382 STATfi AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE BULLETINS. 



syrup honey, and yet so different that the chemist would not suppose them 

 of like origin. One was extracted at once while the other was permitted 

 to remain in the hive till it was capped over. It was more fully transformed. 

 It is quite possible that the same honey gathered rapidly would give more 

 cane sugar. If so and a chemist should analyze such a sample from a 

 mountain region, he would decide that mountain honey was rich in cane 

 sugar or sucrose. From the fact of admixture, the varied sources of honey 

 and different degrees of digestion, either from being rapidly stored or 

 from being extracted beiore it was fully ripened, we see we shall not 

 know the full truth till many samples of known origin are analyzed. 



It is also interesting that Prof. Wiley grouped Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10 and 27 

 together because of the abnormal quantities of sucrose. He says of them: 

 "They would be passed by me as pure, because we are not certain but that 

 in some circumstances bees may not gather honey with this abnormal pro- 

 portion." He adds further: "No. 10," which was genuine horse mint 

 honey, '' seems to be the worst one of the lot, having 14.5 per cent of 

 sucrose. Nos. 1 and 2,"' genuine basswood and sugar syrup honey, respect- 

 ively, the latter extracted the day after it was stored, " have nearly ten per 

 cent of sucrose. Nos. 8 and 29," genuine basswood and sugar syrup 

 honey respectively, the latter the same as No. 2, only capjjed over, "a little 

 over 5 per cent, while normal honeys have usually from .5 to 3 per cent of 

 sucrose only." It is very interesting to observe that the amount of 

 sucrose, or sugar by inversion, in number 29 was only 5 per cent, while 

 that of number 2 was 10 per cent. This shows that digestion or tranform-- 

 ation is not complete when the honey is first stored, but goes on either in 

 the cell or through the >oung bees taking it again into the stomach, as 

 Mr. Doolittle believes they do, that it may be more thoroughly digested, 

 and then depositing it again in the cells. We see, then, that as yet the 

 chemists cannot distinguish honey from flowers from granulated sugar 

 syrup honey. Prof. Wiley wrote me under date of September 14: "It is 

 true that with our present knowledge of lioney chemistry the difference 

 cannot be detected." I will add that as yet I have not found a person that 

 could distinguish the difference by taste, though several experts, including 

 myself, were among the number. 



I am certain that no jjerson could distinguish the sugar syrup honey 

 from the genuine, though many think they could do so. It is quite possi- 

 ble that sugar syrup stored out of season might not be so digested or 

 transformed, and the product would not be so very much like the best of 

 honey. Possibly liower nectar lioney produced out of season would not 

 be so excellent as we usually find it. Further investigation is required to 

 settle this question. 



These investigations, then, prove that as yet our best chemists can not> 

 tell sugar syrup honey from the best floral honey. If it is desirable to do 

 so, possibly research may find a method. Undoubtedly most floral honey 

 contains organic extracts, in very small quantities, wliicli may make it 

 possible by very delicate chemical manipulation to distinguish floral from 

 other honey. But if the difference is not perct-ptible to the taste, and 

 only by the most delicate chemical operations, if at all, I do not see why 

 it is important, though others seem to feel quite differently. 



SUMMARY. 



We are thus assured by these analysis: 



1. That chemists can easily detect adulteration of honey by use of 



