1896 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



?57 



So far as I can gather from reports, bees have 

 wintered unusually well all over the country. 



In this issue our Honey Column is based on 

 the Washington grading. All of our honey 

 merchants have been requested to make their 

 quotations according to this grading. It may 

 not be perfect, but it is better than nothing at 

 all. In the meantime, if it shall seem desirable 

 to make some slight changes they can be made 

 if approved by the fraternity at large. 



Judging by the way the orders are coming in 

 for the Boardman feeder, it is evident that the 

 plan will be thoroughly tried this coming 

 season. I wish our subscribers would take 

 careful notes, and be ready to report after the 

 season, whether such feeding pays in dollars 

 and cents— that is, whether, all things consid- 

 ered, they think their pocketbook is a little 

 fatter after the season than it would have been 

 had they proceeded in the old way. The time 

 of feeding, waste of bee energy, as referred to 

 in another column, amount of surplus honey, 

 etc., must all be figured in. 



We print 16 extra pages this time. We have 

 had some articles in type, as you will see by 

 this issue, that were received in October, but 

 which, owing to the crowoed condition of our 

 columns, were awaiting a place. Articles are 

 held back, not necessarily because they are less 

 valuable than something else which we pub- 

 lish as soon as received, but because their sub- 

 ject-matter is of such a nature that they can be 

 held over without being out of date or out of 

 season. We are thus enabled to print articles 

 immediately, which, if held over, would be out 

 of date and useless. A few of the former ap- 

 pear in this issue — one from Mr. E. France, one 

 from our old friend and correspondent, Dr. J. 

 W. Porter, and one from Mr. B. Taylor. 



A NEW BEE-KEEPERS UNIUN. 



At the risk of putting my foot in it I am 

 going to make another suggestion, or, more 

 correctly, "amalgamate" the plans suggested 

 by me before, and those suggested by Bro. 

 York. If the amalgamation of the Bee-keepers' 

 Union with the North American is not wise, 

 then don't do it. Let the North American 

 stand just as it is. Then I would have the 

 Bee-keepers' Union so moditied in its constitu- 

 tion and in its plan of operation that it shall 

 have annual meetings, elect officers, discuss 

 problems of protection to bee keepers, and 

 also those that have come before the North 

 American— in a word, take in all the interests 

 that concern the honey business. 



It is evident that it is going to make trouble 

 to try to force the amalgamation of the North 

 American and Union. One society will have 

 all it can do to take care of the affairs of one 

 country, without trying to spread itself all over 

 the continent; and a new union or society can 

 just as well do the work formerly done by the 

 two existing organizations. 



I should like to hear from our readers, espe- 

 cially members of the Bee-keepers' Union, in 

 an informal way. If it appears to be sanction- 

 ed, then the Manager of the Union can take 

 the matter up in proper form, and have it acted 

 upon. 



When Mr. Hutchinson proposed the matter 

 of amalgamation of the two societies, and the 

 rest of us fell in with that plan, the idea, as I 

 understood it, was not so much amalgamation 

 as that we did not need two societies. Almost 

 the only objection against amalgamation is the 

 idea of making the Union international. By 

 the plan above proposed, the Union will remain 

 national; and yet the ultimatum that most of 

 us desire to obtain— annual meetings and have 

 one society do all the work that was formerly 

 done by the two— can be accomplished. In the 

 meantime, the old North American can have 

 annual meetings or triennial meetings, as sug- 

 gested by Bro. York, or disband. 



PORTER S CRITICISM ON GLEANINGS. 



As spoken of elsewhere in this issue, there 

 appears a very friendly criticism on Glean- 

 ings. I intended to add a footnote; but the 

 article was made up before such a note could be 

 put in. Two or three misconceptions occur in 

 the article, which should, perhaps, be corrected. 

 Mr. Porter speaks of the various expenses en- 

 tailed in getting out a journal, and alludes to a 

 possible loss of ?3000 on unpaid subscriptions. I 

 would not have the impression go abroad that 

 we lose that much annually on deadheads. 

 Our list is practically all paid up, and I do not 

 think we have 100 deadheads— those from 

 whom it is impossible to make any collections 

 —out of our 9000 subscribers. We never force 

 collections, but only politely ask for the sub- 

 scription money; and if that is not forthcom- 

 ing, the names are dropped. So far, about 100 

 a year Is about the total number of those who 

 entirely ignore all such requests, and are drop- 

 ped as deadheads. 



Mr. Porter speaks of defective prints. This 

 may be (and probably was) caused by a single 

 defective impression. Sometimes a printed 

 sheet will not be properly inked; and, again, 

 sheets will go out before sufficient overlays 

 have been made on the press to get the proper 

 impression. What Mr. Porter refers to is some- 

 thing rather accidental, and out of the ordina- 

 ry, rather than general. 



His ideas on designs for the cover of the 

 journal would be, if put upon paper, rather 



