136 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



ingthe test "sufficiently thorough," and 

 not reading the result correctly. To this 

 last charge " Veteran " has replied, and 

 after reading his defense it will be in order 

 for the editor of Olean'mgs to show what 

 should be done to make the test " suffldently 

 thorough,'" and to show wherein he did not 

 read the result correctly. 



It will be a real pleasure for us to say 

 that there is an easy way of detecting adul- 

 teration, and the time for that to be said 

 seems coming nearer all the time, but when 

 that reply was penned, we must be frank to 

 say that we did not know the time was 

 here yet. Perhaps we didn't know, and 

 were culpable for our ignorance, but we 

 think there's a good bit of excuse for it. If 

 we are told that the test given in Gleanings, 

 as taken from the Bienen- Vater, is simple 

 and easy, we reply that, as given in Glean- 

 ings, that test is only for glucose, and glu- 

 cose is not the only adulterant of honey. 



Gleanings quotes tests of honey by the 

 taste. We think it would be somewhat 

 difficult for us to have given printed in- 

 structions to our Minnesota correspondent 

 whereby he could easily tell by tasting 

 whether honey was pure or not. Moreover, 

 does that tasting test pretend to detect 

 whether honey is adulterated with any- 

 thing but glucose ? And how many are 

 provided with the right taste to make it 

 called an easy test ? 



Will the editor of Gleauings kindly look at 

 Gleanings, page 62, at the same opening 

 as the one where he takes us to task ? Look 

 at the test of honey given there, with its 

 polarization direct and indirect, dextrose, 

 sucrose, etc. If one out of fifty of his 

 readers can make out what it's all about, 

 we'll own up that the thing is easier than 

 we supposed. And if there is a simple and 

 easy way, why go through all the rigma- 

 role ? 



Now, Bro. Root, for once we want you 

 to come out ahead. So just give us the 

 easy formula to send to that Minnesota 

 man, and see how quickly we'll print it. 



In the first paragraph of this editorial we 

 refer to a reply received from the veteran 

 bee-keeper who made the test for us. Here 

 is what he says about Bro. Root's criticism: 



Friend York: — On page 63 of Gleanings 

 for Jan. 15th, the editor calls attention to a 

 matter on page 810 of the Bee Journal for 

 Dec. 28, 1898, with the intention to correct 

 supposed errors. I am sure he did it with 

 the best spirit, and in the interest of truth. 



I am also sure he will be glad to see a reply 

 given in the same spirit. I think the whole 

 trouble comes from the fact that the editor 

 of Gleanings, careful and reliable as he 

 usually is, in this case is talking about 

 something quite different from the matter 

 in hand. I think also that I can readily 

 see how the mistake might occur. An alco- 

 hol test printed in German was sent to the 

 Bee Journal by M. R. of Minnesota. Each 

 of the tests directed that alcohol and honey 

 should be well shaken in a bottle. Being a 

 very busy man. he probably took it for 

 granted that the tests were the same with- 

 out looking farther, a mistake that a busy 

 man might easily make, and for which the 

 editor of the " Old Reliable " hardly ought 

 to hold him responsible. I am thus partic- 

 ular to try to explain how the mistaken 

 might come, so that when at the next con- 

 vention these two worthies shall be sitting 

 on the same chair we may be spared the sad 

 spectacle of seeing the editor of said " Old," 

 etc., pushing the editor of the other period- 

 ical off on the floor. 



Gleanings says that the veteran bee-keeper 

 " did not make the test sufficiently thor- 

 ough, and that he did not read the result 

 correctly." To both of these charges I 

 plead not guilty. To make him change his 

 judgment in the matter, I think it is only 

 necessary that I shall put side by side the 

 two tests. The first part of each is practi- 

 cally the same. So I'll only give the parts 

 that come after sbaking the alcohol and 

 honey together. As given in Gleanings, the 

 test reads thus : 



"In about a quarter of an hour there- 

 will form in the bottle a cloudy, whitish 

 sediment; and from this, one may be sure 

 the honey is adulterated." 



The test I had to do with, as given on 

 page 81,0 of the Bee Journal, reads: 



" Put in a bottle and shake the whole 

 well, and if no sediment goes to the bottom 

 of the bottle, it is pure honey, for pure- 

 honey would all dissolve in alcohol, and no 

 sediment would settle to the bottom of the. 

 bottle if it was pure honey." 



If I understand this last correctly, there- 

 should be no precipitation whatever, " for 

 pure honey would all dissolve in alcohol." 

 I followed directions implicitly, only taking 

 more alcohol, and instead of the honey be- 

 ing all dissolved, it was all thrown to the 

 bottom as a sediment. According to the 

 test the honey was adulterated. I k)mv it 

 was pure. That clearly showed that the 

 test was unreliable. What need had I to 

 go further ? 



I think I will rest the case at this point, 

 and leave the editor to own up there are 

 easy and simple tests for adulteration, for 

 fear he gets shoved off on the floor. 



'Veteran^ 



"Veteran" needn't fear that the two 

 editors he refers to will be shoving each 

 other off that chair. Why, bless his dear 

 heart, Bro. Root and this editor don't " fall 

 out " or " fall off " as easily as that. Each 

 of us is only too glad to receive sincere and. 

 friendly criticism from the other. 



