1899 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



609 



EXTRACTED-HONEY TARE. 



Robbing Bee-keepers. 

 BY W. A. H. GILSTRAP. 



" A small leak will sink a great ship," and 

 "many a little makes a mickle," as Poor 

 Richard says. Excessive tare estimates is a 

 leak that has taken many thousands of dollars 

 from California honey-producers — not a very 

 small leak either. We used to expect a loss 

 of 1y 2 per cent of our honey by the dealers 

 "estimating" the cans and cases to weigh 

 more than they did. One season we fared 

 even worse, my loss being 900 lbs. that year. 



Gleanings published an article, June 1, 

 1896, on honey tare, which I drew on local 

 dealers, and got a tare compromise on several 

 transactions. A Fresno Co. dealer is not in 

 good humor yet. The following year the bee- 

 keepers demanded actual tare, and it is an 

 established fact in that part of the State. It 

 has made some headway in San Francisco 

 .also. 



Since I came to Stanislaus Co., where there 

 are no local honey-dealers, and not expecting 

 a full car, it makes consignment necessary. 

 A San Francisco firm who wish to handle my 

 crop reply to my tare questions as follows: 

 " We have generally used our judgment as to 

 the weight of the case, always allowing 3 lbs. 

 for each tin; and when in doubt about the 

 weight of the cases we take the cans out of a 

 number of them and weigh them for an aver- 

 age. . . All agree on 3 lbs. for the tins." 



My reply is in substance as follows: 



Dear Sir: — You speak of weighing some cases to get 

 average when in doubt. If you would weigh cans and 

 cases it would suit rue very well. You say, ' All ag ee 

 on 3 lbs for the tins. I take exceptions. No one who 

 has weighed the ordinary round-cornered cans agrees 

 on 3 lbs for the tins." They weigh 2 l / 2 lbs. If you 

 find one can, such as is in general use among honey- 

 producers, that weighs two pounds ten ounces, you 

 may have my old hat. 



Jan. 29, 1896, Hildreth Bros. & Segelken, 

 28 West Broadway, New York, wrote me: 



We figure 5 lbs. for the two cans, which is actual; 

 and whatever the cases weigh is added to it. 



Jan. 28, 1896, S. T. Fish & Co., 189 South 

 Water St., Chicago, wrote: 



In selling extracted honey in 60 lb. cans we always 

 allow 2 l / 2 lbs. tare for the cans . . . we ascertain 

 the tare of the wooden cases by weighing a few of 

 them. 



Jan. 29, 1896, Williams Bros., Cleveland, O., 

 wrote : 



We allow 2% lbs. on each can. . . . Almost all 

 parties who ship us honey have the tare marked on 

 the cases, which we invariably go by. 



Others could be quoted to the same effect, 

 some preferring the net weight to be marked 

 on the cases. 



Messrs. Rosenburg Bros. & Co., of San 

 Francisco, received several cars of honey from 

 Nathan Bros., of Hanford, which the produc- 

 ers had marked " 120 lbs. net" on each case, 

 both firms paying for it at that rate. The 

 cans each held 60 pounds of honey. 



You may be honest in considering the cans 

 to weigh three pounds, but they don't; and to 

 so consider them takes about 17 pounds of 

 honey from the producer on each ton, for 



which he gets nothing. Who does get it free 

 is not the interesting point to us. 



I predict that actual tare will be the rule in 

 San Francisco in the near future, and I hope 

 you will soon drop into the procession. My 

 friendly interest in your business will not de- 

 ter me from making inquiry of other dealers. 

 At present I am undecided who shall handle 

 my honey this season. 



I think that, to use all available means to 

 let dealers in honey know we insist on being 

 treated squarely, and not "estimated " out of 

 our honey, would be a good thing. Then 

 work competition for all it is worth. The 

 present contention of half a pound on each 

 can is small compared to what we stood up to 

 in '97 (being less than one per cent); but on 

 the San Joaquin Valley crop, which the firm 

 in question estimates at 150 cars this season, 

 it would be about 20,000 lbs. 



Later. — In the communication above on 

 honey tare, in which I introduced some cor- 

 respondence with a San Francisco commission 

 house, it did not seem good policy to intro- 

 duce the firm by name, but it does now. The 

 inclosed letter shows that W. G. Lowry & Co. 

 take quite readily to actual tare when the sub- 

 ject is fairly presented — more so, in fact, than 

 any other leading house on the coast that I have 

 heard of. Rosenburg Bros. & Co. finally ac- 

 cepted actual tare, but objected to handling 

 alkali-weed honey, which is one of our lead- 

 ing kinds. W. G. Fowry & Co. seem to han- 

 dle any quality, as I have known, them to sell 

 some very dark honey to good advantage. 



Mr. Gilstrap: — Yours of June 5 is received and con- 

 tents noted. Should the plan of having the net 

 weight marked on the cases come into general use it 

 would save many arguments and a great deal of 

 trouble; in fact, we think it the only way to get at the 

 exact weight of the honey, having it honestly weighed 

 into the tins, and the exact tare taken, whatever it 

 may be thereby saving the trouble of opening and 

 weighing cases and estimating the weight of the cans. 



San Francisco, Cal., June 9. W. G. J_owry & Co. 



If this matter is presented in Gleanings 

 soon it may be of considerable benefit to Cal- 

 ifornia honey-producers this season. I consid- 

 er Gleanings to be the principal California 

 bee-paper. 



My object is not to get a free advertisement 

 for a house in which I have an interest, for I 

 have no interest in any commercial enterprise 

 except as any other bee-keeper has. My un- 

 derstanding is that you wish to know who 

 will give us a fair business-like deal. 



If all producers will weigh carefully and 

 honestly, and mark the net weight on the case, 

 the tare controversy will soon be a matter of 

 history. Each can should hold 60 lbs. net, if 

 possible, which it nearly always is. Don't 

 try to put in more. 



Grayson, Cal. 



[From two references in your article above, 

 one might infer that you have in mind the A. 

 I. Root Co. as being naughty enough to take 

 out a tare of three pounds, for you say, a lit- 

 tle further on, that you have a friendly "in- 

 terest in your business." Yet I can hardly 

 think it possible you mean our firm ; for I 

 have just consulted our Mr. Boyden, who 

 buys our extracted honey, and he says it is 



