282 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 1 



bee-keepers who are experts on this subject 

 ag-ree in- stating- that the kind of sugar I 

 recommend is the best for feeding bees; and 

 Mr. Gilmore need not fall into a common 

 error in supposing there are no scientific 

 men among bee-keepers, more especially in 

 Europe. In my opinion the American bee- 

 keepers would use no other than the kind 

 of sugar I sug-g-ested, only it all goes into 

 the very capacious maws of the sugar-trust. 

 He ought to taste some of this rich honey- 

 like sugar before it is chemicalized and 

 bleached to suit the American market. In 

 the process it loses some of its most desira- 

 ble characteristics. The Californians are 

 not mistaken in using it for their fruit. 

 They have long used it, and built up a rep- 

 utation on it. Beet is often used to give a 

 contrary effect to what the Californians 

 want, which shows the latter are right in 

 their practice. 



In my article I gave an analysis of a su- 

 gar that has proved in the hands of Euro- 

 pean bee-men to be a good bee-feed; and 

 unless Mr. Gilmore is prepared to produce 

 a similar article, or better, he should cease 

 his otherwise well-meant criticisms. 



In writing my article I did not feel called 

 upon to write a dissertation on the chemis- 

 try of sugar. The readers of Gleanings 

 are mostly practical men who would not ap- 

 preciate such an article. For my part I ob- 

 ject most strenuously to chemical sugar, 

 just as I object to what the chemists call 

 pure water. I should hate also to see ma- 

 ple sugar converted into the pure cane su- 

 g-ar of the chemists, and I doubt very much 

 if any one would buy it to eat; and for sim- 

 ilar reasons it is not well to convert cane 

 sugar, healthful and pleasant as it is, into 

 a chemical sugar. Mr. A. I. Root saj's we 

 should use none but pure sugar. This is 

 unkind. I never suggested the use of im- 

 pure sugar. 



Mr. Huber Root comes nearer the truth; 

 but the sugar I mentioned does not show 

 the same analysis as beet sug^ar, hence his 

 arguments fail; and it seems odd that none 

 of my critics seem to pay the slightest at- 

 tention to the analysis of the sugar recom- 

 mended. The whole disputation hinges on 

 that. 



This question contains the very kernel of 

 the bee-keeping business; for if we once 

 admit this sort of argument, that all sugars 

 are alike, the next step would be easy — 

 namely, "honey is glucose;" in fact, this 

 is the conception that is common among 

 chemists, and which gives rise to the opin- 

 ion that many of them entertain that it 

 would be easy to make honey by synthesis. 

 No one is more willing than I to admit the 

 great value of chemical science ; but for 

 practical inen chemical theory is wholly un- 

 called for in the pages of a journal like 

 this. I can only assure your readers that 

 there are many kinds of cane sugar. If 

 they find any difficulty in getting samples 

 of them, I am ready to assist them through 

 The A. I. Root Co. 



Oct. 17. 



[Mr. Gilmore, to whom the foregoing was 

 sent, replies:] 



I have not now at hand the first article 

 bj^ W. K. Morrison on the subject of beet 

 and cane sugar, so I do not now well recall 

 his points; but it seems to ine that his main 

 controversy was that cane sugar is better 

 and sweeter than beet sugar; while I said 

 and still maintain that there is no differ- 

 ence between the two when they are refin- 

 ed. Of course, there is a difference in the 

 unrefined, just to the extent of the differ- 

 ences in the non-sugars or impurities con- 

 tained in the product. These impurities 

 may be of such a nature as to impart a 

 pleasant and desirable flavor, as in the 

 case of maple sugar, sorghum sugar, and 

 most sugar from cane, though I have seen 

 samples of sugar from cane which had a 

 rank, disagreeable odor also. On the other 

 hand, these impurities may be of a nature 

 such as to give an acrid and unpleasant 

 flavor, as in the case of sugar made from 

 beets; but removing these impurities, or re- 

 fining, leaves no difference in taste or qual- 

 ity. 



But I should not have expected an apia- 

 rist to advocate the feeding of anj' thing but 

 that form of food which would be as nearly 

 as possible entirely assimilable, leaving as 

 little as possible of residue for excretion. 

 Certainly I think that nothing but the pur- 

 est sugar obtainable would be wise to use 

 for winter feeding in our northern climate, 

 where the bees can not fly for many weeks 

 together. I believe that Mr. Root and all 

 our leading apiarists will agree with me 

 in this. 



I have tasted some of the "rich, honej'- 

 like'" South- American sugar before it is — 

 I do not say "chemicalized" — but refined, 

 and I do not say it is not pleasant to the 

 taste. I will say that I like the flavor of 

 the cane, so do I like the flavor of sorghum; 

 but that is not saying that either one would 

 be so good a food for bees ; in fact, I think 

 practical bee-men will say that the sub- 

 stances which give these flavors are detri- 

 mental to their usefulness as food for bees 

 except at a season when they can fly freelj'. 

 I do not understand what neighbor Morri- 

 son means by speaking of converting cane 

 sugar into a "chemical sugar." If he 

 means the process of refining, then I can 

 not allow that the sugar is "converted" or 

 changed, but only that the non-sugars or 

 impurities are eliminated. 



I think it is hardly fair for neighbor Mor- 

 rison to class me in the same category with 

 "the grocer who was fined so very heavily 

 by a high English court." I do not agree 

 that that grocer and I make the same plea. 

 The grocer was simply making a false pre- 

 tense, obtaining money thereby, so perpe- 

 trating fraud. This is nothing different in 

 principle from the making of imitation ma- 

 ple syrup from cane sugar by means of 

 corn-cobs, or the making of "extracted hon- 

 ey" from glucose. 



Further, I think it would be folly for me 

 if I supposed "there are no scientific men 



