18 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



it because it is wrong ? If so, then let 

 us attack it where it is doing a thousand 

 fold more harm — m cane syrups and 

 confections. If glucose contains so much 

 death-dealing damnation, what untold 

 miseries it must be causing among the 

 consumers of these two articles. Let's 

 attack it there and save the prejudice 

 that must attach to our own product 

 from our continual harping on the sub- 

 ject. 



There is one other point that I want 

 to call attention to, and that is that a 

 honey-producer with the right kind of 

 bees and appliances and management, 

 can always produce honey cheaper than 

 he can buy glucose. All this talk about 

 adulteration is the height of folly. No 

 one is practicing it except the city 

 dealers, and they do not injure us if 

 they do piece out a poor season and keep 

 up a demand that they have created. 

 One or two good seasons will stop adul- 

 teration so completely that it will 

 amount to nothing. 



James Heddon. 



Prof. Cook — Mr. Heddon may be right. 

 I have tried to get bees to take glucose, 

 and failed. I have tried mixing glucose 

 with honey, and it certainly was not 

 good. If the grades of glucose that Mr. 

 Heddon has mentioned are really whole- 

 some ; if its addition to some grades of 

 honey really improves them and aids in 

 their sale, I have said my last word 

 against adulteration. 



The Professor agreed to bring samples 

 of honey and glucose mixed, and submit 

 them to a "tasting committee," and the 

 discussion was dropped to listen to the 

 reading of au essay by W. Z. Hutchin- 

 son, on 



The Production of Sugar Honey. 



The Secretary has asked me to an- 

 swer the question. Shall we produce 

 sugar honey ? First, allow me to give a 

 brief history of the discussion that has 

 been conducted on this subject. 



About a year ago the Review asked its 

 principal contributors to say what should 

 be done if the poor years keep on com- 

 ing. When the turn came for the inimi- 

 table E. E. Hasty to speak, he said, 

 "Produce sugar honey." I knew that 

 this had been tried before, at least there 

 had been reports to that effect, but it 

 had been looked upon as adulteration. 

 It seemed strange tbat so conscientious 

 a man as Hasty should advise such a 

 course. He then went on to defend his 

 position. He said that bees do make 

 huney in the same sense that brick- 



makers make brick. The nectar of 

 flowers is almost wholly cane-sugar, 

 which the secretions of the bees change 

 to glucose, or honey. If by any artifi- 

 cial means we could gather a gallon of 

 nectar and evaporate it, the product 

 would be cane-sugar instead of honey. 

 Mr. Hasty argued that it made no differ- 

 ence whether the bees got their cane- 

 sugar from the flowers or from the sugar 

 barrel. 



I knew that bee-keepers had never 

 looked at the matter in this light, and 

 felt that the public opinion would not 

 approve, but I also knew that prejudice 

 and preconceived notions are things that 

 can be overcome, also that our greatest 

 blessings are often rejected when first 

 offered. I had frequently fed sugar for 

 winter stores, and the white combs were 

 so dainty that I had often yielded to the 

 temptation to cut out small bits and 

 taste them. When I remember the 

 smooth, oily, mucilaginous, twangy, 

 honey taste of these bits of sugar-fed 

 honey, I did not Icnow but our Hasty 

 friend was correct, and I decided to fol- 

 low the course that had always charac- 

 terized the Review, that of allowing 

 everybody to be heard, even if their 

 views were peculiar. 



The article was published. I expected 

 severe criticism, but not in the form 

 that it came. Everybody seemed to 

 jump to the conclusion that the feeding 

 of sugar was to be done with the intent 

 to deceive. Right here allow me to call 

 attention to the fact that no one seems 

 to worry for fear that basswood honey 

 will be sold for clover, or that golden- 

 rod will be palmed off for buckwheat, 

 but all feared that sugar-honey would 

 be sold for clover, or basswood. If sugar 

 fed to bees becomes honey in the fullest 

 sense of the word, then it is honey, and 

 to sell it for honey no deception. 



The criticisms that came in were pub- 

 lished, when, to my surprise, such men 

 as G. M. Doolittle, Wm. F. Clarke and 

 C. W. Dayton came to my support. 

 Their views were published, and the re- 

 sult was that red-hot letters on both 

 sides of the question came pouring in. 

 At such times men do not reason coolly, 

 and sharp, unkind, cutting remarks are 

 made, hence I thought best that the 

 matter be dropped until the first excite- 

 ment had worn away. 



In a few months Prof. Cook published 

 statements showing that chemical analy- 

 sis, a class of forty students, and the 

 best Cook that ho ever knew could not 

 detect the difference between sugar 

 honey and floral honey. It seemed a 

 good time to try to decide what honey 



