A MONTHLY JOURNAL 



DEVOTEDTOTHE INTERESTS OF HONEY PRODUCERS 



^LnnAlrar 



E. B. TYRRELL, Editorand Publisher 

 Office OF Pu BLiCATiON - - - 230 Woodlan d Aven u e 



VOL. XXV. DETROIT, MICHIGAN, APRIL 1, 1912. No. 4. 



A Discussion of Those Picture Grading Rules 



BY THE SUBSCRIBERS. 



V^^HAT I expected has iDeen realized. There is no uniform 

 VJt^ interpretation of even the grading- rules we have had. A 

 man could send his Xo. 1 honey to one market according to 

 his grading, and ha\-e it accepted for fancy, while in another it would 

 not pass for even Xo. 1. Every buyer and producer seems to have a 

 set of rules all his own, and selling on grading rules, such as we 

 have had, has been in a measure a farce. 



Those pictures at the head of my honey quotations have started 

 something. Let us hope they will keep it going until we at least 

 have some semblance to a uniform grading. It is absolutely neces- 

 'sary before a Xational market can be established. 



Both producers and buyers disagree regarding those pictures. 

 Some say they are all right, while others condemn. I have refer- 

 ence to their correct representation of the grades named. One 

 thing, however, which I notice, is that most have taken them to 

 mean the average for each grade, instead of the poorest. Remember 

 that honey graded according to those pictures would show up a 

 great deal better than the pictures designate. Shall I put an aver- 

 age section there instead of the poorest? 



To get the matter started I sent the following questions to 

 those who quote honey markets in the Review. 



1. If you received a shipment of honey with no sections poorer 

 than the one shown in the Rextew as fancy, would you accept it as 

 a shipment of fancy honey? If not. whv?" 



