THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



57 



the Bee-Keepers' Review, for reasons 

 not clearly apparent to the g-eneral 

 public, but perfectly clear to those of 

 us who remember that he v\ as once 

 an enthusiastic advocate of what was 

 then wrong-ly called "sugar honey," 

 seems to be unduly troubled over what 

 he is pleased to call "reckless asser- 

 tions." The last number of the Re- 

 view contains quite an editorial on the 

 subject, which evidently was intended 

 as a fling- at the editor of the Modern 

 Farmer. However, we are not greatly 

 troubled about it, as this is not the 

 first reckless "fling" that has come 

 from the same source. As the thrusts 

 have acted as a boomerang, and have 

 injured the flinger more than they have 

 any one else, we would pass this one by 

 if it did not mean so much, and if we 

 did not fear that the public might not 

 see clearly the real facts in the case, 

 and thus an injur3r inight be done to 

 our industry. We have asserted a 

 number of times, and we assert again, 

 that sugar syrup fed to bees and stored 

 in the combs is not honey, and bears 

 no more relation to the honey pro- 

 duced by bees from the nectar gather- 

 ed from flowers and stored in the 

 combs, than charcoal or graphite does 

 to a diamond, and we defy the editor of 

 the Review to controvert this asser- 

 tion. A young chemical student who 

 has only learned things from the stand- 

 point of chemistry might say that char- 

 coal or the pencil we write with is the 

 same as a diamond, but the most veri- 

 table ignoramus in the land would not 

 exchange the diamond for charcoal, or 

 claim that he could manufacture a dia- 

 mond out of powdered charcoal by mix- 

 ing it with paste. The substances are 

 identical from a chemical standpoint, 

 but men cannot make diamonds be- 

 cause there is lacking a certain "vital 

 energy" which makes things what 

 they are and differentiates them from 

 all other things in the making. Dr. 

 Wiley has never said that sugar syrup 

 stored in the combs by bees becomes 

 honey, as one might infer from the 

 article. Editor Hutchinson'stalk about 

 the "positive knowledge of scientists" 

 is mere rot, and there is nothing in it. 

 No scientist has any "positive knowl- 

 edge" that bees can store sugar syrup 

 in the combs, and in the process make 

 honey out of it, and the sooner editors 

 stop talking that kind of nonsense the 

 better it will be for our industry. That 

 bees make some chemical changes in 

 the nectar of flowers before, or after 

 it is stored in the combs, no one denies, 



but none of the learned gentlemen 

 whose names appear in the article 

 referred to know exactly beyond a 

 doubt just what this change is, and 

 exactly how it is made. Professor 

 Cook has theorized as to how it is done, 

 but the late Prof. Cheshire, who was 

 equally as well equipped as Prof. 

 Cook, and from whom Prof. Cook got a 

 good many hints, if nothing more, on 

 the subject of bees and honey, said that 

 it is not that way at all. So there you 

 are ! and we shall go on saying that 

 bees do not, and cannot, make "honey" 

 out of sugar syrup. 



Although probably not so intended, 

 the title to the foregoing is misleading. 

 No one ha.s said that "sugar syrup is 

 honey." The point is just this: When 

 bees handle cane sugar (and it makes 

 no difference where the sugar comes 

 from, the sugar barrel or the nectar of 

 flowers) they change the cane sugar to 

 grape sugar, or to be more exact, into 

 a mixture of dextrose and levulose. 

 This same change takes place when we 

 eat cane sugar. The saliva changes the 

 cane sugar into grape sugar. This is 

 the first step in the direction of digest- 

 ing cane sugar, hence, in eating honey 

 instead of cane sugar, the system is 

 saved from the taking of this step. 

 Bro. Abbott admits that "bees make 

 some chemical changes in the nectar of 

 flowers before, or after it is stored in 

 the combs. " Then why deny that they 

 make similar changes in sugar syrup 

 in handling it ? Perhaps I have mis- 

 understood Bro. Abbott. Perhaps he 

 does not intend to den}' that the bees 

 make this change, but, after the change 

 has been made, he thinks the product 

 is not honey. Perhaps that is his 

 ground. If so, then I can only say this 

 this is a point upon which good men 

 differ. 



I am surprised to see Mr. Abbott 

 say that Prof. Cook and Mr. Frank 

 Cheshire differ regarding the manner 

 in which bees effect this chemical 

 change. Prof. Cook, in speaking of 

 this change, says "it is doubtless ac- 

 complished through the aid of the saliva 



— that from the racemose glands of the 



