Jan. 25, 1906 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



83 



keeping interests of tins Province." This is effected, first, 



by an annual convention where the members meet, and, 

 face to face, discuss and exchange ideas on both the prac- 

 tical and the business side of bee-keeping. 



Second, by the continual and persistent effort of the 

 directors and officers to develop bee-keeping as a business, 

 and overcome the obstacles in its way. In the years that 

 T have been a member of this Association, I find a certain 

 lack of business methods, a failure on the part of members 

 to take the Association and its mission seriously. The 

 conventions are looked upon to,, much as social gather- 

 ings, owing largely to the fact that, with many, bee-keeping 

 is treated as a side-line, whose profits are very much of a 

 bonus — almost clear profit. With them the convention is 

 an outing, where acquaintances are formed which ripen 



into friendships, lasting and g 1. But the business-end 



of the convention, winch should be foremost, is overruled, 

 sessions are delayed in starting by the non-appearance of 

 officers and members. Discussions often become pro- 

 longed and pointless so that the time of the convention, 

 which, at a very low estimate on the expenses incurred by 

 members, worth ten or fifteen dollars an hour, is ruthlessly 

 wasted. 



Another point, which is more delicate to touch upon, 

 yet is vital to the good work of the Association, is the 

 lear which most of us have, to a greater or lesser degree, 

 that some one's feelings may be hurt — either our own or 

 those of some friend. Can we not rise above this, and as 

 sensible business men drop bickerings and personal 

 preferences, and petty animosities, and toughen up tender 

 skins, and study what is best for the Association as a 

 whole? 



What can this Association do for the advancement of 

 bee-keeping in Ontario? Something has been done in the 

 way of advertising Canadian honey at the great fairs and 

 exhibitions. The Honey Exchange Committee is doing a 



g 1 work in collecting crop reports and giving a sort of 



weatherman's forecast prices. Good literature is provided 

 the members in the form of the Canadian Bee Journal. 

 The transportation committee is battling with the problem 

 of better freight and express rates on honey, bees, etc. 

 Something has been done in the way of legislation against 

 the adulteration of honey, and for the checking of disease 

 among bees. 



As to how the Foul Brood Act is being carried out, I 

 shall leave to others on the program better versed in the 

 subject than I. We have also an annual Government 

 grant of money, but is there not room for more to be 

 done in this line? Other branches of agriculture are re- 

 ceiving strong Government support in the way of opening 

 up markets, and the proper grading and distribution of 

 products. How about honey markets, and the grading of 

 honey? Fruit, dairy products, etc., must be inspected by 

 a qualified Government official before going on the market. 

 Honey can be shipped in any careless form, and the careful 

 shipper must take a share of the consequences. Other 

 lines are put to the front, bee-keeping is crowded back. 

 Poultry-keeping, fruit-growing and flower-culture are con- 

 sidered dignified occupations; bee-keeping is a joke. We 

 are "bee-men" or "honey-men" — spoken with a smile. Why 

 should this be? Wherein does the remedy lie? In our- 

 selves. I find bee-keeping taken more seriously in some 

 parts of the country than others. I attribute the difference 

 to the attitude of the bee-keepers themselves. Self-con- 

 fidence and ability inspire the confidence of others. But 

 we need the help of the power that is helping others 

 along — are we using the help we already have to the 

 best advantage? 



We already receive a considerable amount of money 

 from the Government. A large portion of it goes to de- 

 fray the expenses of the directors while attending tin- 

 regular conventions of the Association. More of it goes 

 to the local associations, and is used by them to send 

 delegates to the convention. Is this the best way in which 

 the money can be used for the advancement of bee- 

 keeping? If the directors work earnestly during the year 

 to organize and enlighten the bee-keepers of their re- 

 spective districts, and to increase the profits of our busi- 

 ness, and come prepared to report progress at the con- 

 vention; if the delegates seek to promote the interests of 

 their respective associations while at the convention, and 

 go home filled with practical ideas for the benefit of those 

 who sent them, it is well. Hut why this double expense? 

 Why not let the local associations be district associations, 

 and let each district association appoint its delegate to the 



Provincial convention? This delegate being the repre 

 sentative of his district should become the director for that 

 district of the Ontario Association. He— if he truly and 

 conscientiously represents the association sending him — 

 should be entitled to his expenses at the annual conven- 

 tion. I consider that this is the only way in which the 

 districts can be truly represented, as we will all admit that 

 the attendance at an annual convention, aside from those 

 having expenses paid, is mostly local. 



Another plan for electing directors would lie that 

 suggested by me in the Canadian Bee Journal some time 

 ago. Supply each member with a list of members ar- 

 ranged according to their districts, and let voting be done 

 by ballot. The present system of open voting cannot, in 

 my estimation, be too strongly condemned. 



MOKLEY Pf.TTIT. 



Mr. Byer said he thought the social side of the Con- 

 ventions should not be disci united. He thought the Asso- 

 ciation entitled to Government aid in marketing honey. 



Mr. Hall favored electing our neighbors, "because we 

 know them." Voting should he done by ballot. 



Mr. Hutchinson thought we should have nominations 

 by mail, as they do in the National Bee-Keepers' Asso 

 ciation. 



Mr. Dickenson said if a man had been in office say 

 ten years he should be superannuated. Offices should not 

 be held forever by the same men; yet he positively re- 

 fused to be nominated for office in the Association. 



Mr. Holtermann — It is contrary to the Agriculture 

 and Arts Act for local associations to elect directors for 

 the Provincial, but they might nominate. They should not 

 trade and traffic in offices as honors, but put the best men 

 in the best places. 



The Directors' Report recommended as Inspector of 

 Apiaries James Armstrong, of Cheapside, and Assistant 

 Inspector, Jacob Alpaugh. of Gait. 



The Secretary's report showed 155 members, and 11 

 affiliated societies. 



Inspector's Report — Officers for 1906. 



Inspector McEvoy gave a long verbal report, and 

 agreed to send in his written report later. He was re- 

 elected, pending the revision of the Act whereby three 

 inspectors will be appointed. 



The election of officers for 1906 resulted as follows: 

 President, H. G. Sibbald. of Claude: Vice-President. R. H. 

 Smith, of St. Thomas; Second Vice-President, F. J. Miller, 

 of London; Secretary. Wm. Couse, of Streetsville; and 

 Treasurer. Martin Emigh, of Holbrook. Directors: Dis- 

 trict No. 1, W. J. Brown, Pendleton; Xn. 2, J. K. Darling, 

 Almonte; No. 3, M. B. Holmes, Athens; No. 4, R. Lowey, 

 Cherry Valley; No. 5, John L. Gros Jean; No. 6. H. G. 

 Sibbald, Claude; No. 7, J. Alpaugh, Gait; No. 8, Jas. Arm- 

 strong, Cheapside; No. 9, R. H. Smith, St. Thomas: No. 

 10, G. A. Deadman, Brussels; No. 11, F. J. Miller. London; 

 No. 12, Denis Nolan, Newton Robinson; and No. 13. Prof. 

 Sherman, of O. A. College. Guelph. Auditors, J. L. Byer 

 and E. Grainger. Revisers of Report, Morley Pettit and 

 H. G. Sibbald. Representatives to Fairs: Toronto, E. 

 Grainger; London, J. B. Hall; Ottawa, J. K. Darling. 

 Inspector of Apiaries, Wm. McEvoy; Assistant. I . A. 

 Gemmill. 



Bee-Keeping in Jamaica. 



Arthur Laing. who spent last winter in Jamaica, spoke 

 of the advantages and disadvantages of bee-keeping in that 

 island of the British West Indies. The advantages were 

 a pleasant climate and cheap help. The disadvantages 

 seemed to be many. The first was the difficulty of getting 

 teaming" done. There the} team with carts of the roughest 

 kind, which can only take eight or ten hives to the trip. 



The second, Mr. Laing called the wintering problem, a 

 matter which Northern bee-keepers would expect to go 

 South to escape. From the middle of October for two or 

 three months the bees kept going down. There seemed to 

 be just enough honey coming in to make them wear them- 

 selves out living after it. but not enough to build them up. 

 He mentioned also moths, which can breed all the year 

 round, having no cold season to check them; and an 

 many varieties which work havoc in the hives. 



With reference to marketing Jamaica honey, prices 

 are very low anil sales unsatisfactory. It is stated by 

 buyers who have handled it that Jamaica honey will not 

 keep like other honey. 



Mr. Laing showed three samples of honey, Canadian 



