# SueBee pros/cons?



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Some insight into the people you will be working with.

Sue Bee Vice President Bill Huser said 315 different beekeepers supply 60 percent of the 40 million pounds of honey the Iowa-based company sells each year. The rest is imported.

To protect consumers, Huser said, the company does extensive and elaborate testing on the imported honey, f*inding shipments laced with chloramphenicol, an illegal antibiotic, about once a month.
*
When it's found, he said, it's sent back to the broker who imported it.
Won't report it to FDA

That doesn't sit well with some members of the cooperative. Several told the P-I that returning tainted honey to the marketplace is wrong. They said the issue has been raised in recent years, but the company has refused to change its policy.

*Bill Allibone, Sue Bee's president, said the company has no intention of telling government regulators about the bad honey it finds.
*
It's not really Sue Bee's honey, he said, "because technically, it's still (the importer's) property until we pay for it.

*"We have not notified the FDA in the past because we don't have title to that property," Allibone said.*

"We deal with a core group of suppliers that have long, established ties in the import business, and we're assuming that when we reject a load of honey, they'll return it to the people they purchased it from."

*Allibone said he has no idea whether the tainted honey is resold to other U.S. packers. Asked whether the company had an obligation to take action to protect the public health, the president repeated: "It's just not our honey."*

Nice bunch of people. I wonder what he would do if he saw someone being raped? Not my wife or daughter, I don't have an obligation to report it.


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

Hmmm, comparing adulterated honey to rape. Any wonder why beekeepers aren't taken seriously?


----------



## FindlayBee (Aug 2, 2009)

I would think they could still get into trouble for not reporting a crime.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm not a big fan of chinese honey, but to suggest that the chinese "lace " their honey with chloramphenicol is just plain silly. They may use it prophylactically to protect their hives from bacterial diseases but to suggest they add it afterwards does not make any sense. 

Some of the so called tainted chinese honey that got recalled had residue levels of anywhere from 4 to 200 ppb of chloramphenicol. I don't believe that 4 parts per billion poses any health risks for anybody. Would 200 ppb pose a health risk? Maybe, maybe not. Most people don't eat that much honey. Let me illustrate my point:
200 /1 000 000 000 = 200 ppb
In order for a person to get a 1 gram dose of chloramphenicol (that's a typical antibiotic daily dose I think) the person would have to eat 5000 kg or about 11 000 pounds of honey. So even the most enthusiastic honey eater who might eat 1 pound a day would need about 30 years to get that 1 gram dose. The typical american consummer eats 1 pound a year so he would need about 365 times 30 years to get that gram. That about 110 lifetimes based on a 100 year lifespan.

To compare this to rape, come on why is it even being brought up?Let's call it what it is for what it is. It's a trade barrier plain and simple. The Europeans use the same tactics with North American honey. They have a zero tolerance for any antibiotic residue. Producers need to able to protect their livestock and consummers need to able to eat safe foods. Essentially the chinese picked the wrong antibiotic. I've often wondered why this one. Only 2 reasons come to mind, price and effectiveness. Is chloramphenicol that much cheaper to produce compared to other antibiotics? I don't know, seems unlikely but I'm not in the antibiotic manufactoring business. Have other antibiotics that are allowed in the USA, such as oxytetracycline become ineffective in the prevention of bacterial diseases? I wonder and suspect it has become ineffective so the chinese have started using chloramphenicol.

Shold SueBee report this honey to the FDA? I don't know. It's certainly the kind of situation that can easily lead to lines being drawn into the sand and where one has to choose on which side of the line he wants to stand. I'm sure some members a irrate about this situation. No chinese honey in the market higher prices for it's memebers. On the other hand the membership does not produce enough honey. It's definitely not in the interest of Sue Bee corporate officeto rat out it's suppliers unless they want to sever irrevocably that relationship. As a member would I want somebody from head office to call the FDA, probably.

The advantages of a coop are:
1-that you know who is buying your honey, so no need to worry there.
2- You get what you get and you probably don't get the highest prices and you probably don't get the lowest prices. It's likely a price based on the averagew price for that year.
3- You probably have to wait a long time to get that first check, but it will likely not bounce , nor will there be a hold on it. Usually the money is spread out over a year and you might get 3 or 4 payments in a year.

Disadvantages are:
1- Coops often hold back a portion of your payment every year for 10 years so that they have some working capitol to operate with. It's likely the same with Sue Bee. So you might not get paid for 10% of your honey for 10 years. Whne you quit or retire you get that money back but a year later.
2- You might not like some of the marketing strategies or philosophies of the Coop, just like this chloramphenicol issue. You can voice your opinion once a year at the AGM. As an independent operator if you don't like the terms or you don't like the way you are being treated you can always sell your honey elsewhere.

There are pros and cons to being a member, you just need to ask yourself if it suits your needs.

Jean-Marc


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I have reason to believe that chloramphenicol is exceedingly cheap. I had heard that a human dose was less than a dollar. I may be wrong. Would the honey be rejected if it was found to contain traces of teramycin, an approved anti-biotic?

The bottom line is , where do you want to hang your hat? I try to avoid guilt by association. If you sell you honey to a place that is highly suspected of blending in "funny honey" because it is cheaper, what do you think a retail customer will think of your honey? It is all "Your" honey.

Maybe their members would be able to make enough honey for them if they where payed what real honey is worth. By exposing the "funny honey" for what is is, the market for it would disappear, and prices would rise , allowing the members to invest the surplus in equipment and bees for expansion. 

It is your decision, chose which bed you wish to lay in.


Roland

P.S. Where is Sutton when you need him.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I'm here Roland...been extracting!! I have posted this before...but here we go. Lets use Dutch gold for example. You sell your honey to them...you get paid inusually 2 weeks to 30 days. You know what you are going to get when you put it one the truck! (most packers are simular in payment). You furnish your barrells and get a credit. You have your money within a month. Now you produce 100,000 lbs year lets say. At 1.50 lb ave thats 150,000. Now you sell to SUe(i got alot of other choice names) You load your honey in the barrells they furnish(nice) and load on truck. You get paid over the next year with final payment about one yr after delivery. Now interest is very low...but lets say over the long haul you could have gotten 5%...or your loan is 6%...gotta pay interest on that money you dont have...and you dont know what you will get yet...what if price starts dropping? What if sue decides to try to get sales up and has a sale on bears for .83 cents for 12 oz bear like they did 10 yrs ago...drove market south fast. So lets say you are lucky and get same amount ( doubt this happens often) 150,000 less your 10% you have 135,000. 15,000 of your capitol GONE with NO return! so lets ave your proceeds over the year...5% interest on 135,000 for 6 months is 3,375 dollars in interest you paid if you have a loan you are paying 5% on when they had your dollars PLUS the 15,000 they kept as operating capitol and the interest on it! After 10 years they have 150,000 dollars OF YOUR money that you could have purchased equipment, paid off debt or whatever PLUS all the interest you lost on waiting for payment. If you dont have a loan you could draw interest and on averge at least 5% in the long haul but now at 1% is still money!... So over the first 10 years you a out 33,750 dollars in interest paid while the have your money plus the 150,000 for a total of 185,000 dllars they have had INTEREST FREE of your money!!! I believe anyone who joins sue either is very poor at math(like I am at spelling), or never sits down and looks at what they are loosing. RUN RUN RUN unless you need to make less money! Now one other thing Sue says they dont buy chinese...well they are finding chlorophenicol...chinese...so after you find it once would you buy from that guy again. Read the articles in seattle times on honey laundering...If I remember right reporter traced honey from china to third world country to US border to sue....if he can THEY could have if they wanted to!!!! A coop should benefit the members..I dare say the founding members NEVER intended for sue to be like they are today. I would NEVER consider joining them!


----------



## fish_stix (May 17, 2009)

Well said Mr. Sutton! :thumbsup:


----------



## mnbeekeeper (Jun 30, 2010)

i agree. why would you not want to use the option of negotiating a price for something you worked so hard for. if i want to take the chance and hold my honey till next spring hoping for a better price that is what i will do. some one at sue bee is getting rich and its not the beeks.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

jean-marc said:


> I don't believe that 4 parts per billion poses any health risks for anybody.


The FDA has a zero-tolerance policy regarding chlorahenicol though testing is only considered accurate down to about 0.3 ppb.

Wayne


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

jean-marc said:


> .........I don't believe that 4 parts per billion poses any health risks for anybody. Would 200 ppb pose a health risk?


The most serious risk to the use of Chloramphenicol is that some people react by developing a condition known as aplastic anemia, which is idiosyncratic (rare, unpredictable, and *unrelated to dose*) and generally fatal. So you are wrong to assume that such a low dose does not pose a health risk for anyone, even though this condition is rare the reaction is very unpredictable so in that sense everyone is at risk, how can you justify a position of tolerance with this type of known side effect? So you see, a comparison to rape is not really all that unreasonable. The FDA's zero tolerance policy is the only choice. This is the very reason that the use of this antibiotic at any dosage and for any purpose is banned in this country. Undoubtedly the folks at SueBee are not ignorant to these facts, and simply choose to value their profits and business relationships above the value of human life (a position all too common these days in the corporate world). I could not in good conscience be associated with such an organization.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

The analogy that came to mind when I first read the PI article last year was if Bill Allibone found a bag of crack on his doorstep, would he give it back to the local dealer because, technically, it doesn't belong to him?

Wayne


----------



## Worthington (Jul 5, 2010)

waynesgarden said:


> The analogy that came to mind when I first read the PI article last year was if Bill Allibone found a bag of crack on his doorstep, would he give it back to the local dealer because, technically, it doesn't belong to him?
> 
> Wayne


Thats great! Cant stop laughing :applause:


----------



## ga.beeman (Mar 29, 2009)

Sutton is telling it right. The Co-op today is not what it was designed to be. I think it is plan greed on suebee's part. It is a shame that suebee isn't spending money to help the beekeepers find out what is going on with the bees in this country. But when you buy honey from China i guess you dont have to worry about what is happening here in the USA. Most big packers in this country dont care where they get the honey as long as they can buy it cheap.


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

I respect the opinions Im hearing, but I know sue members on here, and I don't exactly hear them coming out the woodwork to say anything. I do remember the first check is larger and can cover operating expenses. And its nice if you have like 5 semi loads to unload. oh well. :ws


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

It was a good business decision for us to join. We don't have to borrow as much money to operate on as we used to. Things run a lot smoother knowing how much and when the moneys coming. 
Does anyone ever wonder why Suebee is the only one rejecting tainted honey? Could it be we are the only ones having it tested?
There is funny honey being produced by a large scale packer (not Suebee) right here in the U.S. Its not illegal but is it right?


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

> a comparison to rape is not really all that unreasonable.


It is unreasonable though... comparing it to murder would be much more reasonable.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Nick..do your math andsee what its costing you. Yea its great to have those barrells but Ill bet you that if you call Dutch Gold, Golden Heritage(both test your honey and reject if not up to standard) along with a couple of more. Get their price for the next five yrs. Then take what sue pays you...DEDUCT all that interest you lost or paid on money that they dont pay you for 6 months or a year and the 10% they retain for capitol. HOw much could you buy or pay off with 10% of your GROSS,,,,thats a high percentage of your crop profit. I'll bet that over the next 5 years you will loose at least 10 cents a lb or 4,000 a semi load in profits. I'll be your broker for 50% of what I can gain you! Easiest money I'll ever make! Dont think youve really looked at it close. ANd explain to me how you how you have had to borrow to less operate when they are keeping 10% of your money and you get NO return...its a loan to sue with NO interest paid and if they go bankrupt you will LOOSE IT! I can t spell but I can do math! If you produce loads a year thats 200,000 dollars of your money that sue has aftr 10 years YOUR MONEY. If you only produce one load )40,000 lbs x 1.60 lb =64,000 x 10 % = 6,400 dollars a year for 10 years is 64,000 intrest free loan sue has after 10 years plus the interest you lost when they didnt pay you all of your money within 30 days of delivery....geez I think I need to be broker! After all my work thru the year I wnt give anyone 10% of my gross! I'm Trying to be mean or hateful I just dont understand your post as it doesnt make sence!


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I'll BET Golden Hearitage and Dutch Gold run a cleaner ship than sue! They both test your honey and will refuse it if it has antibotics or isnt pure otherwise. If sue is finding chloramphenicol then they KNOW they are getting honey from china! It is illegal to produce funny honey( I know who you are talking about) Hopefully the honey standard will stop alot of funny honey as beekeepers can collect(sue) damages from loss resulting from illegal selling of adulterated(funny honey). There are things I've been told about sue from VERY reliable sources and dont you think they know its from china if it has chloramphenicol and THEN you give it back to them to put back in the food chain, WOW what ethics!!! I wouldnt trust sue as far as I could throw a feather aganist the wind!


----------



## Skinner Apiaries (Sep 1, 2009)

Glad we heard from a member! I don't think theres any reason to argue where the honey comes from, or any of that. you have to look at markets. These people want cheap crappy honey they buy it. Sue has some good and some crap honey, ive tried some of both, the price was relfected in it. Mine tastes great, I sell out. Business is good, sue dosen't affect my market, I have 75% return customers. I always knew the market here was near infinite.


----------



## redbee (Dec 29, 2005)

I've been a member of Sue for 30+ years now ,along with some of the largest and most respected beekeepers in the country.I don't know where some people get their information and why they like to slam Sue,maybe they are Sue Honey want to bees ,we don't allow just anybody to be a member.Maybe someone tried to join but was rejected just a thought,oh by the way no interest paid ,I just cashed my dividen check


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I am not a Sue member, though our family was in years past. I guess my feelings about them are more ambivalent and puzzled than angry. I dutifully send them samples of high quality honey every year and rarely do they show much interest in bidding on any of it, strange considering I am located less than 3 hours from their headquarters. In the conversations that I have had they always point out that their primary responsibility is to do what is in the best interest of their members (translation: I better not pay you more than they are getting). Why do they import so much honey? Undoubtably its because they have the markets and facilities to make money on it which translates into higher earnings. In fairness to them it is probably not reasonable for them to limit themselves to only what A:their members produce or B: what they can buy domestically when their competition is playing by a different set of rules. As far as the tainted honey; not really sure it is fair for people to expect them, or any other packer, to perform the function that, for whatever reason, our Federal government seems incapable of doing, maybe we should be venting more to the FDA than putting all the blame on Sue. We know the other major packers are importing, and testing, a lot of honey as well and I havent heard of any of them notifying the Feds of their findings.

Getting to the main topic of this thread: Just what are the pros/cons? As I see it, membership probably makes the most sense for smaller producers particularly those who produce honeys of various qualities. It will be tested fairly and you will be paid accordingly and on time. Clean drums will be furnished as needed and transportation arrangements will be made. They expect delivery on your entire crop each year, you are obligated to deliver your entire crop and you dont have the right to hold on to any of it (believe me that bylaw has been broken a few times when prices have gone up quickly). I wouldnt be too excited about the prospect of having much of "a say" on anything that goes on around there. Power has always resided with a few and anyone expecting much change will only get frustrated. Mr. Sutton makes good points as far as the economics of membership are concerned; on most years it dosent take a whole lot of marketing savvy for you to beat what will ultimately be paid by Sue and, no, you wont get any interest for your wait, the good ole "revolving fund" is your stake in the coop. It dosent make you any money unless they decide to make a major sale of assets for some reason. That said, though, there have been some windows in recent years (when raw honey prices were in decline) that it has been advantageous to be a member. Their name brand status has allowed them to continue to demand a bit more on the retail level. Is it for you? I guess you will have to answer that one for yourself.


----------



## redbee (Dec 29, 2005)

Thank you Mr. Lyons your a lot better with words than me ,never said Sue was perfect ,but if you are a member they will stand behind you.There are pro and con on about anything you do.


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

Sutton if as you saying making funny honey is illegal. Why do you recomend I sell to one of the packers producing it? We sold honey on the open market for years and didn't feel we made any more money than we do now.
We could probably retail all our honey and make more money I won't argue that. However I don't need another job I am quite busy as it is.
Suebee is not for everyone but they arn't a bunch of crooks out there trying to ruin the U.S. honey market.


----------



## Gene Weitzel (Dec 6, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> ...... As far as the tainted honey; not really sure it is fair for people to expect them, or any other packer, to perform the function that, for whatever reason, our Federal government seems incapable of doing, maybe we should be venting more to the FDA than putting all the blame on Sue. We know the other major packers are importing, and testing, a lot of honey as well and I havent heard of any of them notifying the Feds of their findings.......


Therein lies my rub......why should we expect the FDA to duplicate the effort when the major players in the industry have identified the adulterated honey and its sources. If they really cared about the industry then not only would they pass that information on to the FDA but they would also make if publicly available for all the industry to see. 

When it comes time for Congress to pass legislation for additional regulation of an industry, the major players in that industry are always the ones crying about it and claiming that the better approach is to allow the industry to "police itself"......yet when they have the opportunity to do just that, they always wimp out. The really sad thing is that because of this, we end up with bad regulatory legislation being passed on a knee jerk reaction to a major tragedy that could have been prevented if the industry players had acted in a more ethical and responsible way.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Bingo!:applause: I agree the policing needs to start within the industry. John


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Nick

I dont think golden heritage or dutch gold is making "funny honey"...I can guess some others might be and who they are! I have beenin this industry for many years attending many National and state meetings since 1982 I know most packers ona first name basis along with a large majority of beekeepers. I know enough that I would never consider being a sue member. Come to the meeting in Galveston and we will sit down and I'll fill you in on some things I know that I wont put on here due to legal considerations. I do know in 2001 sue was selling 12 oz honey bears to Kroger for 83 cents each...so how much can they pay you for honey when they sell that cheap? I was at The Wisconisn meeting in Oct 2001 when Wally Dienielt(never could spell it) asked me why honey had gone down so much on the wholesale level. I took off my honey board hat(I was giving a program on packing creamed honey and packing honey at the meeting representing the honey board) my ABF director hat and told those in attendance how cheap sue was selling bears and drivng the price Down. Some sue directors and officers were at the meeting and denied they were selling bears that cheap..got really mad. I told them my info came from Kroger Merchandising manager in the LOuisville division. They left. Years later in LOuisville at the ABF meeting the sue big wigs admitted to me I was right....but they couldnt let their members know at the time as it would have caused a big blow up. They were trying to get market share and cutting price to do it. I will stand by by first post....yes its part of doing business when sue retains part of your hard earned $$$ BUT YOU HAVE TO COUNT IT AND THE LOST INCOME AND INTEREST TO COMPARE WHAT YOU REALLY RECIEVE FOR YOUR HONEY! IF you dont you are comparing apples to oranges! Plus you never know what you are going to get for your honey until that last check arrives. And I'll bet the little dividend check never equals what you lost in price recieved plus interest lost(or paid on a loan you could have paid off!). My personal opinion is sue members either are poor at math or have the wool over their eyes!


----------



## Nick Noyes (Apr 28, 2005)

Sutton
I met you in Reno at the ABF meeting. I came up to the bar to get a beer wearing a Suebee hat. You definately voiced your opinion on Suebee.
Is funny honey hfcs mixed with honey marketed as a honey product (not pure honey)? If so you might want to make some phone calls.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Well opinions are like noses...we all got one! I just honestly cant figure out anyone can come out ahead with sue....I woul be suprised if some packers were selling funny honey(blended with syrup) and not suprised if some others are. Are you saying some of those I think are honest arent? MAybe I'm wrong but I hope not! We all need to get the honey standard passed in each state so we as beeks can go after the crooks..but I think they are killing themselves slowly...everyone wants local honey from a beek. Got one packer in eastern TN selling alot of crap and mislabeled honey...always a rotten apple inthe basket


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

I agree with Jim in that I don't think it is the role of Sue Bee to denounce the suppliers of honey with chloramphenicol residues. That's a FDA responsibility. As far as ethical behavior Sue Bee is being responsible to it's buyers by ensuring that this type of honey is not in their containers. I'm pretty sure that Sue Bee is not to happy about this kind of honey coming to their doorsteps. It can only cause them level of grief. Now as far as them having to make a call to the authorities, not their job. If one were to be cynical about it, Sue Bee would rather that honey with chloramphenicol residues be found in some other packer's jars. Then they could claim that they are higher and mightier than others... looking out for the interest of the general american consummer.

One thing for sure is that Sue Bee and all other packers and any other kind of business is not operating for the betterment of their industry. Most businesses operate with profit being pretty high on the list as to why they are starting up and the benefit to the industry pretty low on the list. Every one here who operates commercially has their own reasons for being in business. All those reasons are just as valid as the other ones.

Sue Bee probably has some members that joined because some packer forgot to pay them the previous year. I don't hear too much about this sort of thing going on anymore but in the past there were more smaller packers around and every once in awhile they would go broke and people didn't get paid. I think some packers were just plain dishonest and would cheat beekeepers, knowing full well that they could do it again next year and the year after that one and so on and so forth. I think with the internet and packers being mostly very large this sort of behavior has sorta been eliminated.

Jean-Marc


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Going off the original topic, I am greatly disappointed that the packers are not self policing(Seattle PI traced a china load to Sioux City, you connect the dots), hence the need for legislation. Unfortunately, the only ones that may benefit from the new laws will be the lawyers. They will smile all the way to the bank as we all sue each other.

Roland


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

I would be more interested in connecting the dots on where this honey goes after Sue has tested it and found chloramphenicol and returns it to the seller, broker......some clever packer who buys it , blends it out. Not only is the freight bill on this honey getting higher than normal, it's probably getting cheaper for this next buyer cause the seller now knows its not a good product


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I agree, I would also like to know where that honey goes. Anyone have any ideas how to find out?

Roland


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I agree with Roland..but here is another take on the subject. Ok so its isnt sues job to police the industry..very true! HOWEVER if you put the contaminated honey back in the food channel a competitor is going to end up with it, probably cheaper...your competition just got tougher! WHY NOT TURN IT OVER TO FDA? Now lets look at the seattle times article...the load was traced for China to third world country to sue. If the reporter can figure out it is transhipped honey why cant sue?(do they want to). At first they say we dont import chinese honey...then opps(got caught) we try not to. Importing transhipped honey avoids the tariffs..keeps prices we recieve lower. So as a member of SUE how do you benefit? Looks to me like sue members are being screwed by sue! Ill bet the bank sue officials KNOW they are importing transhipped honey they just turntheir heads like they do on contaminated honey. All this HURTS the price of honey....and the price all of us recieve including sue members....geez if I was a member I believe I would raise you know what!


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

"All this HURTS the price of honey....and the price all of us recieve including sue members.."


But if you are a packer this collusion of packers assures you of low priced honey...otherwise all this crap would not be in the market, it would be dumped down some deep mine shaft


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

your right..it should be!


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

SueBee pros/cons?

I vote cons. Pros do what is right for their industry and line of work. Not what is best for the pocket book.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

Roland said:


> I agree, I would also like to know where that honey goes. Anyone have any ideas how to find out?
> 
> Roland


Yes, get the president of SueBee to provide names and dates of their suppliers who bring them Cloraphenicol honey and pick up the trail from there.

Of course, he would never do that. SueBee is evidence enough that the industry can not police itself. It requires a willingness to do what is right.

Wayne


----------



## Mike Snodgrass (Mar 11, 2010)

A deep pocket Beekeeper with a hungry lawyer is the only way anything is going to change! If you for one minute think a greedy businees man or a corrupt politician is going to do anything at all....Your a bigger fool than me!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

i've only ever heard of one load of honey destroyed...and that was by the producer when he found out his bees got into waste sugar from a pharmaceutical manufacturer (and got reimbursed...only because he used to caddy for the board of directors).

the argument against the packers "reporting" the contaminated honey is that it doesn't belong to them...they are not putting it "back" into the food channel", they never bought the honey...they might have possession, but not ownership.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Nick Noyes said:


> Does anyone ever wonder why Suebee is the only one rejecting tainted honey? Could it be we are the only ones having it tested?
> There is funny honey being produced by a large scale packer (not Suebee) right here in the U.S. Its not illegal but is it right?


1. i can't say i've seen paperwork, but from talking to testing labs and manufacturers of testing equipment, suebee is not the only one rejecting tainted honey, and not the only one testing.

2. selling a jar that says "pure honey" on it that is adulterated in any significant measurable way is illegal...at least i know my state health dept would consider it so.

deknow


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

But are they doing the "right" thing for the industry by not reporting the contamination to the proper authorities? Ok, let's put it another way, they are not "putting" it back into the food channel, they are "allowing" it to go back into the food channel. Is there a difference? It still ends up in the food channel. John


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

certainly i agree that such honey should be taken out of the food chain (perhaps to make ethanol?)...honey adulterated with sugar should at least be properly labeled as to what is in the jar....no sticker that says "pure honey".

remember, these packers are making their $$$ by buying the least expensive product they can get their paws on (and marketing it as a pure and natural product). if you were selling the cheapest honey around, would you send product to a packer that was going to call the FDA if a load tested positive? reporting would likely shut off the availablity of the cheapest stuff....making the packer pay more $$$ for product from a producer or broker that is confident about how their honey will test...which is opposite of what some packers are trying to do. i don't think contamination or adulteration is the concern in many cases, it's the lab test...everyone wants the cheapest product they can get that they can document as being "pure". reporting loads that fail tests will cut off the supply of the cheapest stuff that _might_ test clean.

i'm not defending the system...but i'm not even sure of the legal situation....if the honey is confiscated while in the possession of the packer, could the supplier sue for payment?

deknow


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Kinda off subject but here is another problem. Take any major chain, most will put out for bids on honey, cheapest bid wins....nothing abut quality/taste. MOst of this has comeabout with BIG business. 25 years ago most honey on shelf was light, had good flavor..not like homegrown bue definately not the crap in jars now. Honey has been sold as a commodity like bottled water for far too long, honey is honey. And big business wants it as cheap as possable. I recently had a major packer tell me of one Restaurant that wanted light amber honey, nothing darker, then it wet to us honey then to honey that was pure and now they dont care as long as the package SAYS honey. I still think if a packer finds adulterated(blended with syrup or chloramphenicol) it should be turned over to FDA or local health dept. I also think SUe being a bekeeper coop would look after their members better....or should I say at least somewhat!


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

opcorn:


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

deknow said:


> remember, these packers are making their $$$ by buying the least expensive product they can get their paws on (and marketing it as a pure and natural product).....


Ending that practice would be in the best interest of US beekeepers, by far... as well as the industry as a whole. Even packers would earn more because what they lose in margin they'll regain in volume as the public becomes more confident in the product and consumes more than 9 tenths of a pound per year.



deknow said:


> if the honey is confiscated while in the possession of the packer, could the supplier sue for payment?


No. The supplier is the one that broke the law which resulted in the confiscation. As Judge Judy puts it... you can't go to court with dirty hands and expect a favorable judgement.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I still say the solution to contaminated honey has to come from the people who have a vested interest in keeping the product safe, the beekeeping industry, and I am including the packers in this obligation too. Depending on the government to do it for us.......I don't think so, look at the "certified organic" fiasco, do you trust that? I think the consumer nowadays would trust the beekeeper much more than the government, we need to educate the public more than we do now, pure honey needs to be advertised on a national level regularly. John


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

Wish I knew how to quote others, have not figured that out yet. In any event I agree that the rate of honey consumption is kinda low in the USA. I think in Canada we eat and extra 2/10th's of a pound for a whopping 1.1 pounds per person per year. This figure includes honey that is consummed through industrial usage such as the honey eaten thru Honey Nut Cheerios or the honey that may have been used in baking bread. Basically the average person does not eat honey. The rate is not low because of some lack of confidence in the product. The rate has always been low. This is not something new. Historically the rate has been around a pound a year.

As far as margins go packers make a percentage on the sale. So if the packer pays more for a pound of honey then he would charge more for the final product, the percentage of margin stays the same but that margin translates into more money per jar or bucket. The packer always cries that he will lose volume because of higher prices but that's not what the USDA statitics show. The volumes of honey in the USA being consummed increase slighly all the time because of population increase. I think the industrial usage is creeping up slowly. Table honey usage is creeping downwards.

The beekeeping industry would and could benefit from national advertising. I've heard this kinda talk from at least 25 years ago when I did not have bees at the time. Basically beekeepers are to cheap to spend money for their own benefit. The only way to increase consumption would be thru advertising and education. The education would have to focus on usages of honey, recipes etc...

The reason Beemaid (Canadian counterpart to Sue Bee)came into existence is because beekeepers felt they were not getting good returns for their investments and efforts. I also think they felt they were getting cheated by some packers.They thought that they could do better is they pooled their efforts. Basically they lived in the middle of nowhere and maybe produced 100 000 pounds of honey. I suspect Sue Bee started up for very similar reasons. Guys have a lot of honey, they don't trust the packers. They don't want to pack their own honey because they may be isolated from large urban centers. They don't have the personnality , the desire or drive to pack honey. In fact its another business. So they probably figured they can trust another beekeeper more than they could another packer so next thing you know you have a Sue Bee.

The biggest problem in the packing business is that there is only one pie. The only way to increase profits is by trying to increase volumes. or getting a bigger market share. The only way to increase volume it would seem, is to take some of the other packers piece of pie. All efforts seem to be made there. So this is where all the undercutting and transhipped honey comes into play. Little efforts seem to made into making the pie bigger, ensuring that all could benefit.

Jean-Marc


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Good post jean-marc, I agree with everything you said, volumes need to increase, and I would prefer if it happened as a byproduct of increased advertising and educating the consumer, rather than undercutting the competition to increase market share by packers. John


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

It would help beyond belief if the honey on store sheves and portion packs was a really GOOD tasting honey rather than the blended cheap stuff! My uncle recently got a packet of honey at a restaurant to put on a biscuit..had to throw it away was awful! THat hurts us all! Honey is much darkeron the shelf, that a few yrs back. If was a sue member I would hate it if my good honey was blended and put on the shelf tasting like it does.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

To add to Jean-Marc's post, Bee Maid honey is 100% Canadian---Canadian Praire honey. They do not import any honey. That is how they started and from what i gather that is how they want to stay. Could the members of Sue demand that only US honey be packed? Is it not up to the members to put forth and vote on what happens?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I would certainly agree that Sue's quality on the shelf has deteriorated and the other major packers have generally followed suit although some have maintained a bit better looking product . For years Sue had a very consistent color, not the whitest but pretty good. The first I remember seeing the dark stuff was in 2003 when there was a shortage of white honey because of drought. I have often wondered how much is because of a shortage of white honey and how much is the "wal-martization" of the market place. As we get fewer and bigger stores apparently price gets to be the only thing that matters. It seems odd that there dosent seem to be a niche for higher quality, higher priced honey.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Jim...there is thats why honey sales are booming with small packers/farmers markets and price doenst seem to be a object. 20 yrs ago people would say"iI canget it cheaper at the grocery" nowits I dont want that honey on the shelf..it isnt good h0ney." Last year at a high end festival I was selling qts for 13.00, got asked more than once "is it pure"? THis year it will be higher! ALso the only reason I can forsue not to turn contaminated over to authorities is they would have a hard time buying more honey from that source....and since its probably cheaper they dont want to loose that cheap source. What else would you have to gain?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Those farmers markets are great, the vendors can do very well at times but I also feel that they earn it. Depending on where you live travel can be expensive and not everyone wants to spend their week-ends doing that especially after a long week working bees. But at $13 a quart hmmmmmm starting to sound pretty tempting.


----------



## ga.beeman (Mar 29, 2009)

Sutton beeman you are telling it right. I am not saying that some of the members or not honest hard working beekeepers because i know some are but i also know some that are very questionable. I dont want to be a member and have never sold to sue bee. my problem with is Sue Bee is that they send honey back to the wholesaler when found to be altered or chemicals found in it. That throws a very big red flag for me. if they cared about the beekeepers in the U.S. they would report it every single time. They know it is not right but they dont care. just like they said on here before all they are interested in is the membership. sounds like a bunch of hog wash to me.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Gotta get those new members to get that capitol to operate on (10% of their gross)....alot of beekeepers creme for next ten years. Must be great to have interest free capitol to operate on!


----------



## devdog108 (May 7, 2009)

I had some suebee honey stuck in the back cabinet and just for giggles had a taste of it. I mean NO disprespect to ANYONE HERE, but that honey was NOT good at all.....i threw it away, didn't even want to put it into my recipes....


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

I agree with Suttonbeeman that good tasting product on the shelf is first and foremost. I wonder how many customers are forever lost because their last experience with honey was poor? It's a bit confusing for me as the packers putting poor tasting honey on the shelf must know that it is poor tasting. It's not that far of a stretch to think that this may result in fewer sales down the road. I guess short term gains trump long term viablity in their minds.

Jean-Marc


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

I also think we as consumers get lost when it says Canada #1 or USDA #1 (?). In reality, those are just grades and in no way an implication of what coutry of origin the honey comes from. If i were not a honey producer, it might have been a bit longer before i caught on to that...when i am 6 feet under maybe  .
Alot of people who i chat with when selling honey say they buy Canadian honey. I ask what does it say on the back...they just see the grade on the front as *assume* it is Canadian.
If R-Calf can have country of origin labelling (COOL) so should we honey producers. On the front of the package.


----------



## ryan (Apr 3, 2010)

Hi Woodside. I'm a Sue member. On the average it's OK. You need to get the details about the money right from Sue about retains. Some of the numbers quoted in earlier posts are not correct. Off the top of my head its a 7 year program not 10. The % retained and how/when it is taxed is beyond my ability today.

The most obvious downside is the retains issue.

The overall price paid per pound in the barrel is a gray area compared to the open market. Last year I shipped honey on the first of August and the open market was about 1.35. I got paid more than that. If I had held that honey until March the open market would have paid 1.70 or better. If I could find a buyer. As a Sue member I didn't get the 1.70 price either. The price landed somewhere in the middle. On a low price year I will get closer to the top price paid on the open market. On a low price year I won't have to wait to sell my honey, like often happens. I get paid about 40% within a few days of shipping, then payments about every 60 days after that. That's not all that different from what happened to me on the open market lots of times.

If you are able to predict what the honey market is going to do, don't join Sue. You can beat the Sue price every year if you have that kind of insight/instincts. Better yet, forget beekeeping and start trading commodities on the Chicago Board of Trade or the NYSE. I'm not joking, some people just have the skill. (and time) If your skill is getting honey in the barrel, maybe Sue is a good fit.

Barrels are a great benefit. Never have to weigh them, clean, save labor because the lids go on fast, great price and service on the trucking. As soon as I have 64 barrels I call for a truck, I don't even need to take time to stack them up. I warehouse almost no barrels over the winter. If I wasn't in Sue I'd have to build a shed to hold my honey until the open market price was up and the packers were willing to take my honey. 

Sue also does all my Bryd amendment paperwork. Byrd money has made being in Sue very competitive over the past few years. It might not continue.

On the import issue, if you see a bottle of Sue Bee Honey on the store shelf, it is 100% Domestic honey. (There are a few Canadian members and I'm not sure if that is held separate, anyway I haven't heard any complaints about the Canadians) The import business is always separate. I think lots of the imported honey is "industrial/commercial" use. Whatever that means. 

One last benefit is the ability to leave funds at Sue. You can leave your money there and get paid a better interest rate than probably any other bank. Call them up and have what you need wired to your checking account when you need it. Not all bad.

The very first book I was required to buy at school was "How to Lie With Statistics". You can make a case for or against Sue. My advice or anybody else's is useless. I think it is all about whether it fits your situation.

Good luck


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Ryan....you have made severalgood points. But I think if you really keep records....you will find you come out on the low end on most years. Second with the 7 ears of retained 10% yu could use that money to build you another building and have money left over for whatever you desired. I really question if sue is lying to you about the store shelf honey, I may be wrong but I dont trust them at all. I just think, especially since people are wanting "good local unprocessed raw" a rowers coop should flurish. Instead sue continues to import crap, A growers coop should promote their members honey and NOT IMPORT crap honey. Good luck....


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

>I think lots of the imported honey is "industrial/commercial" use. Whatever that means. 

As a Sue member, I would need to know what that means.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Another thing, I really question the labeling on Sue honey in the stores, it says clover, but the color and taste don't add up for me. Like someone said earlier, Sue's quality has gone down from many years back, I think I would need to know why Sue's clover honey is not what it used to be, clover ten years ago should still have the same characteristics today. I'm not one to believe everything I hear or read is true. John


----------



## ga.beeman (Mar 29, 2009)

Thanks Ryan for the insight. I think that sue bee was good thing when it started. The market has changed and the coop is looking at supply. I just dont believe that when the volume of us honey is down. like it was last year they are not going to stop supplying when the us honey is depleted. I just dont buy that they dont use honey from China. It doesnt taste like it did 10 to 15 years ago. And they should report it to the government when they find it altered or something in it. But instead they say that it isnt there until they check it and it passes. That is just playing the word game. It is sent back and someone else ends up with it. If they where not trying to hide something and really cared about the american beekeepers they would turn in every barrel that they find period. It just isnt right.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing Sue members saying they stay with Sue because it works out for them, while at the same time they evidently think it must be ok for Sue to turn away contaminated honey, not report it to those who need to know, and let it get back in the food channel. What the heck is Sue afraid of here? ALL Sue members need to take the blinders off and demand answers. Looking out for the best interests of American beekeepers and the safety of honey consumed in this country is what should be the primary importance here, and everything else will take care of itself. John


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Sue and the other big boys all want the cheap good Chinese honey, TRANSSHIPPED OR COMPLETE WITH RICE SYRUP, the cheap price allows them to undercut one anther for market share.......look what happened to the world price several years ago when Chinese crap was completely banned....................packers don't want to see that again


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Yep, you're absolutely right irwin, they like that cheap foreign syrup to cut the real stuff with. John


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

John:

Industrial/commercial use of honey is when honey is packed in 30 or 60 pound pails. It's the honey that gets used by bakers, beer makers, candy makers, cereal makers etc... This honey never makes it on the store shelf. Generally speaking it is darker in colour. Whatever the colour may be, the end user doesn't like it when the colour changes. Say if for instance, if they were getting a yellow looking honey(some from argentina) and the next time they purchase it is white or dark for that matter, they start asking questions. They generally preferred it the way it was before. I guess it's human nature and they are resisting change. I suppose that a honey from a different source/country would have a different flavour and could change the taste of the final product.

Ryan: The Canadian honey is pool B honey or honey destined for the industrial/commercial use. It's not supposed to make it on the store shelf. I tried a couple of times to sell them honey and that is what I was told. It's unfortunate for the final product on the shelf because Canadian prairie honey is very light in colour and could certainly make the final product look whiter.

Jean-Marc


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

jean-marc,

Thanks for the information, that makes sense now. I agree that a large packer such as Sue must try to keep a consistent product on the shelf (color and taste) for the consumer. John


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

jmgi said:


> Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing Sue members saying they stay with Sue because it works out for them, while at the same time they evidently think it must be ok for Sue to turn away contaminated honey, not report it to those who need to know, and let it get back in the food channel. What the heck is Sue afraid of here? ALL Sue members need to take the blinders off and demand answers. Looking out for the best interests of American beekeepers and the safety of honey consumed in this country is what should be the primary importance here, and everything else will take care of itself. John


Try looking at it this way. I send you 20 loads of honey. You test it and say it's contaminated. Well it wasn't contaminated when I sent it. You owe me for 20 loads or I want my honey back. 
You really wouldn't want to defend your position in court.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

123456,

I really don't claim to know all the details of how the testing procedure works when selling to a packer, but I think that before shipping the whole lot, a small sample is given for testing, maybe that's not how it works with Sue. The scenario you layed out looks awfully similar to blackmail if you ask me. So, Sue sends the honey back and keeps their mouths shut about what they found, hmmmmm, just ain't right. John


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

It's easy to send a sample of good honey knowing your load may be bad.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

Ok, so what's the testing procedure on large amounts of honey? John


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

It's not blackmail. Fraud is a tricky thing to prove.

How about this, you send me 20 loads of good honey. I contaminate it, alert the authorities that you're selling junk honey and they shut you down and you're out 20 loads of honey.

If Sue Bee is run by a bunch of crooks, how can you believe them if they accuse someone of selling bad honey. Maybe they have an axe to grind with that particular importer.

Of course Sue Bee sends the honey back. If they want to keep it and pack it or turn it over to the authorities they're still on the hook to pay for it.

If contaminated honey isn't caught when it arrives in the ports then it becomes a hot potato that no one wants to be left holding.


----------



## The Honey Householder (Nov 14, 2008)

I know if I bought a load of lumber from Lumber Co. and it was bad lumber I would sent it back. Then again I have money in that load and want my money back. The product isn't your's until you pay for it. After you pay for it you can do with it whatever you want with it.
I shipped 200+ lbs of propolis to a company, and didn't hear from them for 4 months. When I did get ahold of them they say it was contamiated and destory it. So no product return and no money for product.:ws So where was I going with this???? Oh yea, As a company owner and business you do what you have to do to make money and until you pay for something it's not yours to do anything with.:no:
Sorry I'm NOT a producer that hasn't sold to the big packers in 4 years now. The honey market is to go to sell to the packers.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

If nobody wants to be left holding the "hot potato", then we need to come up with a way to keep the hot potato's out of the food channel, until each drum has been inspected. They can sit at the port or in some quarantined area until it passes inspection. If it doesn't at least it won't have to go too far to get back on the ship and sail back to wherever it came from. Listen, this isn't rocket science here, we can keep this crap out of the country easy by following a procedure that eliminates monkey business, don't say it can't be done. John


----------



## wlf1961 (Feb 25, 2010)

Dis-trust is the reason third party independent inspection companies have started in other industries. It's pretty cut and dry, buyer and seller make an agreement to buy/sell a product, you call them for inspection, one of them foots the bill for the inspection, inspection company sends report to both parties, the product either passes or fails inspection. I know most, if not all of you know about this, but it would be nice to have this in the honey industry. I've been in the oil inspection business for domestic/imported oil for 21 years and it pretty much keeps things on the up and up for all. Just a thought. Wayne


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

wlf1961,

Thanks for the info, this is an example of what can be done in the honey industry, something similar could be done here for sure. First, there has to be a willingness to do what is right for the industry and the consumer, maybe this is where the snag is. The honey importer should have no say in the matter, we should be protecting our interests here at home first and foremost. If they want to try to bring this crap into the country it will have to undergo thorough testing, if it means the packer has to pay for the test, so be it, although splitting the cost would be more fair, and in itself would be a major deterrent to importing crap in the first place IMO. John


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

I have never heard of any contaminated or adulterated oil out there , and who usually pays for this service. A lot of the buyers I have known are not interested in keeping everything on the up and up , only want the product at the cheapest possible price and can involve a few surprises after delivery, if not in the contract they would like you to sign.I have often-ed wondered why there seemed to be so many crooks in this buissness

The solution for this problem will not come from the packers, as they are a big part of the problem, as I see it.The industry should be able to police it's self but the greed in this business is to powerful


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

'"If contaminated honey isn't caught when it arrives in the ports then it becomes a hot potato that no one wants to be left holding. "

I agree , stop it at entry of country , but if the indictments and the amount of lost duty are any indication of the volume involved there is quite a market for transshipped and adulterated Chinese honey and even a supposedly reputable honey broker like Wolf was involved .......greed... turn a pigs ear into a silk purse for big profit


----------



## wlf1961 (Feb 25, 2010)

"I have never heard of any contaminated or adulterated oil out there" Irwin, believe me there is such a thing. The cost is negotiated. All I was saying is that it would make a big difference in the industry if there was such an independent involved. Wayne


----------



## ryan (Apr 3, 2010)

A few random thoughts.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You think Sue members get paid less than the open market. I've claimed on the average that it's really pretty close. Then some also believe that the Sue honey on the store shelf has been mixed with cheap imports to boost profits. Well, where did all those extra profits go? You can dislike Sue. It's a fair evaluation. I don't think claiming both low payments and cheating to get high profits at the same time is possible.

We have plenty of honey raised right here in the USA that can pull down the quality of the final product sold. Tallow, pepper, sunflower, you can all name a honey that's not as nice as what you want to see on your table. Imports are not the only low grade honey.

Look into the interest paying accounts at Sue if you are considering joining. A couple of hundred thousand dollars invested at a 1%or 2% better than any bank offsets the down side of retains. Remember you only lose the interest for 7 years not the principal. $1,000,000 crop 7% retain (I think it's closer to 7% retained) is $70,000 the interest cost, at 6%, on that retain is $4,200. Can't buy much with $4,200. Now if you make a Million $ crop how much can you leave at the co-op to earn interest at above market rates. Do your own math or fix my math, maybe it works for you. And no, I don't have a million $ crop. Just trying to make a point.

Don't forget the Bryd paperwork that gets done perfectly at Sue.

I think Raw Honey is the future. I hope Sue makes a move to try that market. The "Local" part of won't work for most of the buyers or the sellers. The state of ND produces the most honey but only has about 600,000 people. One fair sized beekeeper can supply the whole states needs, the other 99.99% has to be sold out of state. Same can be said for the buyers of honey in Denver, Chicago, or New York. There is nowhere near enough honey raised within 200 miles of large cities to supply everyone with local honey. Selling to a packer is a necessary evil for most of the volume of honey in the US.

The import business at Sue is an easy target for this forum. There is a demand for cheap bulk import honey in this country. Some one will meet this demand. Sue won't buy honey that is adulterated or contaminated. The standard Sue has set for itself in the import market apparently has not been met by all importers. Lets get a list of high quality importers going so we can support the good guys out there. 

As a member of Sue I'm sure all the testing that Sue does costs me a bunch of money. The testing equipment, time, labor, hassle, and the rejected honey that we could have sold at a profit add up to some real money that could have been in membership pockets. If you are not a Sue member how much money have you spent to make the imported honey market a cleaner place. I guess the efforts of who you sell your honey to should count also. I've seen a posts that members of Sue should demand we do more than keep our own noses clean. Fine, I will. I think we will need some help. Please remember if all importers did what Sue does we would have no issue with funny honey. Sue is not the villain.

Peace


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

If you are producing honey here there are no good importers they are driving your price down there is no list of good guys. if they were not importing this honey you would get more per pound for your honey simple supply and demand.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Sue is not the villain.............no shes just another honey packer,producer owned and like the rest of them likes all of the cheap stuff she can get .She also must cover her butt , her name and her members... your telling it like it is- the honey market and why we need packers,.... like your post .As for the cost of testing all that honey, including mine sometimes, well its cheap insurance and the payback is more than one way .There are reasons why co- ops exist and are successful

Don't let it be forgot, That once there was a spot -For one brief shining moment That was known as Camelot.
- John F. Kennedy


----------



## redbee (Dec 29, 2005)

Thank you Ryan,you said what I have been trying to say,Sue Bee Honey is not the bad guy


----------



## ga.beeman (Mar 29, 2009)

Well I not saying that they are the only bad guys out there, and maybe they are not the bad guy. But any company that will not report contaminated or altured honey to the right people IS NOT in the best interest of beekeepers here in the states. I know because some of the post on here are from members of sue and they are trying to justify why they are members doesnt make sense to me. Sue is taking money out your pocket just like every other beekeeper in america. I agree that some honey produce in the usa is not top grade. I think when sue bee was started that it was a good thing for the members. But as they have grew over the years they have left the beekeepers interest out of the picture. they want the cheapest honey they can buy and they dont care where it comes from. If SueBee is all that some of you say it is then why dont you members be pushing for them to report every barrel they find not on the up and up to the govt. and then maybe some of us might have a better opinion of them SueBee.


----------



## ryan (Apr 3, 2010)

Hi last post here. Back to the original point. If you can survive the payment structure at Sue but have moral issues with Sue business actions. Join Sue and be heard. There is no dark back room where plots are hatched. Just a bunch of beekeepers, your friends and neighbors, trying to get it right. If you have the answers we need you. 

It is a little scary at first. You will soon realize Sue is a very small fish swimming in a very big pond.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Ryan...I am pretty sure most sue members are NOT told the whole truth, From my information (who is other beekeepers, former sue members, other packers(yes thy may lie, but the ones I am referring to I trust) sue members are not told everything and sometimes are told outright lies by their board. Believe me theyre a mess and not a beekeepers friend! ANd by the way its not teh only the interest you lost on the capitol its the use of al that money...and for most sue members is probably over 100,000 dollars some over 250,000 over the 7 yr period if they produce several loads!


----------



## ryan (Apr 3, 2010)

Yep, can't argue that it doesn't look like a mess at times. I'm sure you know, but let me get it out there for those who don't. The board of directors is made up from the beekeeper members. Each region elects a director every 3 years. If the beekeeper lies to you, you can vote him out of office and get on the board yourself. I know your not interested, but we need those out there with your good strong business sense and instincts to take the time to be on the board. 

Are you sure I can't tempt you??? Think of the impact you could have. "SUTTONBEEMAN, Sue Bee Honey, Board of Directors". I think it has a nice ring to it. Think how good that would look on your business cards! Come on. I double dog dare you. 

Have a good weekend all.


----------

