1892 



GLEANINGS IN HEE CULTURE. 



879 



1 bt>li('vc that (Jlkaxinos lias the samo ohjoct. 

 Now let Gi.KANixcs show to tlif li< vhw that, 

 tlu' pi'oiliiiMioii and sale of siijiar honey will be 

 to ilie (lisatlvantiitfc of lice-kec^pers. and s<m> 

 how (|iiii.-l<iy the licrii ir will o[)pose tlw prae- 

 tiee. It desires most sincerely to work for lln^ 

 pood of hee-keepers. and it will not work in the 

 wi-on}i direction after its errors are pointed ont. 



Ml'. .\. I. Koot says that thr practice of rais- 

 ing sncar iioniy is not new; that it has l)eeii 

 tried liefort- many times, and abandoned. \lo 

 alst) asks why it has not been prodnced in limes 

 of scarcity. Thi-re aiv three reasons: First, it 

 Iki"; heri'tofore been looked upon as adnltiMa- 

 tioii: si'cond. the prici' of siif^ar has been so 

 hiirh that it would not be prolilable: third, bee- 

 keepers have not had sutlicient practice to en- 

 able them to manage the l)usiness in a success- 

 ful manner. For instance. Mr. Root tells of 

 his non-success in feeding a barnd of sugar to 

 our eo/o/i;/. I could not repress a smil(> as I 

 ri'ad it. Almost om- of the (irst things that I 

 learned in feeding back was that bees, after be- 

 ing fed awhile, become fat and lazy. .so to speak. 

 They secreted large quantities of wax. but 

 wen- of littli^ value as suirers of hon(>y from the 

 feedi'f. This matter of feeding back for the 

 production of comb honey is really a distinct 

 branch of bee-keeping, and one that must be 

 learned before it can be successfully followed. 



Some have objected to the raising of sugar 

 honey on the ground that it will lower the 

 price of honey. All spcm to forget that the cost 

 of sugar honey will always be that of floral 

 honey plus the cost of the sugar and the trou- 

 ble and expense of feeding. In the experiment 

 that I made the present season, the .?7..50 

 was only the cost of the sugar, a fact that the 

 editor seemed to have overlooked. I might say, 

 still farther, that the feeding was done after the 

 flow from clover and basswood was past and 

 the bees were hanging in masses on the outside 

 of the hives. No honey was coming in. The 

 greatest care was needed to prevent robbing. 

 It may lie questioned whether there would be 

 suflHcient profit in raising sugar honey to war- 

 rant its production. It is a fair question, and 

 it was to settle just such questions that the 

 discussion was started: but some say that even 

 discusHion is not advisable. Please show us 

 why, and we will immediately drop it. 



It may not be out of place here to call to mind 

 the time when the editor of Gleanings advised 

 the use of grape sugar for stimulative feeding. 

 Public opinion was opposed to its use, and Mr. 

 Root was ol)liged to give it up, although lie 

 believed that he was in the right. I defended 

 him at the time, and used a barrel of the sugar, 

 and would use it now if it were not that cane 

 sugar is cheaper for that purpose. "It may be 

 that, while I believe that the course that I am 

 now ptirsuing is right, public opinion nuiy be 

 so opposed to it that I shall be obliged to keep 

 quiet on the subject: but there is one consola- 

 tion— the truth and right will eventually pre- 

 vail. 



I can not more appropriately close than by 

 thanking Ernest II. Root for his generous words 

 in defi'use of my honor and integrity. They 

 warmed my heart in a way that it has not been 

 warmr^d in months. W. Z. Hutchinson. 



Flint, Mich., Nov. 10. 



[We are very glad to get this article as it 

 shows more clearly Mr. Ilutcliinson's position; 

 i. e., that he did not intend that sugar comb 

 honey should be sold as floral honey. We 

 should have preferred to omit any footnote in 

 reply; but as Mr. H. asks one or two questions 

 we will try to make ourselves more clearly un- 

 derstood. We believe that the advocacy of 

 sugar comb honey is ill advised — not because 



honest bee-keepers will mak(! a bad u.se of the 

 knowledge, but that their middle men custom- 

 ers, l(\ss scrupulous, perhaps, seeing that th<( 

 honi'y is beautiful in apitearance. would be 

 sorely tempted to sell it as floral honey, and 

 some would siu'cly do it. If the transactions 

 were between the bee-keeper and the consumer 

 direct, and if we could be sure that the bee- 

 kee|)er loo were as conscientious as is fri<Mid 

 Hutchinson, we would raise no olijection. 

 Right here we can not do better than to make 

 a short extract from a private letter. The 

 writer, whose name we withhold, says: 



It seems to me very unfoitunato jusl ;it tliis time, 

 when we are coiisidei'iiiK the l)est way to flfrht the 

 ndulteriitioM of liotiov. Ihiit lliis sul)j(>ct of feeding 

 sujrar for honey sliould lie broujjht u]> and almost 

 indorsed l)y sonic of tli(> lending liee-keepers of tlie 

 land. Jt i*^ a jireat pity, it seems to me, that any 

 one sliould l)e so unwise as to inflict a discussion of 

 sufiar honey on us at tliis time. 



To sum it all up, then, in a word, it is the 

 fear of consequi'nces that may result from such 

 a discussion: Fiist. the use that secular news- 

 papers may make of it; second. {\w use that 

 dishonest dealers may make of sugar- fed honey 

 produced by honest bee-keepers. 



The strength of Prof. Cook's position, and. in 

 fact. Mr. Hutchinson's also, seems to be in the 

 assumption that sugar-fed syrup when stored in 

 the combs is lioney. Prof. Cook may be right: 

 but as good an authority as Thomas Wm. 

 Cowan, of England, editor of the BritWi Bee 

 JrniriKtt. a scientist of the front rank. Chas. 

 Dadant, and others, disagree quite emphatical- 

 ly with him, and as yet we can not regard the 

 experiments made by Prof. Cook as being con- 

 clusive. 



We had concluded that we would insert no 

 more articles, either pro or con. on the subject; 

 but among those we have received protesting 

 against sugar honey is one from Mr. Herman 

 F. Moore, attorney-at-law. Chicago. In former 

 years Mr. Moore sold tons and tons of honey in 

 some of our large cities, directly to consumers; 

 in fact, we know of no one who has had more 

 experience In selling honey to consumers direct, 

 in large cities, than our friend Mr. Moore. He 

 writes as follows: 



Friend Root:— I have heen reading' with some in- 

 terest and .some indignation the articles in recent 

 numbers of some of the bee-journals on feeding 

 susar to malic lioncy, and selling the product to 

 the pul)lic as lioney, or as wliat it really is, sugar 

 syrup in eonibs. I do not l)elicvc lliat fiicud Hutcli- 

 inson, with all Ins lil)erality ill rcKurd to cnlai-ging 

 the spliei'e of the lice-lieeper's act ivily and profits, 

 would be wiJlinti- also to .just ify any amount of lying 

 or decei)tion that would be necessary to sell his 

 pi'oduct. IJiit this is. without any doubt, the logical 

 result of such reasoning. Cotton-wool, lard-butter, 

 wood nutmegs, sugar-honey, are, in their vrrij name, 

 a/iV', and in tlicir i-ela1ioii to the connnercial world 

 they are a fraud. Dealers in frauds tnust Iw. In- 

 stance tlie lumdreds of fraudulent shortlived 

 schemes developed constantly to catch the unwary. 

 The great public, and the individuals who compose 

 it, are not i)erf(>ct, by any means; but they demand 

 now, moi-e than ever before, honorable _and true 

 dealing in all tilings, and condemn tor ever all who 

 fall short. To illustrate. 1 ask one "of my thousand 

 c-iistomei's, "Do you wish half a dozen quarts of 

 honey on m.v ne.xt trip V " 



"Is' it pure ?" 



"Yes, sir." (Lie No. 1.) 



"What kind of honey is it?" 



" VVIiite-clover honey, sir." (Lie No. 2.) 



" Is this new lioney?" 



'• Yes, sir." (Lie No. 3.) 



" Is it real bee-honey ? " 



" Yes, sir." iLie No. 4.) 



" D<) you feed sugar to your bees?" 



"No, sir." (Lie No. 5.i 



" Did you ever know of any one who did ? " 



" No. sir." (Lie No. 6.) 



" How do .you know this is pure honey ? " 



"fMy own bees gathered it." (Lie No. 7.) 



