148 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



our protection." We must entirely disagree 

 with Mr. Walker in this matter. 



The National Bee-Keepers' Union was not 

 created for such a purpose. It was consti- 

 tuted simply for "defense," and not to wage 

 an aggressive warfare against adulteration, 

 or any other moral or social evil! 



Remarking on this subject, the editor of 

 the Review, on page 128, says: 



As I understand it, a change in the consti- 

 tution of the Union would be necessary be- 

 fore money could be used for this purpose; 

 but, if the Union could put an end to what 

 adulteration there is, and, what is of far 

 more importance, convince the public of this 

 accomplishment, I believe its usefulness 

 would be increased a thousand fold. 



Brother Hutchinson is quite right — a 

 change in the Constitution would be neces- 

 sary before it could undertake any such a 

 super human task. More than that, it must 

 also change its executive officer. The pres- 

 ent General Manager could not consent to 

 undertake any such an impracticability! 



While, perhaps, it should not be publicly 

 admitted, it is nevertheless a fact, that there 

 is no sure "method by which the adulteration 

 of honey can be detected." 



Pure honey has very often been analyzed 

 and pronounced adulterated by chemists in 

 New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, and other States, 

 and even the United States Chemist has 

 blundered in many ways when endeavoring 

 to enlighten the public on the matter of 

 honey-adulteration. Samples which we 

 know were genuine, have been branded as 

 either "adulterated," or "proliably adulter- 

 ated" — simply because there is no reliable 

 test for such analysis. 



Honey varies so much in its component 

 parts that no analysis of it can be reliable!' 

 That from the hillsides varies in color from 

 that in the valleys. Atmospheric conditions 

 soil and climate even change the color as 

 well as the body, flavor and ingredients. 



In view of these facts, it would be a wild- 

 goose chase to start the Union after adulter-i 

 ators — especially if there are as many as 

 Byron Walker avers — several hundreds of 

 retailers of such stuff in a city no larger 

 than Detroit! The Union is in better busi- 

 ness, and should never leave that in order to 

 delve into the slums of abominable sophisti- 

 cations! 



Let us build on the other wall. Produce 

 honey of such fine flavor, put up in such ad- 

 mirable condition for market, and properly 

 labeled with the' producers' name and ad- 



dress, so that a demand will be created for 

 that honey, and the guarantee for purity 

 shall be the name of the apiarist, and not "a 

 trade-mark," or the endorsement of any so- 

 ciety or periodical. 



There are plenty of laws on the statute 

 books in Michigan and other States, and the 

 local bee-keepers can attend to the matter 

 of prosecution without the aid of the Union. 

 Let them follow the example of Harmon 

 Smith, at Ionia, Mich., as is shown on page 

 129 of the Review, in these words: 



Upon learning that a can of adulterated 

 honey had been sent a grocer of his town, he 

 went to him and said. "The first pound of 

 that stuff you sell, I'll prosecute you." 



The "stuff" went back to the mixer. 

 There was no blow nor bluster — no i)ublish- 

 ing of the matter in the papers. It was a 

 case of "silent influence." 



If such is done promptly, we shall soon 

 hear no more about adulterated honey. 



Chicago, 111., June 5, 1891. 



Raising Cheap Honey. 



E. O. AIKIN. 



jX I- ROOT tells us of the new method 

 a) of onion culture, by which we may 

 raise 1,000 bushels per acre; Terry 

 tells us how to grow big crops of potatoes, 

 strawberries, etc., and I will try to tell you 

 how to raise big crops of honey. 



Your leader seems to me to lead in the di- 

 rection of getting large crops from large 

 apiaries, rather than getting large returns 

 from small apiaries or limited capital. 



In improving "appliances and methods," 

 let the first effort be to get greater yields of 

 honey and greater net profits from a limited 

 number of colonies. 



Is it not a fact that, to-day, one man can 

 manage from two to five times as many 

 acres of land as he could forty years ago? 

 The improved machinery, etc., that makes 

 it possible for one man to farm so much 

 land, together with the fixtures and taxes on 

 a large farm, eat up all the gain. There are 

 large investments of capital, large gross 

 earnings, but very small net profits. 



Am I not safe in the statement, that one- 

 half more labor and care bestowed on each 

 acre would double the crop; and treble, if 

 not quadruiile, the net profit? A harvester 

 will cut fifty bushels of wheat from an acre 

 almost as easily as twenty-five. Would it 

 not cost you, Mr. Editor, much more in pro- 



