404 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



June 1. 



the best of excluders if she tries? To say that 

 a queen doesn't go up into a .^uper through an 

 excluder proves nothing. Generally she doesn't 

 wan't to go up. and wouldn't go up anyway. 

 But put the brood above and all empty combs 

 below, will the queen stay down? I think with 

 the right kind of excluder she will, but I don't 

 know for certain. 



Hutchinson is a philosopher. He says it 

 makes no difference whether you charge a high 

 price for the bee-keeper's time, or charge a low- 

 price and make a big profit; that in either case 

 just the same amount of money goes into the 

 bee-keeper's pocket. And he's clearly right, 

 and it sometimes makes a difference how a 

 thing is put. Proclaim to the world that the 

 price received for honey is nearly all profit, and 

 don't you think it will have more tendency to 

 bring down the price of honey than to say that 

 the bee-keeper gets no more than fair pay for 

 his time ? 



PROF. H. "W. 'WILEY'S REPORT ON HONEY 

 ADULTERATION. 



PROF. COOK REVIEWS IT. 



This report, being a part of Bulletin No. 13 of 

 the Chemical Division of the Department of 

 Agriculture, which has just been issued, con- 

 tains much that is of exceeding interest to bee- 

 keepers. It is not altogether conclusive, and 

 makes it exceedingly desirable that we should 

 have a large number of analyses from reliable 

 chemists, of honey of all kinds, procured in such 

 a way that there can be no possible doubt as to 

 the purity of the article. I am quite of the 

 opinion that such analyses would modify the 

 views of many of our very best chemists. Hon- 

 ey comes from so many and such varied sources 

 that it must vary greatly in its nature and 

 composition; and I very strongly believe that 

 our chemists are not fully conversant with all 

 the facts. 



Regarding Prof. H. W. Wiley, let me say that 

 his character as a man and a chemist ranks 

 very high with those who know him most in- 

 timately, and are best qualified to judge. That 

 he made a terribly mischievous error in his 

 Popular Science Monthly article regarding the 

 manufacture and sale of artificial comb honey, 

 there can be no question. That he made a still 

 more unfortunate mistake in not frankly ac- 

 knowledging his error, and at once correcting 

 it when his attention was called to the matter, 

 and the truth pointed out and demonstrated, is 

 also beyond question. His "scientific pleas- 

 antry "was an awkward excuse, unworthy of 

 the scientist and the man. Yet many another 

 good man finds it hard to retract an unwise or 

 incorrect statement, or to gracefully acknowl- 

 edge, even when convinced, that he has been 

 led into erroi*. 



Prof. Wiley's first mistake was in publishing 

 as fact that which was only rumor, and which 

 he had taken no pains to verify. Had he avoid- 

 ed that mistake he would have been saved all 

 the others. It seems to me that, in this last 

 report, he may be repeating this mistake. 



On page 744 he speaks of temptations which 

 the manufacturer, producer, and dealer have 

 not been able to withstand. That manufac- 

 turers and wholesale dealers have and do adul- 

 terate honey to a large extent, I think is true 

 beyond dispute. That producers do this, I do 

 not believe, and I have investigated the matter 

 quite fully. That they do not do it is not that 

 they are all exceptionally honest, but they are 

 not up to such work, and are not skilled in such 



business. TJiey are producers, not munufac- 

 turers. 



Again, bee-keepers are" generally well read, 

 especially any who would be led to such work, 

 and our bee-papers are loud in denunciation of 

 adulteration, and so all bee-keepers know that, 

 to be discovered as adulterators, would at once 

 ruin their business. But all bee-keepers in a 

 community know each bee-keeper, and watch 

 his work and methods; hence, to engage in this 

 work extensively at all (and there would be no 

 profit in any but a wholesale business), would 

 surely bring detection. I have long been con- 

 versant with bee-keepers and their work and 

 methods, the country over, and I fully believe 

 that no one could make this profitable, and es- 

 cape detection. Again, there is now but very 

 little profit in this nefarious work — I say " ne- 

 farious," for, to sell any article for what it is 

 not, is to defraud — and so the manufacturer 

 must do a tremendous business to make it pay. 

 The real producer of honey, we know, does not 

 do this. We know his sales, and we know that 

 they are just about what the season's product 

 permits. Heioce I believe Prof. Wiley does our 

 bee-keepers a serious wrong. I have no doubt 

 that he thinks he is correct.. I am only sorry 

 that he had not studied the facts, and so known 

 whereof he affirmed. I am quite sure he has no 

 data to sustain his charge. 



A study of his tables shows that it is the 

 manufacturer, not the producer, who sells an 

 adulteration as honey. 



On page 74.5 we find, " Artificial comb honey 

 has been regarded as a possible article of com- 

 merce by many scientific men." A slip sent out 

 after the report, puts a not before '• been " in 

 this sentence. The truth is, no scientific man 

 thinks it. The thing is impossible, and has 

 never been done. A real scientist does not 

 think a thing till he studies into it and has a 

 reason for his conviction. It is unfortunate 

 that Prof. Wiley had not ended his sentence 

 with " by any scientific man.''' 



Page 745 states that •' pure honey has a slight 

 left-handed effect on the plane of polarized 

 light, less than invert cane sugar." He states 

 further, on p. 796, " By reason of the fact that 

 these five samples were right-handed they have 

 an unusual interest." These are stated as sure- 

 ly genuine. Again, p. 798. we find honey from 

 pine honey-dew with a right-handed rotation. 

 I have delicious honey from several kinds of 

 honey-dew, and some from ergot. Does Prof. 

 Wiley know but that some of this — which is 

 genuine honey — may be very strongly right- 

 handed ? Is there not room for more investiga- 

 tion? 



Again, has Prof. Wiley analyzed honey which 

 was gathered very rapidly — basswood for in- 

 stance — when the bees may gather 20 lbs. per 

 colony in a single day— to note whether, in such 

 cases, the bees may not fail to reduce the 

 sucrose of the cane sugar, and thus possibly 

 give us a genuine honey of very best quality 

 which is strongly right-handed? He says, p. 

 746. "The amount of cane sugar varies from 

 nothing to 8 to 10 per cent according to the 

 quantity of cane sugar in the nectar. a?icZ the 

 extent of inversion to which it Is subjected in 

 passing the organism of the bee. We here have 

 acknowledgment that the digestion of the nec- 

 tar — that is. the inversion of the cane sugar of 

 the nectar — varies. May not rapidly gathered 

 honey, then, like our basswood and the sage of 

 California, which is often collected with tre- 

 mendous rapidity, be stored without inversion, 

 and so be rich in cane sugar and be strongly 

 right-handed? I have good reason to think 

 this may be true. 



On p. 745 we have: " The content of water in 

 pure honey may vary from 12 to 20 per cent. It 



