154 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REV IE 



write and pat him on the back. If they 

 don't agree with him they keep Btill. They 

 onght to write him justthesameif they don't 

 agree with hira. Those readers of Glean- 

 ings who think that Messrs. Weed and Root 

 are going to damage bee-keeping by put- 

 ting this product on the market ought to 

 write to Gleanings and say so, just the' same 

 as those who think it all right ; and those 

 of my readers who favor the scheme ought 

 to write to me just as freely as they do 

 Gleanings. Here are samples of the letters 

 I am getting: 



So. Columbia, N. Y. June 3, '97. 

 I am very much pleased at the stand you 

 have taken in regard to the use of founda- 

 tion in producing box honey. Uncle Daniel 

 Quinby, before he died, said it caused a 

 great falling off among his private custom- 

 ers. To those that has used from two to 

 three crates, he only could sell one or two 

 after bee keepers commenced using the 

 stuff. I am very much surprised that a few, 

 in order that they may sell this stuff, are 

 willing to sacrifice the production of the 

 finest of Nature's gift to mankind. For my 

 own use I always use natural comb. Others 

 can chew the cud. if they want to. 

 C. G. Ferris. 



HiGGiNsviLLE, Mo., May 15, '97. 



Friend Hutchinson: — 



Referring to the Weed 

 comb, I will say that the object is to get it 

 on the market and there are plenty of large 

 bee-keepers that will use it and speak well of 

 it even if it does injure the honey. 



There is one thing I do know, and that is 

 that bee-keepers, if they had a vote on it, 

 would bury this Weed comb two to one, on 

 the ground that the public will be more sus- 

 picious of honey when they know that comb 

 so nearly imitating the natural product can 

 be made and if Dr. Miller's argument holds 

 good, that it will be no harm to now add 20 

 per cent more wax to the comb, there is no 

 doubt in my mind that the same argument 

 can be as well used five years from now and 

 20 per cent more again added. I have never 

 advised the use of full sheets of foundation 

 in the sections and I believe bee-keepers 

 have been the losers as a whole from its 

 use by a less consumption of honey by those 

 that could afford to pay a good price for it. 

 It has always looked to me that it is not 

 good business to cheapen an article at the 

 expense of (/ualifi/. This has been done 

 with comb honey. 



Thanking you for your letter, I am, 

 Yours truly, R. B. Leahy. 



I can only repeat what I have said so 

 many times, let's wait until we have tried 

 this for ourselves. There are, however, 

 one or two points brought out in these let- 

 ters that it will be well to consider, and one 

 is, might not a large apiarist use this comb 

 even if it did deteriorate his product slight- 



ly ? Might he not think that the extra quan- 

 tity of honey secured would pay him such a 

 profit that he would use it, as I have said, 

 even if the quality was not quite so good ? 

 Might not the thought of this greater profit 

 so blunt his preception that the inferi- 

 ority of comb honey produced with the deep 

 cell foundation could not be discovered ? 

 If the large apiarist uses it, why not the 

 more humble bee-keeper ? 



Then there is the point that, although the 

 deterioration might be only slight, so slight 

 that the average consumer would not notice 

 it, yet in time he would discover that he 

 did not like honey so well as he did once. 

 Many times in arguing against the adulter- 

 ation of extracted honey, this point has 

 been urged. Consumers might not, at the 

 time of purchase, discover anything wrong 

 with the honey, but, after using it for 

 awhile they "lose their taste for it, " so to 

 speak. My only hope is that, if the use of 

 this product does deteriorate comb honey, 

 that the manufacturers can be made to see 

 it, and to discontinue its manufacture. If 

 its use cannot be detected, if the resulting 

 comb is just as flaky, brittle and fragile as 

 the natural product, then we can all rejoice. 



Comb foundation has not improved the 

 quality of comb honey. No one claims 

 that. It has helped to produce straight combs, 

 but through the center of eacli comb it has 

 put a tough, leathery substance which for 

 some reason has been dubbed " fish-bone. " 

 But, though it be tough and leathery, it is 

 all in one place, and can be rejected by 

 cutting the honey from each side, as I men- 

 tioned in a former article, but if you put 

 this tough wax into the side walls, there is 

 no way of avoiding it — we must chew it up. 

 Mr. Root says that these side-walls become 

 as flaky and eatable as those of the natural- 

 ly built comb. Why they should, when 

 such is not the case with the foundation I do 

 not understand, but there may be a reason, 

 so let us not be too hasty in our judgement. 



A Condensed View of Current 

 Bee Writings. 



E. E. HASTY. 



(3^ IX heaping bushel baskets of dead bees 

 )S at one time ! (See Review 92) That will 

 almost have to stand as the record — until 

 somebody breaks it. But what we want to 

 know it,, was it the high temperature of the 



