THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



103 



have iu anythiut,' else that can be employed. 

 I presume many of my readers are uow all 

 ready to spriny to their feet aud shout, 

 ' Mr. Chairman." Yes, I know very well 

 that we can't raise either cheap or hiyh- 

 piiced honey, if none is to be gathered, but 

 many and many is the year and locality iu 

 which fair crops are secured, and in 

 thousands of apiaries twice as much honey 

 mifjrht have been secured if enough bees had 

 been kept, and enough might have been 

 kept if it had not been for the labor of car- 

 ing for them. There is no other factor in 

 the production of honey that can begin to 

 compare, in expense, with that of labor. 

 I think few realize this. If our appliances 

 and methods were so improved that one man 

 could manage several apiaries of 150 colo- 

 nies each, and our knowledge of wintering 

 was so perfect that losses were the exception, 

 what chance would glucose stand against 

 honey ? I may be a visionary enthusiast, 

 but I firmly believe that cheap honey will be 

 the only thing that will effectually put a 

 quietus on its adulteration ; and all of our 

 talk, and resolutions, yes, and conviction of 

 adulterators, if any have been convicted, are 

 so much mis-directed energy. The injury 

 that bee-keepers have suffered from the 

 actual adulteration of honey, is but a drop 

 in the bucket compared with that resulting 

 from this everlasting clack about it. If 

 adulteration could be stopped it would be 

 an advantage to bee-keeping, but the ad- 

 vantage would be very slight compared to 

 what would result if, by seme hocus pocus, 

 the public could be made io forget all it ever 

 read or heard about adulteration. 



Why are bee keepers opposed to the adul- 

 teration of honey? It isn't because they 

 dislike to have the public cheated. It 

 doesn't seem to arouse their opposition to 

 any great extent, because other articles are 

 adulterated. It isn't because they are so 

 solicitous for the dear public. It is almost 

 wholly upon selfish grounds, if not wholly 

 so, that bee keepers are opposed to the adul- 

 teration of honey. In what way does it in- 

 jure the business of bee keeping? In the 

 first place it increases the amount of honey 

 (?) on the market. This has a tendency to 

 lower the prices. Next, these adulterated 

 goods can be, and sometimes are. sold for 

 le=!s than "straight" goods. In short, the 

 principal objections, almost only, objections 

 to adulterating is that it has a tendency to 

 lower the prices. "What about its effect up- 



on the consumer?" says someone. "Will not 

 this 'vile stuff' disgust the consumer and 

 cause him to discontinue the use of honey?" 

 In some instances I think it might. But, 

 let's be honest, friends, even in this matter 

 of adulteration. For one, I will say that I 

 have several times tasted of samples of 

 adulterated honey, or of honey supposed to 

 be adulterated, (I am well satisfied that some 

 of it was adulterated) and I have yet to find 

 any that tastes as bad as some gathered by 

 the bees from natural sources. (That from 

 boneset for instance.) I would much rather 

 have any adulterated honey I ever tasted 

 than to have that from buckwheat honey. If I 

 were an unsophistocated purchaser of a 

 bottle of buckwheat or boneset honey, it 

 would be quite a shock to my belief in the 

 deliciousness of honey. Glucose mixed with 

 buckwheat honey would actually improve it 

 for me, and it would for many others. No, 

 I am not pleading for adulteration. You 

 ought to know me well enough for that. I 

 am simply trying to clear away some of the 

 rubbish, so that this matter may be viewed 

 in its true light. Bee-keepers are opposed 

 to adulteration, because it has a tendency to 

 lower the price of honey, that is the reason, 

 but the stir that has been made about it, a 

 stir that has reached the ear of the public, 

 has caused a prejudice or fear in the mmd 

 of the public, which has lessened consump- 

 tion to a more injurious extent than actual 

 adulteration has lowered prices. 



Shall we oppose adulteration? Yes, if a 

 man finds that adulterated goods are in 

 opposition to his own, let him go quietly to 

 work and bring such forces to bear as will 

 rid him of this competition. In this State 

 we have sufficient laws upon the subject. It 

 may be difficult to secure conviction. To 

 prove that a sample of honey is adulterated, 

 is exceedingly difficult. If this can't be 

 done, what good comes of making an outcry? 

 None, it simply says to the public: "Be- 

 ware, there are adulterated goods on the 

 market." 



It may seem strange advice, but I hon- 

 estly believe that the wisest conrse is to keep 

 perfectly still about the matter of adultera- 

 tion. But very little honey is now adultera- 

 ted. Two factors have combined to bring 

 about this state of affairs. Producers are 

 putting their goods upon the market in 

 smaller packages— suitable for the retail 

 trade. Honey does not pass through the 

 hands of packers to the extent that it did. 



