834 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 15. 



in several papers, of the results of .more or less 

 scientific tests, he would have kept them to 

 himself. But neither science nor practice has 

 yet given its last words on this question. Fur- 

 thermore, my experience in this matter inclines 

 me to predict that the adulterators will meet 

 more difficulties than are anticipated; yes, even 

 if those who try do not succeed, it is certain 

 that the unwise articles written by Messrs. 

 Cook and Hutchinson, far from benefiting the 

 bee-keepers, will have a bad influence on the 

 market. 



I am glad to see our old friend Langstroth 

 agreeing with us on the dishonesty of selling 

 sugar syrup as pure honey. 



CABDINAL FLOWER (LOBELIA). 



As a confirmation of what Mr. W. E. Gould 

 wrote in Gleanings, page 800. I can say that 

 there is. near the short path leading from our 

 home to our shops, a plant of cardinal flower. 

 I saw it every day, for years, during the flower- 

 ing season, yet I have never seen a single bee 

 on it. Nevertheless, it gives very small seeds 

 in abundance, so there is a proof that it doesn't 

 need the visits of bees to be fecundated. The 

 lobelia family contains very poisonous varieties; 

 among them are the syphilitica and the iiiflata, 

 or Indian tobacco-plant. Of course, such qual- 

 ities can not attract bees. Chas. Dadant. 



Hamilton, 111., Nov. 3. 



[Not knowing that the elder Dadant was pre- 

 paring an article on the subject, Camille P. 

 wrote the following:] 



Friend Ernest: — No, no, no! a thousand times 

 no! You are not wrong in your position against 

 the selling of sugar fed to bees under the name 

 of honey. Such a thing is no more nor less than 

 adulteration, unless the consumer is told what 

 the article is; and whenever he is told what it 

 is, he will be unwilling to pay honey prices for 

 it, or, for that matter, to buy it at all. Hutch- 

 inson is doing the reverse of what he should do 

 if he wants tlie support of the honey-producers. 

 It would be just as wrong to sell sugar under 

 the name of honey as it would be to sell honey- 

 dew under the name of clover honey. Let 

 every tub stand on its own bottom. 



Yours for true honey, 



Dadant & Son. 



[It seems to be understood by both A. I. R., else- 

 where, and the Dadants, that Mr. Hutchinson 

 and Prof. Cook intended that this sugar comb 

 honey should be sold as the pure product of the 

 hive. The writer feels sure that both intended 

 that it should be sold for only what it is. Mr. 

 Hutchinson's editorial, however, on page 274 

 of the Retriew, which we publish in another 

 column, rather leaves the impression (not in- 

 tentional, we are sure) that the sugar comb 

 honey was to be sold as the pure article from 

 the flowers — that is, no statement to be made 

 as to whether it was pure honey or something 

 else. From what correspondence we have had 

 with Mr. Hutchinson relative to the same point, 

 we are certain that he did not so intend it; and 

 while we disagree with him as to the probable 

 tendencies of the advocacy of sugar comb hon- 

 ey, we feel it but justice to him that this state- 

 ment should be made. 



It seems to us there is one point, incidentally 

 referred to by C. P. Dadant above, that has not 

 been sufficiently brought out ; and that is, if 

 sugar comb honey can be produced at a cost of 

 $7..50, and sold for*S!20.00 (as alleged by Mr. 

 Hutchinson in another column), that, sooner or 

 later, competition will bring the cost of pro- 

 duction and the selling price nearer and nearer 

 together, because, on the assumption that the 

 consumer knows what he is baying, he will very 

 soon figure out for himself the difference be- 



tween cost and selling price. So great a margin 

 could not possibly be realized unless the fact of 

 the origin of the .sugar honey were concealed, 

 and the honey sold as a pure article from the 

 flowers; hence we argue that large profits can 

 not be obtained, except dishonestly. We know 

 Mr. Hutchinson well enough not to question 

 his motives, and, for the most part-, his good 

 judgment; but we feel strongly Impressed by 

 the fact that dishonest persons will make bad 

 use of the knowledge; and that the daily pa- 

 pers, which have no love for nor interest in our 

 pursuit, will make "capital." to the .serious 

 detriment of the interest of the bee-keeper. 



Some may wonder that we should give so 

 much space for the discussion of a subject that, 

 we fear, presages injury to our pursuit; but 

 now that the discussion has (drcady been open- 

 ed in another journal, and the practice of feed- 

 ing bees sugar syrup to produce honey favor- 

 ably commented on, is the reason why we feel 

 it our duty to use our influence against what we 

 consider a dangerous position on the part of our 

 esteemed cotemporary ihe Review ; for among 

 our beekeeping exchanges there is no paper 

 that we prize more highly.] E. R. R. 



THAT MAMMOTH STEAM HONEY-EXTRACTOK. 



A. W. OSBURN, OF CUBA, EXPLAINS ITS MERITS. 



Mr. Editor: — That steam power extractor 

 has been in every sense satisfactory. The 

 points of excellence about my extractor (when 

 run by steam) are so many that, to properly 

 describe them all. would make this article much 

 too long for Gleanings, so I must content ray- 

 self by naming a few of them only. 



I will speak first of the superior work that 

 it does, which is all that any one could desire; 

 in fact, it does the nicest work of any thing I 

 ever saw in the shape of an extractor. Why, I 

 will try to tell you. The upright shaft being 

 fastened solid, both at top and bottom, there is 

 no tremble nor shake to the reel; and it mat- 

 ters not whether the reel is evenly loaded or 

 not. If it can not move at top or bottom, it 

 must run true. Now, it will not take a man 

 long, who has extracted much honey, to see the 

 great advantage in this, in more respects than 

 one. First, on account of the reel running so 

 perfectly true there is no jar nor shake to the 

 comb; and on account of this, the machine can 

 be run much faster, without injury to the 

 comb: and where there is brood in the combs, 

 not one- half as much brood will be thrown out 

 by my machine as with the ordinary hand ma- 

 chine,.because the honey, being heavier than the 

 larvEe. goes out first, and no one can judge 

 or tell any thing about what the difference 

 is in the work done by my steam power 

 extractor, or that done by a hand machine. 

 When I tell you what I have said is true, and 

 you take into account the great difference in 

 centrifugal force, my reel being 7 feet 3 inches 

 in diameter, and making 260 revolutions per 

 minute, the centrifugal forc(> of it is 13 times 

 greater than one 2 feet across, making the same 

 number of revolutions, and still it throws out 

 nothing like the amount of larva? that the 

 hand machine does. Does it throw the honey 

 out? Yes, it does, better than any thing else a 

 man ever saw in the shape of an extractor; and 

 Is it not a little more pleasant and satisfactory, 

 too. to sit down and rest while the extractor 

 and engine are doing such satisfactory work 

 for you? I think it is. I have had as good 

 men to work for me as ever turned an extractor; 

 but I never had one that was willing to kill 

 himself trying to get the hcmey (ill out the 

 combs with a hand machine. 



