THE A3IERICAN BEE~KEEPElt. 



183 



National Queen Breeders' Union. 



WritU'ii for flir Aiiininm ]i>r- Keeper. 

 BV .1. n. (,I:I.MISI,KY. 



'ITH your permission I will sup- 

 plement Mr. Case's article in 

 the September Bee-Keeper, and 

 hope to be able to show the necessity 

 for such an organization. 



To begin with, there were six of us 

 (a hexagon, you see), entered into the 

 work of organizing. Besides the four 

 officers mentioned in j'our editorial, 

 page 157, there were W. H. Laws, of 

 Arkansas and W. H. White, of Texas. I 

 mention these because they are as 

 much entitled to credit in effecting the 

 organization as any of the officers. In 

 this connection I can do no better than 

 quote from Mr. Secor's article, page 

 113, American Bee-Keeper for July: 



"Men lay their heads together, form 

 alliances for mutual protection and 

 thereby gain strength impossible to the 

 single worker." 



Again he says: 



"Men interested in a common pur- 

 pose are enabled to unite on a common 

 plan of action and work to some ef- 

 fect." 



Thanks to Mr. Secor for such a fit- 

 ting expression; nothing could be more 

 to the point in our organization than 

 what he says. For years the queen 

 breeders have been hobbling along, sin- 

 gle-banded, each trying to make the 

 strongest points, and the result is we 

 have but little improvement. Since 

 the organization of the Union we have 

 a "company" of breeders, each inde- 

 pendent, yet with one "common pur- 

 pose are enabled to unite" in improv- 

 ing the honey bees of our nation, with- 

 out the jealousy that formerly existed 

 between individual breeders. So much 

 for the plan of improvement. I quote 

 again from Mr. Secor, pages 113 and 

 114: 



"For instance, it is too large a job for 

 one bee-keeper to attempt to fight adul- 

 teration of honey, etc." 



What applies to adulteration of 

 honey, in that case, is just as applica- 

 ble to the professional "dead-head" and 

 the hap-hazard bi'eeder in our own 

 ranks. Right here I will quote from a 

 letter received from one of our leading 

 apicultural lights in reference to our 

 organization. He says: 



"I somewhat question the wisdom of 

 the move. There is only one queen- 

 breeder that I now recall whose reputa- 

 tion, both for square dealing and 

 prompt pay, has not been all that we 

 could desire, and it seems almost un- 

 necessary to form an association simply 

 to bar out such a person as he." 



To me there seems to be a lack of 

 wisdom — no, I will say enterprise — in 

 the expression. If we were organizing 

 for the purpose of "barring out" cer- 

 tain persons, then there would be a 

 lack of wisdom. It is true that our 

 doors are closed against all dishonesty, 

 but instead of stopping to fight a com- 

 mon enemy, it is our purpose to ad- 

 vance right along over them. Unscru- 

 jjulous breeding was one of the causes 

 that lead to our organization. Queen, 

 buyers are at the mercy of the breed- 

 ers, and, of my personal knowledge, 

 many are badly deceived in the quality 

 of queens they get. On that account , 

 all queen breeders are looked upon 

 with a degree of distrust. I have seen 

 prominent queen breeders use "hap- 

 hazard" cells by the hundreds and send 

 out "untested" queens from these very 

 cells (the writer of the above men- 

 tioned letter has bought scores of them, 

 to my knowledge). Then, is it any 

 wonder that the thought of protecting 

 buyers against such should spring up? 

 Then, at this day and time there are 

 scores of "upspurts" (like myself) that, 

 as soon as they get a smattering of the 

 business, want to pose as a breeder. 

 Can all such be trusted with the 

 strength and prosperity of your 

 "stocks?" 



We all Hgree on one thing, and that 

 is, the queen bee is the foundation for 



