobrian

sqkcrk said:


> Are you asking me? Then, I strain my honey trough a dampened nylon cloth stretched across a five gallon bucket, held in place w/ clothes pins. Okay? Clear?


Maybe? Who can keep track?

But no, not clear. Are you suggesting then that a filter is different than a screen which is different from a strainer? Do we really need a third term? 

What is honey anyway?

opcorn:


----------



## sqkcrk

So I would have to explain it to your wife?  Relax. Just pushing your foot.


----------



## sqkcrk

cryptobrian said:


> Maybe? Who can keep track?
> 
> But no, not clear. Are you suggesting then that a filter is different than a screen which is different from a strainer? Do we really need a third term?
> 
> What is honey anyway?
> 
> opcorn:


Is one of these questions seriously asked? In my mind, and maybe you can show me wrong, I see honey passing through a medium on its own, w/out pressure, as straining. That's just the way I see it. Apparently, according to an earlier post, straining is a subset of filtering. I would not, and do not, describe what I do w/ my honey as filtering. But that is just me. You want to do otherwise, go ahead.


----------



## cryptobrian

It's semi-serious. You took issue with the term "screen" (n.) and augmented it to add a "nylon cloth". I'm trying to understand why the medium (nylon cloth) matters in the definition. How is the use of a nylon cloth not a "screen"? And do we really need to enumerate all possible screening materials, nylon cloth, stainless steel sieve, and so on? What is special about the nylon cloth that warrants the specific call out?


That all said, I agree ... I don't consider screening through the nylon cloths as filtering.


----------



## sqkcrk

I see. So when Charlie wrote


cg3 said:


> If it's passing through a screen, by gravity, it's straining.


 he was using the word screen to mean something different than what I see in my mind when someone says screen? I guess I didn't see it that way.


----------



## cg3

This is the screen I was referring to- http://www.brushymountainbeefarm.com/200-Micron-Fine-Filter/productinfo/804F/
Note that BM calls it a filter.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oh, a sieve. lol I can't imagine using something like that. It takes me about 10 minutes to strain a bucket of honey through nylon cloth. That sieve looks to me like it would get clogged pretty quickly, especially from the last bucket in the tank when most of the wax and stuff comes out of the tank. That filter could easily get clogged beyond cleaning, I imagine.


----------



## cg3

Well, the way I use it, it's the bottom layer in the stack. Above it, I have a 600 that gets switched out often, then a cone of 1/8" wire screen. Works pretty well. I don't just strain, I strain the heck out of it. The last screen picks up very little material, mostly tiny particles of wax, maybe a half teaspoon of stuff in 200 lbs. If it's removing pollen, it's not taking out much.


----------



## Daniel Y

cryptobrian said:


> Huh? This seems backwards. Are you saying that honey filtered through a 200 micron filter would be raw, but allowing LARGER particles, as would be the case if strained through a 600 micron filter, is not raw?
> 
> From the definition:
> 
> 
> 
> A 200 micron filter would not fit in this definition as it would filter out particles smaller than 400 microns.


Yep I have it backwards. I am thinking mesh, as in number of wires or threads per inch. so 200 would actually allow larger particles than a 600 in that case. You an also think of it as how many holes per inch. That is why I defined it as not straining particles smaller than 400 micron rather than defining it by a strainer size or style. So if you strainer gets dirty and starts removing particles smaller than 400 micron you are no longer keeping your honey raw.


----------



## cg3

I'm still not following. What particles between 200 and 400 microns contribute to honey being "raw".


----------



## sqkcrk

cg3 said:


> Well, the way I use it, it's the bottom layer in the stack. Above it, I have a 600 that gets switched out often, then a cone of 1/8" wire screen. Works pretty well. I don't just strain, I strain the heck out of it. The last screen picks up very little material, mostly tiny particles of wax, maybe a half teaspoon of stuff in 200 lbs. If it's removing pollen, it's not taking out much.


Are they big enough to fit across the top of a 5 gallon bucket?


----------



## sqkcrk

cg3 said:


> What particles between 200 and 400 microns contribute to honey being "raw".


Take it another step. What particles at all contribute to honey being "raw"? Is it the honey or what is in the honey that makes honey "raw"? 

Here we are getting into the Standard of Identity territory. If somethings are taken out of honey, is the honey still honey? Raw or not?


----------



## cg3

Yeah.
I've looked at the stuff that came off the fine screen under a microscope. I don't pretend to recognize everything I saw but would recognize pollen.


----------



## Daniel Y

cg3 said:


> You can't just say micron? And I think it's μm.


μ is Micron, μm is Micrometer. The distinction has more to do with context. A Micron (μ) would be used to describe an individual particle size. while Micrometer (μm) would be used as a unit of measure such as μm/length.


----------



## cg3

sqkcrk said:


> If somethings are taken out of honey, is the honey still honey? Raw or not?


Good point, but another way to look at it is "How much debris would you like in your food?"


----------



## Daniel Y

cryptobrian said:


> What is honey anyway?
> 
> opcorn:


Why do you need to ask?


----------



## Daniel Y

cryptobrian said:


> It's semi-serious. You took issue with the term "screen" (n.) and augmented it to add a "nylon cloth". I'm trying to understand why the medium (nylon cloth) matters in the definition. How is the use of a nylon cloth not a "screen"? And do we really need to enumerate all possible screening materials, nylon cloth, stainless steel sieve, and so on? What is special about the nylon cloth that warrants the specific call out?
> 
> 
> That all said, I agree ... I don't consider screening through the nylon cloths as filtering.


That is why I stated "Various mechanical methods" and that the method used does not remove particles smaller than 400 micron. what material is used no longer matters only that it does not remove particles that are to small.


----------



## Daniel Y

cg3 said:


> I'm still not following. What particles between 200 and 400 microns contribute to honey being "raw".


I never said anything about 200 micron. but pollen removal would be the main issue.


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> I see. So when Charlie wrote he was using the word screen to mean something different than what I see in my mind when someone says screen? I guess I didn't see it that way.


So how about if it passes through a "device" by gravity it is screening. as apposed to being forced through a device by pressure.

I suppose that this woudl then introduce a device that develops it's own pressure due to gravity. Would a 55 gallon drum that has a pipe at the bottom of it and is full of honey be considered applying pressure? I would say it is. So then is the weight of the honey in a sieve considered honey being passed thorough the sieve via pressure?

Again why I chose no particle smaller than 400 micron. It then does not matter weather you have pressure or not. use a sieve that is plastic metal or cloth.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> Here we are getting into the Standard of Identity territory. If somethings are taken out of honey, is the honey still honey? Raw or not?


Think of milk. Raw milk is that which comes directly out of an udder. You start doing stuff to it, it's no longer raw, hence we have 2%, 1%, skim, etc. Why is honey any different?


----------



## Barry

cg3 said:


> Good point, but another way to look at it is "How much debris would you like in your food?"


How do you determine what is debris and what was in the honey when it was in the comb?


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Take it another step. What particles at all contribute to honey being "raw"?


The particles that contribute to honey being raw are enzymes and pollen possible more. (how is that Barry)
I think most would not argue that honey in a comb is raw. The process of extraction puts debris in the honey that you would like to take out so it is back to the raw state. Straining is under pressure (light). Nothing moves unless there is a force to move it. I still haven't figured out why Mark wets a nylon screen.


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> Take it another step. What particles at all contribute to honey being "raw"? Is it the honey or what is in the honey that makes honey "raw"?
> 
> Here we are getting into the Standard of Identity territory. If somethings are taken out of honey, is the honey still honey? Raw or not?


(What particles at all contribute to honey being "raw") I see multiple issues. Included but not necessarily complete are. Pollen. I do not consider any honey that has the pollen removed as "Raw" it is adulterated or altered honey. I also see there are other properties to Raw honey that can and are removed or destroyed.

(If somethings are taken out of honey, is the honey still honey?)
For clarity I will say Raw Honey as apposed to Processed Honey. Processed honey has been altered to a degree that it is no longer considered raw. It is still Honey. Now if I mix my honey 50-50 with corn syrup, is it still Honey or is it Honey Syrup, Honey Sauce or some other product with the word Honey in it?


----------



## Acebird

Barry said:


> Think of milk. Raw milk is that which comes directly out of an udder....Why is honey any different?


When you extract milk from an udder you don't add anything (debris). When you extract honey from a comb you do.


----------



## Daniel Y

Barry said:


> How do you determine what is debris and what was in the honey when it was in the comb?


I have one customer that if they cannot see wax suspended in the honey will not buy it. Many that if they cannot see the pollen at the top of the honey will not consider it true Honey. Mainly I see it as they are looking for evidence it is Raw not so much assurance that it is. they will no longer take anyone's word for it. They have come up with a method they are satisfied with and follow it.


----------



## deknow

Barry..it is not skimming that makes the milk not raw....it is the pasturization.



Barry said:


> Think of milk. Raw milk is that which comes directly out of an udder. You start doing stuff to it, it's no longer raw, hence we have 2%, 1%, skim, etc. Why is honey any different?


----------



## sqkcrk

cg3 said:


> Good point, but another way to look at it is "How much debris would you like in your food?"


Is what is naturally found in honey, pollen, debris? "Really Raw" markets their honey as having all of the stuff naturally found in honey. I take issue w/ that statement, but that's another discussion, perhaps.


----------



## Barry

Acebird said:


> When you extract milk from an udder you don't and anything (debris). When you extract honey from a comb you do.


Ace, you want to reformat your first sentence so I can make sense of it?


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Why do you need to ask?


Perhaps as a starting point? So we are all on the same page?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Raw milk is that which comes directly out of an udder.





> When you extract milk from an udder you don't and anything (debris).


 If milk is filtered, is it no longer "_raw_"? 



> To ensure you maintain correct hygiene in your quality milk production replace DeLaval milk filters after every milking, or on a regular basis.
> 
> Milk must be protected to ensure it is delivered free of dirt and solid waste products. [HIGHLIGHT]Bits of dust, straw, manure, hair and insects [/HIGHLIGHT] will inevitably enter the milking system during milking, travelling though the cluster and pipelines to the receiver. Regularly replaced, quality milk filters protect your milk from these particles.
> 
> http://www.delaval.com/en/-/Dairy-knowledge-and-advice/Milk-filtration/Filters/


DeLaval (quoted above) is a supplier of equipment (including milk filtration systems) to the dairy industry.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> Barry..it is not skimming that makes the milk not raw....it is the pasturization.


I'd say it's both. Again, why is it so difficult to simply apply the definition of raw? Have you ever seen raw labeled on 2% milk? Even whole milk? Once you separate out the various elements, how can you call it raw? Maybe whole cream, or whole milk, but if I wanted raw milk, I'd expect it just as it was extracted.

Raw is one of those 'buzz' words that turn me off, just like 'organic.' It implies something that too many people take advantage of in promoting their product. This thread is a perfect example, no one agrees on what it means!


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> So how about if it passes through a "device" by gravity it is screening. as apposed to being forced through a device by pressure.
> 
> I suppose that this woudl then introduce a device that develops it's own pressure due to gravity. Would a 55 gallon drum that has a pipe at the bottom of it and is full of honey be considered applying pressure? I would say it is. So then is the weight of the honey in a sieve considered honey being passed thorough the sieve via pressure?
> 
> Again why I chose no particle smaller than 400 micron. It then does not matter weather you have pressure or not. use a sieve that is plastic metal or cloth.


Is the natural weight of honey falling from, or being poured from, a tank or barrel pressurized? Honey at different elevations would be more pressurized than honey at other elevations. But I think you are straining to define what we are discussing. Aren't you?

Why wouldn't unheated honey forced through a filter by the use of artificially applied pressure still be considered raw?


----------



## Barry

Mark, what's your definition of raw?


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> I do not consider any honey that has the pollen removed as "Raw" it is adulterated or altered honey.


If you remove the pollen you have altered a property of honey. To adulterate honey you would have to add something to the honey.

"Now if I mix my honey 50-50 with corn syrup, is it still Honey or is it Honey Syrup, Honey Sauce or some other product with the word Honey in it?" It is adulterated Honey and must be labeled as such. Labeling such a product as HONEY is wrong, misleading and illegal.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> I have one customer that if they cannot see wax suspended in the honey will not buy it. Many that if they cannot see the pollen at the top of the honey will not consider it true Honey. Mainly I see it as they are looking for evidence it is Raw not so much assurance that it is. they will no longer take anyone's word for it. They have come up with a method they are satisfied with and follow it.


Show me what "pollen at the top of the honey" looks like. I have never seen anything like that before.

I had a potential customer who wanted to buy 5 gallon pails of honey to send to Yemen. He said his customers wanted to see a slab of comb honey on the top when they opened the bucket or they would not buy it. He wouldn't guarantee that he would buy buckets of honey prepared that way, so the deal fell through.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Ace, you want to reformat your first sentence so I can make sense of it?


add, he meant add. y'd u ask? Sense smelling doesn't madder.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Why wouldn't unheated honey forced through a filter by the use of artificially applied pressure still be considered raw?


In my view it could but the size of the filter must be large enough to only take out what would normally not be in the honey in the first place.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Mark, what's your definition of raw?


Raw means not heated above 100 degrees before and during bottling.


----------



## beedeetee

I grew up drinking raw milk 2-3 times a day (for 20 years or so). Back then it was normal around where I lived. We ran the milk through a cream separator and sold most of the cream to a local creamery. We did not heat the milk at all and we all called it raw milk. If you just let the milk from the cow sit for a couple of minutes you will see a definite line between the cream and milk. So the milk is not homogenized (where the cream is caused to blend with the milk) and the raw milk is definitely a separate product.

In my mind heating is what makes milk to become not raw and the same thing with honey. Honey in the cells has a lot less "stuff" in it before we uncap, extract or crush/strain it. Straining just takes that stuff back out. I'm not sure if you could fine filter honey without heating it. Maybe with enough pressure.


----------



## COAL REAPER

sqkcrk said:


> Unheated.


x2


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> In my view it could but the size of the filter must be large enough to only take out what would normally not be in the honey in the first place.


Which is what? What if someone found capped honey which contained no pollen, naturally. I don't know if such a thing exists, but if it did, would that honey be raw? By your definition.


----------



## Daniel Y

Barry said:


> Think of milk. Raw milk is that which comes directly out of an udder. You start doing stuff to it, it's no longer raw, hence we have 2%, 1%, skim, etc. Why is honey any different?


I say it is not. any process alters honey. This a question of at what point is that alteration enough to no longer consider it Raw. Milk actually has several processes all of which alter it. milk fat is separated from it. it is pasteurized. The alteration to the milk as a result is defined in multiple ways as well. as in the % indicating how much it has had the fat content altered.

Is this sort of differentiation of the alterations of Honey necessary? Does filtering cause one type of alteration that needs to be referred to by a specific name? in comparison to heating which causes another type of alteration?

For example honey that has been to highly filtered is called purified while honey that has been over heated is called modified. Honey that has had other things added to it is adulterated.

So then we have questions like. so if I take raw honey from two locations and mix them is it now Adultrated? I say no because it was Raw and Raw it is now blended Raw Honey. But mix modified honey with raw and it is no longer raw.

It is not about no alteration to honey. It is about drawing a line where alteration is no longer acceptable.

It is about setting a standard or letting someone else. And so far the someone else seems to me to be the customer and their standard appears to be in large that no real, raw, true honey exists. Is that description more acceptable? I don't think they are asking us. but thought I might just throw it out there.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> Raw means not heated above 100 degrees before and during bottling.


Ah, so the definition of raw is whatever anyone wants it to be? I think you just gave me your definition of 'raw honey', not 'raw'.


----------



## sqkcrk

beedeetee said:


> Honey in the cells has a lot less "stuff" in it before we uncap, extract or crush/strain it.


Really? Like what? What sort of "stuff" is in honey not yet uncapped?


----------



## COAL REAPER

you people are whacked out of you mind enough already, but i want to pose a question that may or may not have been brought up (sorry, i am not about to read through 10 pages of bickering), and perhaps this should be its own thread, but:
what do you call material extracted from comb where the bees have been fed (open or internal) substitutes other than honey (sugar syrup, corn syrup, etc...)?


----------



## Barry

Acebird said:


> When you extract milk from an udder you don't add anything (debris). When you extract honey from a comb you do.


I agree, which is exactly the problem when dealing with honey and using the term _raw_. Honey in the comb, raw. Processed honey, _raw_?


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> For example honey that has been to highly filtered is called purified while honey that has been over heated is called modified. Honey that has had other things added to it is adulterated.
> 
> And so far the someone else seems to me to be the customer and their standard appears to be in large that no real, raw, true honey exists.


Purified Honey? Modified Honey? Who uses those terms? I have never heard them used before this Post.

I don't think very many honey customers think that "no real" honey exists or that no "raw" honey exists or that no "true honey exists". I don't know where you got that idea from? Must have been from your customers? If they think that way, do they still buy your "honey"? How do you convince or educate them otherwise?


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> Raw means not heated above 100 degrees before and during bottling.



Okay a bit of debate and opportunity to defend your opinion.

You say 100 I say 110 degrees.

I say 110 primarily for some wiggle room. Enough wiggle room without significantly altering the honey.

Honey in a hive is naturally kept at what 94 degrees. Now I may be wrong so correct me. It is also common for honey to be hated to some degree for flow in extracting and packaging.

1. how can you be sure that a hive that is kept at 94 degrees never rises above 100? is 100 degrees lethal to bees? How will you ever prove that the honey never went above 100 degrees? On the other hand I say 110 would be lethal and that the bees are still alive is proof that the honey never got that warm. Can you guarantee that in the process of harvesting honey while boxes set in full sun that the honey never exceeds 100 degrees?

2. It is my understanding and I may be wrong that Enzymes are not harmed until 120 degrees.

3. I am not certain at all at what temperature sugars starches etc may be altered in Honey. Leaving it wide open for consideration as to any temperature limit.

Mainly it is an issue in the difficulty that might be required to meet the standard.


----------



## Barry

I'm curious, of those posting to this thread, who uses the word _raw_ on any of their advertising, be it label or signage?


----------



## Daniel Y

sqkcrk said:


> Purified Honey? Modified Honey? Who uses those terms? I have never heard them used before this Post.
> 
> I don't think very many honey customers think that "no real" honey exists or that no "raw" honey exists or that no "true honey exists". I don't know where you got that idea from? Must have been from your customers? If they think that way, do they still buy your "honey"? How do you convince or educate them otherwise?


Yeah that is what would happen when setting something new. you do new never before done things.

Yes the claims come from my customers. And I address them with the same comments and standards I have proposed here. I tell them what I do with my honey the limits I have set they then determine for themselves if they consider it raw. pure, unadulterated or what have you. Trust me the terms I am using are far more polite than the ones they use. mainly something in the area of elimination of bowels.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Ah, so the definition of raw is whatever anyone wants it to be? I think you just gave me your definition of 'raw honey', not 'raw'.


Oh, okay, my mistake. Something is raw if it is uncooked, in its natural state of being. Such as raw meat or raw vegetables. I hope that answers the question you asked. My apologies.


----------



## sqkcrk

COAL REAPER said:


> you people are whacked out of you mind enough already, but i want to pose a question that may or may not have been brought up


Nope. Not allowed. Get your own Thread. We are trying to hash out the definition of Raw Honey. You are just muddying the waters. So to speak.


----------



## Daniel Y

Barry said:


> I'm curious, of those posting to this thread, who uses the word _raw_ on any of their advertising, be it label or signage?



Raw does not exist so I do nit use it. I use Pure. My customers seem to want some designation of Raw. IF it is not desired why is it so often asked about even here?


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Okay a bit of debate and opportunity to defend your opinion.
> 
> You say 100 I say 110 degrees.
> 
> I say 110 primarily for some wiggle room. Enough wiggle room without significantly altering the honey.


I have no problem w/ 110 degrees. If that has been shown to not alter the properties of honey, I can go along w/ that. 100 degrees is my own standard. I don't heat honey above 100 degrees on my tank in order to bottle it.

As far as that other stuff you mentioned, you are wrong. Bees do not keep their honey warm. Bees do not heat the hive they live in. So saying that they keep their honey at any temperature is wrong. Honey in a hive may be 94 degrees in temperature at some time during a year and in some places geographically determined, but the bees don't make it warm or keep it warm. Or hot as some folks would consider 100 degrees. Maybe you are thinking of the incubation temperature of brood.

Yes, in most operations of size honey is heated before and during the extraction and bottling process.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> I'm curious, of those posting to this thread, who uses the word _raw_ on any of their advertising, be it label or signage?


I do. I sell RAW Honey in one pound jars. The label says RAW Honey right on it.


----------



## Barry

Just so I'm clear, this is liquid honey, not comb, right?


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> Raw does not exist so I do nit use it. I use Pure. My customers seem to want some designation of Raw. IF it is not desired why is it so often asked about even here?


"PURE HONEY" used to be a very common term found on labels on jars of honey. I don't know why it had to be designated as such. Perhaps before that there was some question as to whether the honey being sold was purely honey, only honey. Perhaps, since before that time most people were only familiar w/ comb honey and therefore there was no question as to whether the honey was really honey or not being in its own original packaging.

I bet Peter Borst could tell us when and maybe why "PURE HONEY" labels became popular and why they were used.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> Just so I'm clear, this is liquid honey, not comb, right?


Yes, liquid. As I wrote earlier I have sold comb honey w/ a label that stated "The only truly raw honey." But what I sell is unheated and unstrained honey. Which is what I have come to understand as the "industry" common understanding definition of Raw Honey.


----------



## cryptobrian

Barry said:


> Think of milk. Raw milk is that which comes directly out of an udder. You start doing stuff to it, it's no longer raw, hence we have 2%, 1%, skim, etc. Why is honey any different?


It's not, but perhaps the way you are thinking of it is. I brought in the raw milk analogy before and I think it works here too. 

Raw milk is the stuff in the udder. Raw honey is the stuff in the comb.

Both are extracted from their containers. In the first case, extraction is pretty easy and doesn't result in cutting up the container to get to it. The second does.

So, make the comparisons equal. If you had to hack off the udder to get to the milk, would raw milk become the product of the contents + the container? Or would you expect the udder parts to be removed from the milk parts?

Screening out the wax, is not a separation of the constituent parts of honey. The product in the container doesn't include that wax. It's been added as a result of a sloppy extraction process. In what definition of honey is wax included in the content? Every formal or legalized definition I have seen includes an allowance for pollen, but not wax. So why would raw honey include an extra component not a part of the definition of honey? 

And, by the way, it is not uncommon for a strainer to be placed over a milk pail when milking a cow or goat. It's used to catch debris, as someone else pointed out, including hair from the animal you are milking. Is the milk no longer raw? Do you look for hair in your raw milk? They are, after all, parts of the container that make their way into the product as part of the extraction process.


----------



## beedeetee

sqkcrk said:


> Really? Like what? What sort of "stuff" is in honey not yet uncapped?


Mostly wax particles and bee parts.


----------



## sqkcrk

So you think that wax particles and bee parts are in the cells that bees store honey in and capped over? Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## beedeetee

sqkcrk said:


> So you think that wax particles and bee parts are in the cells that bees store honey in and capped over? Am I understanding you correctly?


No. I'm saying that those things don't exist in the cells with the raw honey. After extracting they are in the honey and can be strained out without changing the honey from being raw.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay, good, we are in agreement and I understand you better now. Thanks.


----------



## cg3

Barry said:


> How do you determine what is debris and what was in the honey when it was in the comb?


When I looked closely at the stuff that was sitting on my filter, there were small black specks that were pretty plainly dirt, I assume tracked onto the comb by bees.


----------



## cg3

Barry said:


> I agree, which is exactly the problem when dealing with honey and using the term _raw_. Honey in the comb, raw. Processed honey, _raw_?


Pretty much what was covered in the first dozen or so posts, with remarkable (for BeeSource) agreement. The next 200 or so posts was just us trying to impress each other.


----------



## cg3

Barry said:


> I'm curious, of those posting to this thread, who uses the word _raw_ on any of their advertising, be it label or signage?


I do, but, like you say, it is merely a buzzword to differentiate honey which has not been heated from mass-produced store honey. The straining/filtering issue I see as a separate thing altogether.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Which is what? What if someone found capped honey which contained no pollen, naturally.


According to those that check for adulteration it is not possible to have honey in the comb without pollen. I think that most people would be happy with not going any finer than 400 microns to be sure that the pollen is not taken out. I don't know anyone who looks for raw honey that would be upset if you used that size screen as your smallest screen.


----------



## cg3

But if one added pollen would it no longer be raw?


----------



## Daniel Y

cg3 said:


> But if one added pollen would it no longer be raw?


I would say yes, it is no longer "Raw". Not only have you altered it but you altered it with something that has a fairly lengthy list of questionable qualities to it. What sort of pollen? how fresh is it. what benefits does it have? What is it's nutritional reliability? Why was it necessary to add pollen to your honey? Didn't it already have pollen included when the bees made it?

I suppose you could call it pollen fortified or something. But for me if there is an issue of adding sugar water syrup there is also an issue with adding anything.


----------



## Acebird

The only thing that you could add or subtract from honey and call it raw is water to bring it to acceptable levels.


----------



## cg3

I see, raw honey is only lightly watered with no enzymes strained out.


----------



## Acebird

Once you uncap honey it will have a tendency to take on water. It is more likely you would be reducing the water content if it were too high.


----------



## Guest

honey test system. i glass water and just 1 teaspoon honey drop the water. then you see perfect honey down the glass and mixed honey showing like oil.


----------



## Cloverdale

Barry said:


> I'm curious, of those posting to this thread, who uses the word _raw_ on any of their advertising, be it label or signage?


I do ."Bee Thankful Pure Raw HONEY" with the Proverb 16:24


----------



## sultan

ahad0001 said:


> honey test system. i glass water and just 1 teaspoon honey drop the water. then you see perfect honey down the glass and mixed honey showing like oil.


Interesting.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Michael Bush said:


> The way the Europeans measure heating is by measuring HMF (Hydroxy Methyl Furfural aka 5-(Hydroxymethyl)furfufural) in the honey. If it is high then the honey was heated too much.


In Europe if the HMF is above 40 units of measure , the honey can not be legally sold to consumers.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

That would be 40 mg HMF per kg of honey, with some exceptions. From a UK honey regulations document:



> 1.4.(g) The UK’s previous derogation for a higher hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) limit of 80mg/kg has been removed. Honey must now meet the 40mg/kg limit except for honeys which come from tropical climates or blends of these in which case a higher limit of 80mg/kg is permitted. HMF is a sugar breakdown product and is used as an indicator of honey quality since it increases with temperature and storage time.
> 
> http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/honeyguidance.pdf


----------



## bevy's honeybees

Barry said:


> I'm curious, of those posting to this thread, who uses the word _raw_ on any of their advertising, be it label or signage?


My labels say Raw Honey. I don't use any heat at all, and I strain. 

What I like about this thread is that I have an answer now for the folks that tell me, "I get my honey at Costco for [whatever they pay for it]."
Typically I answer, "ok". Now I'm going to tell them it is not raw, local honey. Then if they want more information I can go on. At least I've taken it a step further.


----------



## rwurster

Raw honey is on all my labels. I dont heat and I strain.


----------

