18«>2 



GLEANIN(;S IN IJEE CULTURE. 



405 



is seldom as low as r.\ and docs not fii'(iii(Milly 

 (>xotM>d ".'0 iKT rcnl." On p. 7S() «(> lind tliat IS 

 sanipli's an- |ii'onoiiiu't'd impiiro licoaiisc of cx- 

 ci'ss of water. S(>V('i'al saini)l('s jravc ov(>r .'{() 

 por I'iMii. wliilo one fiavc over .'ill jicr cent. Tliis 

 stMMiis to tli(> h(>('-l<('t'i>cf lil<(' a jolo'. and siifcdy 

 eivos aiiotluT reason why wc sliould put only 

 luliy ripened honey on the market. Had Prot\ 

 Wiley consulted even a novitiate in extraoted- 

 hone> nfodiu'tion he could have learned that, 

 since tlic lione\ -extiactof has been hroucrht into 

 use. the neiventage of watef is no test for honey. 

 How well it would bo if the scientist could 

 know mon^ of what is A B C to the practical 

 man I 



The analy.ses given in the report are from ten 

 of the best of our American chemists. Fifty 

 samples were analyzed by each one. The adul- 

 terated samples as repoit<'d range from i:.' per 

 cent— ttiose by Dr. S. P. Sharpies, who procured 

 his material from Boston, wher ' there are very 

 stringent laws against adulteration— to 76 per 

 cent— those reported by I'rof. H. H. Nicholson, 

 of Lincoln, Neb. 



KNCOtTRAGING POINTERS. 



There is much in this report that will prove 

 gratifying. Tlie fact, as just stated, that Bos- 

 ton, with a good law against adulteration, 

 shows so clean a record, is surely enough to 

 move every bee-keeper to work for such a law 

 in his own Stat(\ Esp(>cially is such a law 

 needed in Nebraska, if the report is a correct 

 guide. Should not bee-keepers everywhere 

 urge the passage of the Paddock law now pend- 

 ing in congress? 



Again, nearly if not quite all the samples con- 

 demned in the report are from manufitcturers. 

 Those from apiarists, so far as I know or can 

 determine, are all pronounced pure, I have 

 long believed and urged, that, if all would pur- 

 cliase honey witli the producer's stamp or 

 trade-mark on it, they would get genuine honey. 

 As shown above, producers do not 77ia?)»/(fcture. 

 The very words. " Strained honey " and "Cali- 

 fornia white-clover honey," show that the hon- 

 ey was never put up by a bee-keeper. 



PUZZLES. 



That two chemists' report adulterated honey 

 from C. F. Muth is puzzling. No one who 

 knows Mr. Muth and his earnest work against 

 adulteration can believe for a moment that he 

 is guilty of any such meanness and fraud. 

 Eitlier "the analyses are conducted on a false 

 basis, or else Mr. Muth has been deceived in 

 his purchases. As I understand, he purchases 

 mostly of real producers, and so. as above 

 sho^v n. would get pure honey. In case he pur- 

 chased of these manufacturers, we should sup- 

 pose him too experienced and wary to be 

 caught, as I have previously stated. Analyses 

 which condeiun honey with Mr. Muth's gijar- 

 antee of purity affixed cause us to doubt the 

 methods of an.'lysis. 



Again, how can California honey, sold at 

 three and four cents per pound, be adulterated 

 at a profit? Is it not possible that California 

 honey lias properties that deceive the very elect 

 chemists? 



The high standing of all the chemists en- 

 gaged in this work proves conclusively that, in 

 case there are errors, it iswitt the methods. 

 As the report states, honeys are complex and 

 varied in character, and "often old chemical 

 methods have had to be given up with the ad- 

 vent of new light. The fact that several whole- 

 sale dealers furnished only pure samples in 

 every case, and that the most of Mr. Muth's 

 samples are pronounced genuine, should tend to 

 strengthen our confidence in the report. 



A. J. Cook. 



Agricultural College, Mich, May 19. 



[The article ai)ove was vvritt(Mi ixifore I'rof. 

 Cook saw our editorial in May 1.5th Gi,e.vn- 

 iN(js. Since receiving that numl)er he writes 

 as follows: — iOi).] 



It seems to me that you are very severe in 

 your editorial regarding Prof. Wiley's report. 

 I am sure you intend to do only exact justice, 

 and that you have reason to feel strongly; but 

 we can not afford to do injustice; and I know 

 that you are th(( last person that would inten- 

 tionally do injustice to anyone. You will no- 

 tice that not one of the samples purporting to 

 come from INIr. Muth was bought of him; and 

 any man that would lie by selling an article as 

 pure honey which was adulteratcid stuff would, 

 I imagine, not hesitate to steal a man's name 

 and character. If he did this he would likely 

 steal the best Ik^ could find, which means Mr. 

 Muth's. Prof. M. A. Scovell, who analyzed the 

 samples you refer to, is. to my certain knowl- 

 edge, as I know him well, one of our finest men, 

 and one of our best American chemists. He 

 uses the best means known to science. I be- 

 lieve, as you know, that the method is, very 

 likely, faulty; but we must not condemn a luan 

 who acts according to the best light he has. I 

 have already consulted with Prof. S., and he 

 desires to cooperate with mein settling this mat- 

 ter once for all. I wish you would aid us by 

 helping me to get several .samples of basswood 

 and white-sage honey — surely genuine— right 

 from the apiarist, which was gathered very 

 rapidly by the bees. I hope to show the chem- 

 ist that a new and better method is demanded. 



You say Dr. Wiley starts out on a new line, to 

 show that nearly all liquid honey is adulterated. 

 Would it not be more correct to say, to show 

 that much — less than half, really about 38:o — of 

 the honey prepared by wholesalers is not genu- 

 ine? Are we sure this is not true? I believe 

 this report will do good. If the chemists are in 

 the dark, we are going to show it. If wholesale 

 dealers are defrauding our people we should 

 know that, and take; immediate measures to 

 prevent it. I tell you, we can secure laws and 

 action to stay such iniquity, and we must. 1 

 do not think Prof. W. an incompetent. He is 

 one of the ablest chemists in the country, and, I 

 believe, wishes only the best good to all our 

 bee-keepers. If the chemical methods need re- 

 forming, Prof. Wiley will be very glad to know 

 it. and suit his methods to the latest and best 

 advice that science can give. This is the cer- 

 tain conviction of 



Yours truly, A. J. Cook. 



Ag'l College, Mich. 



[vSee editorial comment el.sewhere.] . 



COST OF RESTRICTOES. 



MANIPULATING COLONIES. 



In Gleanings for March 1, page 1G4, is an 

 article by Mr. .S. A. Dyke upon the subject of 

 queen restriction, with the editor's notes to the 

 same, which, it seems to me, should be recon- 

 sidered. 



First, Mr. Dyke pronounces them "quite ex- 

 pensive," and figures the cost of ten at S6.70 as 

 compared with the labor of unqueening ten 

 hives, which is figured at ¥!3.00. In this .S6.70 he 

 has figured 40 brood-frames, made up, which he 

 already has and would not need to buy. We 

 may call these frames worth §!J.(X). If the re- 

 strictors are to be shipped without frames, 

 another dollar may be deducted, leaving -54.70 

 for ten restrictors. All the parts of the restrict- 

 or are composed of metal, and will last 20 years. 

 The labor of unqueening might be performed 



