?la 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW, 



So we must have the experimente, but they 

 ought not to cost so much. How shall ex- 

 pense of experiments be kept down ? For 

 one thing, make them on a smaller scale. 

 We lie awake nights thinking over some new 

 fangled notion, and we think it all out, san- 

 guine that it will be a success. But past 

 experience tells us that it is a low estimate 

 to say that in nine cases out of ten the old is 

 better than the new. Yet the very next ex- 

 periment you make, you will feel so sure 

 that this time you are on the right track that 

 instead of trying your experiment on one or 

 two colonies you will make every colony in 

 the apiary suffer. So it will keep down ex- 

 penses if we experiment on a smaller scale. 



Now I want to make a plea for doing away 

 entirely with nine-tenths of the experimen- 

 tation, yes, ninety-nine one-hundredths of 

 it, and yet at the same time have fuller, 

 fairer and more satisfaction and conclusive 

 experiments. You will understand in a 

 word what I mean, when I say that in every 

 state there should be experimental stations 

 for bee keepers just as there are now for 

 farmers. The Hatch act gives to each state 

 $15,000 to be used in aid of agriculture, and 

 if bee keepers will unite to ask for it, and 

 persist in the asking, I see no reason why a 

 reasonable share may not be devoted to 

 them. The State Society of Illinois has set 

 the example by asking an appropriation, 

 and naming our good friend, James A. 

 Green as the man to use the money. They 

 may get what they ask for, and they may 

 not. But they are not likely to get it with- 

 out asking, and if they fail to get what they 

 ask for now, they are more likely to get it 

 next time because of the past asking. 

 There will be a gain if the bee keepers of 

 each state put in their petitions. The very 

 fact that other states are asking the same 

 thing would help the Illinois men to gain 

 their point. And then the fact that Illinois 

 had won would help bee keepers of other 

 states to win. 



Let me urge, then, that every state do its 

 duty in this regard. If the state of Georgia 

 gains part of the appropriation and uses it 

 successfully in experiments, it will help the 

 bee keeper of Illinois to bring down expen- 

 ses. Each state will help all the others. 

 Bee keepers, don't be too modest. Ask, and 

 keep asking for your rights.' 



Mabengo, 111., 



Nov. 22, 1892. 



Honey is Not "Digested Nectar" Even if 



Bees Do Change Cane Sugar 



Into Honey. 



EEV. W. F. OLAKKE. 



p EOF. COOK 

 I is a very gen- 

 tle, pleasant and 

 mild mannered 

 man in private 

 intercourse and 

 convention d i s - 

 cussions, but, in 

 his scientific 

 writings, is prone 

 to be rather dog- 

 matic, and, for 

 that reason, I do 

 not like to cross lances with him. Neverthe- 

 less, I am sometimes obliged to do so, and I 

 feel this necessity laid upon me in regard to 

 his article on the nature of honey, which 

 appears in the October Review. He sets out 

 by objecting, and with good reason, to the 

 definition of honey given by the Century 

 Dictionary. He would substitute for it this: 

 " Honey is digested nectar ;" adding " Every 

 one understands that honey is the liquid 

 product of bees, which they store in cells of 

 their combs." He says "the merest child 

 and the unlettered rustic, as well as the 

 scholar, agree to this last statement. It is a 

 truism too evident for contradiction, too 

 generally recognized to require any argu- 

 ment." Well, I certainly do not agree to 

 "this last statement" that "honey is the 

 liquid product of bees ; " still less do I sub- 

 scribe to the former one, that "honey is di- 

 gested nectar." Is not honey the liquid 

 product of flowers ? Do we not know to our 

 sorrow and cost that when the flowers do 

 not yield nectar the bees cannot make 

 honey ? It seems to me it would be more 

 correct to say that honey is the nectar of 

 flowers which has undergone a process of 

 transmutation by the bees, and so been con- 

 verted into honey. 



The Professor proceeds to say: "The other 

 definition that honey is digested nectar is 

 just as true, though not so evident to the un- 

 learned." It, however, "offends the tastes 

 and sensitive notions of many good people, 

 and especially bee keepers who dread to see 

 any, even an imaginary stigma cast upon 

 their pets, or the product of the apiary. 

 Let me urge that any such statement, if 

 truth, need disgust no one." Then follows 



