(B®«®e«®ee®e®e®®®®®®®e®®®®«®«®^®€&®®e®®®®®e®e®eei 





Entered at the Post-Office at Chicago as Second-Class Mail-Matter. 

 PublUIied YVeekly at $1.00 a Year by Cteorgrc W. York &: Co., S»4 l>earborii St. 



QEORQB W. YORK, Editor. 



CHICAGO, ILL, JUNE 23, 1904. 



Vol, XLIV-No, 25, 





Editorial Comments 



) 



The Marketing of Honey. 



This is a subject that has been harped on so long that we suppose 

 many readers are almost tired of it. 



But the time will soon be here again, when there will be honey to 

 sell — the new crop — and no doubt a number of bee-keepers will be glad 

 to learn the very best way to dispose of it. 



We hereby invite those who have been successful in working up a 

 local demand for honey to describe their plans for the readers of the 

 American Bee Journal. There are certain general details in all meth" 

 ods that will work in any locality. Let us have such descriptions 

 soon, so that they can be published in good time to be of use this sea- 

 son. As you have been helped by what others have written, why not 

 turn in and help others by telling your methods? " An even exchange 

 IS no robbery." 



Prevention of After-Swarms. 



Prevention of prime swarms is not one of the easiest of problems ; 

 prevention of after-swarms is much easier. The following plan will 

 generally prove successful in preventing all after-swarming: 



When the prime or first swarm issues put the swarm on the old 

 stand, placing the old colony that is in the old hive close beside the 

 swarm that is now on the old stand. A number of queen-cells are in 

 the old hive, and when the first young queen emerges from its cell an 

 after-swarm is lil<ely to issue. This after-swarm may issue about 

 eight days after the first swarm issued. Instead of waiting for that, 

 however, you will remove the old hive to a new location six or seven 

 days after the issuing of the first swarm. The result of that will be 

 that all the field-force of the old colony, instead of going back from the 

 fields to their own hive, will go to the old location, and join the swarm 

 on the old stand. That will weaken the old colony by just that num- 

 ber of bees, of course, and the fact that they are thus weakened will 

 have a tendency to make them give up the thought of further swarm- 

 ing. Not only is the weakness of the colony an argument against 

 further swarming; a still stronger argument lies in the fact that the 

 harvest has ceased. At least it has ceased I'or them, for as no fleld- 

 bees are returning laden with nectar, it is the same to them as if there 

 were no nectar in the fields, and they are likely to conclude that they 

 will do no more swarming. 



The swarm will thus receive all the field-force, and will be so 

 strong as to do best work at storing. 



Weight of Sections of Honey. 



D. M. M., an able correspondent of the British Bee Journal, says 

 in that journal : 



An eminent bee-keeper, in recording his take of several thousaml 

 sections, showed that they averaged only 14% ounces. I am mu> h 

 surprised that any one, carrying on the pursuit on a large scale 

 should not seethe very great advantage of increasing the widths 

 his sections the small fraction of an inch, which would make all hi 

 surplus comb honey weigh (practically) 16 ounces to the pound sec 



lion. In selling them, I fancy, he would be paid so much per pound, 

 but I question very much if the retailer would be so strict in handing 

 them oyer the counter, so I expect a tidy little profit would be reaped 

 out of the deal— at the cost of the consumer, of course. I have 

 already called attention to this point, and I trust bee-keepers in this 

 country will not introduce this undesirable innovation, which will not 

 be to the advantage of the craft in the long run. Our orthodox sec- 

 tion turns out as near a pound of honey as we are ever likely to secure, 

 and this is all sections should weigh. 



A novice reading that paragraph might be induced to believe that 

 by adopting a section of a certain size a bee-keeper " would make all 

 his surplus comb honey weigh (practically) 16 ounces to the pound 

 section." If that were so, the bee-keeper referred to would no doubt 

 have adopted that size long ago. But in this country, however it may 

 be in England, it he were to have the exact size of section that when 

 finished would weigh a pound, he would need a different size for next 

 year. There may be a difference of an ounce or more in the weight of 

 sections in two different years. Two different localities in the same 

 year will also give different weights. The "orthodox section " of 

 England is probably 2 inches wide. The sections mentioned, which in 

 that particular year weighed H"./ ounces, were probably IJ^. Taken 

 one year with another in this country, will the 3-inch width come as 

 near to a pound as the 1%? 



Demand for Bees and Beeswax. 



The heavy losses of the past winter are shown by the large demand 

 for bees at the present time, and also by the large amount of wax 

 offered, many of the combs from the dead colonies having been 

 melted up. 



Ladies' Home Journal and Bogus Comb Honey. 



On page 40.S we called attention to the publication in the great 

 Ladies' Home Journal of a slight variation in the Wiley manufactured 

 comb-honey misrepresentation, and requested our readers to write 

 Editor Bok their protest, and also ask for a correction of the mislead- 

 'ing and untruthful statement made by Dr. Emma E. Walker. 



We also said that we had written Mr. Bok, and here is a copy of 

 our letter to him : 



Chicago, III., June 1, 1904. 

 Mr. Edward Bok, 



Editor Ladies' Home Journal, Philadephia, Pa. 



My Dear Str : — I notice in your June issue, page 36, second col- 

 umn, a statement by Emma E. Walker, M.D., which has no truth in 

 it whatsoever. It is simply a variation of a story " made out of whole 

 cloth " some 'M years ago, to the effect that honey-comb is made out 

 of paraffin by machinery, the cells filled with glucose, and then sealed 

 over with a hot iron, etc. 



Having been connected with the liee-keeping industry for 20 years, 

 and 13 years of that time editor of the American Bee Journal, I feel 

 entirely competent to enter a complete denial of the whole fabrication. 

 There is not a scintilla of truth in the statement. 



For over 20 years there has been a standing offer of $1000, made 

 by a reputable firm, and one abundantly alile financially to back up its 

 statements (and I have also made the same offer), for a single pound 

 of comb honey made without the intervention of bees. That offer 

 remains untaken, and doubtless will always remain so, as it is utterly 

 impossible for man to duplicate the wonderfully delicate work of 

 honey-bees. 



I beg of you to publish a prompt correction of Dr. Walker's harm- 

 ful statement in your first possible issue. For over 30 years the old 

 American Bee Journal (now in its 44th year) has been correcting and 

 denouncing the ever-recurring publication of this gratuitous comb- 

 honey canard. But I never expected its appearance in that usually 

 high authority — the Ladies' Home -lournal. However, at last it is 



