18 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



Jan. 1 



known to food manufacturers, and it is real- 

 ly an attractive jar that sells well. In the 

 same way the 4X5 section of honey looks 

 larger than a 4^ square section, and there- 

 fore the tall section, like the tall jar, is the 

 better seller than the smaller - appearing 

 square one. I myself have been fooled into 

 thinking that a pint jar held a quart be- 

 cause the pint jar was thin and tall, and 

 had a neck that took the tall cap. When 

 we consider the thick glass, the bulb-shaped, 

 tall, large-necked jars with large capacious 

 caps to hold air, it is really wonderful how 

 small a quantity we can be satisfied with 

 for 25 cents. 



To overcome these matters some States 

 (Nebraska, for instance) have passed laws 

 requiring the actual net weight placed on 

 every label of a food package. The time is 

 coming when there will be a change in the 

 matter, for people are now ceasing to be 

 fooled by mere appearance. The looks as a 

 sole criterion have failed to make a perma- 

 nent impression; and the simple straight 

 jars with plain caps are cheaper, and the 

 jars more serviceable when empty; and so, 

 while I have decided opinions as to the ne- 

 cessity of providing the most attractive pack- 

 ages for our honey, I do not think we need 

 to resort to air-packed necks and caps, nor 

 to glass bubbles in the bottoms of our jars. 



All this reminds me of the way assess- 

 ments are made on property for taxation. 

 The assessing has kept falling from real 

 value until we have it down to about one- 

 fourth of the full value, and, of course, the 

 mill tax goes up with each drop in the rate 

 of assessment. In the same way we get pack- 

 ages that appear large for the price, or per- 

 haps for a little less than the price of the 

 original standard -sized packages. Now, 

 would it not be well to have a general read- 

 justment all around and put things abso- 

 lutely on the square and open basis? If a 

 jar holds a pint, let it be labeled in that 

 way, or perhaps the weight-mark would be 

 better. So many goods are sold by the can 

 that no one knows how much he is really 

 getting. 



To illustrate the points I have referred to, 

 I have made a photograph of several differ- 

 ent glass packages, most of which have been 

 used for honey. No. 1 is a quart Mason jar 

 and No. 6 a quart measure. The quart 

 measure being short, and made of thin tin, 

 does not appear as large as the Mason jar. 

 The size of the package is easily seen to be 

 less apparent when the dimensions run hor- 

 izontally than when the change is on a per- 

 pendicular line. Of course the cap on the 

 Mason jar, and the fact that the glass is 

 thicker than the tin, makes the quart jar 

 larger than the quart measure, though it 

 holds no more. Now, does not jar No. 2, 

 which holds a pint, look more than half 

 as large as No. 1? This shows that the 

 smaller packages look larger when on the 

 shelf than the larger packages do in com- 

 parison with their real capacity. I believe 

 that this is one of the reasons for the grad- 

 ual reducing of the size of packages for food 



products. A pint jar at 25 cts. will sell 

 much quicker than a quart jar at 40 cts., 

 and I do not think the smaller amount of 

 money required is the real reason for its 

 greater sale, although, of course, it is a big 

 factor. 



Now, take jar No. 7 — the small black one 

 toward the left of the picture, which holds 

 just one-fourth of a pint. One would hard- 

 ly suppose that it would require four No. 7's 

 to fill one of the No. 2's. The thick glass, 

 and the fact that the jar is tall, are the 

 principal reasons why No. 7 looks large. 

 This is a jar that sells for ten cents, gener- 

 ally, when filled with honey. It is a rapid 

 seller, too, for it holds enough honey for the 

 average family at one meal — provided the 

 average family does not have too many 

 children who are inordinately fond of hon- 

 ey. No. 7 holds almost one-half less than 

 No. 5, which holds just the same amount as 

 No, 3. By the way, this No. 3 shows the 

 effect produced by thick glass and the bulb- 

 shaped bottle with a rather tall neck. It is 

 one of the most attractive jars for honey 

 that I have seen, even if it does hold only 

 seven or eight ounces of honey. There is 

 room on the neck for a label which will 

 cover up the empty space in this part of the 

 bottle. Of course, the neck might be filled 

 with honey; but what would be the use of 

 doing so if the jar sells just as well with the 

 ounce and a half of honey left out? 



No. 4 is perhaps the most deceiving of all 

 in regard to the amount of honey or other 

 material which it will hold. This bottle 

 had sweet pickles in it up to the bottom of 

 the gilt label around the neck, the label 

 being wide to cover the tall neck. The jar 

 holds one pound of honey or just two-thirds 

 of the amount that could be placed in No. 

 2. Jars No. 3, 4, and 7 are the most attrac- 

 tive on the shelves; and with the net weight 

 plainly marked on the label there would be 

 no deception. 



Perhaps this packing of food in expensive 

 glass bottles that are useless when empty, 

 and that are deceptive in the amount that 

 they hold, is in part responsible for the 

 high cost of living. The consumer pays 30 

 cts. a pound for honey in No. 7; and the 

 bee-keeper who furnished the honey in 60- 

 Ib. cans received not over 8 cts., and possi- 

 bly not over 6. I may be wrong in some of 

 ray conclusions, but not so very far off 

 when taking my position as a whole. 



Boulder, Colo. 



[From what you say we believe that you 

 would regard it as ideal if all glass pack- 

 ages could be plain and similar in shape; 

 but as long as this (at present) seems im- 

 practicable, you would adopt the most at- 

 tractive and economical shape for all glass 

 honey-containers, but state plainly on the 

 label the real amount contained. 



We believe that you are very nearly cor- 

 rect in your statement as to the high cost of 

 living. There is certainly a vast difference 

 between the amount that the producer re- 

 ceives and the amount that the consumer 

 pays for a food. The middlemen may not 



