468 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



— something that will stand rough usage, 

 and which will be free from the depreda- 

 tions of robber bees, flies, ants, and other 

 insects, then such trade should pay for the 

 extra cost of so protecting the honey. But 

 apparently, under the new law, only the net 

 weight of the honey exclusive of the glass 

 and the wood can be considered. As the glass 

 is more variable in weight — more so than the 

 section itself — it will be a little difficult to 

 get at the actual net weight of honey al- 

 ready glassed. Producers who have a trade 

 in glassed comb honey can sell it, but they 

 must weigh up the sections before glass- 

 ing, deduct one ounce for the wood, and 

 mark the net weight on the section, what- 

 ever that is — 10 or 15 ounces, and then put 

 on the glass; but they can charge only for 

 the honey itself. The practical operation of 

 the law will be to exclude glassed honey 

 from the market, in our opinion, unless the 

 government reverses its decision on the net- 

 weight proposition as it relates to comb 

 honey. 



It will be well to bear in mind that the 

 net-weight law goes into etfeet Sept. 3 of 

 this year. The law was passed March 3, 

 1913, and gave the producer and dealer 

 eighteen months in which to dispose of all 

 old stock; but the decision to exclude the 

 weight of the section has only just been 

 announced (May 28). As many beekeepers 

 were honestly of the opinion that they could 

 include the weight of the section they sold, 

 a large amount of honey on tlie market will 

 necesarily be misbranded. Just what the 

 Government will do in cases of this kind is 

 hard to say. This may work a more severe 

 hardship on the large producers and dealers 

 than on the smaller ones. 



As soon as we can get a more definite 

 statement we will place the same before our 

 readers. But Mr. Frank Rauehfuss, of the 

 Colorado Honey-producers' Association, 

 wrote to Washington and received a night- 

 letter telegram as follows : 



Regarding branding honey in frames or cartons, 

 weight of actual contents should be marked upon 

 frames of individual units, or upon outside of car- 

 tons when used. Regulations, paragraph H, mini- 

 mum weight blank ounces, is suggested as conven- 

 ient. Form letter follows. 



C. L. Alsbeeg. 



From the letter following, Mr. Alsberg 

 makes this statement : 



" We note the custom of your association, and in 

 that connection your attention is particularly called 

 to paragraph H as suggesting a convenient method 

 of branding which will meet your conditions. The 

 statement of weight, however, should be that of the . 

 contents, exclusive of the wooden frame." 



This leaves no room for doubt ; and it is 

 apparent that dealers and producers alike 

 will have to modify their entire scheme of 

 gelling comb honey. 



In this connection it is apparent that the 

 net weight of a case of comb honey must be 

 the added-up weight of every section in the 

 case less as many ounces as there are sec- 

 tions in the case. All together it is appar- 

 ent that the price of comb honey, if sold at 

 the figures of a year ago, other things being 

 equal, should be advanced in order to cover 

 this shrinkage. If comb honey is much 

 scarcer than last year, another advance will 

 have to be made. Of course that advance 

 would have nothing to do with the net- 

 weight law. 



Another question has been asked; and 

 that is, whether the ordinary 60-lb. square 

 cans, kegs, or barrels shall be marked with 

 their net weight. As we understand it, the 

 new net-weight law applies only to small 

 packages — packages that go to the consum- 

 er, and not to the large containers that are 

 sold in a wholesale or jobbing way to deal- 

 ers. Honey, however, in square cans varies 

 somewhat in weight. The variation as we 

 find it runs all the way from 56 to 61 lbs. 

 Then, again, there will be a shrinkage on 

 account of evaporation. Some of the honey, 

 perhaps, was extracted a little too thin. 

 The dealer fears that it will sour on his 

 hands, and will remove the caps of the 

 square cans until the honey evaporates down 

 a little. 



To be on the safe side, it will be better, 

 in our opinion, to mark every can, keg, or 

 barrel, with the exact net weight of the 

 honey. The ordinary square cans will have 

 an actual weight of about 2^/2 lbs. But kegs 

 and barrels will vary so much that each 

 barrel and keg will have to be weighed 

 separately. 



We have taken this matter up with Dr. E. 

 F. Phillips, of the Bureau of Entomology, 

 suggesting that he explain to the committee 

 of the pure-food department some of the 

 difficulties that producers are going to meet 

 under the operations of this new law pro- 

 viding that only the wax and honey are 

 considered, and providing that it goes into 

 effect in September of this j'ear. 



In conclusion, we should say that we enter 

 no complaint at the general intent of the 

 law, which we believe to be thoroughly good. 

 All we ask is that the Government, in view 

 of its decision of May 28, give beekeepers' 

 associations and dealers an opportunity to 

 dispose of their old stock before the law 

 becomes effective. If the action of the law 

 could be deferred until September, 1915, 

 instead of September of this year it would 

 work no hardship on any one. Of course 

 it will occasion some inconvenience; but in 

 the end we shall all be able to readjust our- 

 selves. 



