THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



267 



yielded to the pressure of competition, and 

 filled all my supers or sections with comb 

 foundation, usinj^ the lightest and best 

 article obtainable, and I have continued 

 the use of it for the past three seasons. 

 It has enaV)led me to produce better look- 

 ing honey than heretofore, but the quality 

 of the product has suffered. If it ever 

 comes to a break between myself and my 

 good wife, it will be on account of this 

 comb foundation in my comb honey. It 

 will therefore be policy for ine^ at least, 

 to discontinue using the stuff. 

 BEE KEEPERS DON'T SEEM TO CARE IF 

 THE USE OF FOUNDATION DOES 

 INJURE THE HONEY. 



If it were possible for me to arouse the 

 more prominent and extensive beekeepers 

 of the land to the fact that using comb 

 foundation in comb honey means, injur- 

 ing the hone}' market, means cutting off 

 the consumption of honey; if I could in- 

 spire them to make it a point to produce 

 a gilt edge article of food rather than 

 one of low grade, hardly fit for human 

 food, it would afford me great pleasure 

 and satisfaction. Why must we use 

 comb foundation in section honey.' Let 

 the prominent men, the Doolittles and 

 the Millers, and all others of the frater- 

 nity explain. 



Say, Mr. Editor, I would not buy Dr. 

 Miller's honey, with his full sheets of 

 foundation and bottom starters even at 

 five cents off per pound, and sell it in 

 ifir /wine market. Such honey may do 

 for half civilized people with uncultivated 

 taste, but not for the refined people of the 

 present tinie. Really I am ashamed to 

 offer such honey for .sale. 

 WAX OFTEN MADE OF FILTHY COMBS. 



Of course, to the average consumer, the 

 thought does not occur that the wax, 

 from which the foundation was made, 

 may have come from* dirty, mouMy, old 

 brood-combs, perhajjs with decayed lar- 

 vie in it. or full of wax-moth larvae, and 

 what not. It may even have come from 

 foul broody combs; who can tell ? If the 

 consumer had this information it is doubt- 



ful whether he would enjoy eating comb 

 honey built on foundation, or relish chew- 

 ing the god. 



THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMB 

 AND WAX. 



I am aware that Mr. Root claims that 

 drone comb in section honey contains 

 more wax than comb foundation section 

 honey (worker comb). I am not going 

 to contradict that statement. It is im- 

 material /wzv much wax comb honey con- 

 tains. I do not object to the quantity of 

 the wax but to the texture, the difference 

 of friability, Vn^ feeling it creates in the 

 mouth of the eater. 



The natural product disappears in our 

 mouths and leaves no gob. The wax of 

 natural comb seems brittle, and breaks 

 up between our teeth into infinitely small 

 fragments, and we do not notice it. The 

 difference between naturally built comb, 

 and such as has artificial foundation as a 

 basis, to make a comparison, is some- 

 what like well baked bread against half- 

 done or soggy bread. The one may be 

 chewed up and sort of desolves, the other 

 does not and remains gummy. It resists 

 our effort to be properly prepared for the 

 stomach. Both are made of the the same 

 kind of flour. 



GENERAL PUBLIC DOES NOT KNOW MUCH 



ABOUT FOUNDATION, BUT IS NOT 



PLEASED WITH THE "GOB." 



The honey eater who is not informed 

 on the subject of bee keeping, may not be 

 aware that he is chewing an artificial pro- 

 duct when battling with the midrib; but 

 that would not make any difference; he 

 will find the gob just as objectionable. 

 It will destroy his desire for more. 



Gentleman, in the production of ex- 

 tracted honev let us make it a point of 

 honor to produce ripe honey only, ripened 

 by the bees in their hive. In the pro- 

 duction of comb honey let us be equally 

 as conscientious; let us produce an article 

 without fault. 



The use of comb foundation secures us 

 a very yqiform article of hot\ey, and it 



