1J<'.)7 



(;m-:a\ixgs ix rice culturh. 



if llK- 1k-i1-(.-U)Uk's arc lu-lil fast at one cud, and 

 raised up siuUlenly, it will cause a suction. In 

 the case of the hive the smoke seems to he 

 (lri\en intt), or rather sucked into, the super, 

 not l)v the i/o:r>/uvr(/ (lap, but l)v the sudden 

 uplift'of the cloth. 



Well, how about the results? I .saw youni; 

 Roomhower drive bees out of super after 

 super ; and when he took the combs out 

 to shake or brush, in many cases there was 

 hardly aJjee on the combs, so thoroughly did 

 it do its work. I shall have more to say about 

 this when I come to tell about my visit at Mr. 

 Coggshall's ; but in the meantime, brethren, 

 try it and see how it works. If you use a flat 

 cover, and no enamel cloths, try the ordinary 

 robber-cloth that Dr. Miller recommended, 

 but have it wet. As soon as the cover is re- 

 moved, lay this on the frames, then try the 

 flap act, and notice what it will do. Now try 

 to smoke the bees down in the ordinary way 

 with the smoker, in another hive, and I think 

 you will notice the difference as I did at Mr. 

 Coggshall's. Of course, you know Mr. C. 

 does not use a bee-escape. His reasons for 

 not using one I w"ill explain at another time. 

 -En.] 



DOES PURE HONEY CONTAIN ANY CANE SUGAR ? 



If Not, Can Even a Small Per Cent of it be Detect- 

 ed by Analysis? Chemical Terms. 



[Some little time ago I stated editorially that I was 

 under the impression that pure honey was liable to 

 contain a small per cent of cane sugar, and that, when 

 the chemist detected a small amount of it in honey, it 

 should not be construed as evidence that the honey 

 had been adulterated. On page -1513, Mr. Selser. of 

 Philadelphia, a chemist, criticised the .statement, add- 

 ing that my mistake doubtless occurred from the fact 

 that 1 had confounded chemical and commercial 

 terms. "Pure honey,-' said he, "does not contain 

 any cane sugar, commercially speaking; . . . but 

 there is a very large percentage of sucro.se, and .sucrose 

 is a chemicaf term for cane sugar." 



Prof. Cook, on page (i24, in referring to this article 

 of Mr. Selser's, .said he thought it contained several 

 errors, and hoped it might be submitted to Dr. Wiley 

 for review. Following up the matter I wrote to the 

 doctor, .sending him a marked copy of the article in 

 {[uestion, and the following is his reply:— Ed.] 



U. S. Department of Agricui.ture, 

 Division of Chemistry, 

 Washington, D. C, Aug. 3U, 1S97. 

 V7tr A. /. Root Co., Meditia, Ohio: 



Cii'iithiiifii: — I take pleasure in complying 

 with your request of the 21st instant, in re- 

 spect to the statements in the article on page 

 l'.)3 of Gleanings. 



The subject under discussion is hardly a 

 matter for argument, because it is simply a 

 question of the use of terms. The expression 

 "cane sugar " is used con.stantlj- by chemi.sts 

 as a synonym for sucrose, although I do not 

 believe that sucro.se is used synonymously 

 with cane sugar by the commercial worlcl. 

 In commerce, cane sugar is simply sugar made 

 from sugar cane, as beet sugar is sugar made 

 from beets, and maple sugar, sugar made 

 from the maple. Chemically these sugars are 

 all identical, and are spoken of indiscrimi- 

 nately by chemists as cane sugar or sucrose. 



The sugars which are present in a genuine 

 honey are almost- ex-clusively cane sugar, or 



sucrose, and invert sugar, which is made by 

 the inversion of cane sugar. It is probably 

 true that the original sugar of nectar is almost 

 exclusively cane sugar, which is inverted 

 either by the acid juices of the plant itself or 

 by the digestive organism of the ])ee. In 

 ordinary honey, this inversion is almost com- 

 l)leted, and very little cane sugar or sucrose 

 remains, almost the whole of the sugar being 

 invert sugar that is composed of about ecjual 

 portions of de.xtrose and levulose. 



It does not appear to me that the criticism 

 of your correspondent, Mr. Selser, is well 

 founded ; but the character of his statements 

 does not quite corroborate his claim of being 

 a graduate of a special course in analytical 

 chemistry. It is not quite in harmony with a 

 scientific spirit to state that " there is not one 

 per cent of cane or common sugar in pure 

 honey. In this statement I def}' contradic- 

 tion." 



I do not claim to be a honey specialist, and 

 it is so long since I graduated in chemistry 

 that it has ceased, to be a matter of gratifica- 

 tion to me to remember the date. I have, 

 however, never been so certain of any position 

 that I ma}- have taken in scientific matters as 

 to boldly proclaim that I defied contradiction. 

 In point of fact, the sugars which are present 

 in honey are exactly the same as the sugars of 

 commerce; viz., sucrose, or cane sugar; dex- 

 trose, or right-hand sugar ; and levulose, or 

 left-hand sugar. It would require a great 

 many statements from Mr. Selser to alter this 

 fact, but still it may be easily contradicted. 

 Respectftillv, 



H. W. 'WiEEV, 

 Chief of Division. 



[After receiving the foregoing I sent it to Mr. Selser 

 for further review, and he replies as follows:— Ed.] 



The article you first published, the basis of 

 which was taken from "Prof. Wiley's Book 

 on Honey Adulterations, ' ' as well as the pres- 

 ent article from Prof. Wiley, is not a matter 

 for discussion between the two classes — scien- 

 tist and laity — and as such is very misleading. 

 I do not contradict a word of Prof. Wiley's 

 paper ; from a scientific standpoint it is abso- 

 ititely correct, and I desire to state that my 

 words defying contradiction were addressed to 

 the reader of Gleanings — the honev-pro- 

 ducer. I desired to make it very emphatic, 

 that, if he placed one to five per cent of com- 

 mercial sugar in the honey, it could be detect- 

 ed by analysis; and your statement that " five 

 per cent of commercial .sugar in honey did not 

 prove that it was adulterated ' ' I felt was an 

 error that might result in terrible conse- 

 quences. In proof of what I say, I make the 

 following offer to the readers of Gleanings : 



Mail me five samples, say 3 ounces each, of 

 honey ; let four of them be pure, and one 

 adulterated with five per cent of commercial 

 sugar ; number each one. If I do not detect 

 the one that is adulterated I will pay to the 

 sender $10.00; if I do detect the five per cent 

 of commercial sugar, he is to pay me $5.00, or 

 the price of my analysis, 11.00 a sample. 



Now, scientifically, turn to the "Govern- 

 ment Book on Adulteration of Honey," 1892, 

 page 791, the top of page showing sample No. 



