I^e $ee-Keepeps' jHev^iecu, 



A MONTHLY JOURNAL 



Devoted to tl^e Interests of Hoqey Producers. 



$1,00 A YEAR. 



W, Z. HOTCHlNSOfl, EditoP & PPop. 



VOL V. FLINT, MICHIGAN, APRIL 10. 1892. 



NO. 4. 



Mr. Hasty, the Keview, and Their Critics. 



WM, F. OLAKKE. 



" For one slight trespass all this stir ? 

 What if he did ride whip and spur ? 

 'Twas but a mile, your favorite horse 

 Will never look a hair the worse." 



T READ Mr. 

 1 Hasty's sugar- 

 honey article in 

 the Dec. No. of 

 the Review with 

 much interest, as 

 I do everything 

 that proceeds 

 from his facile 

 pen, and detect- 

 ed in it nothing 

 "outof the way." 

 Hence I was at 

 once amazed and amused at the furious on- 

 slaught of criticism which assailed him in 

 the February issue. I supposed all advanced 

 bee keepers had got beyond the teaching 

 embodied in that juvenile ditty of Dr. Watts 

 which we so often hear alluded to, usually 

 more in jest than in earnest : — 



" How doth the little busy bee 



Improve the shining hour. 



And gather honey all the day 



From every opening flower." 



I never dreampt for a moment that such 



masters of the art of honey production as 



Dr. Miller and H. R, Boardman clung to the 



nursery idea that bees "gather honey." 



Hasty is undoubtedly right in maintaining 



that the bee is a manufacturer, and that the 



nectar extracted from the flowers is the raw 

 material which is converted into honey by 

 some mysterious process that goes on in that 

 wonderful laboratory, the bee stomach. I 

 believe also that he is quite correct in the 

 view that the change from crude and often 

 insipid nectar to luscious honey takes place 

 during transit from the flower to the hive, 

 and that the honey flavor is somehow or 

 other "caught on the fly." Chemistry in- 

 forms us that honey is very similar in its 

 properties to sugar. They differ simply in 

 the qualities imparted during passage 

 through the bee-stomach. The difference is 

 very considerable, as I know by sad expe- 

 rience. I can eat sugar freely, whether 

 maple, loaf, muscovado or granulated, and I 

 want my cup of tea very sweet ; but I cannot 

 eat or drink honey. A cup of tea sweetened 

 with honey would sicken me. I do not for a 

 moment doubt that honey made by the bees 

 from sugar-syrup is as truly honey as that 

 made by them from the nectar of flowers. 

 Nor can I see that there would be anything 

 dishonest or partaking of the character of 

 adulteration in putting sugar-honey on the 

 market distinctly labelled as such. Whether 

 it will pay to produce honey in this way is 

 another question, but I must contend that 

 there is a legitimate field for experiment 

 opened up by Mr. Hasty's article. I am in- 

 clined to think that to pay four cents a 

 pound for the raw material, and then deduct 

 the cost of waste in the process of transmu- 

 tation, would take the gold off the ginger- 

 bread. Moreover, I do not know how the 

 bee keeper could feed his bees with sugar- 



