# Raw Honey; What Is It, Really?



## power napper

We do not heat our honey to strain it, with the exception of the spout coming out of the extractor when it gets plugged from too cold of honey, then we use a hair dryer to get it going again. Perhaps the only truly pure honey is in the comb! We sell our honey as pure raw honey that has not been filtered or heated. Not an expert here by any means but have read and heard that enzymes and flavor are lost when heating honey.


----------



## Joel

{put a label on my comb honey containers that says,"The Only Truely Raw Honey".}

Everything else is processed!

Of course the consumer is looking for unstrained and unheated so that's what we give them.

[ January 15, 2006, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## [email protected]

IMHO, honey is raw if it has not been heated or filtered. Heating above 110 degrees (F) destroys some enzymes. Enzymes aid digestion. Roger Morse wrote (somewhere) about this and why enzymes are important.

I have a huge demand for raw honey. I primarily get it from draining uncappings (I am not so large I need to use a spinner), but also get several hundred pounds a year from drainings from cut comb. I sell all the raw honey I get at a 25% premium to the standard extracted honey price.

This year I had a customer ask me to put cappings into my raw honey, a la Really Raw honey. I complied and also offered the product to a local coop, for a 50% premium to the standard extracted price! Sold a couple of hundred pounds.

Hope this helps,

Lloyd


----------



## Michael Bush

>I know how to make "raw" honey.
But, what is the real difference between honey that is produced with no heat and honey that is heated warm enough to strain(140F)?

The taste is significantly different.

>People who ask me for "raw" honey say that there is something lost when honey is warmed to at or above 100F. What is it that is lost?

Flavor, among other things. Enzymes break down under heat. Chemically we know that hydroxymethylfurfural increases when heating honey. In Europe this appears to be the standard test for freshness and "rawness".

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/honey_quality.htm
http://www.nhb.org/foodtech/tgloss.html


http://www.xs4all.nl/~jtemp/EnzThem.html


----------



## sqkcrk

When I first saw "raw" honey it was what was coming right out of the extracter. When I saw it, I thought, "Dirty whte honey. Why would anyone want that."

Now, as I have heard here and seen when people put up honey for "Really Raw", not only is this product what comes from the extractor, but people add more cappings. Amazing.

Where did this idea come from?
Certainly a beekeeper didn't put up what 20 or fewer years ago we wouldn't let out of our honey houses. Before anyone gets all wound up by my description, think about it. You couldn't create this sort of product again. Could you? A demand for something else similarly "processed"?

Was the creation of "raw" honey consumer driven. Was it just a matter of one individual saying to another that in a book somewhere they read that some enzymes were lost when honey is heated and they didn't want that as part of their diet? 

How much is lost? Is it a measureable amount? Do consumers of "raw" honey cook with it? If so, aren't they defeating the purpose?

How hard does this product get? Too hard to dig out of a jar with a spoon? Then what does the consumer do? Heat it?

Thanks,


----------



## Joel

{"Dirty whte honey}

Wasn't that a song by Foreigner, I googled it to find out but I can't even begin to speak about what came up.

I will never understand why people want to try and gouge roughly crystalized honey and wax out of jar and eat it. It's all in the mind. (The emperor has no clothes)


----------



## sqkcrk

The customer is always right.
The customer is always right.
ditto


----------



## kenpkr

>Of course the consumer is looking for unstrained and unheated....<

When you all say "unstrained" what do you really mean? Do you not run the extracted honey through a filter or strainer of any kind before bottling? I run mine thru a fine-mesh nylon material to take out the big pieces of wax, bee parts, etc. Does this take out some of the "good stuff" that I brag about when I sell my "pure raw honey"?


----------



## wayacoyote

I recently had a frend show me her jar of Raw Honey. It was loaded with particulates floating in it. It really perplexed me since simply settling my honey got all that stuff out.

She's an "organic consumer" and nothing I could tell her of how I never filter or heat could convince her that mine was just as raw. 

I think it is like buying shrimp with heads-on. The sales man told me that it was to assure me of the quality. I told him that I don't eat the heads and would trust him on the quality. I didn't seeing paying the pound price for heads when I could have gotten all tails. No deal... 

Back to this Raw Honey, i don't know how they do it. i couldn't get that much wax to stay in my honey. But to do it on purpose just to prove it to be unprocessed? that seems like further processing to me.


----------



## Dick Allen

> I will never understand why people want to try and gouge roughly crystalized honey and wax out of jar and eat it.

There is a small population of Russians living in Anchorage. Awhile back one of them drove by my house and saw my Raw Honey sign. Most of my honey in buckets is now crystallized. I told the lady Id have to warm it slightly so it could be bottled. She didnt want it that way and asked if she could just buy it crystallized. Who am I to argue? Later some of her friends came by after finding out I have crystallized honey available. None of them wanted liquid honey.

Better yet, I have some darker honey that is significantly honeydew honey. Most people around here dont like it as it is stronger flavored. When I let the Russian lady try some, she asked me Why didnt you tell me before that you had that kind of honey?! I havent tasted honey like that since I was in Russia. Now thats what she wants to buy. 

In some instances, I'd guess its what peoples taste buds were trained to early on.


----------



## Jim Fischer

The whole concept of "Raw" honey is... marketing.

Everyone wants to differentiate their product,
and someone got the bright idea that defects
in their honey (as compared to honey-show entry
style honey) could be marketed as "more natural"
to the granola-and-Birkenstock set.

I don't know about you, but if it is 90 degrees
outside, I'm going to guess that the supers on
my hives are going to get warmer than that, so
claiming that my honey was never warmer than
any particular temperature would be lying.

Honey exposed to heat does have higher HMF
levels, but no one ever bothers to promote
"low HMF honey", even though this would be
an objective and measurable metric, proof
that the honey was never "overheated".

As far as people who don't filter their honey
(or, worse yet, *ADD* crap like cappings fragments
and propolis to create a "more natural looking"
product, these people are either "lazy", "con
artists", or "marketing geniuses", depending
upon who you talk to. At best, these people
are filling a niche market, one that I address
with "chunk" honey, where a slice of cut comb
is placed in a jar filled with (filtered)
liquid honey.

I think I'm being just a bit "smarter" than the
purveyors of honey with "crud" in it, as the
customer who wants honey, pollen, and propolis
can buy them all in one bottle for $6 from one
of these "Raw Honey" people, or they can buy
each in a separate bottle from me, for $6 +
$2 + $4 = $12. (The solution to the equation
for determining which of us has maximized his 
marginal revenue versus cost of sales and cost 
of goods sold is left to the student.)


----------



## wayacoyote

"Granola-and-birkenstock set"
Thanks, Jim. That was the term I was looking for. I've got friends who are "granola's" and freinds who wear birkenstocks, but it is definately a different group who tries to marry the two types...


And I can remember when the preppies started dressing grung. and grung boutiques began to open up. 

Waya


----------



## sqkcrk

waya brother, How ya been? Long time no see.

One guy i know who puts up really raw honey uses a Dakota Gunnis uncapper and a 36 frame extractor. 

The cappings from the DG travel down a shoot to the sump tank. 

The honey and cappings from the extractor go into the sump tank.

The honey and cappings are pumped into a 55 gallon drum with an agitaitor from a milk bulk tank sitting in it to keep the mix mixed.

A pump that comes from an automatic filler pumps the mix through the filler into prelabeled jars.

After the jars sit a while, they are turned upside down to check for wire or nails.

When those are found, they are fished out. I wonder about the pieces that aren't found.

There is a quality control system, so that a single jar can be traced back to the packer.

That's one guy that I know.

Keep up your standards. Try to inform your friend that she won't have to pick her teeth clean of propolis. There must be some of that in there too.


----------



## HARight

In our area of NC, "raw honey" is honey straight from the extractor, wax, bee parts, and anything that goes through the drain spout. The honey and "stuff" is botteled straight from the extractor, no strainer, no filter, no heat. I supply it only on special request and at $2 a quart extra. My extra work and time is worth something. I will not display it until the customer picks it up, the bee parts turn most customers off, it is an "under the counter" item.


----------



## sqkcrk

HaRight, as in HAR DEE HAR HAR?
It is interesting that in this age, something that takes less time and effort, and has things in it that most people wouldn't want in their honey, claims the best price.

Is there anything else that would be comparable? Like maybe unclean, unrefined rice?

Could we create another such product?


----------



## wayacoyote

Well, Mark
(I'm on vacation








there's the example I gave regarding shrimp, and then there is the farmers' markets with under processed produce selling at a premium price. Seems like anything that can be conveyed as making a product premium results in a higher price. A good thing most of the time, but I think it is a system that can be abused by the unscrupulous on the uninformed. I'm not sure that adding things to my honey, or homogenizing things in it (for lack of a better phrase) to make it appear less processed is a reputable way to qualify it as Raw. Not wanting to split the hairs on "all honey is processed", those methods seem like processing to me. 

Now HAR mentions simply bottling the whole lot and that to me comes the closest to Raw. but I would have to bottle immediately if I don't want those things floating out to the top. And I don't see settling over night as a "process." so how to educate the berkenstocks that they Are getting a Raw honey that is simply less trashy than they expect?

Waya (who'll be around a bit longer until heading south for Deer hunting and then heading deep for backpacking... the only perk to working as a Seasonal Park Ranger is those long vacations in the winter)


----------



## beemandan

Elevated temperatures denature proteins. The higher the temperature, the faster the process. For those folks who believe that consuming honey from local sources bestows a degree of allergic immunity, the denaturing of those proteins in the pollens will reduce or elimintate the effect.

Since I believe that there is some truth in that anti-allergenic effect....does that make me a member of 'Granola-and-birkenstock set'?

[ January 17, 2006, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: beemandan ]


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Since I believe that there is some truth in 
> that anti-allergenic effect...

That puts you in agreement with some very
experienced allergists, who suggest this
approach often. People ask me about this,
and I tell them I'm not a doctor, but that
it certainly can't hurt to try, and honey
is cheaper than any medication you'd care
to name.

> does that make me a member of 
> 'Granola-and-birkenstock set'?

No, you have to look at your feet, and look
what's on the table for breakfast.


----------



## kenpkr

>Is there anything else that would be comparable? Like maybe unclean, unrefined rice?<

Which happens to be the best way to eat rice for the maximum health benefit.


----------



## ScadsOBees

So what is the difference between straining and filtering?

??My honey is raw, but I filter it through a strainer, or I strain it through a filter???

Or is filtering an added pressure forced process whereas straining is a gravity forced process?

Most of the people that buy honey from me want honey, not bee parts. Myself included. Little furry legs and thoraxes on my toast just don't do it for me. But any reasonable special requests are accomodated...I'll add wax or comb if you want, just don't ask me to add bee legs.

Rick (who is one of the granola-and-new balance-set)

[ January 17, 2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: ScadsOBees ]


----------



## ScadsOBees

So what is the difference between straining and filtering?

??My honey is raw, but I filter it through a strainer, or I strain it through a filter???

Or is filtering an added pressure forced process whereas straining is a gravity forced process?

Most of the people that buy honey from me want honey, not bee parts. Myself included. Little furry legs and thoraxes on my toast just don't do it for me.

Rick (who is one of the granola-and-new balance-set)


----------



## Michael Bush

Letting it run through a screen would be straining, IMO. Running it through a fine filter would be filtering. The point is that filtering is fine enough to remove the pollen and bits of wax and such. Straining is not. I suppose someone should define what micron is the break point, but it's just a general concept.


----------



## wayacoyote

I think Rick and Michael are on to something. I've always distinguished filtering and straining by what I was using: if I was using a filter, I said I was filtering, if I was using a strainer, I figured I was straining.... But I can't tell you what makes a filter or a strainer. I do know that some aquarium filters don't filter out particles, but filter out chemicals... 

Now for another one, when I'm using the colendar, amd I colendaring? and If I'm using a veggie strainer, am I straining In the veggies, since they are left behind and the water and dirt washed away??

My head is spinning
Waya


----------



## Jim Fischer

> So what is the difference between straining and filtering?

Marketing Hype!

"Filtering" sounds "too technological", and gives
the impression that there might be something "bad"
that needs to be taken out of the honey, or, worse
yet, gives the impression that something of value
has been removed in the process, while "straining"
somehow does not give that impression to the
unsophisticated customer.

I'm rather proud of my 3-stage filtering scheme,
as it does not slow down production one bit, and
keeps junk out of the settling tank. But I don't
try and make my production techniques a selling
point for my honey, as _no one really cares_.

People care about "local" food, and will pay
a premium for it. People care about quality,
and will pay a premium for it. People care
about cleanliness, and demand it. But when you
start adding empty adjectives to your labels,
you start down the road of being a con-man,
willing to say things that are nothing but
empty puffery. You'd do better to start
entering honey shows, and brag about how your
honey is "award winning honey". It works so
well for wine, that there seem to be hundreds
of such competitions.


----------



## ScadsOBees

Actually, for me it is more about having a correct answer if somebody who does happen to care asks if it is filtered or not. 
It has only happened once or twice, but I'd rather be able to say 
"Yes, it is raw but I do strain it" 
rather than 
"Uh, well, I guess I do run it through some kind of filter, I'm not sure what that is considered"...

I like a happy medium between the granola-and-birkenstock set and the lysol-and-marshall field's set


----------



## BjornBee

Jim,
>> So what is the difference between straining and filtering?

>Marketing Hype!

Thats the difference between straining and filtering?? First, I am not sure if that answers the question. Second, I am not sure if I have ever seen anyone put "filtering" or "straining" on a label. But even if they did mention it as to the way the honey is processed, why do you associate it with being a con-man? Marketing is marketing. Why would you say if I put "unfiltered" on my label it would be on a level of "con-man"?


I also dissagree with your reason for why people buy honey. I agree with the reasons you give, but I would add "raw" to the list. "Raw" honey implies that the honey is of a natural state, without adulteration or refinement. State health certification requires me to remove bee parts and matter that would be percieved by the public as unsightly and cause for concern. I strain through a double strainer right into the bottle. I explain that fact to my customers and stores that carry my product. I mention that it is not heated, not high filtered, or blended with foriegn honey, and is a local produced product. Thats fact. Not puffery. And many customers ask if my honey is "raw". I am happy to tell them the truth. It does sell!

Not sure about your "brag" comment in regards to shows for honey. The first time I read it, I came away with a bitter taste. So I read it agian, and assumed that an industry leader and positve person would only of made those commets with the best intentions. I'll assume that this was correct.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> "Raw" honey implies that the honey is of 
> a natural state, without adulteration or 
> refinement.

Well, adulteration of honey is illegal in
every state in the Union, so I don't think
use of that term helps anyone. I'm not
sure how anyone might "refine" honey, perhaps
a better term would be "unblended".

> I also dissagree with your reason for why 
> people buy honey.

That's fine, we sell honey to different sets
of customers, and each market has its own
quirks.

> And many customers ask if my honey is "raw".

You were doing so well with "not heated, not high
filtered, or blended with foriegn honey, and is
a local produced product", and then you had to
go and use a term like "raw". A shame.









If your honey is "raw", and someone else does
not use the term, you are clearly trying to
differentiate your product from his, when we
can assume that any but the largest operation
avoids the whole "heated flow" approach to
getting honey from the extractor to the jar.
My point is that honey that has sat out on
a table at a farmer's market in the blazing
sun has been "heated" more than even Sue Bee
(when did they change to using "Sue"?) would
think of doing, so I wonder why beekeepers
and customers are so worried about "raw" when
I've never seen anyone keep their honey in
an ice chest or cooler.

My view is that a well-educated consumer will
always be my best customer. I use as fine a
filter as my honey will go through at summer
temperatures, as I want to be able to grab a
random jar out of a case and see something that
would not be laughed out of a honey show. If
anyone asks me about "raw", I explain our
gravity-fed system, and explain what a large
corporate bottling plant tends to do, and why
it matters.

> Not sure about your "brag" comment in regards 
> to shows for honey.

Not my problem, I said what I meant. If you
have won honey shows, it would seem clear that
you can use that fact to sell more honey than
you might otherwise. The wine companies certainly
do it, so why can't beekeepers?


----------



## BjornBee

Is there a law that I can not differentiate my honey from another? Are you suggesting some un-written law? If the next person wants to market as I do, and its the truth, then he should do it if thats his desire.

>If your honey is "raw", and someone else does
not use the term, you are clearly trying to
differentiate your product from his, when we
can assume that any but the largest operation
avoids the whole "heated flow" approach

Really?? I find that not to be true. And even it it was, your suggesting that pointing out a fact, because the next beekeeper fails to do so, is somehow wrong?


>I've never seen anyone keep their honey in
an ice chest or cooler.

Now we need to determine the farm market shelf temperature and distinguish who keeps honey in a cooler or freezer? I find this absurd.

Why do you feel the need to point out to those who ask about your honey...

>I explain our
gravity-fed system, and explain what a large
corporate bottling plant tends to do, and why
it matters.

You suggest that because I differentiate my honey from another its wrong. And then you differentiate your honey, that you use a three part filtration system and compare yours to large commercial bottling plant. And that not differentiating your honey??? 

>My point is that honey that has sat out on
a table at a farmer's market in the blazing
sun has been "heated" more than even Sue Bee

You sell all your honey in this manner Jim? I don't. And I find it appalling that you speak so lowly of other beekeepers to suggest that all are lumped into this catagory.......


----------



## roger eagles

There are quite a few folks who will buy 4 gallons,put it in smaller containers and store in freezers up here.Take out as they need,never sets up.


----------



## Jim Fischer

Try to keep a cool head Bjorn, its not that
big a deal, its just that I've seen too many
people slide down the slippery slope of, first
using empty adjectives and superlatives, then
creating terminology that would not otherwise
exist ("raw", indeed!), and it all ends up
badly, rather like the company that ends up
in Chapter 11 because they started to believe
their own press releases.

Its an ethics issue, and its a choice.
That's all.


----------



## Barry Digman

I'm digging out my fuzzy bunny slippers and my moderator hat.


----------



## BjornBee

Coyote,
You love this stuff. Don't act like you don't. This is the most "action" this forum has seen in a very long time. You should be PM'ing both Fischer and myself and thanking us for waking you from your afternoon nap.....


----------



## Dick Allen

>If your honey is "raw", and someone else does
not use the term, you are clearly trying to
differentiate your product from his

So, most all honey sold could be considered raw then? I suppose I can go along with that. It is unfortunate that someone would use the phrase raw honey in such a scheming, conniving way. 

Nearly all milk sold in the U.S. is pasteurized. The processors generally mention on the label that their milk is pasteurized. Since most all milk sold is pasteurized and the processors mention on their label that it is pasteurized, I suppose they are attemptiing to mislead the public.

The sign out in front of my house says "Raw Honey". Will the honey police be by any time soon?


----------



## sqkcrk

Is there a "legal standard" that sets a definition of the term raw, when it comes to honey?

If a person asks if your honey is raw, why don't you ask them what the term, raw, means to them? And if their definition sounds like your honey tyhen to them it's raw, right? Or rawng?

I'm going to start a line of honey called "Rare Honey", and set my own definition and set the price at twice what the rest of my honey goes for. By the way, I think I'll trademark that term, and lease it to anybody who wants to use it. At a set price per pound.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Is there a "legal standard" that sets a definition of the term raw, when it comes to honey?

Raw is a common term used to describe honey. What it means may differ somewhat, but in general it means it's not finely filtered and it's never been heated. Unfortunately there are no standards.

Do a search on "Raw honey" on google and you'll get 138,000 results. So obviously the term is in common usage.

There has been some discussion by authors in ABJ and Beeculture on establishing some standard, but I have yet to see one.

Here is NHB's definition

http://www.nhb.org/foodtech/defdoc.html

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

"Commercially Raw Honey: Honey as obtained by minimum processing. This product is often labeled as raw honey."

Why is it unethical to use a term that is defined by the National honey board (even if no specific temperature is specified) and accepted as having some basic definition and in common usage by both beekeepers and the public?

A definite temperature and fineness of straining would be useful.


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't understand where the idea came from that describing honey as raw was unethical. 

A word is neither ethical nor unethical. It is the context of the words usage that will determine whether the person using the word is acting ethically or not. It is the person who is ethical or not, not the word. In my opinion.

A false, or misleading, use of the term raw, would be unethical. So, one should have an idea, as to the definition of raw, before one says that their honey is raw.

It doesn't matter to me if someone calls their honey raw. The comb honey that I sell has a label on it that says that it is raw. And if any honey is raw, it is comb honey. Extracted honey can be raw also. Just not as raw as comb honey.

Since raw honey has less work in it, less than heated and strained, and some people charge a higher price for the honey that has less work in it, it seems like I should get an even higher price for my comb honey. I think I'll give it a try.


----------



## George Fergusson

>it seems like I should get an even higher price for my comb honey.

Well Mark, you remember my advice, right? When in doubt, raise your price


----------



## wayacoyote

Yeah, Mark, I'm not sure where the idea in this thread came from that it is unethical to use the term when it applies. And Michael showed us the NHB's definition. I would find it unethical to use the term as it is generally accepted when it doesn't apply. and vice versa. 

Like Michael says, there might need to be a bit clearer explaination. 

Waya


----------



## George Fergusson

>Yeah, Mark, I'm not sure where the idea in this thread came from that it is unethical to use the term when it applies.

I think that would be Jim







He seems to look down his nose at what he calls "marketing hype" though he clearly engages in his own version of it.

"when you start adding empty adjectives to your labels, you start down the road of being a con-man, willing to say things that are nothing but
empty puffery."

One thing I like about Jim, he never minces his words! You always know where he's coming from. In this case, I don't happen to agree with him. Jim has found the marketing method that works for him and allows him to sleep at night or at least, if he can't sleep, it's not a result of making false and misleading statements to his honey customers. Jim is happy. I'm happy for Jim.

I personally don't think use of the words "raw" and "unfiltered" are false and misleading or inappropriate and I intend to use them myself. Around here, people ASK for raw unfiltered honey and they are willing to pay more for it. Who am I to deny them their specific requests? Are they stupid or unsophisticated? I don't think so. I don't think it's relevant. Apparently Jim would think so. Referring to people that legitimately use such terms in their honey marketing as con-men, or consumers that use them as unsophisticated is rediculous and inappropiate. In my mind, and in the perception of a lot of honey buyers, "raw" and "unfiltered" have clear and distinct meanings.

Calling customers that use these words the "Granola and Birkenstock" set is mildly amusing but it is also type-casting and mildly insulting. Personally, I'm in the "3 eggs over easy with home fries, bacon, and toast and Rubber Boot" crowd, and I like my honey raw and unfiltered too. Then again, I headed down the road to ruin many years ago. I'm not alone, it's crowded around here.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I'm in the "3 eggs over easy with home fries, bacon, and toast and Rubber Boot" crowd

LOL. I guess I'm in a similar crowd. I must be the "2 eggs over easy with bacon and toast and Red Wing oil tanned leather boots" crowd.









My honey is never run though anything finer than a screen and never heated at all unless I can't get it out of a bucket.







Most of my customers want it "raw and unfiltered". The few who don't know what that is, just know mine tastes way better than the stuff from the grocery store.


----------



## beemandan

Marketing hype provides considerable entertainment. ApiLife-Var uses the phrase 'safe and effective'. Have you ever read the label? 'Causes irreversible eye damage' among other serious problems. This stuff is hardly safe.
I notice the ads for Fischer's Bee Quick use the phrase 'all natural'. What does this mean? 

Sorry Jim, I couldn't resist. 

[ January 20, 2006, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: beemandan ]


----------



## Dick Allen

>creating terminology that would not otherwise exist
("raw", indeed!),

Creating terminology, indeed!


----------



## ScadsOBees

I too hate all that hyper-market-terminologizing that people engage in.

For me it is knowing what the occasional customer is expecting when they refer to "raw" or "unfiltered". Most people buy what I refer to as "Honey".

Can one call the honey "Fresh" if it has been more than a week or two from extraction? Or is that that terminologizing too?

On the "Safe and effective" line, we don't need to put any warnings on our honey labels that would say "Do not eat a diet consisting entirely of honey. Do not apply to floor, could cause dangerous falls. Do not mix with gasoline." That same warning for Apilife Var could have been on a bottle of mouthwash if it isn't already.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> He seems to look down his nose at what he calls 
> "marketing hype" though he clearly engages in 
> his own version of it.

Ah, but we make fun of our "marketing hype", so
you don't have to! Check out the website, we
spend more time and effort poking fun at
ourselves and anyone else who comes to mind than
we do tying to "hype" anything.

Here's a question. We all know what "pure honey"
means on a label, it means "nothing else
*BUT* honey". 

But if my honey has wax and propolis and such in
it, is it "pure"? Anything but, given that no
beekeeper can stop his bees from gathering 
fresh-laid road tar and using it as propolis.

So, if foreign objects are introduced into the
honey by mistake due to less-than perfect
uncapping/extraction techniques, and these
foreign objects (in the case of propolis) are
unknown substances, how is this "raw", rather
than "adulterated with unknown materials"?

In the case of comb honey, we have the honey
and the wax, and it is easy to see if there
is anything of unclear origins in the food.

> I personally don't think use of the words 
> "raw" and "unfiltered" are false and 
> misleading or inappropriate

I don't think that "unfiltered" is misleading
either! I think that "raw" gives the impression
that anyone who does NOT put "raw" on their label
is abusing the honey with heat. This is untrue.
Honey, by definition MUST be pure, and it is all
"raw" unless one overtly heats it up.

As far as "filtering" or "straining" goes, "raw" 
is a term that sounds like an excuse for sloppy 
processing by undercapitalized beekeepers in 
unsanitary facilities, and unless you can tell me 
where ALL that propolis came from, I'm going to 
conclude that you have no idea if it is tree sap, 
road tar, or dust from depleted uranium artillery 
shells.

> Calling customers... "Granola and Birkenstock" 

Hey, I'm not insulting them, I myself am I
"Latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, granola-eating,
New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, 
Greenpeace-member, Earth Liberation Front donator,
left-wing liberal elitist member of the vast
radical intellectual conspiracy that dominates 
EVERYTHING... except for politics, religion,
consumer trends, the economy, and so on. 

So don't turn a perfectly valid description
of MY PEOPLE into an insult, or someone might do
what Greenpeace did, and dump a dead whale on 
YOUR front steps.








http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=26958&name=Greenpeace+deliver+whale+to+Japanese+embassy

> I notice the ads for Fischer's Bee Quick use 
> the phrase 'all natural'. What does this mean?

It means that all components are of botanical
origin. If I wanted to, I could state that the
ingredients are "Sunshine, rain, and the Lord's
best handiwork", but that would be waaay over the
top.


----------



## Michael Bush

>On the "Safe and effective" line, we don't need to put any warnings on our honey labels that would say "Do not eat a diet consisting entirely of honey. Do not apply to floor, could cause dangerous falls. Do not mix with gasoline." 

I think I'll put those on my label. They would be very entertaining.









Let see, we could do the universal picture thing and have all the "not" signs with pictures of someone pouring honey on their computer keyboard, someone pouring it on their head, someone pouring it on the floor, someone lighting it on fire, someone feeding it to a large bear with their bare hands...


----------



## John F

<Jim Fischer>
Hey, I'm not insulting them, I myself am I
"Latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, granola-eating,
New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, 
Greenpeace-member, Earth Liberation Front donator,
left-wing liberal elitist member of the vast
radical intellectual conspiracy that dominates 
EVERYTHING... except for politics, religion,
consumer trends, the economy, and so on. 

Well, we have our work cut out for us then...
















I do make my own granola every week so I suppose I'll let the granola thing pass.

<Michael Bush>
I think I'll put those on my label.

Honey is not approved by the FDA as a substitute for jelly in PBJs or lamb chops.

In small print of course.


----------



## George Fergusson

Oh Gawd Jim, you drive a Volvo?? Really?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> you drive a Volvo?? Really?

In the driveway now are a 1982 240 Wagon,
a 1990 740 Wagon, and a 1993 940 Sedan.

So, uh, yes. Really.
Except when I drive an MG.


----------



## sqkcrk

So waya, I would be acting unethically if I labeled my honey "raw", when I knew it had been heated over 100 degrees F, right?

I had a new customer ask me today if my honey is raw. So, I asked her to tell me what raw meant to her. And she said that it meant that the honey was heated above a certain temperature, but didn't know what that temperature was. So, I told her how is process my honey by warming it so I could strain any undesirables out of the honey. She apparently liked that explanation. She bought a case. And now she can tell her customers, when asked, that this honey isn't raw, but it is purely clean.

"Raw" honey, in a store where mine is sold, goes for $7.00/lb and my liquid honey goes for $3.49/lb. Mine is labeled so people know that it comes from near where it is sold. The other comes from Vermont. I think that the jars of "raw" honey are the same ones that were there, the last time I was there. Maybe I should start a line of "Squeak Creek Raaaw Honey".


----------



## George Fergusson

>Except when I drive an MG.

Well, there's a redeeming quality







And that '82 is old enough to qualify as an antique. That's OK too.

So, would you describe your 3-phase filtering system?


----------



## Dick Allen

>I personally don't think use of the words "raw" and "unfiltered" are false and misleading or inappropriate and I intend to use them myself.

Which seems to be the general consensus of most of us. After a great deal of wrenching soul searching, I've decided to leave the sign in front of my house that reads: "PURE RAW HONEY".  

If it's good enough for the NHB it's good enough for me.


----------



## George Fergusson

>If it's good enough for the NHB it's good enough for me

Gee Dick, I don't know if I'd go that far..


----------



## sqkcrk

Oh, I heard different, George.


----------



## sqkcrk

How about Purely Raw Honey?


----------



## Dick Allen

>Was the creation of "raw" honey consumer driven

FWIW, when I was a kid back in the 1950's and early 1960's people used the term raw honey. It isn't simply a new marketing phrase dreamed up by a used car salesman. 

If people want raw honey and I have it available, I deliver. When my honey crystalizes and I have to warm it for bottling, I tell people that it has been warmed slightly to reliquify it. 

As Richard M. Nixon said: "Well, I'm not a crook"


----------



## wayacoyote

Mark, 
regarding your question on whether you can call honey Raw if it has been heated over 100F, i can't say. Michael did provide a link to some guidelines, but are they the actual limits on what is raw?

Plus, and addressing someone else's comments about honey left in a warm vehicle, I think that "intent" would be a relivent concern. If a beek has knowledge of the accepted guidelines and intentionally crosses them, then I would question not his right to use the term, but his ethics.

Sorry, mark, that I'm not getting too specific with the guidelines and using quotes. i'm on my brother's Mac computer and am having a meseriable time in browsing. 


Waya


----------



## sqkcrk

Your doin' fine, waya. I'm not to worried about this really. I just wanted some opinions and perhaps some insight as to where this raw honey idea came from, before I go adding raw honey to my product line.

Interesting Dick Allen, I grew up then and I don't remember even thinking about honey, let alone hearing it refered to as raw. But, your comment makes me think, was it a Ba'hai thing? 

We had a Ba'hai family, in our neighborhood, near Washington, D.C.. They used to go out into the country to a farm to collect water into 5 gallon glass jugs, like the cooler jugs, from a spring at a farm. Probably an artesian well. They also got my Mom making granola and yogurt. Did you all do that too? In the oven? So, I wonder if that is where it came from.

I would say, maybe the Seventh Day Adventists, but then you have the strict vegetarian thing.
Interesting to think about.


----------



## beemandan

The 'all natural' thing, according to Jim, implies that its from botanical sources. Yet, I've seen products utilizing salt and clays sold as all natural. Certainly not exclusively botanical. Without definition 'raw' or 'all natural' are meaningless. This is much the same problem that once faced the marketing term 'organic'. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, that term has gotten some clarification.


----------



## George Fergusson

>This is much the same problem that once faced the marketing term 'organic'. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, that term has gotten some clarification.

Not enough clarification IMHO. But that is a subject for another thread. If you think discussion about "raw" honey is generating some heated discussion, wait till this one comes round









>The 'all natural' thing, according to Jim, implies that its from botanical sources.

Did Jim say that? I did not interpret his remark that Bee Quick was derived from only "botanical sources" as being THE definition of the term "natural" and it's certainly not MY definition. What's unnatural about salt? What's unnatural about clay? If use of the term "raw" in relation to honey is controversial, use of the term "natural" must be every bit as much. "Organic honey" is off-topic I think but "Natural honey" is fair game if anyone wants to tackle it. I don't particularly want to. Faced with the proliferation of adulterated honey substitutes, use of the term "natural" might be justified. Dunno. I feel no compulsion to refer to my honey as "natural". Of course it's natural. It's honey









>I think that "intent" would be a relivent concern.

Well it either IS or it ISN'T. I don't see intent entering the situation. If your honey got accidentally over-heated it's going to taste like crap regardless of your intent.

>I would question not his right to use the term, but his ethics.

I'd question both.

In my reading of late I came across this document on Raw Honey Standards, originally from Kim Flottum in an email to BEE-L. It's not definitive but it is interesting. Kim suggests that the temperature that honey can be heated to and still be considered "raw" is 120 F.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~jtemp/RawHoney.html

Whether "raw" refers to honey to which no additional heat has intentionally been applied or to honey which has never been heated above some arbitrary maxium temperature is apparently entirely open to interpretation. Let your conscience (and your taste buds) be your guide. If you over heat your honey, taste will suffer, as will your sales.

Last summer I heated my honey supers to about 90 degrees F with a light bulb before extracting them, figuring the honey got hotter than that in the hive. I still call my honey "raw", and with a clear conscience.


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper

Maybe I'm a head case? (Ok I am) but the word "raw" conjures up red, pealing, scabby flesh - but my wife's a veterinarian maybe I've helped with too many weekend wound treatments.  

Still, for marketing, I think I might perfer "gentler" or more "subtle" words. 

Even when I think of raw lumber and try to equate it to honey, I imagine small chunks of wax and few bee parts floating about... (that wouldn't be attractive in a guest's cup of tea  ...) [yeap certifibly a head case] ...so I don't think I perfer the word "raw" on my signs. 

{take your stings like a man, or take up kniting} [who said that?]

OK princess, so what other word would you use otherwise? 

Rare - humm... Bloody steaks... Naw. 
Unprocessed - Does my stencil kit have that many letters? 
..............Can you read that at 45 Mph past my house?
Unrefined - Are we making gasoline?
Crude - Are stuck on the oil thing?
Natural - As opposed to artifical honey?
Real - Does anyone make fake rubber honey?
Green - Green honey, that's not appetizing. 
Rough - Maybe I can find a mobster niche? (Forget about it)
Whole - What could anyone take out?
Unfiltered - I still have that bee wing in my tea image in my head. 
Native - me road side in a deer hide skirt with a spear - not pretty. 
Indigenous - Lets try to stay about 4 letters long. 
Domestic - Let me put my mop down... 
Home-grown - I could pack honey in maynaise jars - it would be expected. 

Mine sign would say: 

"Turn around for some Real Local Domestic Pure Unrefined Whole Native Green Honey"

....as I'm sure they'd be half way down the street before finishing the sign. 

-I'll give you guys some funny marketing later when I've established my copyrights.

Have a laugh, not too loud I'll hear 'em and think they're in my head. 

Jeff


----------



## George Fergusson

Nice Jeff, very nice. You about covered the spectrum of synonyms that could be used to describe plain oldfashioned unadulterated honey. And thanks for that "red, pealing, scabby flesh" image. Not.

How about Virgin? Works for Olive Oil. "Virgin Honey, made by celibate bees". How much more pure can you get? You heard it here first folks.


----------



## Joel

{Maybe I'm a head case?}

If there was any doubt it's been completely erased at this point!  Great post. I'm writing my congressman to reccommend you be appointed to what ever gov't board works on these terminologies. They'd have to make you supervior. Think of all the wonderful new label restriction that could be imposed. We'd have to have labels inside the jars to get all in! I won't even suggest you consider turning your flame thrower on organic!

Imagine Britan, "Raw Honey" "Bloody Good". I'm putting maple syrup in my coffee this morning thank you.


----------



## Hillside

You guys are a riot. All this reading makes me hungry. I think I'll go make myself a sandwich -- peanut butter with honey on raw toast.


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper

OH- Don't even get me started on mentals images derived from toast! 

I was almost killed in an apartment fire!  
(really)

Jeff


----------



## Dick Allen

>but the word "raw" conjures up red, pealing, scabby flesh 

that issue was brought up in a 'Bee Culture' article by one of it's monthly authors a few years back (I forget who). He too thought the word "raw" was too raw a word to describe honey. 

Some people believe that when honey is sold that it should be protrayed as a delicate upper crust snob food. 

As far as "all natural ingredients" do a google search on those terms and see what exactly that means in regard to the food you consume. Many of those "all natural ingredients" are artifically derived and come out of a 55-gallon drum.

[ January 21, 2006, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ]


----------



## George Fergusson

>Some people believe that when honey is sold that it should be protrayed as a delicate upper crust snob food.

That's fine if there's enough delicate upper crust snobs in your area to buy all your honey. I'll certainly sell delicate upper crust snob honey for vastly inflated snob-prices when I can get away with it but the bottom line is I want to sell good honey at an affordable price to people who appreciate it.


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper

Dick, 

Technically, rust is all natural, so a rusty barrel is legally "el natural" -snobby for "natural". But I get your angle, and I agree that an FDA allowance of 1 mouse per 1000 gallons of honey isn't "natural" in a common sense world. 

But I agree with George, 

I sleep much better at night knowing that modest people who truely appreciate my craft can afford to enjoy my labor of love. 

Hard-luck people are ones that have a real appreciation for the simple things in life. They also tend to be the ones to chat with to understand that I do it for the bees, not the honey and for the money. I'd gladly trade a few chickens for a jar of honey, as more than likely the chickens would be raised with the same care as my honey. 

I don't think there is anything more "raw" than the pure dedication put into stewarding my bees.

I think "delicate upper crust snob" dollars spend as well if not better than any "joe six-pack" dollars. Maybe I'd sleep even better if I spent some snob-dollars and bought a better pillow? I'd get one of those craft-matic beds but I have cats and I'd probably make one tacos proping myself up for Letterman one night. 

Anyhow, I'm out of here for now. 

Jeff


----------



## Barry Digman

Would this qualify as raw? Kids harvesting in Africa.


http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/v2535e/v2535e0h.jpg

[ January 21, 2006, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: coyote ]


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper

< Would this qualify as raw? Kids harvesting in Africa.
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/v2535e/v2535e0h.jpg> 

Good God! I'm going to use this on my honey jars labels!!
It doesn't get any more "raw" than that!

[ January 21, 2006, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: NW IN Beekeeper ]


----------



## sqkcrk

Check out reallyrawhoney.com. One of their testimonials is from a doctor who had an obese patient whose ceasarian section wasn't healing until he stuffed it with really raw honey.

I'm serious, look it up yourself. It's right there on their web site.

I hope that this doesn't get me another yellow card, for reporting the truth.


----------



## beemandan

'all natural' could apply to old fashioned gunpowder as well as the active ingredient in the atomic bombs droppped on Japan.
As you may be able to tell, 'all natural' is one of the marketing phrases that 'gets my goat'. Though, having followed this thread, I'm beginning to find 'raw' a bit irritating (was that a pun?) as well.

[ January 22, 2006, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: beemandan ]


----------



## BjornBee

sqkcrk,
>I hope that this doesn't get me another yellow card, for reporting the truth.

Another? I think they ran through all they had some time ago...


----------



## Dick Allen

 Many companies claiming to be all-natural are anything but. They achieve the appearance of being all natural by listing a natural ingredient description in parentheses next to the more technical-sounding ingredient on their label. Although this appears to be helpful information, it still leads consumers in the wrong direction. For example, ammonium lauryl sulfate, a standard detergent cleansing agent, is listed on an Aveda ingredient label as being derived from coconut oil. While that makes the ingredient sound natural, what the label doesnt explain is what the coconut oil has to go through to become ammonium lauryl sulfate. Ammonium lauryl sulfate is the salt of a sulfuric acid compound, neutralized with an ingredient like triethanolamine. None of that makes this ingredient bad for skin, and I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid ammonium lauryl sulfate, but that is the more accurate description of that ingredient and it just isnt natural. 

http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/article.asp?PAGETYPE=ART&REFER=SKIN&ID=133

(in the interest of fair reporting, it must be disclosed that the above was from a commercial web site selling natural ingredients products, too.  )

NOTE: My RAW HONEY contains ABSOLUTELY NO ammonium lauryl sulfate.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks BjornBee. So, should I expect a red card, next?


----------



## Keith Benson

Can anyone identify a substance that is not "natural"?

Keith


----------



## Barry Digman

> Can anyone identify a substance that is not "natural"?


Big Macs


----------



## Hillside

I don't think polychlorinated biphenols (pcb) were known to exist in nature before we made them. Of course they could have been there in small amounts and no one ever realized it.

I think if you look closely, you're likely to find traces of pcb in your big mac !


----------



## sqkcrk

The domain name ReallyRaw is for sale for $888.00. Can you believe it. Just put www.reallyraw.com in the address bar and click on GO.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Can anyone identify a substance that is not 
> "natural"?

Sure.
Heck, I can name over two dozen of them.

They are all artificially produced
isotopes. They were thought to NEVER
exist "in the wild", and have to be
synthesized, using gear not found in
kitchens or honey houses, and resulting
in an electricity bill that would melt
your checkbook.

Below are the elements and their number
in the periodic table:

Technetium (43)
Promethium (61)
Astatine (85)
Francium (87)
All the "transuranium" elements (93 and up)

Two of these (neptunium and plutonium) have
since been proven to exist in minute amounts
in nature, now that we have much more sensitive
equipment, but these amounts are both
insignificant and hard to find, as they can only
be found as short-lived byproducts of natural
radioactive decay, and are not always found when 
one might expect, so they aren't a "sure thing"
even when you find natural radioactivity.
But the remainder have NEVER yet been found "in 
nature", and therefore truly ARE "man-made".

In the interest of "equal time" for creationists
(ooops, I should have said "Intelligent Design")
I should point out that even the periodic table
is being subjected to the same treatment to which
evolution was subjected.
http://static.flickr.com/9/12560931_6246357501_b.jpg

When will the horror end?


----------



## Dick Allen

>If use of the term "raw" in relation to honey is controversial, use of the term "natural" must be every bit as much.

IMO a phrase such as all natural can be used by con-artists as well as any other choice of words. 

Synthetic motor oils are actually manufactured from the same natural ingredients found in real oil, but in a synthetic oil these ingredients are artificially recombined.

All natural, indeed!


----------



## sqkcrk

Say Jim Fischer,
I saw a bumper sticker that you'd probably get a chuckle out of. It read: "What every school needs is a good moment of science."


----------



## Dana

This thread has given me 3 mornings of great entertainment! Well worth the price of admission









I'm with Keith... what's NOT natural? 

Jim, why do you say that something "man-made" isn't natural? We are natural, so whatever we make is also natural (except big macs of course.) Thanks for the link to the periodic table, I was wondering when Aristotelian physics was going to make a comeback. 

Dana (coffee & houseshoes)


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper

I think the only not natural is Donald Trumps hair. 
Everything else can be explained where it came from. 

[If I use this same logic, I guess we don't know here my thoughts came from, I guess I am mentally unnatural.]

BUT - at least I'm not mentally "raw".


----------



## Keith Benson

Jim,

Those substances are a natural occurrence, when other substances are treated in a particular way.

Nothing in the physical universe can be unnatural. Of course some folks like to make distinctions about what they consider to be natural vs unnatural, but such distinctions are completely arbitrary. For some it is if a specific substance had ever been detected before we fiddled with things, for other is its stuff we ate before we left hunting and gathering behind.

The point is the term is a moving target, and as such is challenging to discuss.

Keith

PS: Big Macs are the only exception to the above.

[ January 23, 2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Dick Allen

Honey Robber - butyric anhydride - is made from the naturally occuring elements of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Therefore, Honey Robber is an "all-natural" product.


----------



## Keith Benson

'zactly

It is a bogus term.

Keith


----------



## Dick Allen

Keith, you don't waste words, do you?


----------



## Dana

Well, hopefully, the gov't will come in and tell us how to define 'natural' and 'raw' so that they're totally meaningless









Seriously though, I think this is why it's good when consumers buy the product directly from the producer. When two people are talking they can generally sort out what they mean by all these terms. 

If I had to guess, the people who might buy my honey would say it's raw if it hasn't been heated above 117 F... which is what the raw food enthusiasts required, last time I checked. 

One other thing: just because these terms are moving targets doesn't mean they're bogus. 'Natural' does have a meaning, just not one that everyone agrees on. I do agree that on a label, it's most likely bogus though









Dana


----------



## sqkcrk

What would be bogus about Naturally Raw Honey?


----------



## Dana

Mark, what I meant by my comment is that I would have to find out what *you* meant by "naturally" and by "raw". If I only read it on the label w/o being able to find out for sure what your management practices were, I would not buy it. For instance, by "natural" do you mean that you don't put dopes in your hives? (just as an example.)

Dana


----------



## sqkcrk

Dana, I understand what you are saying. a store owner asked me if my honey was raw, just last week. I asked her what she thought the term raw meant. Her reply was that, to her, it meant that the honey was heated to a certain temperature or not. She didn't have any idea what that temperature was. She just wanted to be able to answer her customers, if they asked. So, I said no, my honey wouldn't qualify as raw, because I heat it, so as to be able to remove undesirable particulate matter. Such as wax flakes, bits of propolis, wood chips and bee parts.

Dopes? What are dopes?

The honey that is in the jar is a "natural" product. The means by which it is made may not be.

Whether honey is or can be considered "raw" or is "natural" is a matter of convention. As are all words. Words don't have meaning until they are given meaning. And meaning can change, depending on context or adopted (slang?) usage. Such as when bad means good and when you refer to someone as hot or cool, meaning sexy or hip(with it. 
As far as that goes, unless all you are producing is comb honey, robbed from feral colonies, there is no "naturally produced" honey. That would be the extreme point of view, though.

So, when I put up some "raw", unheated, unfiltered, unstrained, natural and pure honey, next week, that's what will be in the jar.

Dana, I can imagine that since you either are a beekeeper or are concerned about beekeeping enough to be on this list, that you might not buy my honey without knowing how I amage my hives. So far, no one has ever called me to ask. My number is on the jar. The only folks who have called to ask anything have done so to find out where they can get more.

I hope that you are just as critical about where your automobile comes from and how it is manufactured. How about your childs milk and peanut butter? Not to mention there Big Mac.

Peace, love and understanding,


----------



## Michael Bush

>because I heat it, so as to be able to remove undesirable particulate matter. Such as wax flakes, bits of propolis, wood chips and bee parts.

Why do you have to heat it to filter it? Why do you have to filter it to get out wood chips and bee parts? A screen is fine enough for that. I never heat mine except lightly when someone wants it liquid and it's crystalized.

>Dopes? What are dopes?

Dope. Slang term for drugs. Dopes: Terramiycin, Fumidil, Apistan, Checkmite. Then there are the "in betweens" or "more organic" ones like menthol, thymol, essential oils, oxalic acid, formic acid etc.


----------



## Dana

Hey Mark,

The dopes I don't want in my honey are antibiotics, miticides, essential oils, fgmo etc. 

You gave a good explanation of words and meaning. 

I'm sure you don't get too many calls. I do believe those of us who care about our food are a very small minority. In fact, I had no idea how many chemicals are put in beehives until I became a beekeeper. I pretty much assumed that honey was honey. I'm learning to never assume anything.

And yes, I am just as critical about other things. My infant's milk comes from me







The rest of my family's milk usually comes from my goats. I hope to someday produce almost all of my own food. The peanut butter is that 'natural' organic kind and I've haven't had a big mac in over 15 years. 

My priority lies in nutrition first, so I really don't care *that* much about my car. I drive a 91 Honda Accord Wagon. At least it's 'recycled'. 
I'd prefer to use a horse and cart, but it's not very practical around here and they are WAY more expensive than a car. 

I really wasn't planning for this thread to be about me, but that's what happens when I talk to Mark









Dana


----------



## sqkcrk

Hey Dana, I hope you keep talking to Mark. How else are any of us going to know each other, except by the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Keep on truckin' towards you goals, they have been mine, too. And still are. Though I might not be as diligent at the persute or attaining of that goal. Life is about the trip not the destination. We never really get to the destination.

Last week, at church, that was the topic of the sermon. Eden, nirvana, eternal bliss, whatever your end goal is, is the goal. But we don't live there. We are just on our way there, perhaps. We live here and should always, as best we can, live our lives with the goal in mind and work towards it. Do the best we can and love your neighbor. For we all have an inherent worth.

Oops, to far off topic?














Sorry, Mr. Moderator, saw a need and filled it.


----------



## Keith Benson

What is a dope? Ahhhh there are several. Some may pertain to aspects of keeping bees, some may pertain to a subset of beekeepers. Use whatever one fits. . . 

From www.dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dope 

But they left out the "rope-a-dope". For that see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope

Keith

[ January 25, 2006, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## sqkcrk

Yes, Michael, I knew what Dana was refering to, I just think it's cute the way people disparage medications that might be beneficial and try to equate them with DOPE, as in heroin, cocaine or speed. That's what I think is behind the use of the word dopes, whether Dana or anyone else actually has that in mind.

How much honey do you bottle and sell each year, Michael? I have a Maxant bottling tank and would find it hard labor and more time consuming to try to strain my honey any slower than I already do. Besides, I don't think that I ever said that I filtered my honey. Did I? My honey is STRAINED through a nylon cloth, not a filter.


----------



## Dana

Mark, when addressing you since I know you've read on the Organic Beekeepers list, I used the word "dope" as Dee Lusby defines it: drugs, chemicals, essential oils, FGMO, acids, fungicides, bacterial/viral inhibitants, micro-organism stimuli, and artificial feeds. I was not trying to be cute and I don't think Dee is either. I think "beneficial medication" would be quite hard to define as well. I've never seen a medication without risk. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the risks? 

Keith, if I use the word "dope" in conversation with you, I would mean "not natural"









Dana


----------



## Keith Benson

To strain includes the following: 
To filter, trickle, or ooze.

To filter includes:
1. A porous material through which a liquid or gas is passed in order to separate the fluid from suspended particulate matter.

So if you strain your honey, you filter it and vice versa. 

It is less of a strain on your time and effort if you heat your honey before you strain or filter it, but the taste it thought to suffer.

Keith "my honey is passed through an 800, 400, and 200 micron filter at the temp at which it is extracted" Benson


----------



## Keith Benson

"Keith, if I use the word "dope" in conversation with you, I would mean "not natural" [Smile] "

And I would have no way of knowing what you really mean .....

"I've never seen a medication without risk. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the risks? "

Nothing in life is risk free. Many benficial things can be quite dangerous and the fact that there are risks doesn't negate the benefit. There are a great many beneficial medications.

Keith 

[ January 25, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## sqkcrk

So apparently to strain by any other word is to filter. Is the use of a filter going to strain out more stuff then a strainer? Is Michael Bush filtering his honey throw a screen?


----------



## Jim Fischer

The use of the emotional term "dope" by Dee Lusby
and her true believers is a deliberate and cynical
attempt to "frame" the discussion in a manner that
gives them a linguistic advantage.

This is just as transparent as any "talking point"
you might hear on "Faux Newz" (_"we distort, you
comply"_), the most recent example being the
use of the new and highly speculative term
_"Terrorist Monitoring"_ to talk about
_Warrantless Domestic Spying on US Citizens_.

Now it may be unfair for me to compare a nice
person like Dee to the gang currently in 
possession of the launch codes, but the tactic is 
just as tacky no matter who uses it.


----------



## Keith Benson

"Is Michael Bush filtering his honey through a screen?"

With almost 18K posts here and thousands more on other beekeeping forums, Micheal no longer has time to filter anything. 

Keith


----------



## Dana

""Keith, if I use the word "dope" in conversation with you, I would mean "not natural" [Smile] "

And I would have no way of knowing what you really mean ....."

Keith, I would mean a Big Mac! I think we agree on the other bit. Or is it against the rules to agree on stuff around here?

Dana


----------



## John F

<Jim Fischer>
...in a manner that gives them a linguistic advantage.

It is called "Loaded Language" and it is a "Rhetorical Ploy" which works very well when one is peddling truth with political technique.

Cool names and all, it doesn't tell you anything about whether the peddled truth is really true or not.

But I really wanted to chuckle a bit with Jim's example.

The other night I was watching a bit of the news and I saw President Bush as he was defending his position on the very subject Jim brings up. President Bush leans forward on the podium, tilts his head a bit, raises his brow and with a stern solid eye contact says, "Well, if they are making a phone call from the US, I think we want to know about it." [paraphrased I'm sure, the "about it" might have been "what it's about"]

I chuckle because he, with a stern face, completely avoided the question, which was more to the point of: How do we know who THEY are? If THEY'VE done something, wouldn't that warrant a warrant?

Anyway, it looked good on TV.

{By the way, just for fun, that technique is called "Red Herring".}


----------



## beemandan

Hmmmm...so when my neighbor recently contracted a staph infection and came home from the hospital with antibiotics.....he was using dope???

Or does it only apply to bees?


----------



## Dana

Jim, I had no idea that the word "dope" was an emotional term for you. I'm new here and really don't mean to offend. Sorry if you have trouble with Dee Lusby, but I only used the word because I truly believed that those reading would understand what I meant and those that didn't would ask. As it turned out Mark knew what I meant AND asked. 

I do enjoy most of your posts, at least those that I understand. Same goes for Dee. 

Dana


----------



## Keith Benson

"Or is it against the rules to agree on stuff around here?"

No - but it is uncommon.  

I can see why Jim takes exception to the term Dope, it paints the discussion with an emotive overtone that gets in the way of having a real conversation. It basically says, "I will not listen if you do not see that anything I call "dopes" is bad."

Keith 

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.


----------



## Dana

Thanks Keith, that makes sense. For instance, I think antibiotics for people are good for some things but I try to avoid them and only use them as a last resort. I think over-using them and using them prophylactically is a bad idea. I think the best way to avoid a staph infection is to stay away from hospitals.









FWIW, I do believe honey is better for bees than sugar syrup (a "dope"), but I think starvation is even worse. I'm feeding mine sugar syrup as we speak, er write... new hives bad weather etc.

Guess I just didn't realize that 'dope' was a bad word... 

Where's that ideal universe when you need it?

Dana


----------



## Keith Benson

"I think the best way to avoid a staph infection is to stay away from hospitals. [Smile] "

Then you should stay away from your own skin. The stuff is ubiquitous. The famous one's are from hospitals, but they happen all over the place.

I can think of no instance in conversation where the word dope is used to suggest anything but a negative thing. I know that in some technical circles it may be used without a positive or negative connotation, but clearly in the instance in which is has been used relative to beekeeping - it is a definate negative. 

As for the sugar vs honey and bee health thing - that has been hashed and re-hashed on this and other listsso many times it isn't funny, and the majority of the research suggests that it sugar syrup is a superior bee feed. It has something to do with reduced gut ballast and what not. I would employ the search button and take a peak at all of the fun throughout the years.

Keith

[ January 25, 2006, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Dana

Keith, are you saying it's better to rob *all* the honey and feed sugar syrup? I'll look it up.

My original comment regarding dopes was that I didn't want any in the honey that I consume and I think I'll stand by that one. One of the main reasons for producing my own food is to avoid all those, er, um, products added to things that I don't want to ingest. I just happen to really like bees, so I'm hanging out here and hoping to expand well beyond my own consumption. There are at least 5 people in the county that have the same concerns about their food and they'll appreciate the honey I collect. 

I don't think the staph on my skin requires antibiotics... wonder which kind Dan's neighbor has. We aren't going back to that germ theory thing again are we?

Dana


----------



## beemandan

Actually my neighbor works at a local hospital....so, I think staying away will be a problem.
Many of the worst staphs are associated with hospitals but they're 'available' in a lot of other, more innocent places. Only requires an open cut and contact.....then the dope is essential.


----------



## Keith Benson

"Keith, are you saying it's better to rob *all* the honey and feed sugar syrup? I'll look it up."

Nope - that is not what I said at all. Please read more carefully. 

"I don't think the staph on my skin requires antibiotics..."

Let us not be silly on purpose. You are colonized, not infected. There is a difference.

"wonder which kind Dan's neighbor has."

Well, given that he picked it up at a hospital, I suspect that it may well be resistant to a few antibiotics, and more prone to causing pathology. Hospitals, being a place when people with pathogens congregate, often harbor such organisms

"We aren't going back to that germ theory thing again are we?"

Well, it works to explain what we see with infectious disease, so yep. 

Keith

[ January 25, 2006, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## sqkcrk

Is heating honey always bad? Some honey's may be improved by heating. Or if honey is heated enough to change the flavor, is that something "bad" ?


----------



## Keith Benson

"Is heating honey always bad? Some honey's may be improved by heating. Or if honey is heated enough to change the flavor, is that something "bad" ?"

Well, I personally have always found that unheated honey seems to have more character and subtle flavors than the heated filtered honeys. Having said that I have never tasted, side by side, the same honey in a heated and unheated form. MAybe its just me. Has anyone?

Keith

[ January 25, 2006, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Dick Allen

Many people cannot taste the difference between Coke and Seven-Up when blindfolded.


----------



## Dana

Keith wrote
"the majority of the research suggests that it sugar syrup is a superior bee feed. It has something to do with reduced gut ballast and what not."

Not sure what you mean by careful reading. If sugar is superior bee feed then why would we let them eat honey? You might consider reading my posts more carefully as well, Keith. I said "stay away from staph infection." not "staph colonization."... I certainly didn't realize that you had a monopoly on silliness.

Dan, antibiotics placed into a beehive, imho is a dope. Antibiotics for your neighbor is his business, but sooner or later he may find himself without any antibiotics that work. I, personally, don't believe in culling humans to improve the gene pool. Livestock is another matter.

Alot of these beneficial medications are merely temporary solutions that do not even begin to look at the real problem.

FWIW, I prefer MY HONEY to be unheated because I believe that too much heat destroys some of it's healthful benefits. This is my preference. I also prefer that I not have miticides, antibiotics, fgmo, eo's etc. in my honey nor in my hives. Again, my preference. I thought someone in this thread was curious about raw honey and why anyone would care. I'll bet that if some of the other people who like "raw" honey knew about the stuff some beekeepers put into their hives, they'd also prefer it without the extra stuff. 

I really do enjoy these forums, but for some reason one word out of my entire post (a page or two ago) totally distracted everyone from the point. Is it such a bad thing to have a different view around here? 

Hope ya'll have a nice day. 
Dana


----------



## beemandan

Dana >Is it such a bad thing to have a different view around here? 

Not at all....why would you ask? The only reason that you've gotten such a response is that many of us do have different views...

Does it trouble you that there is disagreement?

When my father was alive, he and I would argue all the time. Whatever side one of us took, the other would automatically choose the opposite. Our unspoken agreement was that neither of us would get angry. Disagreement is OK. Getting mad can be a problem.

By the way, I don't use antibiotics in my hives either. I haven't used any on myself in many years. I, too, try to save the stuff for real need....as was my neighbor's. 

Although I may disagree with someone else's ideas, I try not to use derogatory terms to describe them as that doesn't serve any purpose other than to create friction.

Disagreeing agreeably
Dan


----------



## sqkcrk

No, no, no, no, your point of view is very important to the discussion. Personally I just wanted some clarification and opportunity to further understand what you understand.

I'd love honey to be free from any "un-naturally" occuring chemicals, too. 

I'd also like to keep my colonies alive to make a crop of honey to feed, clothe and house my family. 

In other words, this is my soul form of income. Not a hobby or a sideline or supplement to other income. My bee business brings in the income, the apiary inspection is the supplement to that.

So, I do what I can to keep the chemicals from medications and treatments out of the honey. While using them to keep my bees alive. 

You mentioned the "healthful" benefits. Can you tell me about those? What are they to you? Are you talking about nutrition? I'm curious.


----------



## Dana

Dan wrote:
"Does it trouble you that there is disagreement?"
No, not at all. What troubles me is that I attempted to make a point about how important communication is between the consumer and producer for consumers who are very interested in how their product is produced. BUT, I used the word "dope" which I thought was well-enough understand by my target audience, Mark, as meaning one of several things beekeepers put into hives. The next thing was that Mark wrote "I knew what Dana was refering to, I just think it's cute the way people disparage medications that might be beneficial and try to equate them with DOPE, as in heroin, cocaine or speed. That's what I think is behind the use of the word dopes, whether Dana or anyone else actually has that in mind." Then Jim said: "The use of the emotional term "dope" by Dee Lusby and her true believers is a deliberate and cynical attempt to "frame" the discussion in a manner that gives them a linguistic advantage."

When I read these statements I thought perhaps that Mark and Jim were more interested in accusing me of political tactics than discussing the idea that more and more people are truly interested in "natural raw honey." 

My point is that people, such as myself, who want 'natural raw honey' do see the use of such "bee hive amendments" as a negative thing. Try going to a health food store and tell them about the miticides, sugar syrup, etc. and how bees do move stores around and how some honey is heated to prevent crystalization and might still be labelled 'raw'. 

Mark, the internet has lots of stuff on raw food and why it's good. There's even a really nice search engine here: www.google.com Being able to do internet searches is a good skill to develop... saves having to post here so much. 

Dana


----------



## beemandan

Ahhh Dana, you made my point for me. Your use of an 'emotional term' largely drew attention away from the remainder of your message...it doesn't help Dee Lusby get her message across either.

yes, I think 'beehive amendments' will work much better.

[ January 26, 2006, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: beemandan ]


----------



## Keith Benson

"I said "stay away from staph infection." not "staph colonization."... I certainly didn't realize that you had a monopoly on silliness.

LOL  not a complete monopoly, but I am heavily invested in it! 

I really do enjoy these forums, but for some reason one word out of my entire post (a page or two ago) totally distracted everyone from the point. Is it such a bad thing to have a different view around here?

Words and their shared meaning, or not shared, as the case may be are the building blocks of language and discussion. So we banged around a term you used, dont sweat it. In the case of this discussion, that term is pretty darn central to a number of peoples arguments, and any good topic can take a little banging.

As it stands, it has been my experience that beekeepers that use the term dope for substances like sugar and such, are not really interested in discussion per se, they have already made up their mind. Is it such a bad thing to discuss words around here?

Has there been work done that demonstrates that sugar syrup is a superior feed? Yes. Does that mean it is best to disrupt a colony by stripping it dry and replace stores with sugar syru[p or HFCS? Generally speaking no, but that is a separate argument altogether.

Keith "whoa spring is comming fast and I haven't put together enough woodenware" Benson

[ January 26, 2006, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Dana

Dan wrote:
"Ahhh Dana, you made my point for me."

Yep, I'm much better at making other people's points than my own. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a bit slow... that's why I didn't finish school till last August at 35 years old and 8 months pregnant... and I'm still almost completely unemployable. But, I figure if I have to spend time in an institution, it might as well be one with high speed computers and grant money.

Dana


----------



## Barry Digman

<I can think of no instance in conversation where the word dope is used to suggest anything but a negative thing>

Drilling rigs. Dope came in 5-gallon buckets, we used it to lubricate the threads on the pins and boxes on pipe joints before making them up. Plumbers use the term too.


----------



## Keith Benson

"Drilling rigs. Dope came in 5-gallon buckets, we used it to lubricate the threads on the pins and boxes on pipe joints before making them up. Plumbers use the term too."

Also in that post I said: I know that in some technical circles it may be used without a positive or negative connotation, but clearly in the instance in which is has been used relative to beekeeping - it is a definate negative. 

I think oil drilling and plumbers would fit the above.

Keith

[ January 26, 2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Michael Bush

Since cumaphos and fluvalinate are poisonous to humans as well as bees, can we trade "dopes" for "poisons". Does that have a less negative connotation?


----------



## beemandan

The word poisons would appropriate if you planned to eat toxic quantities of cumaphos or fluvalintate.  
The term pesticide or in this case miticide are correct, in my opinion, and yet both have a negative connotation to many. 

I think that the above, including poisons, are descriptive instead of derogatory....in my opinion.

[ January 26, 2006, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: beemandan ]


----------



## Michael Bush

>The word poisons would appropriate if you planned to eat cumaphos or fluvalintate.

If it's in the hive, it's in the honey. If it's in the honey I'm going to end up eating it.


----------



## beemandan

Michael, I was editing my post, evidently at the same time you were responding. 
The pesticides you mentioned are indeed poisons. Descriptive terms. Dope, in my opinion isn't descriptive of these compounds, but is a derogatory term.


----------



## sqkcrk

Hey, Dana, What you said about finishing school goes for me, too. 

Except that I was about 32. 

And it wasn't last August. 

And, oh yeah, I wasn't pregnant. 

But other than that, and it being 20 year ago, we are the same. 

Well, almost. Uh, I think, uh, DARN IT ! What am I trying to say? 

Somebody help me......Please?

I'm just an old fool who allows room in his head for all sorts of possibilities. Until I come up against something that just doesn't fit with my life experiences. So, maybe I'm more narrow minded than I'd like to think. And no as patient with others than I should be. And unable to be as diplomatic with my speech as others would like me to be. 

I left organicbeekeepers because it seemed like I was doing more harm than good. I also mistook it for a forum that allowed discussion about alternatives in beekeeping.

I feel that this list is that forum for discussion. If so, then we will have heated disuccion at times.

Dana, were you the one on organicbeekeepers who voiced discust at Frank's description of "cadaver honey"? Was my reaction too much? What about the research that I presented about Rural Indian Customs and Honey Prices in the Mid-80s? How did that go over, with you?


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael Bush, since too much water is detrimental to your health, should warning labels be added to all bottled water?


----------



## Jim Fischer

Its not that "dope" is an emotional term as
much as the potential for real confusion.

For example, if Dee Lusby were to say
"Joe has dope in his hives", she'd mean that
he'd used Apistan strips last fall, but
Joe might assume that Dee had called the DEA,
and was going to make life a little difficult
for every truckload of his bees that had
hitherto been anxiously waved through any/all 
checkpoints by cops not interested in being stung.

I'm not saying that anyone would ever even
think of doing such a thing, I'm just pointing
out that "dope" is what is mostly done AFTER
working hives, and while some might think that
it is a good idea to put their "dope" UNDER one
of their hives, actually putting dope IN one's
hives would be the actions of a real dope, as
the high humidity and high temperature of
a beehive would be a less-than optimal
storage environment for perishable items.

This area is the nation's moonshine wholesale 
district, so beekeepers have to understand that 
having a large number of beehives in this area 
means that one could be suspected of making 
moonshine with all that honey, neatly avoiding 
the need to buy embarassingly large quantities 
of sugar.

Worse yet, trucks loaded with hives, moving
only in the pre-dawn hours via the back roads
tend to reinforce the perception that something
more than beehives might be loaded on that very
hard-to-search truck. 

The good news is that whenever the polite,
neatly attired, and heavily armed young men
of the local ATF office have stopped by for a
visit, they have always bought more honey than
one would expect them to, and have shown a real
interest in the details of our operations,
especially how we use all the stainless
steel tanks and such. Maybe someday, one will
buy a nuc, and become a beekeeper himself!

Just thought I'd explain...


----------



## Keith Benson

sqkcrk, please see:

http://www.dhmo.org/

Keith


----------



## sqkcrk

If we are going to discuss terminology and not "Raw Honey", perhaps we should start another thread? It just seems like we are getting off track about "raw honey and what it is". I could be wrong.

While we are sorta off topic, I sell honey. My label identifies the contents as honey. How much does anyone expect that there should be on the label to describe how the bees were managed? 
My customers seem to be satisfied with the quality and price and availability. 

If any of them called me or saw me in the store or at church, I would be glad to answer any questions that they might have about how my bees are treated. 

I had just such an opportunity last night, at a local college. My honey is used in their food service/restaurant areas, in the cooking of the food and at the counter.

I served comb honey to about 100 or more students and some indepth discussions about bees and beekeeping. One person out of the 100 or so that I offered my honey to refused. And his objection was to the way that bees make honey, not to how I might manage the bees themselves.

So, my customers are telling me to keep on labeling my honey, as honey from the local area. The average consumer doesn't want too much info, only what they need to know to decide if that is the jar of honey that they want.

For more info call the number on the jar or contact me by e-mail, also on the jar.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks Keith. Glug,glug,glug.(as if said from underwater, without breathing aperatise) I'll have mine dry and neat. Two cubes of dhmo, please?


----------



## John F

In some places it means to put stuff on ice cream, like hershey's syrup.

[I actually looked it up on dictionary.com and this *was there!*]

I assume that since we are all feeling a little less quarrelsome that humor and redirection is ok?

What about the use of sugar in coke and 7-up?

[Edit mode]

Hey, I don't know how this got posted here. This doesn't even look like the place I was reading. I suppose I wasn't near caught up in the thread and now this whole post of mine is WAY out of context. I'll leave it though. It makes me laugh.

[ January 26, 2006, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: John F ]


----------



## Jim Fischer

> If we are going to discuss terminology and not 
> "Raw Honey", perhaps we should start another 
> thread?

Well, "raw honey" one of many issues in beekeeping
containing 90% semantics, and 10% product, so
by comparing "raw honey" to another such term,
like "dovetailed supers", we can better understand
at a conceptual level.

> It just seems like we are getting off track 
> about "raw honey and what it is". I could be 
> wrong.

I could be wrong, but I think it is fair to say
that there is a case to be made that the term
"raw honey" is _nothing but semantics_.









When Epistemology, Entomology, Etiology, and
Etymology all intersect, the train wrecks that
result are both interesting and entertaining.


----------



## sqkcrk

semantics? are those mite like critters that can be found on Apes?

Right you are, Jim. At least partially.

Love your parting refrain. I'm gonna have to look some of those words up, sometime, to better understand what you may mean.


----------



## Dana

Mark wrote:
"Dana, were you the one on organicbeekeepers who voiced discust at Frank's description of "cadaver honey"?"
Nope, not me.

"Was my reaction too much?"

I thought so. It was just a post on a yahoo group. No need to take it all so seriously and personally. I really didn't care if it was true or not. It made no difference to me. It's good to practice hitting the delete key once in a while. I've alwasy enjoyed "urban legends" anyway regardless of their truth value.

"What about the research that I presented about Rural Indian Customs and Honey Prices in the Mid-80s? How did that go over, with you?"

I read that group to try to learn things about keeping bees. I may be wrong, but I felt like you were trying really hard to prove something to someone. I mostly deleted all those messages. I only have time to read/post a little bit and I usually have the wisdom to not post







I learn more by reading than by posting... look how much time I've wasted the last couple of days discussing the finer points of the word dope! I did think it was funny when you responded to one of my questions by saying that you didn't know the answer but didn't want me to think you were ignoring me. That made me think you just haven't been on many yahoo groups or that you don't understand the conventions on most of them. But, I could be completely wrong. I'm a math phd and we're notorious for being social nitwits. I've always considered myself the exception though









Now, shouldn't I feel bad that after our numerous exchanges on that group that you don't even remember me? I'll have to go cry myself to sleep now.  

I'll try to write more later, but I gotta go do some parenting,
Dana


----------



## sqkcrk

pictures would help. I remember people better by the way they look than by what they have said. Sorry.


----------



## Dana

Does this help you Mark? I'm like the one on the left. http://tinyurl.com/db28p

Dana (aka Maybelle)


----------



## George Fergusson

>And his objection was to the way that bees make honey

I wonder, was this person a PETAphile and felt that we shouldn't exploit bees, or a PUKEaphobe who merely objected to eating anything regurgitated?


----------



## Dick Allen

> that the term "raw honey" is nothing but semantics.

sort of like "all natural" in BeeQuick?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael Bush, since too much water is detrimental to your health, should warning labels be added to all bottled water?

I'll drink all the water I can get down and you eat all the cumphos you can get down and we'll see which is poisonous.

I have yet to meet anyone who had any detrimental effects from drinking too much water. I have met farmers with nerve damage from organophosphates.


----------



## sqkcrk

Me too MB. It's just a wonder that bottled water doesn't come with disclaimers.

Michael, does your raw honey stay soft? Or does it set up hard?

I've seen some "Really Raw Honey" lately. It seems to me that if a customer has to heat the jar, in order to get the honey out of the jar, then the honey wouldn't be "raw" anymore. Would it?

Just questions, not trying to box anyone in.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael, does your raw honey stay soft? Or does it set up hard?

It depends. Sometimes it's pretty hard. But if the temps are right (somewhere around 57 F) and the honey is right (not sure of what it takes) then it ends up nice and creamy like room temperature butter.

>I've seen some "Really Raw Honey" lately. It seems to me that if a customer has to heat the jar, in order to get the honey out of the jar, then the honey wouldn't be "raw" anymore. Would it?

That is the problem with "raw" honey. A lot of us don't want honey that's been overheated, but we also know it will be up around 100 F in the hive in the summer and it will probably get heated sometime to get it soft enough to get out of the jar.







So how "raw" is "raw"? It would be nice if there was a definition that included a maximum temperature.


----------



## Dana

117 degrees F.
http://www.realmilk.com/enzyme.html

I also googled a bit and this is the best I found before my baby started crying









Dana


----------



## sqkcrk

So, Dana, if honey is heated to 117 degrees F, would you label it as "raw"?


----------



## Keith Benson

"http://www.realmilk.com/enzyme.html"

An . . er . . . interesting webpage. Much of it debatable, much of it is unfounded. I would not rely on it for making decisions about whther honey si "raw" or not.

Keith


----------



## Dana

Keith, I am not in a position to argue the "truth" of that article, but the authors have a huge following. Those are the people that want their honey "raw". Just think of it as market research.

If you care to enlighten me on your opinion on that article, please do. I think there's something to it as well as to the stuff here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm

Dana


----------



## Keith Benson

Hi Dana,

"All enzymes are deactivated at a wet-heat temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit" Not all enzymes will inactivate at the exact same temp. To suggest this means that one really doesn't know much about the biochemistry of enzymes. Also, consider that the enzymes in honey (the tiny teeny miniscule amout) are made by bees, they would not necessarily play by mammalian rules.

Since these enzymes are proteins, what do you think happens to most of the when you eat them?

"http://www.westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm" Yep - there is alink to that website on the origional one you posted. 

How big a following a website or an idea has is not indicative of it wether or not it is based on sound principles or rational thought, or weould you suggest that because so many people eat at MacDonalds that they serve healthy food? 

Keith

[ February 02, 2006, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## sqkcrk

I would also wonder about the negative effects of deactivating enzymes in honey. Of what benefit to human diets are these enzymes? Certainly we aren't relying on honey as a source of these enzymes, are we?


----------



## Dana

Keith wrote:
How big a following a website or an idea has is not indicative of it wether or not it is based on sound principles or rational thought, or weould you suggest that because so many people eat at MacDonalds that they serve healthy food? 

reply:
Absolutely not, nor do I think anything in my previous post implied that I would think such a thing. What *I'm* talking about is market research. If I'm selling honey to the McDonald's crowd... well, as long as it's sweet, they probably don't care if bees made it or if it's flavored HFCS.

First of all have you ever taken or heard of "Beano" or "Lactaid"? Those are both digestive enzymes to help people digest beans and milk respectively. If you and Mark are really curious about digestive enzymes feel free to do some research and make up your own maind. Seems to me there are scientists on several sides of the issue... 

I'm really trying to post information here that I thought would help since I'm familiar with the natural foods market. I'm not here to argue the merits of natural foods, I realize that many people consider McD's and a vitamin pill plus a big HMO policy good enough. 

Just thought *somebody* was interested in what "raw honey" means to that miniscule percentage of the population that cares. I'm NOT, I repeat NOT, trying to convince anyone that this is the diet for them. I eat what I like and you eat what you like







Live and let live ya know?

Dana 'baby's crying' Brunson


----------



## Dana

PS: Mark, since you're the one that started this thread, and seem truly interested, you might go back and read the websites posted on page 1 of this thread by Michael Bush. One of them actually lists some enzymes in honey.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks for that, Dana. I will. I'll probably have more questions later.

One reason for my questions is to find out what potential customers might expect my raw honey to be.

One customer wants buckets of totally unheated honey. If I extract what honey I still have in the comb, with no heat except the hot room, I'm sure that it will set up like concrete because of the coarse crystalise that are forming in the comb, from the fall honey.

So, I need to make sure that the customer knows that and is willing to pay for what they are ordering. Then I will want them to want more. 

I'm concerned that if they are expecting something other than what I can provide, then they will not only not want more but, they will spoil future markets, perhaps. Word of mouth complaints can do more than word of mouth praise.

So, if I know what the selling points of raw honey are, perhaps more folks will want what I can provide.

For those that already know what they want, I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing.

I do admit that I am skeptical about it making a big difference in a persons diet. That it makes a difference to some peoples mental outlook is not in question.

Mark


----------



## sqkcrk

I have read some of what Michael drew attention to. I'm printing all of it out now.

One question I have is what nutrient value is lost by heating?

The little that I have read, so far, refers to keeping the temperature at a certain degree for days at a time. 

What is lost or destroyed by heating honey to 140 degrees F for the time it takes to strain out unwanted particulate matter and then to put the honey into jars?

It appears to me that by the graph from Dr. von der OHE 140 degrees F for less than 2 hours lowers something by about 5 units. I'm not sure what the left side of the graph refers to exactly.

What is HMF?


----------



## sqkcrk

HMF= hydroxy-methyl-furfural.

Keeping honey at a higher than room temperature for days apparently does damage to honey. What about short periods of time?

I want to produce a product that appeals to potential customers visually, at first. Therefore, being able to strain unwanted particles out of the honey is necassary for the liquid honey. 

To be able to sell unstrained and unheated honey would require different packaging and labeling. Something that I am willing to do. I may have to reacquire control of the extracting of my honey. In otherwords my own honey house. I've relyed on others to extract my honey for about 8 or 9 years now.


----------



## Michael Bush

The customers that want "raw" honey, in my experience want the pollen NOT filtered out and they want it never heated so it doesn't destroy the enzymes. All enzymes tend to be destroyed by heat. Some, of course lower heat that others. A fever can cause enzymes to be destroyed in your body and that seldom runs over 105 F or so. What are all those enzymes? I don't know. But I know my customers want it unheated.

To me HMF is just one way that the heat damage to honey is measured. Not proof it's never been heated.

Personally I don't like my honey heated at all because of the FLAVOR. But if the enzymes stay in tact, that's nice too but who wants to destroy all that good flavor?


----------



## sqkcrk

According to the sources that you suggested I should read, straining, which is not filtering, doesn't remove pollen. Filtering does. According to the NHB literature.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> To me HMF is just one way that the heat damage 
> to honey is measured. Not proof it's never been 
> heated.

In fact, HMF levels vary with the type of nectar
that is turned into honey, so one must speak of
HMF for specific varietal honey to be able to
gauge the amount of heat to which the honey has
been exposed.

But trying to claim that your honey is somehow
superior merely because YOU never overtly heated
it is nothing but a classic example of fuzzy
thinking. Your honey gets rather warm for
extended periods while ON THE HIVE.

To quote the NHB's _Honey Technical Glossary_:
"HMF occurs naturally in honey, especially in
warm climates."

So, the warmer your climate, the higher your
HMF may be in supers still on the hive.

The process is way beyond most beekeeper's
budgets, but "flash heating" can heat honey for
filtering through very fine filters without much
increase in HMF levels, certainly much less
than would be experienced by leaving capped supers
on their hives for an extra week or two.

So, harvest early, harvest often!


----------



## Michael Bush

>But trying to claim that your honey is somehow
superior merely because YOU never overtly heated
it is nothing but a classic example of fuzzy
thinking. Your honey gets rather warm for
extended periods while ON THE HIVE.

You don't seem to get it yet. There is a market that is looking for unheated honey. The CUSTOMER wants honey that has never been heated. If you give the customer that, the customer is happy and comes back. It's the CUSTOMER who thinks it is superior. I don't make claims other than what I do and I do just that. I don't heat the honey. The customer is allowed to think as fuzzily as they like. After all, they are the customer so they are right.

>"flash heating" can heat honey for
filtering through very fine filters without much
increase in HMF levels

But THESE customers are concerned about enzymes, not HMF and they don't want honey that's been "flash heated".


----------



## sqkcrk

"If you feel that honey is nothing more than a sugarwater with a funny taste, then ther HMF and enzyme content is not important. But if you find that honey is beneficial for your health because of the hundreds of other valuable ingredients, then...DON'T HEAT IT UP, never!!!"

Never? Not even to 104 Degrees F, for a short period of time? Which according to the charts, doesn't effect the Invertase or the Glucoseoxidase levels perceptively. There's nothing there to indicate effects on flavor.

I'm thinking that if I offer "Raw" honey in my product line, some new customers may start buying my honey. If they haven't been buying it before. Some old customers may try the "new" product, too.

This is something that I'm going to work on, this year. Something that I'm going to offer.


----------



## Dana

Mark, go ask your customers exactly what they want! It's really that simple and there's no substitute for direct communication between you and your customers. And some people really like having a real conversation with "their" beekeeper and they become very loyal customers. 

Dana


----------



## sqkcrk

Couldn't agree more. This is probably a good time of the year to do that, too. 

I guess I'll just have to go hang out at the Co-op for the day and talk to the customers. 

If I had more time I'd spend part of one day in each of the outlets that sell Squeak Creek Honey. But I have lots to do to be ready for South Carolina in two weeks.

Any suggestions about what sorts of questions I should ask? I'm sure that I could come up with a short list of my own. I don't have trouble talking to strangers. As I'm sure you know now.


----------



## Dana

Be sure to talk to the co-op's staff. They probably have a good idea of what people want. Is this the kind of co-op that has a newspaper? if so you could put an article in it about your bees and honey and ask for input that way too. 

Dana


----------



## Hillside

If people want to buy honey because they believe there is some level of superior nutrition available from it, that's great. Sell them all you can. But I want to be careful not to make claims that I can't support. As a result, I don't get involved in promoting honey as a source of any special nutrition.

Yes, it contains some enzymes and pollen -- and a lot of other things as well in very small quantities. And I have a few people who buy my honey because of the pollen content. But honey is unlikely to ever be shown to be a great source of any kind of nutrition except for calories. It's mostly a solution of several sugars in water. It's the best tasting sugar solution that I know of, but mostly sugar solution none-the-less.

Some people perceive a benefit from the pollen. If they want honey for that purpose, go for it. There's getting to be more evidence that there may be some benefit from the pollen in honey, but I'm personally not going to make any claims that my doctor might disagree with. (And he does disagree that there is any great benefit from eating honey with pollen in it. Does that mean I should find a new doctor?)

Because it's good tasting, it sells. Heating can affect that taste, so I say don't heat it or heat it only gently. I want to sell the best tasting honey around.


----------



## sqkcrk

Good idea, Dana. Yes, they have a newsletter. I have been featured as one of their suppliers of locally grown food. Thanks.


----------



## Keith Benson

"First of all have you ever taken or heard of "Beano" or "Lactaid"?"

Yep, who hasn't. Ever treat a case of EPI with pancreazyme? I am familiar with the role of enzymes in nutrition of a wide variety of vertebrates. What I said was MOST enzymes, not all enzymes. Please re-read what I wrote.

I was pointing out some serious flaws in the logic of the people who wrote the website you posted. It is obvious that they are either intentionally or mistakenly not telling the whole story.

"Live and let live ya know?"

Indeed, I was just discussing the website you posted. I beleive you wanted us to read it.

Did you not post the following?

"If you care to enlighten me on your opinion on that article, please do."

FWIW I agree with you about the marketing thing. If people ask for unheated honey, sell them some. You sell honey, they get what they want, no one gets hurt and everyone wins. 

What I would not agree with is using suppositions like those on the website you posted in order to sell it to them. 

Keith

[ February 03, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## RAlex

Mark...You may have inadvertantly hit upon a new marketing angle
>Keep up your standards. Try to inform your friend that she won't have to pick her teeth clean of propolis. There must be some of that in there too.< 
Since the Bees use this wonderful by product to glue/incase everything in the hive that isnt supposed to be there . Why not market Propolis for keeping ones false teeth in...Rick


----------

