1904 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



891 



[The two methods of ()ueen-rearin,i»- are 

 very much ahke in the main principles, but 

 differ in detail. Mr. Pratt uses a Hanged 

 wooden cup having inside of if another 

 ivooden cup in which the queen lays the egg. 

 Here, it seems to us, is a complication "like 

 a wheel within a wheel." Our people use a 

 plain plug without any flange, having a hole 

 hored in one end. This plug, instead of be- 

 ing held in position by means of a flange, is 

 secured by a nailpoint. We sell these wood- 

 en cups by the barrel, and if we were to 

 make the double-flange cups of the Swarth- 

 more pattern we should have to charge the 

 bee-keepers of the country a much higher 

 price, and we can see no apparent gain to 

 be secured. 



While Mr. Pratt has queens lay in his 

 cups, the inner one, yet he must remove 

 these wooden cells from their fastening 

 where the queen found them, and then in- 

 sert them in the flanged cup — an operation 

 that will take fully as long, even if the two 

 fit nicely, as the grafting process that we 

 use. In a word, we consider that our outfit 

 is cheaper for the great mass of bee-keepers 

 who must figure to save even the pennies, 

 is simpler to describe, and much simpler to 

 understand and carry into effect. 



The photo here shown is simply a sample 

 of our everyday work in the yard. In other 

 words, the picture shows the "proof of the 

 pudding." In saying this, we do not claim 

 that Mr. Pratt is not able to secure equal 

 results by his metho'd. — Ed.] 



THE COMB-HONEY LIE. 



How it Started ; the Damage it has Done and 

 is Doing ; the Nature of Glucose. 



BY W. K. MORRISON. 



It would seem as if we were to have a re- 

 crudescence of the comb-honey canard in the 

 newspaper press; and if that is the case, the 

 sooner we are up and doing our little toward 

 combatting this pernicious error, the better 

 it will be for all bee-keepers. 



The younger generation of bee-keepers 

 may net be aware that the comb-honey-by- 

 machinery canard first saw the light of day 

 in the pages of a semi-scientific paper, the 

 Popular Science Monthly. The yarn has 

 been given the widest publicity by the news- 

 papers until it is impossible to estimate the 

 damage done by it to our industry. In any 

 case the injury is very great— far greater 

 than many bee-keepers think possible. Let 

 us examine the canard to see how much 

 there is of a foundation for the thing to rest 

 on; and here let me say some bee- journals 

 are somewhat hazy on the subject. It seems 

 to be taken for granted that the glucose of 

 which this wonderful honey is made bears a 

 great resemblance to honey, and is much 

 cheaper. Neither statement is true. Good 

 glucose, free from all impurities, and fit for 

 table purposes, js quoted at 50 cents per lb. 

 in the catalog of the second largest dealer 



in the world. The glucose we hear so much 

 about is artificial glucose— quite a different 

 thing altogether. It is a disagreeable com- 

 pound which no one who values his life would 

 eat knowingly. I am not exaggerating at 

 all when I write thus. Five years ago, in 

 Manchester, England, a number of persons 

 lost their lives by drinking beer containing 

 only minute quantities of this same glucose. 

 Now, what would be the result of using it 

 in large quantities, as would be the case in 

 using it as a substitute for honey? In the 

 case of the beer the glucose was converted 

 into caramel, and then used to give "body" 

 to the beer. In the particular case I refer 

 to, at least 30 persons lost their lives in a 

 few weeks by this insidious poison. It was 

 by the merest chance the discovery was 

 made that the poison came from the beer. 

 And this is the principal use to which artifi- 

 cial glucose is put. So beer-drinkers and 

 would-be honey-mixers can take fair warn- 

 ing. 



Buffalo, N. Y., and Chicago, 111., are the 

 centers of the glucose business, making it 

 by synthesis from starch. Eminent chem- 

 ists tell us that good glucose cpn be made 

 from starch. Theoreticdly this is so, prob- 

 ably; but in business practice it is not. 

 These same chemists also tell us they can 

 make honey by artificial means; but when 

 pinned down to it they generally find some 

 excuse for avoiding the practical part of the 

 question. 



Sorghum or maple syrup is the nearest ap- 

 proach to honey we know of, hence any bee- 

 keeper can easily decide for himself wheth- 

 er he need be afraid of compet.tion from 

 that source. 



I believe syrup-makers, jelly-makers, and 

 bee-keepers have a clear case against ihe 

 glucose-factories— just as clear as the dairy- 

 men had against the oleomargarine-facto- 

 ries. Let artificial glucose be branded just 

 as oleo is. I believe, also, thac any person 

 offering it as an adulterant should be arrest- 

 ed and imprisoned. Bee-keepers will have 

 to put up a great fight to get this legisla- 

 tion; but people all over the civilized world 

 are stirred up over the matter of adultera- 

 tion. To get the requisite legislation we 

 must be very clear on all important points, 

 remembering — 



Thrice armed is he who hath his quarrel just. 



It is not any easier to make a substitute 

 for honey than it is to make butter. 



Bee-keepers, and particularly bee-papers, 

 should be careful about what they say or 

 print about this matter. It is too important 

 to be played with. The main point is to 

 compel dealers to sell things for what they 

 are. 



In the British Islands there is a society 

 which looks after the interests of the cane- 

 sugar producers, and steadily secures prose- 

 cutions of gi-ocers who sell customers beet 

 sugar when cane sugc r is ordered. I see no 

 reason why the National Bee-keepers' Asso- 

 ciation could not take up this matter in the 

 same way the sugar-men do in England. A 



