18i>4 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



63 



It is sufficient to say, that wf- have n our pos- 

 session the affidavits and the report, also bear- 

 ing the seal of .Minnesota, together with a lot of 

 other correspondence to the same effect, from 

 various parties. The General Manager of the 

 Union, and al.so the P^ood Commissioners of 

 Minnesota, have the matter in hand, and no 

 doubt they will make things a little interesting 

 — for somebody. 



SIMI'LK MKTIIUDS OF KKTEfTIXG GLUCOSE IX 

 HONEV. 



Ox page 810 of the American Bee Journal 

 for Dec. 28 is an inquiry from a subscriber ask- 

 ing whether there is any simple way of testing 

 :^.\tracted honey to lind out whether it is mixed 

 with any thing besides honey. The writer 

 :hen goe^ on to say that he saw an item in a 

 ocal paper, to the effect that glucose could be 

 ecognized in honey by the use of alcohol. In 

 •eply, the editor says he does not know of any 

 lasy way that such tests can be made, and, 

 noreover, doubts whether there are any relia- 

 jle simple t«sts. However, he sent the recipe 



one of the veteran bee-keepers, who, after 

 ntroducing four limes the bulk of alcohol into 



1 certain quantity of honey of known purity. 

 ind shaking it thoroughly, as directed, says: 



"The only result that I can see is, that the 

 ilcohol looks a little milky. The honey all 

 itays at the bottom. According to that test, I 

 lave never produced a pound of pure honey in 

 ny life." 



The italics in the quotation above are ours. 

 ind we shall refer to it further on. 



On page 103 of Gleaxixgs for Feb. 1, 1SH3, it 

 vill be remembered that we spoiceof a test that 

 vas made at a Michigan State bee-keepers' 

 '.onvention, by Prof. Cook, who himself intro- 

 luced varying quantities of glucose into some 

 samples of pure e.xtracled honey. No one but 

 limself knew the proportions. A testing com- 

 nittee was appointed, to see how nearly they 

 ;ould determine the relative amount of glucose 

 n each by the Uiste. The report shows that 

 he committee, while unable to give the exact 

 )roportions of honey and glucose, detected the 

 'doctored " samples unerringly, and were close 

 ■nough to say that one sample contained more 

 ban another. The report of this appeared on 

 jage .%. Vol. XXXI., of the American Bee 

 Journal. 



Wishing at the time to disprove or corrob- 

 trate. as the case might be, this experiment, we 

 |Old our apiarist to adulterate several samples 

 >f pure honey, each sample to have a different 

 troportion of glucose. The samples were num- 

 j)ered. and he only was to know the proportions. 

 Irhe writer and Mr. W. P. Root, our stenog- 

 lapher. were the testing committee; and, as 

 ye reported at the time on page 103, we were 

 .ble to detect each glucosed sample, without a 

 ingle mistake; and not only that, we gave 

 ■ery correctly the comparative amounts of 



glucose In each sample. The point we wished 

 to make was. that gluco.se could be readily de- 

 tected by the taste; that no experienced honey- 

 buyer should be deceived in the goods he was 

 buying. 



On page •>'>'> of our issue for April 1 appeared 

 an extract from the Bienen- I'ater, which told 

 how to detect various adulterations in honey. 

 Among them was a simple recipe for detecting 

 glucose by alcohol in extracted honey. It is as 

 follows: 



Take a tablespounful of honey to be tested; puur 

 it into a small bottle, and llien add three spoonfuls 

 of pure spirit, and shake the whole together thor- 

 oughly. In about a quarter of an hour there wiil 

 form in the bottle a cloudy, whitish sediment; and 

 from this one may be sure the honey is adulterated. 



On page 2"> of the same issue, April 1, we re- 

 lated having tested samples of glucosed honey; 

 and the result was, we detected every doctored 

 sample. 



■'Now," we quote, "to make sure the test 

 was reliable, we also procured a sample of bass- 

 wood honey that we knew to be pure 



On putting the honey to the test, the alcohol 

 had no perceptible influence on it, and the 

 honey remained as clear and limpid as before." 



Ob.serve the italics we put in this time. You 

 will notice at the outset, that " Veteran Bee- 

 keeper," who made the test for the American 

 Bee Journal, says that the only result that he 

 could see was that the alcohol looked a little 

 milky. When the test is correctly made, as 

 given in the quotation from the Bienen- Vater, 

 glucosed samples will show that the honey, 

 when glucosed, is perceptibly cloudy according 

 to the amount of adulterant. On samples of 

 pure honey, the alcohol has no effect, but rises 

 to the top, and looks a little milky, just as 

 "Veteran Bee-keeper" says; but this is no 

 evidence that the honey is impure. He did 

 not go far enough in his experiments, because 

 he tried only jnire honey. Had he also Ir-ied 

 several samples of (jlucosed honey he would 

 have soou noted a marked difference. 



We do not call attention to these matters by 

 way of correction, to find fault with that ex- 

 cellent bee-periodical, the American Bee Jour- 

 nal. We simply desire to show that their 

 "Veteran Bee-keeper " did not make the test 

 Hufflclently thxyrowjli, and that he did not read 

 the result correctly. In the second place, if 

 there are simple and reliable tests for detecting 

 glucose in honey, we must not let the impres- 

 sion get abroad among the would-be adulter- 

 ators that there are no such tests, because 

 they will use it as a screen. In fact, we have 

 known them to say that they could adulterate 

 if they wanted to, for there were no means of 

 detecting the adulteration. They are mistaken. 

 If they knew that there are simple tests by 

 which we can follow them up and make it lu)t 

 for them, they will be a little cautious before 

 they attempt such a business. 



