788 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 1. 



KIVAL, BEE-PAPERS AND THEIR POLICY. 



Two rival editors of two separate rival bee- 

 periodicals took the train at Chicago, rode in 

 the same car, slept in the same berth, iu the 

 same bed, ate at the same tables— in fact, were 

 together much of the time for a whole week, 

 and did not even quarrel, nor were they jealous 

 of each other in convention. Suppose, for in- 

 stance, that the two aforesaid editors were not 

 on friendly terms; that they went to the con- 

 vention on separate roads; that they sat o'n op- 

 posite sides of the convention room ; that when- 

 ever one proposed a policy the other would 

 oppose it. The actual situation at the Lincoln 

 convention — in fact, at every other in later 

 times — has been the very opposite. At two dif- 

 ferent conventions the editors of the American 

 Bee Journal and Gleanings have sat in the 

 same chair. A very few delight in calling this 

 condition of things " mutual admiration." Call 

 it what they may, it is doing tenfold more for 

 the bee-keeping world than the other policy 

 could give. 



GOVERNMENT AID AND APIS DORSATA. 



At the Lincoln convention a resolution was 

 passed condemning the action taken by the Erie 

 Co., N. Y., Bee-keepers' Association, recom- 

 mending that the general government send an 

 expedition to the far East to secure A-pis dorsa- 

 ta. This action of the North American was 

 based 'on the ground that it was unnecessary 

 and impractical; that government aid, if any 

 be secured, should be diverted in other direc- 

 tions. Some of my friends at the convention 

 knowing that I hadoexpressed myself in a simi- 

 lar way thought that on page 528 of Gleanings 

 for July 15 I had changed my mind. A careful 

 reading of the article by W. K. Morrison, and 

 of the footnote in question, will convince them 

 that I did not make a "flop-over." I was at 

 first opposed to the expense on the part of the 

 government, and am yet; but our correspond- 

 ent, Mr. Morrison, has a scheme for getting 

 these bees through the influence of friends high 

 in authority, from the different governments of 

 the world. His plan is, in a word, to secure the 

 cooperation of leading scientists, men of means, 

 steamship companies, and diplomats, of the 

 world. Financial aid from this country he con- 

 siders out of the question. 



honey to sour when it is put Into the combs so 

 rapidly;" and " the other and perhaps most se- 

 rious objection is that one can never secure as 

 delicate and friable comb in this way as he caij 

 when the bees build the comb as they store the 

 honey." As to the first objection, I can not see 

 why that would not apply with equal force to 

 honey stored in extracting-combs. I have al- 

 ways supposed that liquid honey from Missouri 

 was as good as that from any other locality. If 

 it is not, then Mr. Abbott's objection has force 

 only in his State or locality. As to the second 

 objection, those of us who have advocated the 

 use of drawn combs, or, rather, called attention 

 to the advantage that would accrue from their 

 use, have had reference, nottofiill-dejith combs, 

 but to comh leveled, down with the B. Taylor 

 leveler — at least, that was what I meant. This 

 would make the cells anywhere from -/jto 3€ in. 

 deep. I believe it is generally admitted that 

 unfinished sections of full depth, when filled 

 with honey the second time, and capped over, 

 do not make first-class comb honey. B. Tay- 

 lor's idea was, as I tried to point out, to level 

 these combs down to a point where bees would 

 have to rebuild and at most leave only the 

 base or septum and a part of the original cell- 

 wall as made the year previous. Such rebuilt 

 comb is as "delicate and friable" as any. I 

 have seen and sampled just such comb honey, 

 and it is fully equal to any drawn out frona 

 foundation that I ever saw; therefore I do not 

 see that either one of Mr. Abbott's objections 

 stands in the way of the drawn combs that I 

 referred to at least. 



" THE USE OF DRAWN COMBS ; SOME DRAW- 

 BACKS." 



In an article under this heading in the ^mc?'- 

 ican Bee Journal, Mr. E. T. Abbott, the writ- 

 er, says: " There are two drawbacks in the use 

 of drawn comb, which, in my opinion, can nev- 

 er be overcome. One of these is the tendency of 



" HONEY AS pood; WHY IT SHOULD BE EATEN." 



A VERY interesting article bearing the above 

 caption appears in the American Bee Journal 

 for Oct. 8, by Prof. A. J. Cook. After discuss- 

 ing the various kinds of foods necessary to make 

 life and health, the professor speaks of the 

 marked difference in the physiological effects of 

 cane sugar and honey. " Until a comparative- 

 ly recent date," he says, "cane sugar was un- 

 known, if we except maple sugar. . . . Thus 

 in the olden time honey formed almost the ex- 

 clusive sugar. ... I have been told by some 

 excellent physicians that they thought some of 

 the worst diseases of modern times, especially 

 Bright's disease of the kidneys, were more prev- 

 alent than formerly, and they thought it due to 

 the large consumption of cane sugar, which 

 was all unknown in the long ago. . . . The 

 digestion of food is simply to render it osmotic, 

 or capable of being taken through anorganic 

 membrane — capable of being absorbed. We 

 eat starch. It is non-osmotic, and would lie in 

 the stomach and intestines indefinitely, except 

 that by digestion it is changed to a glucose like 

 sugar. . . . Cane sugar, though somewhat 

 osmotic, is not readily absorbed." Then he goes 

 on to show that nectar is digested or transform- 

 ed by the bees, making it what we call honey. 



