^^^■''JMWW'^ 



154 



TENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 



of retailing, are dealers rather than 

 producers. 



A writer, in a recent issue of -the 

 Bee-Keepers' Review, claims that 

 when honey is brought from the pro- 

 ducer at S cents, it is not possible 

 to sell it to the consumer at less than 

 25 cents in bottles. In my humble 

 opinion, 8 cents is much too low a 

 price for a man to receive for first- 

 class honey, if he is keeping bees for 

 a living; while, on the other hand, 

 25 cents is too high a price for the 

 mechanic or artisan to pay, who has 

 to work for a living. 



If the present system of getting 

 honey before the consumer calls for 

 twice the sum in profits for middle- 

 men as was originally paid the pro- 

 ducer for the honey, then there is 

 something wrong in the system, and 

 the sooner the producers recognize 

 this fact, and act accordingly, the bet- 

 ter for them. 



In conclusion. I would say to pro- 

 ducers of first-class extracted honey, 

 do not think or act as if your product 

 is in any way inferior to comb honey; 

 use intelligent and honest methods 

 in your work, and there is no question, 

 in my mind, but that the use of our 

 product will increase by leaps and 

 bounds, as it has been doing during 

 the past few years. The element • of 

 suspicion that formerly lurked around 

 extracted honey is fast disappearing, 

 and it is "up to us" to help the good 

 work along by offering nothing but 

 well-ripened honey, and showing the 

 same animosity towards the thin, un- 

 ripened article that has been accorded 

 the adulterated stuff in the past; for, 

 after all, it is an open question as to 

 which has done the most harm to the 

 industry in the days gone by — adulter- 

 ated honey, or unripe honey. Person- 

 ally, I accord to the latter article the 

 more odium of the two. 



J. L. BYER. 

 Mt. Joy, Ont., Canada. 



Pres. York — I wouldn't be surprised 

 if Mrs. Byer helped to write that 

 paper, as I understand she uncapped 

 about 30,000 pounds of honey last sea- 

 son. The paper is before you now 

 for discussion. Has ansone a ques- 

 tion to ask? 



J. E. Crane — I would like to enquire 

 how we are to get buyers to purchase 

 extracted honey in tin or paper pack- 

 ages unless they can see it, or get 



merchants to sell it, while they are 

 still unwilling to do so, and while they 

 very much prefer glass. 



Mr. Smith (Massachusetts) — I would 

 like to ask Mr. Byer how he manages 

 to keep the nectar or' the thin honey 

 separate from the thick or well- 

 ripened honey at the close of the 

 honey-flow, which to me (in Massa- 

 chusetts) is from the 1st to the 15th. 

 of September? This year it was about 

 the 15th of September, and with a 

 good deal of the honey I took off, a 

 great many of the frames would be 

 from one-third to two-thirds capped, ' 

 and nicely ripened honey; the balance 

 of it too thin to extract. 



Pres. York — "We ought to have Mr. 

 Crane's question answered before we 

 have another question. "Will Mr. Byer 

 answer? Mr. Byer — As I intimated 

 in my paper, there is no question but 

 that a considerable quantity of honey 

 will, in the future as in the past, be 

 sold in the glass, and the only ans- 

 v.-er I can give is to get them to 

 create a desire for it; but otherwise 

 it would be a policy of education. I 

 believe the demand is growing in On- 

 tario more towards honey in the bulk, 

 say five or ten-pound pails, instead of 

 in glass. I believe it is increasing 

 in gla^B, but to a greater extent in 

 the pail. 



Mr. Davis (New York) — In support 

 of Mr. Byer's argument .relative to the 

 desirability of selling it in the glass 

 or tin, I think that the difference is 

 not so much in the question whether 

 it is tin or glass, without knowing 

 anything to the contrary. I trust that 

 Mr. Crane is interested or speaking^ 

 from the standpoint of the small- 

 package glass, the jelly tumbler or 

 the olive bottle, or as it is put in 

 small packages. I think the house- 

 hold purchaser will be willing to pay 

 the added expense, the difference be- 

 tween glass and tin, provided the 

 glass is something which she can use-* 

 subsequently in household prepara- 

 tions, such as the Mason jar, or the 

 Economy jar, with the vacuum or 

 easy seal, and use that glass recep- 

 tacle in some other way in the future. 

 There is absolutely no doubt that the 

 argument is in favor of the glass pack- 

 age as against the tin, but it is 

 really an expense on the consumers, 

 unless they can use it in some other 

 v/ay in the future. 



c»v -!>*: -V- 





