1909 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



729 



safe thing to leave in the hive a foul-broody 

 comb when shaking. Indeed, I had no idea, 

 in the first place, of following exactly the 

 plan that I finally did follow. I intencled to 

 leave the foul- broody comb three days, or 

 long enough for the bees to make a start on 

 the empty frame next to it, then leave this 

 latter two' days, taking away the foul-broody 

 comb, at the end of the two days leaving 

 nothing but foundation. The idea was that 

 this would not give the bees such a shock as 

 to be suddenly thrown upon nothing but 

 foundation with all their combs taken from 

 them at once. But in some way I fell into 

 the shorter and easier way, thinking that 

 there was a bare chance that it might work, 

 and I was feeling just a bit desperate about 

 the bees desertmg. You would hardly be- 

 lieve with what intense anxiety I scanned 

 the newly built comb when the oldest brood 

 in it was nearly ready to seal, to see if any 

 of it was diseased. Always it was healthy, 

 and I felt sure that if this comb was all right 

 the foundation would be. And it was — ev- 

 ery time. Again the question comes: If a 

 flow had been on, would the result have 

 been the same? 



The editor of Gleanings had hinted that 

 he would like to have me try the Alexander 

 plan. I am greatly given to experimenting; 

 but with so serious a matter as foul brood I 

 hardly felt like fooling with a plan that had 

 not proved entirely successful in all cases. 

 Later I relented, and — but that's another 

 story. 



To be continued. 



THE NATIONAL PURE-FOOD LAW. 



Its Relation to Honey-dew; the Favored 

 Few. 



BY J. A. CRANE. 



While I should like to see the pure-food 

 law amended so that what the bees store in 

 the hive for their own food supply, when 

 taken from them might be called honey, 

 whether gathered from fruit juice or aphides, 

 we probably shall be unable to get such a 

 change. But if all the bee interests in the 

 country were as powerful and as united as 

 the glucose interests are, the commission 

 would probably be able to see no more harm 

 in calling honey-dew pure honey than in call- 

 ing glucose corn syrup. What greater farce 

 could be imagined than our present pure-food 

 law as it now stands and is applied? The 

 greatest sinners, viz., the glucose people, 

 the canners, and the whisky interests, ap- 

 pear to be able to get almost any ruling they 

 wish; but let the man who has a few sections 

 of honey with a few cells of honey-dew in 

 them look out how he sells it or he may find 

 himself in prison. 



The way I did with what honey I had with 

 dew in it was to send it away as clover, bass- 

 wood, and honey-dew, which was just what 

 it was; and as the statute claims to be against 

 misbranding, it seems to me that I should 

 have been more guilty to mark good clover 



and basswood as honey- dew than to give the 

 actual facts, even though the gooa honey 

 was unavoidably thrown into bad company. 



PREVENTING GNAWING OF SPLINTS. 



I should like to suggest that the Miller 

 splints might be coated with some substance 

 like shellac, or some other preparation, and 

 made so hard that the bees would be unable 

 to tear them down. As I understand the 

 case they gnaw only the lower end of the 

 splints, so It would not be necessary to coat 

 more than a short distance from the end. I 

 have never used them, but have often thought 

 of trying some; and if the gnawing by the 

 bees is the only point against their use it 

 would seem that some one used to paints or 

 chemicals should be able to find some easy 

 way to overcome that fault. 



Marion, N. Y. 



[While, apparently, some big interests 

 have secured rulings that they have asked 

 for, and some smaller interests have been 

 turned down, yet it is, nevertheless, a fact 

 that we have one of the best if not the very 

 best pure-food law, and the best executecf, 

 probably, in the world. Canada and some 

 other countries are wishing they had some- 

 thing half as good. If Dr. Wiley and his 

 corps of assistants were left alone,' all would 

 be treated alike. Taking it all in all, we 

 most emphatically disagree with our corre- 

 spondent when he says that "no greater 

 farce could be imagined than our present 

 pure-food law as it stands and is applied." 

 While we admit, in the matter of honey-dew, 

 that some bee-keepers suffer some little hard- 

 ship, yet in a broad and general way they 

 now have practically no competition from 

 glucose mixtures masquerading under the 

 name of "honey." Most States have pure- 

 food laws of their own that are in strict con- 

 formity with the national law. All territori- 

 al and interstate business comes under the 

 scope of the national law. The fact that 

 some of the adulterated products that can be 

 sold in some States may and probably would 

 go across the borders into other States is a 

 strong barrier against a class of manufactur- 

 ers who would, if they dare, put on the mar- 

 ket adulterated honeys, canned goods, and 

 jams. They dare not take chances. 



It is not a violation of the national pure- 

 food law to put on the market a honey that 

 contains only a small percentage of honey- 

 dew. Any honey containing a small amount 

 of honey-dew that is of good flavor and color 

 can be sold as honey, if we understand the 

 ruling. It is only the ill-flavored stuff, or 

 the honey that contains a very perceptible 

 quantity, that must be sold under the name 

 of "honey-dew honey." In many cases this 

 does not work a hardship but an actual bene- 

 fit to the honey trade at large. Indeed, it 

 would be a positive damage to the market if 

 a bee-keeper were allowed to put a nasty hon- 

 ey-dew on an unsuspecting public and call it 

 honey. There are some pure honeys that are 

 so vile in flavor and dark in color that they 

 also ought to be put under the same ban for 

 table use. — Ed.] 



