a5o 



gLeai^ings in bee culture. 



Dec. 



AN AVERAGE OF 75 LBS. OF HONEY PER COLONY. 



I commenced the winter of 1884 with 30 swai-ms; 

 2 starved— the first I have lost in wintering for five 

 years. I commenced this season with ;J8; have 

 taken about 1600 lbs. in sections, 500 lbs. with ex- 

 tractor — an averag-e of 75 lbs. I have now 41 

 swarms, after doubling back. Best yield, about 175 

 lbs. in sections, 25 extracted; lightest, 50 lbs. in sec- 

 tions. I winter one-half in chaff hives on summer 

 stands, the rest in cellar. C. H. Boyd. 



North Monroe, Waldo Co., Me., Dec. 7, 1885. 



^EP0^¥g DlgC6UR^6INS. 



100 HIVES, AND NOT ENOUGH TO WINTER ON. 



HAVE 104 hives of bees; had about ICO in the 

 spring. They haven't gathered enough to win- 

 ter on. 1 have fed them about 500 lbs., and will 

 have to feed about 200 more in the spring, so 

 you see that it is all loss this season. The hard 

 cold winter in the spring, and the dry weather, 

 killed the clover; buckwheat was not very good. 

 Amity, N. Y., Dec. 4, 1885. J. W. I^tter. 



DISCOURAGING TO A NEW BEGINNER. 



My expectations in the bee-business have utterly 

 failed. I shall not get over 10 or 15 lbs. of box hon- 

 ey, from 16 hives. What do you suppose is the rea- 

 son they did not make any more honeyV I had 

 buckwheat, and a great variety of flowers, besides 

 quite a lot of the spider plant all aiound our place, 

 besides being right alongside the woods. My honey 

 so far has cost me about S5.00 per lb. Of course, 

 the brood-chamber has all they will need for winter 

 and brood-rearing; but from the account of so 

 many bee men, about bees filling the hive and turn- 

 ing off such quantities of honey in one season, it 

 looks (after my first season's exjiericnce) rather du- 

 bious. 



I got, in the spring, 6 box hives, and increased to 

 17 (one dwindled or died), and I now have 16 hives 

 of bees, and took honey from only two of them, and 

 I am out about f60.00 on the bee-business. This 

 does not look very flattering, does if? Still, I expect 

 to increase them until I get 100 colonies or more, if 

 T can possibly i-aise the money to buy the Simplicity 

 hives, for I don't like any other. K. J. Waters. 



New Madrid, Mo., Nov. 2, 1885. 



FALSE STATEMENTS IN RESARD TO THE HON- 

 EY BUSINESS or OUR COUNTRY. 



.\s a protection to our bec-kpepinp population, we propose in 

 this department to publish the names of newspapers that per- 

 sist in publishing false statements In regard to the purity of 

 honey which we as bee-keepers put on the market. 



f^ HE following I copied from the editorial de- 

 li" partment of the New York Weekly Witness, 

 ^ issueof Sept. 3, 1885, page6: 

 " Honey has become so adulterated now 

 that there is no pleasure to the fastidious in 

 eating it, as you do not know whether you are eat- 

 ing a mixture of glucose and honey, or the pure un- 

 adulterated article. Virgin honey in the comb, as 

 manufactured by the Ix^es, is most delicious; but 

 nowadays the bees are saved the trouble of making 

 the comb, and a manufactured article is put in for 

 them to fill with honey, and you do not know in 

 eating it whether you are eating bee-made comb or 

 man-made comb, a tough and indigestible mass. 

 Let us have pure honey, Mr. Bee-keeper! 



It is a reply to L. Starr, Mallory, N. Y., an intel- 

 ligent bee-keeper, if I mistake not. Mr. Starr is 

 probably not a reader of Gleanings, or he would, 

 or should, have sent you this item himself, together 

 with his own letter in the Witness. 



The above, considering the source, and the posi- 

 tion as a Christian teacher of the author, may just- 

 ly be styled " a pious fraud." 



John D. Gehrino. 



Park College, Mo., Dec. 4, 1885. 



Thanks, friend G.,for kindly calling our 

 attention to tliis matter. It does seem to 

 me really awful, to see papers like the Wit- 

 ness listening to sensational newspaper ca- 

 nards until they lose their own senses. 

 Now, dear friends of the Witness, Avill yon 

 not be kind enough to as pul)licly correct 

 the false impressions you have given, and 

 admit that you were mistaken '? My offer 

 of SI 000 is still open, to any newspaper 

 editor, or anybody else, who' will tell us 

 where comb honey is manufactured without 

 the agency of bees. I appeal to you as 

 (^liristian men to make a little reparation 

 for the injury you have done a class of hon- 

 est and hard-working people. You have 

 Gleanings as an exchange ; and by read- 

 i ing the numbers for a few months back, 

 especially the articles under the department 

 that heads this, you can see how hard we 

 h,ave been laboiing to get even simple just- 

 ice. Xo one should buy honey without see- 

 I ing that the name of the producer is on the 

 package ; and if you do this, I am sure you 

 j will not get either liquid honey nor comb 

 I honey that is a fraud. This quotation from 

 i the Witness is the one referred to on p. 647, 

 ■ Sept. lo. 



; The following is clipped from the Ameri- 

 j ic-an Analyst : 



i Honey.— You are correct about the prevalence 

 I of adulterated honey. Comparatively little of the 

 j article bearing that name sold in retail stores is 

 ' genuine, even the wax cells being often skillfully 

 and fraudulently imitated. We noticed in the last 

 number of the London Analyst that a correspondent 

 i warns anal.vtical chemists against American hon- 

 eys, which he says are being adulterated with a syr- 

 i up manufactured with maize, the method being- 

 kept secret. His own experience shows, however, 

 j that if wheat or maize starch (not potato starch) be 

 ' tieatcd with oxalic acid or any other powerful or- 

 i ganic acid, a syrup is produced, which, in a certain 

 ; concentration, and after standing two or three 

 ; weeks, exactly resembles, in taste and appearance, 

 an old honey. It seems a shame to cheat the busy 

 bee out of the reward of his patient industry. 



i If any journal should be truthful and re- 

 I liable iii matteis of this kind, it seems to 

 me that one with such a name as the above 

 paper, hailing from 176 Broadway, New 

 York, ought to be that one. Now, friends 

 ! of the American Analyst, we call upon you 

 to correct your unwise and very positive 

 statement. If anybody in the '*\orld ought 

 to be careful what he says, it is an editor ; 

 and for an editor of a s'cientilic paper to 

 thus help on a fraud is lamentable. AVill 

 you not please add, friends, that it is a mis- 

 take, and that you were misinformed? If 

 you think there is such a place, where wax 

 cells are imitated, as you say, just hunt 

 it up, and your $1000 which we offered last 

 month is ready now. Yes, it is now $1500. 

 You will please prove you were right, or 

 else take back what you said. 



