17(5 



GLEAA'INGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Mai;. 1. 



or so good articles, all discussing the same 

 phase of the subject. Manifestly, it would be 

 unnecessary to publish them all. 



In the Canddinn Bee Joiinuil of Feb. ;». Mr. 

 R. Mclvniglit replies to our editorial i-egarding 

 the matter of non-affiliation on the part of the 

 O. B. K. A. with the N. A. B. K. A. We are 

 pleased to observe a friendly and courteous 

 spirit on the part of Mr. McKnight; for. as he 

 truly says, " The friction is between bodies 

 corporate, and not between individuals. "" If we 

 can not agree to agree, let us agree to disagree 

 us brothers. ]\Ir. M. adds, further, that he 

 hopes the N. A. B. K. A. is elastic enough to al- 

 low him to still remain a member, and we think 

 it surely is. In the same way, we have no doubt 

 that the O. B. K. A. is elastic enough to admit 

 to membership a bee-keeper from the United 

 States. We tirmly believe that further discus- 

 sion is ill advised and unwise, and that it is 

 best to let the matter drop. 



SUGAK-FED COMB HONEY. 



In the Bee-keepers' Revieiv, page 318. Dec. 10, 

 api>ears an article from Emerson E. Hasty. 

 Said article raises a question as to whether we 

 may not. in i)Oor seasons, when natural sources 

 fail us, feed sugar syrup to our bees to ])roduce 

 comb honey; and while Mr. "Hasty does not for 

 a moment advise selling such honey as |)ure 

 clover or pure basswood. he thinks that, (/ 

 sugar-fed comb honey can be produced at a 

 profit, and sold for what it is— that is, cane- 

 sugar honey, there is no si)ecial harm done. So 

 far we agree with Mr. Hasty. But the great 

 trouble is, not all the world is as conscientious 

 and honest as is our friend from Richards. Ohio. 

 If such were the case there would be no danger 

 inraisingthequestion. But. unfortunately, there 

 are bad men in the world who might take the 

 knowledge gained by Mr. Hasty 's article and 

 make a bad use of it. And, again, if bee-keepers 

 were to buy sugar syru]), stating that they were 

 to use it to feed for comb honey, the newspapers 

 would pretty likely get hold of it and herald 

 forth that bee-keepers wei-e making a general 

 practice of this sort of thing, and were selling it 

 for i)ure comb honey, even if the bee-keeper in- 

 tended to sell it for cane-sugar comb honey. 

 It is a good maxim to avoid the appearance of 

 evil, so long as we have nothing definite to 

 prove that sugar-cane comb honey can be i)ro- 

 duced at a profit, and we somewhat question it.* 

 It is not always best to have truth come out. 

 For instance, it might be argued that it would 

 be very unwise for any ])eriodical to iniblish 

 how to make dynamite" bombs, giving all the 

 necessary details for their manufacture. If the 

 people of the world were all honest, no harm 

 would result from the publication of such mat- 

 ter; liut. unfortunately, again, there are evil 

 men who miglit. with the knowledge thus so 

 easily obtained, do great mischief. 



While we are compelled to believe the publi- 

 cation of the article relative to sugar-cane comb 

 honey was a mistake, we do not for a moment 

 question th(^ motives or intentions, either of 

 Mr. Hasty or our friend the editor. Mr. Hutch- 

 inson. In fact, «o one can question the inten- 

 tions of either; and perhaps, under the circum- 

 stances, the less said abo\ititthe better. The 

 article may do more harm since it api)ears in a 

 first-class, neatly printed and well-edited bee- 

 journal — one that does honor and crcMlit to oui' 

 bee-literature, and because the writer, Mr. Has- 

 ty, stands high as a contributor and correspon- 



* Mr. A. F. Unterkircher (see pag-e 101, Gt.eanings 

 for '86> in feeding' l):ick to pidduce CDnib honey, out 

 of 3500 lbs. so fed received only 1-'5U lbs. of fed comb 

 honey. At tliis rate, .sugar-fed conil) lioney would 

 not pay at 11 cts. per lb. 



dent— oue whose writings are invariably spiced 

 with good humor and wit. For instance, right 

 before us is a letter from a subscriber, who, hav- 

 ing read Mr. Hasty's article, proposes in all se- 

 riousness to feed his bees cane sugar to secure 

 comb honey, as the natural sources liave failed 

 him for several years. He does not say 

 whether he will sell it for what it is or for 

 strictly bee-comb honey. This same writer 

 says further, that heretofore he regarded the 

 practice as unproHtable; but if it can be made 

 to |)ay, as hinted by Mr. Hasty, he is going to 

 " make " that kind of honey. This man is hon- 

 est enough to admit it: but are there not some 

 others who would produce the cane-sugar honey 

 and keep still about it '? 



ADULTERATING EXTR.A^CTEI) HONEY, AND TO 



WHAT p:xtent the practice exists. 



For some weeks back we have been investi- 

 gating to what extent extracted honey is being 

 adulterated on the markets: and while we were 

 loth to believe at first that it was done to any 

 appreciable extent, we are compelled to ac- 

 knowledge, from the evidence in hand, that 

 there is probably at least some of it done by a 

 few disreputable packing-houses: but we have 

 no reason to suppose that it is practiced to the 

 extent of " hundreds of tons," as first announc- 

 ed. The shameful thing about it is, that one 

 or two wholesale grocery establishments (see 

 Baldridge's article elsewhere) are oiTerlng two 

 lines of goods — one adulterated and the other 

 pure. The traveling salesman will offer to the 

 trade adulterated honey, put up in glass pack- 

 ages, at a price considerably below what the 

 same package can be supplied filled with the 

 pure article, and the groceryman is given his 

 choice. They both look equally showy, and 

 both taste well, and some grocerymen will buy 

 the adulterated because it is cheaper, and sell it 

 for '■ strictly pure." Fortunately this barefaced 

 dishonesty is not practiced to any great extent, 

 because the traveling men themselves "give the 

 whole thing away." 



There is anothi'r class of mixers who sell only 

 adulterated goods, and yet label them " Strictly 

 Pure Clover Honey." We have samples of the 

 latter goods sent us. and the glucose flavor is 

 unmistakable and prominent, and Dr. Miller; 

 who was with us agrees. The packages in 

 question were made up of jelly-tumblers and 

 bottles. Each package contained a small piece 

 of genuine broken-comb honey, and around it 

 is poured a glucose mixture. By way of paren- 

 thesis right here, it may be well to warn the pub- 

 lic against buying jars of honey (?) containing a 

 piece of comb in it. The latter is probably only 

 a snare and a delusion, and is intended to give 

 the package the appearance of honesty. We 

 do not believe there is a single bee-keeper who 

 puts up broken-comb honey in this style — that 

 is. w(^ n)ean pure honey without any glucose 

 adulteiation: and we would warn consumers 

 against buying hon(\v (".*) containing a piece of 

 comb labelled with the name of some big city 

 packing-house. 



Now, (tleaninos docs not propose to stand 

 idly by and do nothing about it. Just at pres- 

 ent it is not pertinent or wise to make known 

 our plans. Bui before we get through we will 

 try hard to make some one squirm. 



Now, it may pei-haps seem a little unwise to 

 come out with the knowledge that extracted 

 honey may be adulterated. Heretofore we had 

 not believed (and the evidence at hand was not 

 sufficient to convince us) that extracted honey 

 could be adulterated at a profit. If it is adul- 

 terated, and it surely is to some extent, it is un- 

 wise to keep still and let it go on, for that 

 would only give license to evil men. and allow 

 the evil to spread. 



