1921 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



135 



This is a return lliat is prohibitive. 

 Few localities exist that would war- 

 rant a man's undertaking to produce 

 comb honey for such returns. 



It may be argued that 1 have given 

 too low a figure when 1 offer 25 and 

 30 cents as the retail price for a sec- 

 tion of honey. True, we have been 

 getting from 40 to 75 cents for a sec- 

 tion of honey. If those prices were 

 to hold it would pay well to produce 

 comb honey even with the present 

 cost of supplies. Unfortunately, those 

 prices are not going to hold. I am 

 confident that comb honey will not 

 move in the fall of 1921 at over 30 

 cents per section. It is now a very 

 slow seller at 40 cents in many mar- 

 kets. Only the fact that the market 

 is low renders this price possible. If 

 comb honey were abundant the retail 

 price today would come down to 30 

 cents, or the honey would stay on the 

 shelves and counters of the stores. 



I do think that we shall be able to 

 dispose tf our comb honey next fall 

 so that it will retail for 30 cents, pro- 

 vided the grade is good and sections 

 well filled. Off-grade sections will 

 not bring that sum. 



How, then, are we to meet this 

 contingency? Shall most of us stop 

 the production of comb honey and let 

 it become altogether an article of lu.x- 

 ury, to be sold at a high figure to a 

 few consumers who can afford to pay 

 for it? Or shall we cut down the cost 

 of production and marketing so that 

 an average person can eat comb honey 

 if his palate demands it? 



Two items at least can be cut down 

 in the e.xpense sheet. Cartons will 

 be made for less, and should before 

 next fall come down to V/z to 2 cents 

 each. Shipping cases can be made 

 for far less than they are listed. 

 Lumber is high. Use a substitute. 

 Several makes of wall board would 

 serve well for bottom, sides and top 

 of shipping cases. I can make ship- 

 ping cases for my own use for less 

 than half the listed price, and they 

 will be well made, too. 



I urge the manufacturers of bee 

 supplies to come to the rescue and 

 get out cheaper forms of shippnij, 

 cases, and if possible to cut the cost 

 in other items connected with comb- 

 honey production. Let us not allow 

 comb honey to become altogether ob- 

 solete. 



Connecticut. 



(,When Mr. Latham's article was 

 received it was referred to Mr. Hawk- 

 ins, of the G. B. Lewis Company, for 

 reply. We believe that both the bee- 

 keeper and the supply dealer should 

 be heard. The following is the sup- 

 ply dealer's side of the case. — Ed.) 



Why Supplies are HigK 



A reply to Mr. Latham by Kennith 

 Hawkins 

 Sections and shipping cases are 

 higher in price than they should be. 

 It is not our desire that they should 

 be, for when prices of contaiilers are 

 too high to allow the honey producer 

 a fair margin of profit on his product, 

 the sales by the manufacturer are re- 

 duced to a figure which does not war- 



rant the heavy investment in build- 

 ings and machinery. 



It is not possible to sell beekeepers' 

 supplies below present prices when 

 the prices are based on lumber and 

 labor at the costs to us which entered 

 into the goods we are now selling. 

 Prices of supplies were not advanced 

 early in the season of 1920, although 

 nearly all other lines were advanc- 

 ing. Beekeepers' supplies were not 

 advanced in price at that time because 

 we gave the beekeepers the benefit of 

 pricts based on raw materials bought 

 at lower costs in 1919. When these 

 were exhausted, prices on beekeepers' 

 supplies had to be advanced to pro- 

 vide an industrial living. While pres- 

 ent indications point to lower prices 

 on most items for the season of 1922, 

 it is not possible to reduce prices at 

 this time. 



This company maintains that supply 

 prices have always been higher on 

 some items than they should have 

 been, and that this may be charged 

 to the beekeeper we will try to show 

 in this statement. 



The producer and shipper of comb 

 honey is to blame for the higher cost 

 of shipping cases, because he de- 

 mands a show case in which to ship 

 his produce instead of a simple con- 

 tainer designed to carry the contents 

 to the retailer in proper condition. 



The name "shipping case," as ap- 

 plied to the article furnished today 

 for the shipping container for comb 

 honey is a misnomer. A "shipping 

 case," so called, constructed as it is 

 demanded by the beekeeper, of abso- 

 lutely clear lumber, and with a glass 

 front, is nothing more or less than a 

 show case, pure and simple. If this 

 article were listed in bee supply cata- 

 logs under the correct heading of 

 "show cases," the prices listed today 

 would be low. 



Why should the producer furnish 

 the retailer with a show case for ev- 

 ery 24 sections of comb honey sold? 

 When the retailer has sold the honey, 

 the case is most frequently scrapped. 

 Retailers are not continuously fur- 

 nished show cases gratis with other 

 articles they sell, even jewelry. 



In securing a new customer, it 

 would be good business to furnish 

 him gratis with two or three of the 

 glass front show cases, for display 

 purposes, but why continue to do this 

 with every 24 sections of comb honey? 

 A change in the shipping container 

 for comb honey should be made, and 

 is no doubt necessary. If such a 

 change necessitates a change in the 

 standard package size, such a change 

 will have to be made. An old rule is 

 of no use whatever if it does not meet 

 present day conditions. Mr. Latham 

 suggests a substitute for the present 

 shipping cases. This would be very 

 easy for us. Has Mr. Latham the 

 power to force beekeepers every- 

 where to change their standards of 

 grading honey and to get them to ac- 

 cept such changes? This requires 

 concerted effort by American bee- 

 keepers. We will welcome the ad- 

 vent of this change. 

 A similar proposition confronts the 



manufacturer in the matter of sec- 

 tions. The grading rules require 

 white sections. This is unnecessary. 

 We agree that sections are too high, 

 and no one regrets this more that the 

 (j. B. Lewis Company, whose tiien in- 

 vented the one-piece section honey 

 box. Section prices are based on bass- 

 wood lumber, which had to be bought 

 under contract in 1919, or very early 

 in 1920 for 1921 sections, at prices then 

 prevailing. Such lumber can be con- 

 tracted for today at less, but is being 

 cut in the woods, and will not be fit 

 for sections until the present season 

 is practically over. 



All this is because the beekeeper in- 

 sists on a white section. Honey 

 tastes as sweet and could be sold as 

 well in a brown basswood section as 

 in a white one. If we did not have 

 to throw out the brown basswood, 

 which frequently runs as high as 40 

 per cent of the stock, the cost for ma- 

 terial would be less. To consume this 

 brown stock, it is necessary to figure 

 it at less than cost, disposing of it at 

 a loss as best we can, in one way or 

 another, and which procedure, of 

 course, increases the cost of the 

 white, in .order to make the average 

 equal the original cost of the stock as 

 received. 



Hence the beekeeper has to pay 

 for what he insists upon. Until the 

 grading rules for comb honey are 

 changed, and they should be at once, 

 we cannot help much in that respect. 

 We make what the beekeeper insists 

 upon, and in soma such items, those 

 who have made the grading rules have 

 not asked the advice of the manufac- 

 turer, who knows costs, and fre- 

 quently a poor choice was made. 



Many minds are better than a few. 

 We welcome constructive criticism 

 like Mr. Latham's, and we have the 

 facilities for experimenting. Most 

 suggestions we get are' useless be- 

 cause they do not take the quantity 

 manufacturing problems into consid- 

 eration, or the beekeeper demands 

 more for an idea than the profit on 

 the article over a period of several 

 years. 



The G. B. Lewis Company has e.x- 

 perimented extensively during the 

 past winter with other kinds of wood 

 than basswood for sections. We have 

 found some that would make cheaper 

 sections, which look just as good as 

 basswood, but the wood could not be 

 purchased in required quantities. In 

 others, the percentage of waste wood 

 ran too high. Consequently, the 

 quickest relief is a change in the 

 grading rules, and to continue to use 

 basswood, which is available. 



Mr. Latham wisely suggests an al- 

 ternative, if supplies will not cheapen 

 in price this season, of decreasing the 

 cost of producing and marketing 

 honey. Put yourself in the supply 

 manufacturers' position. Suppose we 

 (lid no advertising? Suppose we did 

 not buy in advance of our raw ma- 

 terial needs for each season? Sup- 

 pose we made our goods and then let 

 some one else sell them at litrtle 

 profit to us? These points can be 

 remedied in the production and sale 



