- % 



1905. 



THE AMERICAN BEE-KEEPER. 



219 



but intended it to apply only when a 

 queen (often a young one) gets to lay- 

 ing alter the brood nest has become 

 cloggetl with honey, as when swarm- 

 ing has been prevented by unqueen- 

 ing or caging the queen, and the 

 brood-nest filled with honey, or, when 

 a colony has swarmed, the brood 

 being about all hatched and the 

 combs filled with honey. Then when 

 the young queen begins laying no 

 doubt, the honey goes into the supers 

 until she has a fair brood nest. 



Now in regard to the use of founda- 

 tion: The maisses woiild vseldom 

 taste comb honey at a reasonable 

 price were it to be produced without 

 foundation. Better a sheet of founda- 

 tion in every section, and fine satis- 

 factory comb honey on tens of 

 thousands of tables, than a limited 

 market for an expensive, strictly "all 

 bee-built comb honey among the 

 gilded para.sites of high finance." 



This discussion of a more or less 

 imaginary trace of .sugar syrup in 

 comb honey does more harm than 

 good, especially when no proofs have 

 been ofi'ered of the evil results of sugar 

 feeding for stimulation or winter 

 stores. 



Boise, Idaho, Sept. 18, 1905. 



Mr. Miller's Reply. 



Mr. Atwater's article bristles with 

 indignation but his very impatience 

 has caused him to mislead him- 

 self. If he will re-read my 

 article at which he takes such offence, 

 he will note in the first paragraph 

 that I distinctly disavow the implica- 

 tion that even a considerable portion, 

 of the bee-keepers feed sugar syrup 

 with evil intent. The point I made, 

 and which I emphasize now, is that 

 the feeding of sugar syrup to bees 

 is inimical to the best good of honey 

 producers: that the widespread advo- 

 cacy of such practices through both 

 our .iournals and our text books Is 

 the basis for most of the public belief 

 in the use of sugar to "make" honey; 

 that sugar fed to the bees finds its 

 way into the surplus honey to a 

 greater or lesser extent; that so long 

 as we feed it to our bees we cannot 

 honestly assert that our honey is ab- 

 solutely pure, and that until we can 

 do that we are not justified in raising 



our voice against persons who add 

 more syrup to it after it leaves our 

 hands. We cannot rail against adul- 

 terated foods until we can prove our 

 own jn-oducts to bo above suspicion. 



1 further reassert that comb founda- 

 tion ill comb honey often attracts the 

 attention of the consumer and lends 

 color to the stories of artificial comb, 

 and I base this statement on what 

 consumers have said to me. The 

 "gilded parasites of high finance" are 

 as a rule, sufficiently well posted on 

 matters in general to know of comb 

 foundation. It is the good common 

 l)eople who are made suspicious. 

 Mr. Atwater claims that it is im- 

 possible to feed sugar syrup continu- 

 ously to bees without their complete 

 demoralization. In refutation of which 

 statement I would refer him to Glean- 

 ings of September 15th, pages 955 and 

 956. 



To this I will add that I have seen 

 sugar-feeding successfully carried out 

 and have seen in the aggregate 

 thousands of pounds of "honey" thus 

 produced. How it is done of course 

 it is eminently unwise to repeat here. 



In regard to the question as to how 

 it is known that the sugar syrup 

 stored in brood combs finds its way 

 into the surplus combs: First, I would 

 refer Mr. A. to the common knowledge 

 of the M^ay bees shift honey about. 

 Second, I would refer him to Mr. 

 Green and to the . quotations from 

 Mr. Doolittle. I regret that Mr. At- 

 water does not believe it, but the quo- 

 tation is accurate though not verba- 

 tim, the original being too long. Con- 

 ditions under which bees did thus, 

 were with wintered-over queens in a 

 restricted brood nest, one about the 

 equivalent of an 8 L frame hive. 

 Third, I have myself proved the pres- 

 ence of symp in surplus honey, and 

 in so doing substantiated the work 

 of a careful experimenter. I am not 

 at liberty to detail these experiments 

 be«^ause the methods employed are not 

 my own and the gentleman who told 

 me requested that I should not make 

 them public. 



Regarding my statements as to the 

 comparative value of honey and sugar 

 for a winter food, I did not consider 

 it necessary to then state my reasons 

 which have appeared at length at 

 different times. But as Mr. Atwater 



