860 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 15. 



fair that the shipper in this case, Miss E. 

 Bianconcini, of Bologna, Italy, should stand all 

 the loss. There is no hope of getting any dam- 

 ages from the quarantine authorities, as they 

 are governed by the motto of the greatest good 

 to the greatest number. In this case we pro- 

 pose to stand half the loss, and even then it will 

 be rather heavy, as a consignment of fifty im- 

 ported queens is rather expensive. As, in all 

 probability, quarantine regulations will be in 

 force again next summer, it is quite doubtful 

 whether we shall be able to get any more im- 

 ported queens for another season's trade, for it 

 would be utterly useless to have bees shipped 

 over only to be fumigated to death with sul- 

 phui'. We have sold out all we had, except one 

 or two queens almost superannuated, that we 

 kept right along just because they were raising 

 such nice queens. 



DO BEES MAKE HONEY OUT OF SUGAK? FEED- 

 ING StJGAK. AND SELLING THE PRODUCT 

 AS HONEY. 



This matter was so emphatically settled 

 years ago, that feeding sugar will not make 

 honey, that I am a little surprised to see it com- 

 ing up again. I am still more surprised that 

 our good friend Prof. Cook, and the editor of 

 the Bce-heepers' Review, should seem to be 

 teaching in that line. In the back numbers of 

 Gleanings are recorded some very careful ex- 

 periments in this direction. In order to satisfy 

 myself I fed a single colony of hees a whole bar- 

 rel of sugar. Sections were tilled and capped 

 over so as to rival in beauty almost any thing 

 that could be brought forward in the way of 

 honey made from nattiral sources. But it was 

 not honey at all. We uncapped the sections 

 and removed the liquid honey, as our friends 

 would call it, and placed it in sauce-dishes 

 right beside the syrup before the bees had had 

 it at all. I did not find anybody who detected 

 a particle of difference in the taste. It was 

 sugar syrup before it was fed to the bees, and it 

 was just exactly the same kind of sugar syrup 

 after the bees had put it in combs and sealed it 

 over. Very likely many people, without think- 

 ing, would call it honey because it was in honey- 

 comb; but ever so many did say it tasted like 

 sugar syrup, when they were not told any thing 

 about it. Another thing, it did not pay. In 

 every one of my experiments the excessive feed- 

 ing caused the bees to go to rearing brood and 

 secreting wax. In fact, the wax scales fell to 

 the bottom of the hive so they could be scraped 

 up; and the conseqtience was, the sugar cost 

 more than the honey could possibly be sold for. 

 I know there is a wider margin between the 

 price of sugar and that of nice comb honey just 

 now: btit I am sure that no one, even now, can 

 pay expenses, even if the product is sold at the 

 highest market price, and sold as honey. 



At different times in the history of the honey 

 business tliere have been found people foolish 

 enough to undertake the matter on a large 

 scale; but every such attempt has been a fail- 

 ure. Furthermore, I am sure there are a dozen 

 well-posted bee-keepers who are living now, 

 w^ho made the same experiments I did, and the 

 result was just as I have stated it. The whole 

 thing is old, and has been gone over repeatedly. 

 Very likely some other additional experiments 

 have been made since this matter has been 

 revived, during the past season; but if the ex- 

 perimenters will own up, I am sure they will 

 agree to what I have stated above. On page 

 274 of the Review for October we find the ed- 

 itorial I have alluded to, as follows: 



SHAIiL|WE RAISKDSUGAR HONEY? 



Last spring I cut ofif the discussion upon this 

 question because even its bare mention caused so 



much excitement that it seemed impossible to rea- 

 son coolly or secure fair decisions. Recently pub- 

 lished reports showing' that even tlie best chemists 

 and a class of forty students could detect no differ- 

 ence between "^sugar honey" and tlie best lioney 

 from basswood and clover have again brouglit the 

 subject to the surface. If, as Mr. Hasty has said, 

 sugar honey gratifies the eye. tickles tlie palate, 

 and nourislies the body: if it fulfills every require- 

 ment of floral honey; if, as Prof. Cook says, it is 

 honey, why need it not become a legitimate product 

 of the apiary? 



OppositiDu to discussion has been urged, on the 

 ground that sugar honey could be product'd only at 

 a loss. " If it can't be raised profltalily, wli\- discuss 

 its production ?"' "Let some one raise a iiound of 

 sugar honey at a profit, jwsi one ptnind, ' tliey ' said, 

 and then— perhaps." These were some of "the ex- 

 pressions used. To settle this point I have been 

 experimenting a little the past season. From the 

 feeding of 150 pounds of sugar I have secured 13.5 

 pounds of finished comb honey. The sugar co.st 

 $7..50; the honey would certainly sell for $20.00. 

 This honey has been awarded fiisi ]iicnnum at fairs, 

 been furnished to neighbors, and plai-ed before vis- 

 itors; yet its origin has never been suspected. This 

 has been done simply as an ex^ieriment, and has 

 completely proved what I already believed to be 

 true. 



Now, if sugar honey can be raised at a profit; if 

 it is really and truly honey, I ask, in all seriousness 

 and earnestijess, what are the objections to its pro- 

 duction and sale? There is no occasion for indulg- 

 ing in fiorid rhetoric and exclamation-points; sim- 

 ply laj" aside preconceived notions; allow reason to 

 reign supreme, and coolly and calmly saj' why this 

 extension of the bee-keeping industry would be 

 wrong or work any injury to the pursuit. 



I think there is no better time than the present in 

 which to settle the question, and I propose to de- 

 vote the November Review to its discussion. Prof. 

 Cook's article will answer for a " leader "—a much 

 better one than I could write. 



A visitor came into our office a few days ago 

 and picked up the Review and read the above; 

 then he made a remark something like this: 

 "Mr. Root, what would one unacquainted with 

 our industry say to find this in one of our lead- 

 ing bee- journals? And suppose some of our 

 newspapers that wanted to make a sensation 

 should copy the above, and pass it around. 

 What would be the effect on our industry '? " I 

 went carefully over the whole thing a second 

 time, to see whether any thing was said against 

 selling the product as honey produced by feed- 

 ing sugar: but there is not a word. I am not 

 at all afraid it can amount to any thing like 

 the oleomargarine fraud, as there is mojicy in 

 the latter, and I am sure there is not in feeding 

 sugar. Furthermore, there is not any thing 

 known that can be fed to bees, so as to make it 

 pay, that will compare with even poor honey. 

 It might in looks, but I am sure it would not 

 please customers. If the thing were possible, 

 how does it happen that no such product has 

 ever been successfully placed on the markets? 

 When there is a poor yield of honey, prices go 

 up, and the markets are often destitute of a 

 decent-looking article. It will not do to say 

 that people have not found it out; for it has 

 been discussed and proposed ever since bee- 

 keeping has been an industry. Almost every 

 bee-keeper in the business suggests it sooner or 

 later; and unscrupulous venders of new-fangled 

 hives and new-fangled secrets, from Mrs. Cot- 

 ton up, have proposed feeding sugar and selling 

 the product as honey. 



How about friend Hutchinson's experiment 

 where the product tasted like honey, and could 

 be made at a profit? Well, my opinion is, that, 

 by some hook or crook, some honey was gathered 

 at the time of the experiment, thus increasing 

 the yield, and giving it a honey flavor. I am 

 sorry to reflect on one so accurate as the editor 

 of the Review is, but I can think of no other 

 explanation. A. I. R. 



