1891 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



15 



why cane sugar must be digested before it pass- 

 es to the blood. Liver sugar is like glucose in 

 this respect. It is formed in the livei'. and is 

 probably just adapted for use or assimilation. 

 The glucose, or grape sugar of the glucose- 

 factories, is chemically the same — that is. all 

 have this formula: L\ Hi-, (),;. Yet I think this 

 corn or starch glucose is not the same, else why 

 do bees dislike it, even at its best, and why is it 

 fatal as a winter food, when honey or digested 

 cane sugai- is perfectly wholesome? It might 

 seem that the chemical composition would 

 alone determine the character of such sub- 

 stances; but this is not the truth. Thus, fruit 

 sugar, the most abundant sugar of honey, and 

 dextrose, the sugar of starch, have the same 

 chemical composition: yet one turns the polar- 

 ized ray to the left, and the other to the right. 

 All the glucose siigars are identical in chemical 

 composition: vet. as we have seen, they are 

 physiologicallj' quite different. We see the 

 same truth illustrated in starch, dextrine, and 

 glycogen. They have the same chemical com- 

 position— Cg Hio O5: yet starch is insoluble in 

 cold water, and gives a blue color with iodine: 

 dextrine gives a brown, or purple color, with 

 iodine, while glycogen, or liver starch, is soluble 

 in cold water, and gives a brown color with 

 iodine. While chemical composition is a sure 

 test of inorganic compounds, it is not so with 

 organic. 



Thus we conclude, so far as we now know, 

 that all cane sugar, of whatever origin, beets, 

 cane, maple, or flowers, is the same, but that 

 the glucoses, or grape sugars, though chemical- 

 ly alike, are not so. I think we may further 

 add. that glucose, when of organic origin, like 

 honey, liver sugar, and digested cane sugar, 

 from any source, is easier of absoi'ption, and a 

 safer food than is starch, glucose, or cane sugar. 

 While this last may not be positively proved, it 

 is certainly a reasonable conclusion from the 

 facts as explained above. 



THE NATUHE OF A SOI.UTIOX. 



One of the brightest bee-keepers of our 

 country asks me if the centrifugal machines that 

 are so effective in separating milk from cream 

 might not be utilized in the separation of water 

 from thin honey. Our friend, though an ex- 

 pert in all that pertains to practical apiculture, 

 is (nidently not informed as to the true nature of a 

 solution. The reason that the centrifugal ma- 

 chine s<*parates milk from cream is due wholly 

 to the different specific gravity of the two. The 

 same fact causes the lighter cream to I'ise to tlie 

 top and leave the heavier milk b(>low. In a 

 solution the soluble substance is held by the 

 water or other liquid, and all is liquid, and uni- 

 form in weight, except that the liquid is more 

 than saturated — that is, it contains more of the 

 substance than it can dissolve, and l)oth will re- 

 main intimately combined indefinitely. The 

 wat(M' or liquid will not rise to the top. For the 

 same reason a centrifugal machine would be 

 powei-less to separate the liquid from the sub- 

 stance in solution. The sugar that settles at 

 the bottom of the ciip of coffee does so only be- 

 cause so much was added that it could not all 

 be dissolved. 



A liquid will hold only so much of any special 

 substance in solution. If then the liquid is sat- 

 urated, and we in any way reduce its quantity, 

 we shall secure the substance previously held 

 in solution. Boiling drives off a liquid as steam: 

 hence by heat we thicken our honey or secure 

 sugar from its solutions. liy freezing we can 

 also separate a liquid from the substance it 

 holds in solution, as every boy who has worked 

 in a maple-svTgar bush well knows. Thus, to 

 reduce our thin honey we have only to api)ly 

 lieat. If this latter is mild, we can thicken the 



honey iust as well as it can be done by the bees 

 in the hive. A. J. Cook. 



Agricultural College. Mich., Dec. 1.5. 



[Friend C, I am afraid you are getting in a 

 good deal of chemistry for a good many of our 

 readers. You have, however, brought out sev- 

 eral valuable truths. First, we do not want 

 maple sugar refined like beet and cane sugar, 

 for then it would be worth no more. The ma- 

 ple aroma must be kept. Beet sugar and cane 

 sugar are exactly alike because they are chemi- 

 cally pure sugar. Usually it costs a good deal 

 of money to get any substance chemically pure. 

 Even common water, when it is wanted chemi- 

 cally pure, is expensive. Since, however, the 

 demand is so great for pure sugar, it is done on 

 such a large scale by such expensive apparatus 

 that the cost, after centuries of experiment, has 

 become only very trifling, per pound. Water 

 from wells and springs is never chemically pure, 

 and seldom anywhere near it. Even rain wa- 

 ter contains moi'e or less foreign substances. 



Since you have suggested it, I feel quite cer- 

 tain that sojnc hinds of honey might be im- 

 proved by the centrifugal machine. A good 

 many of us have seen honey that was thin and 

 watery on top. and thick and heavy at the bot- 

 tom. "We have used it, by drawing off from the 

 bottom until it became too thin, and then 

 evaporating what remained. Perhaps a cen- 

 trifugal machine would not be of much advan- 

 tage after all over gravity in the ordinary way.] 



ABOUT GETTING OUT BEESWAX. 



FRIEND FKANfE GIVES TS SOME VAI-UAHLE 



SU<;(iESTI()XS IN WORKING WAX ON A 



LARGE SCALE. 



F^or several yeai'S I have used a large iron 

 kettle in which to melt up old combs, scraps of 

 wax material. capi)ings, etc. But I have been 

 verv much dissatisfied with the locks of the 

 wax. It was too dark in color. I studied over 

 the matter a long while, to find out where the 

 trouble was. I thought pei'haps that I burned 

 the wax. as the kettle was hung so the blaze 

 from the fire canu^ np all around the sides of it. 

 The wax could c^asily be burned on the sides of 

 the kettle above the water. I was always care- 

 ful about having my fire small, and well under 

 the kettle, to guard against burning on the sides. 

 But, do the best I could, I think sometimes the 

 wax got scorched some. But I found out that 

 there was another I'eason why the wax was 

 dark. 



Last spring I thought I could spare some 300 

 lbs. of wax. and sold it to Dadant. He said to 

 me, after he got the wax, that it could be a good 

 deal nicer. Now, I did not like that kind of talk 

 about my wax— not because it was not a fact, 

 but because I did not know how to do any bet- 

 ter: so I wrote back to Mr. Dadant for informa- 

 tion how to go to work to make a first-class 

 article of wax. I askt^d if a solar wax-extractor 

 was what I wanted, etc. He wrote me that the 

 solar wax-extractor was not what we wanted. 

 He said it was too slow for the amount of work 

 we had to do. but advised me to get a copper 

 boiler made. He gave the dimensions of a 

 boiler that he thought would be about right. It 

 would cost, he said, six or eight dollars, and 

 would last a lifetime. I went through our hard- 

 ware stores to see what I could do. First. I 

 bought a second-hand stove— a very large, flat- 

 topped one. costing .«().0(). Then I found two 

 sheets of tin. verv heavy, and sent off for copper 

 to make the bottom. I had a boiler made. 

 36x','4 inches, and 22 inches deep, with a good 

 cover. It cost »1.'5.00. and weighed, empty, over 



