68 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Jan. 15. 



statH of affairs must not come, and will not, be- 

 cause we believe that neither Mr. Heddon nor 

 Prof. Cook would be willing lo liazard the in- 

 dustry or even run th<' risk of doing so. Surely 

 Prof. Cook and Mr. Heddon will reconsider. 



THE SUGAK-HONEV DISCUS.SION; THE FINAT. 



STATEMENT OF THE CASE ,SO FAK A.S 



GLEANINGS IS CONCERNED. 



We have received hiindred.s of letters pro- 

 testing against the proposed practice of feeding 

 bees sugar to produce comb iioney. and they 

 are still coming in. The Illinois State Bee- 

 keepers" Association condemned it: the Mich- 

 igan State Bee-keepers' Association, as we infer 

 from the report, did not favor it: the Washing- 

 ton convention said as little about the subject 

 as possible: and when it did, it put it in such a 

 form that the reporters could not get hold of it. 

 Nearly all the bee-papers have entered a de- 

 cided protest, and now the mattef is getting 

 into the agricultural periodicals, and is being 

 roundly condemned there — particularly in the 

 Ohio Farmer. We are glad that there is a uni- 

 versal sentiment against it. and we are sure 

 that our friend W. Z. Hutchinson has no in- 

 clination to bring it up again: and that neither 

 he nor Prof. Cook, knowing the facts, would 

 care to run counter to the great mass of bee- 

 keepers, the bee- journals, and the agricultural 

 press — not because they would be afraid to ex- 

 press their honest opinions and convictions, but 

 because they would not willingly further coun- 

 tenance something that manifestly would work 

 injury to the industry. And now, as a closing 

 sentiment, we wish to make a brief quotation 

 from an editorial in the American Bee Journal, 

 which we most heartily iudorse: 



Nearly all agree, that, even if it mig-ht prove 

 profitable to thus feed sug'ar, it would almost cer- 

 tainly be too dangerous and risky !i, thing to do for 

 the good of the pursuit of bee-keeping. Tliere is 

 no need of try in tr to walk safely over quicksands, 

 when we know ilicre is a pathway where safety is 

 unquesti(5ned. 



Later.— Since the above was in type, the fol- 

 lowing editorial, which will appear in the next 

 Bee-keepers' Review, entirely justifies the good 

 opinion we have all along held of Bro. Hutch- 

 inson, and that he would drop the matter if he 

 wereshown that the discussion was unwise. Itis 

 indeed true, that "an editor has an opportunity 

 that is accorded to no other, to place his finger 

 upon the public pulse; '" and Mr. Hutchinson, 

 with his usual editorial sagacity, is not slow 

 to interpret it. 



THE SUGAB-HONEY DISCUSSION HAS GONE FAR 

 ENOUGH AT PRESEST. 



I said I had more articles on sugar honey that 

 ■would be piiblislied in due time. Perhaps their 

 authors are wondering why they are not. The rea- 

 son Is, that the bee-keeping public is opposed to tiie 

 discussion. An editor lias an oppoi'tunity that is 

 accorded to no other, to place his finger upon the 

 public pulse. In the hundreds and Imndreds of 

 letters that have come to me in tlie past month, and 

 from the bee-keepers that I have met at three con- 

 ventions of a national character, I have learned 

 tliat there is a strong opposition against even the 

 discussion of the raising of honey by feeding sugar 

 to bees. In some instances this opposition amounts 

 to a hitter rage. Some of you may remember the 

 pains that I have taken in the past to learn what 

 course in the getting-up of the Review would be 

 the most acceptable. Well, wlien it has been shown 

 to me so clearly that this discussion is distasteful to 

 the majority, what folly to force it upon these un- 

 willing readers! 1 liave several most excellent 

 articles upon this subject. One is from Mr. Daggitt, 

 in which he calls attention to the fact that it is the 

 floral jinuor of honey that gives it its chief value. 

 Illustrations and evidence are given at length. 

 Again, this very morning, I have received from 

 Frank S. Aby, Director of the Histological Labora- 

 tory of the Iowa State University, a most able paper 

 ■discussing the question most thoroughly from scl- 



entitic, ethical, and economic standpoints. He 

 supports Prof. Cook, and says that the opposition 

 comes from the ignorance of bee-keepers on cliemi- 

 cal and pliy.siological points. It seems a pity tliat 

 this subject can not be thorougiily and calmly dis- 

 cussed in all of its bearings; but witli the present 

 feeling, its continuance would only stir up bitter- 

 ness, and I flunk the best thing that can be done is 

 to drop it I'ight where it is, at least for ihe present. 



We hope no one will berate or feel unkindly 

 toward Jiio. Hutchinson. His course all along 

 (as was also Prof. Cook's) on the sugar- honey 

 matter was actuated by the best of motives. 

 Prof. Cook, by a letter just at hand, shows that 

 he is in entire harmony with the sentiments 

 expressed by Mr. Hutchinson above. 



Still Zatcr.— After Jiaving received the proof 

 of the editorial that will appear in the Bee-heep- 

 ers' Review, another letter comes from Professor 

 Cook. It reads as follows: 



RIGHT ABOUT, FACE 1, 



Dear Mr. Editor:— In studying the development of 

 nature we find that there are retracings as well as 

 advancement; retrograde as well as progressive 

 development; such retrograde movements being, 

 for the time at least, for the best. Hence if I call to 

 myself for a halt, or even a wheel-about, I shall not 

 be a single exception. 



SOME HISTORY. 



Until the past summer I have never regai'ded 

 sugar syrup, transformed and stored by the bees, 

 as honey. I knew it was transformed, but I did not 

 think it honey. Tlie serious nectar-dearth for the 

 past three years, which I saw drive many bee- 

 keepers from the ranks, so that, where we used to 

 have large and enthusiastic associations, we now 

 have a mere baker's dozen interested, or often none 

 at all, made me very solicitous to find a cure for 

 this terrible evil. I hoped, though faintly, for some 

 i-elief by special planting of most promising honey- 

 plants. I entered energetically into the experiment 

 of such planting on a large scale, only to prove 

 conclusively, as I think, that there is no solution of 

 the trouble in that direction. 



Last year, when Messrs. Hasty and Hutchinson 

 discussed sugar-syrup honey, I had no sympathy 

 with tlie move. I thought of it in the light of adul- 

 teration, and felt tliat all such discussion was- a 

 mistake. This summer I tasted of sugar-syrup 

 honey, and, to my surprise, it was not sugar syrup. 

 It seemed not only honey, but first-class honey. I 

 have been engaged in testing honey for years, and 

 think I am somewhat keen in that direction. This 

 syrup was from pure granulated sugar; was stored 

 at night very rapidly, and extracted the next day. 

 The bees were not gathering at all, so there was no 

 admixture— could be no admixture of honey from 

 flowers. Some of this honey was capped over in a 

 few days, and was still most delicious honey, or so 

 it seemed to my experienced taste. I got a large 

 number to taste of this, and all pronounced it A 

 No. 1 iioney. Some experts, whom I told what it 

 was, said, "Why! I am surprised; that is as nice 

 honey as I ever ate." Do you wonder, Mr. Editor, 

 that I was led to wonder if here were not a .solution 

 to the impediment of years with no Iioney ? I said 

 not a word, but awaited tlie decision of the chem- 

 ists, three of the best in the country; and when I 

 found they placed this in company with some of 

 the best floral honey— basswood, clover, etc., that I 

 ever tasted of, and which was of undoubted charac- 

 ter, I thought I saw still more hope in this direction. 

 I then commenced studying tlie objections. If its 

 character is such that 1 can not distinguish it from 

 flrst-class honey from flowers; if the chemists can 

 not do so, where is the objection to its production > 

 I decided at once that it would be, in the public 

 view, as Mr. Bingham says: "There is a mystery 

 in the honey from the flowers that pleases people, 

 and this sentiment Is too valuable to lose." I asked 

 myself and family; and we all said that, if it is as 

 wholesome, looks as nice, and tastes as well, we 

 make no objection. I then asked the honey-lovers 

 immediately about me, if, with these conditions 

 true, they would object. Every one said no. Thus 

 it seemed to me that I had a case, and so wrote the 

 articles for the Review. 



But, Mr. Editor, may be I was hasty, and that the 

 article was unwise. Prof. Wiley writes me that he 

 thinks he can distinguish between sugar syrup 

 transformed and stored by the bees, and floral 



