1943

| 1940-1949

The first issue of the 1943 NZ Beekeeper announced the new Honey Marketing Regulations and the Government’s policy on stabilisation of prices, costs, salaries and wages. Beekeepers were keenly aware of increased costs and frozen returns, pinning hope on the “illusory bigger honey crop”.

The price of farm products, including honey, were to be held, along with the major items of a farmer’s costs. The internal prices were to be divorced from export parity and any excess to be paid into pool accounts. Costs of the basic items related to production would also be frozen, but the costs of holding them would be debited to the “appropriate accounts”. The Editor questioned this sort of a move in the honey industry. He felt it unlikely a pool account would be built up from higher export prices, even if honey were to be exported. Where, indeed, would the “appropriate account” be held to which the added costs will be debited?

With the cost increases experienced over the previous two years the Editor felt that 7d per pound pro rata would still be too low on present costs. He called for a bonus payment to producers which would allow for price stabilisation and allow for maintenance or even increase in production.

The Marketing Scheme announced in the previous December called for the supply of 70% of the crop of all beekeepers with 20 hives or more to the Internal Marketing Division. While the remaining 30% could be disposed of as the beekeeper desired, the scheme reserved the right to restrict this if conditions indicated it was necessary. The facilities of existing producer/packers would be utilised for packing to allow for all-the-year-round work for these businesses.

During the previous season, the Marketing Division had had no honey with which to supply the 500 tons allocation to Great Britain, and the amount available for essential war services was over 1,200 tons short of requirements.

This scheme went even further than those proposed previously by the NBA. At the previous conference, a resolution was passed (by a small majority) asking the Marketing Division to acquire 50% of the crop. Some months before that the Government had announced the principle of the zoning scheme, which would allow for restricted private honey sales, but it proceeded no further than the announcement.

Those beekeepers read these editorial and reported stories in the first few pages of the magazine would have been somewhat confused when they got to the letters page. Mr WJ Lennon wrote to thank Mr Field and the executive of the NBA for asking him to become the second editor of the magazine. He conveyed gratitude to Mr Kirker for the work in initially establishing the journal, and the work in selecting material and compiling a new mailing list to make the work of the new editor as easy as possible.

The next story provided the missing link – the announcement of Mr Gilbert Kirker’s death. Mr Kirker had resigned his positions as General Secretary and Editor on 1 October 1942 to enter the Army. He had had an accident to his back during the winter, and found it impossible to carry on with his beekeeping. As he was no longer exempt from military service, he expected to be called into camp during November. While the date of his death was not provided, a circular to branches was included in the magazine announcing the changes to General Secretary and Editor was dated 28 November 1942.

Members were notified to address all material to the new General Secretary Mr GV (Garnie) Fraser in Foxton, and for the Editor to Mr WJ Lennon of Omakau, Central Otago.

At the previous conference there was an amendment to the Constitution to allow for Life Honorary Members to be elected as a “mark of esteem and in recognition of noteworthy service to the industry or the Association”, providing for no fees, no votes and no benefits from the No. 2 Trust Fund (the NBA sponsored insurance fund).

Following the announcement that the IMD would compulsorily acquire 70% of each beekeeper’s crop, the Canterbury Association met in Timaru on 13 March. A resolution to “flatly refuse” to supply until a “satisfactory reply” was received to their representations was passed at that meeting. The meeting reiterated a continued opposition to controlled marketing, and asked that they be exempted from the 1942 regulations.

The editorial for the April issue, only Mr Lennon’s second, played a line straight down the middle, and was titled “Direct Action – Pros and Cons”. He said that the Canterbury action was at least honest and clear, and brought the issue of basic price for honey to the Government’s attention. He did not full support the direct action, however, as he felt the increase should come as the arbitrated decision of members of the community working in co-operation.

Many Association meetings had passed favourable resolutions to the marketing regulations early in the season when prospects for a good season were bring. With a poor crop, many then felt the need for a reconsideration of the basic price paid under the regulations. When the figures of a 10 ton crop from 300 hives, considered the minimum numbers for a commercial apiarist, were used in calculations, the Editor estimated a loss of 1.95d per pound to the beekeeper, a reduction of £182. With the small crops experienced in the last few seasons, the Editor felt the fundamental problem for honey production was simply that honey producers did not receive enough for their labour.

The Dominion President Mr EA Field wrote that though the acquisition of 70% of the crop was more than the 50% supported by the industry at the last conference, he felt that all beekeepers should send their full quota of honey to the Internal Marketing Division. He noted that the effective income of beekeepers was reduced by the acquisition, and agreed that some extra payment should be made to offset the increased cost of production. Ultimately, however, he found it “regretable” that beekeepers had taken an “unconstitutional” action and made incorrect statements to the press about the price paid by the IMD.

The same topic was described in the Internal Marketing Division (Honey Section) report in the April 20, 1943, issue of the magazine. The report concluded that from 1914 until the late 1930s, except for the short interval between the two main honey marketing associations (the Honey Producers’ Co-op and the NZ Honey Ltd), the price of honey had not depended on size of crop or individual ability to master the market. It had depended entirely on some organisation which took the surplus honey off the local market and obtained a good price on a market built up overseas, often after considerable effort.

A poor production year had no effect on prices as there was always a surplus of honey over local requirements. But export of the surplus alone was not sufficient to stabilise local prices, as was shown when low advance payments were made by the marketing organisations. The advance payments tended to set the local price.

Some individual beekeepers argued that they would be capable of selling to better advantage themselves rather than through an organisation. The collapse in prices before NZ Honey Ltd came into being in the early 1930s was used to counter this claim.

The development of the war had resulted in new conditions. A shortage and control of other sweetstuffs had resulted in an unprecedented demand for honey. While consumption previously had been about 3 pounds per year, the demand had increased considerably, especially for purchases in larger quantities. To ensure reasonable supplies for essential services and some for the general populace, a partial control had to be taken.

To justify a claim for higher prices, the IMD believed the costs of production prior to September, 1939, should be compared with the costs of production in 1942, based on the average crop over, say, five years. These production costs should then be accompanied by the selling prices over the same period.

Prices paid to producers for the last 8 seasons were included in the report. During the period of NZ Honey Ltd honey for export was handled and paid for by the Honey Control Board. A large portion of the honey exported by the Board was supplied by NZ Honey Ltd who collected the Board’s payment and used this in its payments to its own suppliers:

The report noted that the IMDs return to beekeepers was for both local and export, while the previous Board’s payout was for export only. While paying 7 d pro rata for the honey, the IMD was selling it at 7 3/4 d per pound. Honey in 1 oiund cartons is retailed at 1/2 per pound and between the 7d paid and this 1/2 sales price are costs of packing material, labour, distribution costs and wholesale and retails charges.

The figures were provided as publicity out of the Canterbury branch had indicated that the beekeeper was being paid only 5 1/2 d, and the honey was being sold by the IMD for 1/2 per pound. Mr FD Holt, President of the South Auckland Branch (which claimed to produce about one-third of New Zealand’s honey!) wrote to support the IMD and criticise the actions of the Canterbury beekeepers.

After these pages of argument and counter-argument, the Editor wished for a more articles on beekeeping subjects in the magazine – “Other controversial matter seems to require too much space.”

A report from the Manawatu branch reported that Mr JW Walworth’s honey extraction plant, 6 tons of honey and a two-ton truck were destroyed in a fire, with damage estimated at £1,200.

The Annual Conference was held in the Chamber of Commerce Hall of the Dominion Building in Wellington. It ran for three days from 30 June to 2 July 1943. In opening the conference Mr Barclay, the Minister of Agriculture and Marketing, said it was the first Dominion Conference he had had the pleasure of attending.

The total estimated crop from commercial apiaries was estimated at 2,605 tons. Shortage of labour, with sons and employees joining the armed forces, had reduced the average number of hives operated by many large commercial beekeepers. At 30 June 1942, there were 7,996 apiaries, containing 132,136 hives. On 30 June 1943 there were 8,407 apiaries with 133,604 hives. As there had been an increase in the number of beekeepers, the industry was aware that the post-war period might present disease control problems, as many of these new beekeepers had but scant knowledge of the requirements of the industry.

A month later, in August 1943, beeswax came under the control of the Ministry of Supply. “First use” for beeswax was for bee comb foundations, but beekeepers were required to furnish returns to the Factory Controller of any stocks (over 10 pounds) held. At the same time, the price controlled by the Price Tribunal was raised to 2/- per pound, up 6d.

The Chairman of the Honey Control Board, Mr Wallace Nelson, emphasised to the conference that “Honey is regarded as an essential commodity, urgently required in connection with the war effort”. The prisoner-of-war parcels alone required 8,000 pounds per week, and only one-third of that amount was available to provide the continuity of supply over the next few months. He also noted that the 7d payout, with 1/4d bonus was only made possible by withdrawing a considerable sum from the reserve fund.

With a particularly bad crop, and the loss of the premium of the overseas market, the return to many beekeepers was disappointing. Mr Nelson again reminded beekeepers of the need to assess returns over several seasons due to the massive fluctuations encountered in honey production.

Mr HF Stoupe of the Internal Marketing Division indicated that the 70% acquisition had been expected to produce 1,400 tons, but to be certain the Division had budgeted on 1,000 tons. The Army wanted 800 tons but to make the honey go as far as possible, instead of 8,000 one-pound tins every week, they got this every three weeks, with golden syrup and condensed milk during the other two weeks. Hospitals and chemists had received their full allowance. The Armed Forces in New Zealand were cut to the civilian ration, 1 pound per head. Certain other essential industries, overseas forces and those with medical certificates to receive honey accounted for other commitments. With the honey season virtually finished, Mr Stoupe reported they had received only 760 tons from beekeepers.

Stoupe warned the industry about believing that the increased demand and prices obtainable were for any reason other than the war. The restrictions on other sweets had driven the demand and pricing for honey. He pointed to England in the early 1920s when there had been a reaction against the price rises for honey such that it was difficult to persuade consumers to buy honey again after the war. Dissatisfaction created by exorbitant prices or inequitable distribution could cause such a reaction here.

The export markets would need to be rebuild after the war, similar to what had been required after the first war. Close association with other countries with normal prices for honey below that of New Zealand would also cause a challenge. With an average consumption of four pounds a head Stoupe felt that a reduction should not be risked. On the contrary, the local consumption may need to be increased in the post war period.

High honey prices would result in substitution of other sweeteners. The tobacco industry, for instance, was the largest industrial user of honey. Condensed apple juice had recently been found to be a promising substitute for this use. “Definitely, the sky is not the limit in honey prices; the substitute is the limit”, he concluded.

The Editor concluded that conference had been a note of loyalty to the Association. The Dominion President Mr Field and the Vice President Mr Lennon were re-elected. This was Mr Field’s fourth year in succession as President. Mr EA Williams and Mr T Penrose were re-elected to the executive, along with two new members, Mr Kirk (Wanganui) and Mr McFadzien (Outram). The Editor was aware that the elections of Mr Penrose and Mr McFadzien, at least, indicated a degree of support for the opposition to the ‘controlled marketing’ regulations. He also made the point that even those producers in favour of a greater measure of security for the IMD were not in favour of 100% control, as indicated by a vote against such a resolution at conference. The resolution in fact called for all but 30% or 1 ton, whichever was greater, to be commandeered, a resolution put forward by Mr PA Hillary and Mr J Barber.

The editorial for the October 20, 1943, issue of the NZ Beekeeper was one of the most eloquent expressions of the situation that ever appeared. The Editor, Mr Lennon, began by describing the eternal optimism of the beekeeper. Spring brings thoughts of a bumper crop, even after an autumn of weariness with bees and honey.

Beyond this sense of hope were the ever-present thoughts of the world at war, the struggle for rights, freedom and justice, for both the strong and the weak. The ability to win the war was seen as a measure of common and united effort. “Our ability to win the peace will be measured partly by the degree of our co-operation now, but chiefly by the will to share victory with defeat, the mind to decide where retribution ends and justice begins, and the spirit of compromise without which neither peoples nor states can live in harmony.”

Mr Lennon went on to describe the wisdom and necessity for some form of regimentation and regulation, even though some will profit and others suffer from them. After this lengthy philosophical introduction, he applied this to the industry at present.

Some beekeepers were facing prosecution when they should be free to think of the new season’s work. Others had evaded the responsibilities of the regulations while others were probably wondering if they, too, could “get away with something” too. Most had honoured their obligations, but some said it had been at a sacrifice. Some said they were satisfied, while others claimed to be better off. Not all who had suffered or benefited had made public expression. “There is a responsibility on beekeepers who have a case to put it to us; on our executive to represent it; and on the Government to hear it, and their privilege to temper authority with understand.”

“Only if we can resolve our difference in the spirit of compromise and co-operation will we have won the right to decide our affairs in the peace-time period of readjustment … Let us win the war and the peace.”

Immediately following conference the various resolutions had been conveyed to the relevant organisations concerned. One issue that was to remain with the Association for some years was that of the licensing of apiary sites. The conference had endorsed the principle by a 2 to 1 vote, so long as it did not interfere unduly with new beekeepers entering the industry.

The December 20, 1943, issue of the magazine was a specially produced marketing issue. It was paid for entirely by the Internal Marketing Division.

It carried a message to beekeepers from Hon B Roberts, recently announced as Minister of Marketing and Agriculture to take the place of Mr Barclay. Mr Roberts indicated that the Government had decided that the Honey Emergency Regulations should again operate for the 1943-44 production season. He indicated that the two representatives of the NBA and two of the Honey Advisory Board would act as an Executive Committee, directly associated with the Internal Marketing Division. The Committee would give general guidance and interpret the viewpoint of the industry. He hoped that this partnership between industry and Government would become a real one in practice and the co-operative ideals would extend through this emergency period into the post-war period.

While the regulations would continue in a similar manner to the previous year, with 70% supply for beekeepers with more than 20 hives, the IMD made some changes. Extraction returns from beekeepers became required, even if there was a ‘nil’ extraction during the month. A restriction on the maximum size container for consumers when purchasing from the beekeeper was set at 5 pounds. As some consumers in the previous season had bought 60 pound tins, this restriction was made to relieve the pressure and complaints of country districts. The wording was somewhat loose, however, as it had the effect of removing the previous 60 pound per person maximum, while placing the maximum on the size of an individual purchase.

With a total of 70% of the crop being acquired by the regulations, 30% would be allocated to the cities and populated areas and 40% to essential war services. The 30% left for the beekeepers’ disposal was the assessed requirements of the country districts.

Mr AH Honeyfield, Manager of IMD Auckland, provided a historical payout schedule for the years of the IMD:

During this period Mr Honeyfield reported that while an up-to-date honey blending and storage plant had been erected in Auckland, very little of the producers’ money was tied up with “bricks and mortar”. Reserves of £17,000 Seals Reserve and £15,000 London Advertising had been created.

The poor 1942 season and the shortage of sugar, jams sweets and imported fruits had given beekeepers a false sense of the value of honey to producers. The producers began to sell their honey privately and less than 450 tons were consigned to the IMD during that season.

Mr Honeyfield provided three major policy directions to choose among for the coming year:

• Total purchase, not preferred by Government
• Continuation with improvement of the present Regulations
• Withdrawal of the Regulations and a return to voluntary supply

He indicated that after discussion with industry leaders it had been decided to continue the present Regulations.

As the IMD was paying the issue, a full description of the Auckland plant was provided, complete with photographs. Three melting out chambers (with only two fitted up at the present time) were able to melt out 6,000 pounds from 60 pound tins each per night. Honey was then strained and cooled (from 100-122 degrees Fahrenheit down to 80-85 degrees). The cost of melting out was given as 1/40 of a penny per pound (while originally published as “1.4d per pound” this was later corrected). After skimming a starter was added. Filling of containers was carried out at 1,200 containers per hour. Cartons were crimped and packed into cases in one operation. The cases were then shifted to a room kept at 75 degrees Fahrenheit.

In an appeal for membership the NBA described itself as wanting “to represent and further the interests of all sections towards Better Beekeeping and Better Marketing”, the first reference to that now well-known motto of the NBA. The Association claimed a membership of 80% of the commercial apiarists as well as hundreds of part-time and hobbyist beekeepers.