The History of The History of

Honey Marketing Honey Marketing

in New Zealandin New ZealandPrepared and presented by

Nick Wallingford

What can we learn from What can we learn from

history?history? Maybe not a lot, but who knows? … Recognise some of the trends, the

repeating charteristics Appreciate the features that seem to

‘act’ upon the industry Don’t expect much - but maybe you’ll

at least enjoy yourselves!

‘‘Better Beekeeping, Better Better Beekeeping, Better

Marketing’Marketing’ A ‘mission statement’ for the

National Beekeepers’ Association for many, many years

Close relationship between the industry association and marketing efforts

Recognition that producing is not enough - the return for the producer has other influences...

Overview...Overview...

Strong-willed individuals, high/low crops, attempts to control internal/external sales of honey

Early years, Honey Producers Co-operative (HPA), The NZ Honey Co Ltd, NZ Honey Control Board, Internal Marketing Division, Honey Marketing Authority

History of marketing, but also of the NBA

The early years...The early years... Honey sold into England in 1880s, but

irregularity of supply and speculation NZ’s best clover honeys were the equal in

quality Hopkins and Mulvaney sent 5 tons, but it

granulated - adulterated with flour! While honey in England was retailed at 1/6

to 2/- per pound in glass, NZ producers were only getting 3d or 4d per pound

Instruction and RegulationInstruction and Regulation Isaac Hopkins, apiarist to the

Department of Agriculture, established apiary at Ruakura Farm of Instruction

First honey house in 1906 costing £45

First Apiaries Act in 1906

Prior to the NBAPrior to the NBA

Not just a bunch of hobbyists, even then - crop of 32 tons in 1907

Slowing working toward the elimination of box hives

Fletcher Branthwaite (Tai Tapu), took 10 tons to England in 1907 - later had remainder sent back to NZ

The marketplace...The marketplace... Most Auckland honey from Great Barrier

Island, 2 pound tins, varying from pohutukawa to manuka

Well packed lines from the few commercial beekeepers in the Waikato - medium amber, strongly flavoured with pennyroyal and manuka

Southern North Island had J Walworth (Palmerston North) and William Lenz (Masterston) each with crops to 30 tons

Early apiary inspectorsEarly apiary inspectors

WB Bray, Robert Gibb, Isaac Hopkins the original three, appointed in 1907

Those famous bicycles – Those famous bicycles –

really motorised? ...really motorised? ...

Big crops, substantial Big crops, substantial

exporting...exporting... 1909/1910 Canterbury had record

season, with average crop 200 pounds per hive - Price cutting saw returns drop to 3d per pound and lower…

Total exports for 1912/1913 586 hundredweight (value £1,182) - by end of 1913 nine month sales were 1,690 hundredweight (value £3,293)

The moves toward The moves toward

organisation...organisation... Mr Hull, President of Canterbury Assn,

suggested conference in Wellington in 1913 - proposing name of Federated Beekeepers’ Association of NZ

1913 Canterbury formed a co-operative association to export honey

Department of Agriculture drew up voluntary grading regulations (based only on colour)

Co-operation started in Co-operation started in

Taranaki...Taranaki... In 1913 Mr W Lenz decided to sell his Taranaki holdings

Small co-operative bought bees and sold to members in lots, and acted as marketing operation

HW Gilling, HR Penny, AR Bates among the 8 members

Based around packing operation of HW Gilling in Hawera

No initial capital - deductions from payments for honey supplied

The National Beekeepers’ The National Beekeepers’

AssociationAssociation Value of honey production £50,000

when Hon R Heaton Rhodes opened the 1914 conference in Wellington

James Allan (Wyndham) elected President

Membership of 256, expecting to double in the coming year

Early NBA ConferenceEarly NBA Conference

Major A E M Norton...Major A E M Norton... Managing director of the Bristol and

Dominion Producers’ Association Ltd Formerly Trade Commissioner in England

for South Australia Promoted branding by country and

regularity of supply for continued sales Offered to contract for 100 tons

minimum, 500 tons maximum for three years, at 4d FOB minimum, 5d possible...

The beginning of organised The beginning of organised

exportsexports NZ Co-op Honey Producers’

Association took up the contract Increased authorised capital,

accepted other shareholders Grading regulations became

compulsory, leading to increased exports, ‘respectability’ of the product, increased local prices

Failure to supply...Failure to supply...

By end of 1916 the HPA had several hundred shareholders

Exports fell 30 tons short of the required 100 tons

Major Norton and the B & D expressed concern, but didn’t try to recover damages

B & D substituted cardboard containers for glass in innovative packaging move

The honey to EnglandThe honey to England Light and dark honeys accepted by B

& D for sale into England Lighter honeys sold in southern cities,

darker sold in the north Darker sold as ‘New Zealand heather

honey’ until Agricultural Dept pointed out there was no heather!

“What harm could it do anyone to call it that” the Editor argued...

Calls for co-operationCalls for co-operation Late 1916 WB Bray called for co-operation If the small crop had all been exported,

local prices would have soared Windfall for the non-HPA members Urged HPA members to turn high local

offers over to the HPA rather than filling them individually

“We want to ride in a motor car too some day”

High prices, but problems High prices, but problems

with the B & D contractwith the B & D contract Sugar under control in England,

honey prices soared HPA paid out 8 1/3 pence per pound

late in 1917! Crop estimated at 1,250 tons, with

HPA advancing 4 3/4 per pound on the two grades

By early 1917 some problems with shipping space to England

The end of the War...The end of the War...

In 1917 stocks on hand were shipped to England

Cheaper Australian and Californian honey, along with cheap corn syrup, had created consumer resistance

Reduced buying power for English consumers

Some NZ honey in store had fermentation problems...

Problems for the Bristol and Problems for the Bristol and

Dominion Producers’ AssnDominion Producers’ Assn B & D had considerable stocks of HPA

honey HPA had two seasons’ honey in stock,

overseas market with low consumption depressed by poor quality honey still held by retailers

High prices for 1918 crop locally and for export…

Conference 1918 Conference 1918

(Wellington)(Wellington)

Shareholders vs their Shareholders vs their

AssociationAssociation Many HPA shareholders selling for short-term profit outside of the organisation

HPA paying 9d for honey in June, but only getting 5 1/2d advanced, with the rest to come when the honey was shipped

HPA had 300 tons accumulated in shipping stores

By 1919 HPA calling up subscribed but unpaid capital

The slide in prices...The slide in prices...

By 1919 price in England down to £100 per ton - half of what it was the previous year

Returns to beekeepers revised down from £150 to only £75 per ton over a period of two months…

HPA advertised “Civil War in NZ” and “Outbreak of Hostilities - a Warning to the NZ Beekeeper”

Troubles for the B & D...Troubles for the B & D...

1921 the Bristol and Dominion Producers’ Assn Ltd went into voluntary liquidation

Considerable volumes of honey held both in NZ and England

1920 crop marketed mostly to NZ, the US and Canada (because of bad crops there)

Americans and Canadians enforced a 3 cents per pound import duty!

Re-establishing an export Re-establishing an export

presence...presence... AJ Mills and Co suggested as agent

to handle NZ honey in England Unsettled claims and counterclaims

from B & D’s liquidation ultimately cost £10,000

Editor described beekeeper who did not support the HPA or competed with it as “a drone, a cheat, a traitor or a dead-beat!”

The ‘new’ Ruakura honey The ‘new’ Ruakura honey

house, 1923house, 1923

The ‘bad years’...The ‘bad years’...

By 1923 honey was down to 4 1/2d per pound

Prices for Californian honey in London continued to fall with the failure of their co-operative association

HPA members told to quit as much locally as possible to try to let Mills and Co catch up on the backlog of honey

Call for board of NBA, HPA and Govt to supervise exports to England

Good crops, even worse Good crops, even worse

years...years... 1927 had local market fully stocked,

price cutting widespread 1927/1928 crop one of largest ever,

with 1,029 tons exported Local market prices low, beekeepers

just trying to get quit of it NBA wanting to stabilise the local

market before it was completely ruined

The end of the HPA...The end of the HPA...

HPA only being used to dispose of honey, even by previously loyal shareholders

AJ Mills and Co worrying over the outlay to pay advances, having troubles with sales

Government agreed to £9,000 assistance for advertising in England

Schemes to control local marketing considered essential

‘‘Better Beekeeping, Better Better Beekeeping, Better

Marketing’Marketing’ PA Hillary began

to publish “The Alighting Board”

WB Bray began publishing “The New Zealand Honey Producer” July 1929

The ‘Contract Scheme’The ‘Contract Scheme’

Attempt to get 75% of the 1,200 HPA shareholders to either sell through the HPA or at uniform price, uniform package

Hope that this could stabilise the local market, with 1/2 penny per pound of honey on advertising to increase consumption

Payout for 1929 only half of the previous season...

And a bad season...And a bad season... 1929/1930 honey season the worst

for 15 years, probably only one third of the previous season’s record big crop - two record seasons, one disastrous season and a world depression…

C and E Morton take over as agents for the HPA

Christchurch Conference 1931Christchurch Conference 1931

The start of the 1930s, the The start of the 1930s, the

end of the HPA...end of the HPA... PA Hillary elected President of the

NBA in 1931 Proposal to extend the powers of the

Honey Control Board to local market Proposal to create ‘equalisation fund’

to encourage exports In July 1932, HPA finally placed itself

into voluntary liquidation

Who’s the boy?Who’s the boy?

And out of the ashes...And out of the ashes...

New Zealand Honey, Ltd picked up where the HPA left off, at a time when honey had dropped to as low as 2 1/2d per pound

Shareholders could be compelled to supply 50% of their crop to the company

NZ Honey came into being after failure of the honey crop and the failure of competitive open marketing

1932 Conference1932 Conference

And that Seals Levy...And that Seals Levy...

Wallace Nelson of Otorohanga first proposed the use of a ‘seal’ to be fixed to containers of honey sold as part of a marketing association

‘Sealed honey’ would assure the public of superior quality and stability to the marketing organisation

Trying to fix the bad Trying to fix the bad

spots...spots... NZ Honey required definite proportions

of crops Shareholders had to agree not to sell at

less than the Association’s listed prices Members fixed seal to indicate 1/2d

paid levy on honey sold directly While NZ Honey was selling the honey,

it was still under the control of the Honey Control Board

Imperial Bee brand...Imperial Bee brand...

Branding of honey as ‘NZ’ had resulted in consumer acceptance/confidence in the Imperial Bee label

Owned by the HPA up to time of liquidation

Government advanced money to NZ Honey to secure the goodwill and trademark

Reasonable stability...Reasonable stability...

1930s had local market price cutting, but a slow increase in export returns

Many producers saddled with paying back the over advances from the HPA

Payout up to 4 1/2d per pound

Creamed honey...Creamed honey...

Dr EJ Dyce had patent right to the processing of honey to create ‘creamed honey’

Rights were revoked in 1935 after the NZ Honey Control Board took an action

NZ Honey Control Board got two guineas for costs...

Another knock...Another knock...

C and E Morton (HPA’s agents in England) claimed £17,000 for overpayment of advances

Governement agree to loan the industry £10,000 to reduce the debt

The issue of ‘control’...The issue of ‘control’...

Commission of Agriculture held enquiry, concluding that there should be a single authority to supervise the whole of marketing (local and export), and a ‘pooling’ with payments by grade

1936/1937 again one of those ‘worst crop years’…

Honey Control Board and NZ Honey Co wanted to maintain existing markets...

The Australian honey...The Australian honey...

Importers claimed the honey was never to be sold in New Zealand or blended with Imperial Bee pack

Intended only to supply as ‘manufacturing grade’

NZ Honey Ltd ceased trading after 4 1/2 years, having increased returns from 4 1/2d per pound to 6d

The Internal Marketing The Internal Marketing

DivisionDivision Labour Government... In 1938 the IMD took over NZ Honey

Ltd’s business and plant at valuation NZ Honey Ltd wound up, paying back all

shares and capital and 6d per pound pro rata on the last year’s honey

All producers selling outside of the IMD to affix a stamp for 1/2d per pound...

The basic problem...The basic problem...

By the late 1930s, beekeepers knew that high prices in a season of shortage were of no real use when prices fell to unprofitable level when crop was above average

IMD attempted to stabilise the returns to beekeepers

War brought more problems...

The new packing plant...The new packing plant... IMD built a new packing depot in Auckland One half of total crop produced in the

Auckland province and two thirds of total crop came from the North Island

New plant required high proportion, consistent supplies and support

Aiming for all export and storage for export, as well as the 700 to 800 tons for NZ trade

And a bad season...And a bad season...

Short season in 1937/1938, good one in 1938/1939, but 1939/1940 was one of the worst on record

Hardly any ‘carry over’ honey Pressure to obtain supplies for

overseas commitments Speculators operating...

Support for the IMD...Support for the IMD...

Producer/packers urged by the IMD to reconsider packing operations

“6 1/4d per pound plus payout should make packers reconsider”

Opposition primarily from South Island Concept of ‘zoning of marketing

areas’ - giving IMD sole selling rights seen as necessity by some

And another bad year!And another bad year!

1941/42 was worst ‘since honey production acquired the status of an industry’

GS Kirker remarked “By marketing their honey independently of the Division while good times continue beekeepers might reap a harvest, but they will surely need a marketing organisation at the end of the war - and probably sooner if there is a succession of bumper crops.”

Freezing of prices and Freezing of prices and

costs...costs... 1943 saw price and cost controls

introduced Internal prices to be divorced from

export parity, with excess to be paid into pool accounts

7d per pound pro rata was considered too low a base price

The Marketing SchemeThe Marketing Scheme

Compulsory supply of 70% of crop for all beekeepers with 20 hives or more

Remaining 30% could be disposed of by the beekeeper

Existing producer/packer facilities to be utilised allowing for all the year round work for those businesses

Canterbury flatly refused - the ‘Canterbury viewpoint’...

Controlled marketing...Controlled marketing...

IMD claimed that from 1940 until the late 1930s the price of honey had not depended on the size of the crop or individual ability to ‘master the market’

It depended entirely on some organisation to take the surplus market off the local market and obtain a good price on a market built up overseas, often after considerable effort

The failure to supply...The failure to supply... The 70% acquisition expected 1,400 tons Only 760 tons supplied from beekeepers… IMD warned that the current high prices

and demand were solely due to the war, and pointed to similar situation in England in the early 1920s

1944 brought same 70% ‘commandeering’ with required reporting, maximum customer size of 5 pound tin

The end of the warThe end of the war

1944 marketing plan to commandeer only 30 or 35 pounds per hive, approximately 50% of the crop

Seals levy fund now stood at £17,000, with £50,000 total reserves

IMD still not being supplied with enough for war requirements, supply of honey to cities

Voluntary supplyVoluntary supply War time regulations called for 70%

supply, but never more than 20% of total crop ever used for war priorities

Est. crop of 3,000, suggest supply 1,000 to IMD; half of remainder sold direct to consumer, half to trade (with seals levy)

This £5,000 to supplement bulk supply, allowing payout of 8d per pound

IMD was not being supported - 85 tons in 1946!

Another association...Another association...

The appointed Honey Control Board (W Nelson) a point of contention

Honey Suppliers’ Assn formed to represent those who supply the IMD which proposed increased payout coming from seals revenue

Use of seals ‘tax’ change from advertising to equalisation

‘‘Unique marketing Unique marketing

situation…’situation…’ Low crop, high consumer demand Front door selling in favoured areas

of entire crop in bulk direct to consumer

Cancellation of sugar subsidy for manufacturers

Continued rationing of sugar to public

Control, responsibility for Control, responsibility for

marketingmarketing Honey Control Board was ‘advisory only’

to the government; IMD decisions were seen to be an imposition on the industry

By 1947, call for a new ‘set up’ to exercise measure of control, responsibility for marketing decisions

Early 1948 saw Honey Marketing Committee (Field, Holt, Nelson) formed to prepare for election of a producers’ board

Policy for 1949/1950Policy for 1949/1950

Pool account Standard pack within NZ No obstruction to private producer-

packers Ensure use of honey seals Maintain and develop export market (aim

at 500 tons of Imperial Bee standard) Close liaison with Marketing Committee,

IMD and producers

Another complicating Another complicating

factor...factor... ‘Stabilisation’ following the war kept

the price of honey fixed Price Tribunal was loathe to increase

the price of honey in NZ, protecting the consumer

When prices were increased, it occurred after tremendous effort and long delays

Alternative viewpoints...Alternative viewpoints...

WB Bray: “Enable the producer to control the marketing of his crop with a view to freedom in association with other producers”

Wallace Nelson: “Need for confidence in marketing organisation to ensure adequate supplies of honey, with full administrative responsibility over the IMD, giving control to the producers”

1950: What the industry 1950: What the industry

wanted...wanted... Organised marketing through central packing depot or depots

Contracts of supply from producers Simpler method of collecting levy Franchise for suppliers and

contributors to the Seals Levy on equal basis

Seals reserves and revenue be administered by the Honey Marketing Committee

Executive of 1951Executive of 1951

The Seals Levy...The Seals Levy...

Set at 1/2d per pound back in the 1930s

By the early 1950s it had not changed, and was not providing the revenue required to supplement payouts

Still many claims of avoidance

Changes requested in 1952Changes requested in 1952

Seals Levy to increase to 1 penny per pound, purchasers (as well as suppliers) should be eligible for nomination to the Honey Marketing Committee

The Honey Marketing Committee opposed the nomination of seals levy purchasers

Minister Holyoake appointed a purchaser (EA Field) as the Government representative!

Hand over to producers the marketing of primary products

Internal Marketing Division is abolished Benefit of existing government finance

arrangements To pay due regard to general

Government trade policy Government representative to consider

interests of consumer

Primary Products Primary Products

Marketing Act, 1953Marketing Act, 1953

Attempt at subsidy...Attempt at subsidy...

6,000 ton average crop, 4,500 consumed in NZ

1,500 tons required to export Called for government subsidy on

seals levy to acknowledge pollination value of the industry!

KJ Holyoake, Minister of Agriculture: “Nice try…”

A new marketing authorityA new marketing authority

A resounding ‘yes’ - 245 producers (80,000 hives) yes, 15 (with 5,000 hives) no…

Six member board: 4 elected producers, 1 appointed NBA representative, 1 Government representative

First members: R Davidson, EA Field, WT Herron, WW Nelson (with Executive Director Williams the NBA representative)

Seals Levy retainedSeals Levy retained

There was little disagreement that a form of ‘internal contribution’ to the marketing body was required

Seals Levy retained

Kimpton Brothers...Kimpton Brothers...

Appointed as agents to the HMA in 1954 Sold over 2,000 tons in first year at a

steadily increasing price for all grades Returns close to local parity Colonel Kimpton said it was honey

grading regulations coupled with export control regulations that made it possible

Southland beekeepersSouthland beekeepers

Price ControlPrice Control After 16 years by 1957 Price Control

(ceiling price) had lost favour with beekeepers

Stability created by the HMA should be able to set fair price

Export bulk prices beginning to exceed local packed prices…

Same issue that announced decontrol announced return to Price Controls!

Executive 1957Executive 1957

Veteran beekeepers, 1957Veteran beekeepers, 1957

WB Bray (Leeston), AR Bates (Matamata), C Horner (Te Aroha), A Pearson (Hamilton), TH Pearson (Auckland), HC Wedde (Raurimu), H Geddes (Rotorua), E Sage (Ohaupo)

The HMA debtThe HMA debt

The HMA in the late 1950s had a high level of debt, and consequent low confidence from beekeepers

£100,000 debt after taking over from the IMD

New building in Parnell (after old IMD building had rent increases)

Request for government grant in lieu of seals levy evasion

The HMA’s trading positionThe HMA’s trading position

Overseas realisations were not as high as the local returns

Essential that several thousand tons were exported to maintain local market stability

75% of honey supplied to HMA was being exported

Lack of Seals Levy plus low export returns meant low payout meant decreased supply

Government investigationGovernment investigation

‘Form a committee’ Submissions from NBA, branches, HMA

and others Ultimately decided to move all the debt

over to Reserve Bank overdraft facilities Same facility that Apple and Pear Board

and Dairy Commission already had… Suggest increase in Seals Levy to 1

1/2d, extend to all honey in retail containers

Change in representationChange in representation NBA had member on HMA as of right; that

was lost In 1960 Wallace Nelson lost his position

on the HMA after 28 years without defeat (back to Honey Control Board days). WB Bray defeated, too (health reasons)

Jack Fraser and Jim Barber, both NBA Executive, became producer representatives; George Gumbrell chairman

Compulsory acquisitionCompulsory acquisition 1961/1962 was below average season,

but 1962/1963 was a good one Price cutting on top quality honeys Call for compulsory supply or several

restricted local sales-outlets for producers Darker honeys, especially, receiving low

returns Light honey producers keen to sell

overseas on own account

The Kimton AgreementThe Kimton Agreement No exports to UK or bulk exports to

any other country Small consignments in retail

containers considered alright Light honey producers feeling that the

pool system was not giving them fair return

Percy Berry elected to HMA with promise to terminate the contract

Acrimony and division...Acrimony and division... Public slanging through the industry

journal on merits of sole agent 1964 election of Dudley Lorimer and Jack

Fraser indicated support for the Kimpton Agreement and HMA policy

‘The alternatives have been categorically rejected and the disruptive elements in the industry have been summarily dealt with’ - G Gumbrell, retiring Chairman

P Berry defeated in 1966

And the small crops again...And the small crops again...

Two below average seasons, followed by 1966/1967 which was a disaster

Conscious decision by HMA that the future was in the export of bulk honey

Distance from markets, competition in retail sales, difficult markets seen as barriers to change

With small crops, though, the HMA wanted to maintain the goodwill of domestic brands

‘‘Buyer of last resort’...Buyer of last resort’...

Jack Fraser in 1969 described history of the Seals Levy

HMA bound to accept all honey offered to it

Processing, blending these honeys to raise sales value would be a direct charge on the pool

Seals Levy acts as an ‘industry fund’

Executive (visit to Executive (visit to

Wallaceville), 1969Wallaceville), 1969

The 1971 proposalThe 1971 proposal

President Bruce Forsyth proposed no Seals Levy but a flat 2 cents per pound producers’ levy

Import distinction was producer to pay, not packer

Changes to Kimpton Changes to Kimpton

AgreementAgreement Agreement with Kimpton’s changed

from 12 months notice to 6 Changed formula for calculating

commission Sole agent for bulk honey, but

packed lines can be sold in their territory

And another committee...And another committee...

Committee of Government Caucus on an Inquiry into the NZ Honey Industry, 1972

Recommended HMA remain, but not ‘compete vigorously’

Allow for exports without approval of the HMA, levy proposed on the sale (not production) of honey

But 1972 conference voted against private exports…

High overseas prices...High overseas prices...

By 1973, honey prices had increased dramatically

HMA payout fixed by Government at 20 cents when HMA wanted to pay out higher

Government wouldn’t let HMA increase domestic honey price, either

Executive, 1973Executive, 1973

Changes to the levyChanges to the levy

HMA wanted extension of current scheme, paid by packers on containers, with more enforcement powers (the ‘Ecroyd scheme’)

NBA wanted extension to full producer levy, based on declarations (the ‘NBA scheme’)

But by 1974, NBA membership moved to favour a ‘hive levy’...

Rising costs, pegged Rising costs, pegged

prices...prices... HMA unable to include increases in

production costs as justification for increase in wholesale price of honey

Government involvement in local market pricing as well as (recently) price smoothing of producer incomes

Hive Levy Act provided for 5 cents per hive stabilisation levy

HMA and private exportsHMA and private exports Retail packs, 10 tonnes or less, subject to

HMA approval Exports could not be allowed to jeopardise

the ability of the HMA to maintain a stable domestic market and export

by 1976 need for representation of all producers in HMA decisions (P Berry elected previously)

Remits in 1976, 1977 and 1978 calling for private bulk exports...

The HMA compositionThe HMA composition

Two in favour of private exports, two more desirous of HMA control, and the Government representative…

Late 1978, the deadlock was broken, with majority in favour of private exports

HMA at 1979 conference...HMA at 1979 conference...

Financial position, inflation worrying Traditionally buying all honey offered,

sole right to export bulk honey - act as buffer against high or low production years

Funding system borne by the industry as a whole and/or complete export control

Conference decided HMA could restrict honey to accept...

Stabilisation schemeStabilisation scheme

With no Seals Levy, HMA operated a ‘base price’ and ‘trigger price’ system

Any realisation in access of the trigger price would go to reserves

Base price was used to determine ‘cost price’ of honey for local market, so packers were selling for less than they could in bulk to the HMA!

New policy formulationNew policy formulation

Admin of export control to go from HMA

SI operation could be only commercial HMA involvement

Control over exports still desired Centre for export control to be placed

in hands of ‘alternative body’ Export control office should set

minimum export price

The Dellow report, the Kay The Dellow report, the Kay

arbitrationarbitration Outlined financial, political, administrative

and marketing structures necessary for success of proposed Honey Marketing Co-op

Decision on who to benefit/how to handle the HMA reserves

Decision to loan funds to Co-op challenged by injunction

Arbitration led to a trust, the loan, and the ultimate end of the HMA