r(50 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Oct. 15. 



entrance of the hive a box (a cigar-box for 350 

 cigars is suitable), having an entrance one- 

 fourth as large as the hive-entrance, a suitable 

 alighting-place at this entrance with a little 

 board to shade it. The first swarm goes through 

 all right, but all after-swarms stop in the little 

 box, make a big row there, and then return to 

 the hive. 



To SEPAKATE SWARMS that cluster together, 

 H. L. Jeffreys gives this plan in American Bee- 

 keeper: Set two boards up edgewise, far enough 

 apart to hang frames between, making a sort 

 of temporary bee-hive. Hang between the 

 boards about ten frames for each swarm in the 

 cluster, having every tifth frame contain an 

 empty comb; shake the bees on the frames; 

 cover with a cloth; leave them thus for three 

 or four hours, when each swarm will be sep- 

 arated with its own queen, and can be put in 

 its own hive. 



HONEY ADULTERATION. 



the commission man versus the honey- 



proi>ucer; something from a 



commission man. 



I read Prof. Cook's article on honey adultera- 

 tion, page 688, twice and thoroughly. I may 

 be mistaken; but if I read it right, I come to 

 this conclusion: Bee-keepers have an enormous 

 advantage over the honey-dealers, to say noth- 

 ing of the packers or mixers. The new law, 

 which went into effect on Sept. 1, 1892, reads as 

 follows: " Whoever shall adulterate maple su- 

 gar or honey with glucose, cane sugar or syrup, 

 beet sugar or syrup, or any other substance for 

 the purpose of sale, or offer for sale maple 

 sugar, maple syrup or honey that has been 

 adulterated in any way,'' etc. Would not the 

 man who fed his bees on sugar syrup be equally 

 guilty (if not more so) than the man who mixed 

 honey with cane syrup? And yet it could not 

 be proven against the foi'mer, for I believe no 

 chemist will make an affidavit to positive de- 

 tection of same in the former. But in the latter 

 he can. according to Prof. Cook; and should a 

 man suffer penalty of the law because he added 

 sugar or glucose, to protect the former, who 

 adulterates the bees, to prevent the discovery 

 of his own deception? And if you did. would 

 you be doing the public, the dealer, or the bee- 

 keeper good? It strikes me there is a loophole 

 for the latter, only the public and the dealer 

 must suffer just the same. 



Prof. Cook also states, in his results, that the 

 best glucose costs about 3 cts. per lb. The price 

 of the cheapest is more than that. The price 

 of the cheapest on Saturday was 3.37, carload 

 lots. The best glucose is worth 5 cts. per lb.; 

 the price of granulated sugar is .5.18; cane syrui) 

 is 24 cts. per gallon, which is cheaper than glu- 

 cose, as it is .O'lfi per lb. You will also see here 

 that it is a question whether that new law will 

 hold good. 



But the best I have seen is an article, also in 

 Gleanings of Sept. 15, page 690, by Mr. W. J. 

 Cullinan, of Quincy, 111. But then yon would 

 have to get a standard, and then there would 

 be more grades of honey, which would be better 

 for dealers, and the price would be according to 

 grade. It would be stamped, which would hold 

 the dealer safe. As it is now, a bee-keeper can 

 mix honey, ship to a dealer who sells on com- 

 mission, gets his money, makes his returns, and 

 then the retailer is gobbled up, fined, or sent to 

 jail, providing the dealer is out of the State. 

 If the dealer is in the State, he must stand the 

 consequence. He, in turn, must look to the 

 bee-keener. If he is not in the State, he can 

 not hold him. If he is in the State, and the 



dealer is fined .?,500, he looks for the bee-keeper, 

 finds him at a cost of another $100, and then 

 discovers that the bee-keeper is not worth a 

 cent. The dealer loses S.500 fine, §100 in looking 

 for his man, pays cost of court and lawyer's 

 fees, which will be making it light at S300, 

 or a total of .?800; then it may cost half that 

 much to have the supposed bee-keeper sent to 

 jail, which is an awful lot of satisfaction that 

 a dealer gets at a cost of ?!1300; and I for one do 

 not believe that there are not some bee-keepers 

 who are not above mixing honey; at least, from 

 my information out of the Americaii Analyst 

 of June 18, 1893, pages 309-311, there are some 

 of the most reliable dealers in the country 

 quoted as selling adulterated honey, ourselves 

 not excepted; and a large concern for whom I 

 believe Gleanings has a very high regard for 

 its honest dealing and good i-eputation for the 

 honey market, also state they trust to the 

 honesty of their shippers. Truly it strikes me 

 as being a sad state of affairs — a bee-keeper 

 having the right to feed his bees on what he 

 likes, and no one to interfere with him, as there 

 can be no direct proof brought against him. 

 We have had comb honey from Virginia, also 

 from New York State, which was very pretty, 

 but tasted just like so much sagar-water; but 

 we sold it for what it was, and sold it cheap; 

 and yet the shippers, I believe, were not satis- 

 fied with what we got, although for our own 

 use we would not have given nearly as much as 

 we got, for it was only the looks that sold it. 



We are willing to keep the ball rolling, and 

 help along the sale and the enforcement of sell- 

 ing pure honey; butit strikes me that there will 

 have to be some other plan than the one pur- 

 sued so far. ■ Chas. Israel. 



New York, Sept. 30. 



[As we stand in the relation of honey-buyer 

 and honey-producer, as well as one who, from 

 the editor's standpoint, sees more intimately 

 both sides, we may be in a position, possibly, to 

 give some facts without prejudice or bias. 

 That bee-keepers may adulterate honey before 

 it comes from the hives, as made by the bees, is 

 possible. We have known it to be true in only 

 one case, but in that "the other fellow squeal- 

 ed," and the bee-keeper himself was cautioned 

 against a continuance of the practice under 

 pain of receiving a little unenviable notoriety. 

 Yes, it is possible that the producer may adul- 

 terate, but it is very improbable. Adulteration 

 is in itself so iniquitous, hateful, and injurious 

 to every interest of the bee-keeper that it is the 

 very last thing he would do. He feels so out- 

 raged, that, if he could get hold of the dishonest 

 city adulterator, he would prosecute him to the 

 fullest extent of the law. Bee-keepers as a 

 class would no more adulterate their honey 

 than farmers would make oleomargarine if 

 they could. But for the sake of argument we 

 will suppose that a certain few would do so. 

 As in the case already mentioned, some neigh- 

 bor or some visiting bee-keeper would be liable 

 to discover some evidences of th(> practice, and 

 report the same to the bee-papers at once. 

 Honey-producers as a class, we firmly believe, 

 are decidedly social in their relations one with 

 another. They not only have State and county 

 conventions, biit visit back and forth. As ed- 

 itors of Gleanings we have visited the homes 

 of hundreds of bee-keepers all over the country. 

 We have come upon them unexpectedly, when 

 their apiaries and bee-houses were in all sorts 

 of disorder, but never have we seen the least 

 evidence of any kind whatever, that glucose 

 feeding for the purpose of producing comb 

 honey had been contemplated or practiced. 

 We know of just one who did do it, as abov(^ 

 mentioned, and possibly there may be a few 



