10(5 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



i'Eli. 



1 think it is. Extract j'our good article of comb 

 honey, and have you not got honey in body, color, 

 and tiavor, equal to the comb honey from which it 

 was taken'' If honey is capped before it is e.vtract- 

 ed. it must be equal to the comb honey before it 

 was extracted. But what is possible and what is 

 most profitable are two things. If we leave our 

 honey in the combs for it tu be all capped over, our 

 crop would be small. Extract when the honey is 

 thick; if not capped it is good enough. We should 

 all be glad to get that this year. E. France. 



Question No. i^S.—If extracted honey will bring 

 two-thirds the price of comb honey, which would be the 

 more profliablc to jiroiluce, comb or extractedf How 

 mucli more do you estimate it costs to raise comb honey 

 than extracted:' 



1. Both. 



One-third more. G. M. Doolitti.e. 



Qlte.stion No. Si.— Is it adcisahlr to change the 

 name of extracted honey/ In it possible if desirable.' 



No. Geo. Grimm. 



No. Hardly. U. Wit,kin. 



No, to both questions. G. M. Doolitti.e. 



No. No. The Germans call it free honey. 



Mrs. L. Harrison. 

 Neither advisable nor possible. 



W. Z. Hutchinson. 

 I do not think it is desirable. It would be possi- 

 ble, if it were desirable. James Heddon. 



Yes, if it is possible to find a better name; which 

 I doubt our ever doing. O. O. Poppleton. 



I do not think It advisable. Although possible in 

 the course of time, it would be, T think, very diffi- 

 cult. C. C. Miller. 



I don't think we can better the name of extracted. 

 Possibly it could be done, but it would take a long 

 time. E. France. 



No. I see very little need of it, and I think it 

 scarcely possible. There would be some serious 

 disadvantages in the change. J.\mes A. Green. 



1. Not unless a better one is given. It might be 

 called " crystal " honey as the Canadian " manag- 

 ing committee "' term It. 3. Yes. 



Dr. a. B. Mason. 



Neither desirable nor practicable. We must ed- 

 ucate the people to distinguish it from strained 

 honey, and this is being done from day to day. 



Dadant & Son. 



I see no possible reason for so doing. The name 

 is excellent, and we should aim to make it univer- 

 sal in its use. I think it would be difficult, even if 

 the name were undesirable. A. J. Cook. 



The mania for changing established names in 

 apiculture is very despisable. The change would 

 be possible, if enough of us were afflicted with the 

 mania; but I think that is not the case. 



E. E. Hastv. 



It is not advisable, as people are getting pretty 

 well acquainted with the present name, which has 

 been used for the last 2.5 years or more, and a 

 change would create confusion, which will probably 

 take :i.i more years to establish, at which time some 

 one will probably come and stir up the advisability 

 of another change. Paul L. Viallon. 



Mauj- ridiculous improvements have been at- 

 tempted to better the name of "extracted" honey. 

 If a change for the better were possible, I can not 

 see the desirability, as the honey is, indeed, extract- 

 ed from the comb. If it could be e-xtracted from 

 something else than the comb, then I should 

 be in favor of adding the word " comb " in some 

 shape. Chas. F. Muth. 



1. Extracted. 2. Nearly double. K. Wilkin. 



1. Extracted. 2. Fully twice as much. 



Dadant & Son. 

 I think there would be but little choice. 



W. Z. Hutchinson. 

 Other things being equal, extracted. Two-thirds 

 more. .Ta.mes A. Green. 



Extracted, provided you make a home market 

 for it. One-third more. Mrs. L. Harrison. 



Comb honey, as with our present system it doesn't 

 cost one-third more to produce comb honey. 



Paul L. Viallon. 

 Much would dei)end upon the bee-keejier and his 

 situation; with me it would be about an even thing. 



James Heddon. 

 With me, and in my market, it is the most profita- 

 ble to produce extracted honey. 1 am not posted 

 as to the cost of raising comb honey. 



Dr. a. B. Mason. 

 Extracted, to the first question; the answer to 

 the last will depend much on localitj' and the bee- 

 keeper; but my experience would lead me to say 

 double. O. O. Poppleton. 



We can not get half as much comb honey as we 

 can of extracted, and we would rather run a yard 

 for extracted, as far as work is concerned, so I 

 would say extracted, at two-thirds the price of comb, 

 is more profitable. E. France. 



If I am right, comb honey would be the more 

 profitable in rather lean localities, and extracted 

 honey in very productive localities. In my own 

 apiary, T should say it costs ;ibout two cents a 

 pound more to produce honey in sections. 



E. E. Hasty. 



For the average bee-keeper, extracted, decidedly. 

 I think it costs the average bee-keeper twice as 

 much to produce comb honey as it does extracted. 

 The expert may pi-oduce comb nearly as cheaply as 

 extracted, but this takes long experience and much 

 skill. A. J. Cook. 



Comb honey. Considering all, cost is about even. 

 In considering cost we must not leave from view 

 the condition of the colonies for winter. 1 answer 

 this question entirely form the standpoint of a Wis- 

 consin winter, and have no reference to milder cli- 

 mates. Geo. Grimm. 



I think this whole matter of comb vei'sus extract- 

 ed, varies so much with the place and the man, 

 that every man is a law unto himself. To your 

 first question 1 should say, extracted. I have done 

 so little at extracting of late years that I can give 

 no estimate of any value. C. C. Miller. 



It will be more profitable to i)ro(hice extracted 

 honey. The exact amount, how much more it costs 

 to produce comb honey, is of a speculative nature, 

 and depends on the energy and ability of the bee- 

 keeper, and on what his time is worth. If his time 

 is worth nothing, it costs him nothing more. He 

 gets paid for his sections and fdn.,and his shipping- 

 cases may balance his barrels. Chas. F. Muth. 



