1902 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



283 



among- bee-keepers " to address in a scien- 

 tific manner a body of bee-lieeping- readers. 

 Quite on the contrary, I regard bee-keepers 

 as a class of more than averag^e intelligence 

 and scientific reading-. 



If, as would seem from the tenor of the 

 second article, neighbor Morrison is con- 

 tending for the superior quality and sweet- 

 ness of unrefined cane sugar over unrefined 

 sugar from beets, then I have nothing- to 

 say against it; but since, when one speaks 

 of sugar, pure sugar, that is, refined sugar, 

 is meant and understood, 1 very naturally 

 thought from his first article that he meant 

 to contend that there is a specific difl^erence 

 between sugar from cane and sugar from 

 beets, a notion which I have found to be 

 quite commonly though incorrectly held, by 

 reason of ignorance in regard to the com- 

 position of sugar, and, indeed, to the whole 

 matter of sugar, as to production, processes 

 of manufacture, sources, distribution, con- 

 sumption, etc. This question was ver3' 

 frequently brought up by visitors to the su- 

 gar exhibits at the Pan-American Expo- 

 sition, and was answered by the cane-su- 

 gar experts exactly the same as it was b}' 

 me. Mr. R. Glenk, chemist of the Audu- 

 bon Park Sugar Experiment Station, Au- 

 dubon Park, Louisiana, who was in charge 

 of the Louisiana State Exhibit, was in per- 

 fect accord with my views. But, if neigh- 

 bor Morrison is arguing simply in regard 

 to unrefined sugars — why, he and I are also 

 in perfect agreement, hence no call for a 

 second article from either of us. And yet 

 he says, "Mr. A. I. Root says we should 

 use none but pure sugar. This is unkind. 

 I never suggested the use of impure sug-ar . ' ' 

 But what is pure sugar if not pure sugar? 

 C rtainly a mixture, though a natural one, 

 of twenty per cent grape sugar, a certain 

 per cent of mineral salts, and a certain per 

 cent of cane sugar, is not pure sugar, though 

 it be purely a product of cane, any more 

 than a certain per cent of mineral salts 

 naturally combined with a certain per cent 

 of cane sugar would be pure sugar, though 

 purely a product of the beet. I certainly 

 should not call this latter a pure sugar, and 

 1 think no one else would. 



Valley, Neb. Mklvin R. Gilmoke. 



[Mr. Morrison replies:] 



Mr. Root: — "The proof of the pudding 

 is in the eating." Mr. Gilmore and I 

 must agree to disagree. He is talking 

 about sugar as a chemist, not as an epicure 

 nor a bee-keeper. In Europe, the land of 

 beet sugar, the bee-keepers have long since 

 decided to use cane sugar — not what a chem- 

 ist calls cane sugar, but the real simon-pure 

 article, extracted from the cane-plant. It 

 is a />Mr6' sugar from the consumer's point 

 of view, and is good enough for the tables 

 of the richest in the land. It commands 

 the highest inarket price, and is preferred 

 by epicures who put flavor before appear- 

 ance. From the experiments of Dr. Planta, 

 a gre'it chemist, as well as many "tiiois 

 less distinguished, it has been proved that 



a highly refined chemically pure sugar is 

 not good for bees; and when we recollect 

 that honey is quite a difterent thing entire- 

 ly it follows that the bees are compelled to 

 digest what their internal organs are not 

 adapted for. We know that, after passing 

 through the organs of the bee, common su- 

 gar is partially converted into glucose. If 

 extracted and fed again, it is still further 

 converted into glucose, and the process may 

 be continued till it is all converted into glu- 

 cose. Such a process is a great strain on 

 the bees, and we bee-keepers should try to 

 avoid this by using the best sugar possible 

 for the purpose. The presence of albumin- 

 oids, amides, gums, salts, etc., all conduces 

 to the health of the bees, showing that their 

 constitution somewhat resembles humans in 

 its rebelling ag-ainst chemically pure foods. 

 And while honey is set down by chemists 

 as glucose, and nothing else, it is not so in 

 actual practice. A good many kinds of 

 honey contain cane sugar in small quanti- 

 ties, also albuminoids, gums, oils, wax, 

 amides, salts, etc., so that there is a great 

 difference between glucose and honejs 

 though both are alike according to the chem- 

 ists. We may be allowed to paraphrase 

 the saj'ing of Pontius Pilate with regard 

 to truth, and ask, "What is honey?" and, 

 going a step further, say, "What is sugar?" 

 Here let me say again that that English 

 grocer made the very same plea that Mr. 

 Gilmore makes; namely, that beet sugar is 

 cane sugar, and so it is — to a chemist. 



What little I know about chemical science 

 I owe to one of the great Meyer family, of 

 Germany — surely a name to conjure by, Mr. 

 Gilmore will admit ; and I believe, from 

 what he taught me, we are still far from 

 understanding the sugar question. 



Prof. Armsby hits it oft' far better than I 

 can do, in his "Manual of Cattle-feeding," 

 page 44, where he states, in speaking of 

 the sugars: "They all resemble in a gen- 

 eral waj^ cane sugar in their properties, 

 though they are by no means identical.'' 

 (The italics mine.) Surely my opponent 

 will admit that Mr. Armsby is a very high 

 authority, more particularly as he is follow- 

 ing in the footsteps of a very great German 

 authority, Mr. Wolft". Following the same 

 authority, and also that of Prof. Henry, in 

 his "Feeds and Feeding," Mr. Gilmore 

 will find that the presence of extraneous 

 inatter in food is a help to digestion. One 

 that is familiar to manj^ is that of Graham 

 versus fine bolted flour. Another instance 

 that is familiar to cattle-feeders is that of 

 corn meal versus corn and cob meal. Both 

 are equal as regards feeding value, though 

 the corn and cob meal is much inferior, 

 chemically speaking. 



I know there are some who believe that 

 the future man will live on pure concentrat- 

 ed extracts and the like, but they haven't a 

 leg to stand on. Persons who try that sort 

 of thing get dyspepsia, and so do bees. Na- 

 ture rebels against it. 



When living on the eastern shore of Mary- 

 land I worked tor three different canning- 



