DECEMBER 1, 1913 



841 



Beekeeping in California 



p. C. Chadwick, Redlands, Cal. 



In the issue for Nov. 1, p. 754, Mr. Doo- 

 little recommends the use of open entrances 

 in moving- bees. Editor Root also comments 

 on the plan. ISli-. L. L. Andrews, of Corona, 

 who has had a Avide experience in this line, 

 left the impression with me last spring- that 

 he had not found the plan satisfactory. 

 There is one very great objection that I see 

 in a locality where there is liable lo be foul 

 brood, or where it is known to be prevalent ; 

 that is, the danger of spreading- the disease 

 to the four winds. Pei-sonally I think the 

 plan should be discouraged, as there is too 

 much risk in this connection. 



CLEANLINESS IN EXTKACTED-HONEY PRODUC- 

 TION. 



Nov. 1, p. 770. Mr. M. A. Gill has an 

 interesting- article. Much of it is good, but 

 a part of it I do not feel like letting- pass 

 without comment. I have very great respect 

 for the opinion of such a man as friend Gill, 

 for these old timers with years of experi- 

 ence deserve the place they hold in the 

 esteem of the beekeeping- public. Yet there 

 are some things in this article which do not 

 sound fair to those who produce extracted 

 honey. I quote the following-: "Now, if a 

 campaign is to be started urg-ing the pro- 

 duction of more comb honey, let's first start 

 a school urging- the placing of a better 

 grade on the market." That part is rig-ht ; 

 but why stop with comb honey? Such a 

 school is needed in the extracting- line just 

 as much as it is needed for a better grade 

 of comb honey. 'Mx. Gill also says, " It 

 matters not hoAv slipshod the methods are 

 that produce a can of extracted honey. If 

 it is ripened, settled, or properly strained, 

 it is all right for market, and anybody who 

 can turn a grindstone can produce extract- 

 ed honey whether at a profit or not." Is it 

 not true, also, that those who could turn the 

 same stone can produce comb honey? I 

 think the rule would apply equally in either 

 case. Mr. Gill's comparison is hardly fair 

 lo those who take pride in producing- a fine 

 grade of the extracted j^roduct. A beekeep- 

 er who is inclined to be neat and painstak- 

 ing in liis work would in all probability do 

 just as well, so far as producing a fine 

 article is concerned, with comb honey as 

 with extracted. I fail to see why all of the 

 careless and slovenly inclined should be un- 

 instructed and allowed to continue to pro- 

 duce a poor article of extracted honey wlule 

 those pi-oducing- comb honey were being in- 

 structed in ]n-oducing comb. A good, clean, 

 well-ripened, neatly packed package of ex- 



tracted honey is just as impoi'tant as is the 

 same in comb. The tendency to be dirty is 

 greater among })i-oducers of extracted than 

 comb honey, because the faults do not show 

 so jilainly on the face of the business; yet 

 there is all the more reason for care and 

 for the discouragement of unclean ways. 

 Neither can I agree that extracted honey, 

 merely because the ants, larvse, and dirt are 

 strained out, and the honey is put in second- 

 hand cans and a weather-stained case, is 

 right for market. 



I quote the following- from an editorial in 

 the November issue of the American Bee 

 Journal: " I have just I'eceived a letter from 

 Mr. J. F. Diemer, of Liberty, Mo., in which 

 he states that he purchased some honey 

 from a commission house. The honey was 

 put up in 60-lb. cans, which were bright 

 enough on the outside ; but from the sample 

 of tin sent us, they were about the worst 

 ever on the inside. Mr. Diemer stated that, 

 besides the rusty cans, there were so many 

 bees, etc., in the honey that it was easy to 

 tell that the producer was one who leaned 

 toward black bees rather than Italians." 

 Further on in the same editorial the editor 

 does not altogether discourage the use of 

 second-hand cans. Here is a sample of not 

 only a dirty mess of honey, but also of one 

 put up in a second-class manner, and yet 

 the practice of using such second-hand 

 methods is not altogether discouraged. To 

 be sure, the honey in question was not prop- 

 erly strained; but even if it had been it 

 could not have been first-class when packed 

 in second-hand receptacles. If I had mj^ 

 way about the matter I would not permit 

 the reuse of any can that had once been on 

 the market; and I firmly believe it would be 

 a good move for producers if they would 

 adopt a can that could not be opened with- 

 out destroying it for future use. Why deal- 

 ers should be permitted to salvage these old 

 cans, and turn them back to a class who are 

 not overly particular about either the recep- 

 tacle used nor the manner in which the 

 product is put up, I can not see; for, as a 

 rule, that is the only class of men who 

 would care to allow their produce to be 

 packed in such a manner. I have never 

 used a second-hand can except when the 

 purchaser had returned one to be filled of 

 ins own accord. I am perfectly willing to 

 help Bro. Gill with his school if he will give 

 a class for producers of eveiy kind of hon- 

 ey on the market. But even at that, those 

 who are not inclined to be tidy will fall 

 more or less into the old rut. 



