THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW, 



Id 



them, change it to honey, and hence, he 

 claimed, that this was not adulteration — that 

 the product was truly honey — that the chem- 

 ist could not detect it from floral honey. 

 Prof. Wiley was present and took issue with 

 the views of Prof. Cook. He admitted that 

 he had not yet been able to detect "sugar 

 honey," but asserted that he could do so. It 

 would be done with the polariscope. Sugar 

 syrup, at a certain temperature (just below 

 the boiling point, I believe the Prof, said), 

 is inactive in the polariscope. That is, it 

 does not turn the polarized ray of light to 

 either the right or the left. He was positive 

 that the feeding of honey to bees would not 

 change this characteristic. 1 cannot help 

 wondering why the Prof, did not put to use 

 this method. He was not prepared to ac- 

 cept Prof. Cook's definition of honey. He 

 (Wiley) was not prepared to give a defini- 

 tion, but he felt sure that one characteristic 

 should be that it came from the flowers. He 

 admitted that the bees did change the cane 

 sugar of nectar to the invert sugar of honey, 

 but asserted that nectar was often composed 

 partly of invert sugar. He agreed with the 

 views put forth by Mr. Heddon at the late 

 Michigan State convention, that commercial 

 glucose is healthful. The objection to its 

 use in adulteration is that it increases the 

 amount of honey on the market and thus 

 tends to lower the prices. He said that an 

 ordinary person could not by the use of 

 litmus paper or any ordinary process deter- 

 mine if honey is adulterated. It iv. a most 

 delicate operation — one requiring high train- 

 ing, skill and proper apparatus. Prof. Riley 

 said that considering the varied sources from 

 which bees gather substances, and the diffi- 

 culty of always knowing exactly what are 

 these sources, he doubted if it would be pos- 

 sible to decisevely settle some of these tine 

 points. 



Frank Benton very carefully and fully 

 went over the ground of the introduction of 

 Italian bees into this country. According to 

 his statements, the U. S. government should 

 have the credit for their importation. He 

 gave an account of his journeyings in the 

 East and his experience with the different 

 races of Ijees. Then he gave the character- 

 istics of the different varieties. These are so 

 well known that I believe I will not take 

 space to enumerate them. I will say, how- 

 ever, that Mr. Benton went into details more 

 fully than I have known him to do on other 

 occasions. 



Last year, at Albany, a committee was ap- 

 pointed to see what could be done in the way 

 of securing government aid to apiculture. 

 This committee reported asking the fol- 

 lowing : — 



1st. That the section of apiculture in the 

 Division of entomology, in the Department 

 of Agriculture be raised to an independent 

 Division, 



2nd. That in connection therewith there 

 be an experimental apiary established at 

 Washington, having all the appointments 

 necessary to a first-class, experimental sta- 

 tion. 



3kd. That the appropriation for this Di- 

 vision be sufficiently large so that work may 

 not be embarrassed by the lack of funds. 



C. V. Riley, government entomologist, 

 read a lengthy paper showing what the gov- 

 ernment had done and what it could do for 

 apiculture. He reviewed what had been done 

 and said that much more might have been 

 done if bee-keepers had put forth a united 

 effort in bringing home to the head of the De- 

 partnient, and to those in charge of the gen- 

 eral appropriations, the needs and just de- 

 mands of the industry. He said, in sub- 

 stance, that what the government can do 

 will depend greatly upon what sums Congress 

 may see fit to appropriate for such investi- 

 gations, and this will depend in turn, to 

 some degree, upon what representations as 

 to the needs of the industry and the possible 

 benefits to the material interests of the 

 country, are made to the head of the Depart- 

 ment, to the committee on Agriculture, and 

 to other members of Congress by their con- 

 stituents. This is the matter in a nut shell, 

 and in my opinion it is a matter for the Bee- 

 Keepers' Union to take hold of. Prof. Riley's 

 advice was that we make friends of the in- 

 coming Secretary of Agriculture and show 

 him the importance and needs of Apicul- 

 ture. 



The scope of the Bee-Keepers' Union has 

 been too narrow. Most of the men who put 

 in their dollars never expected a cent of ben- 

 efit in return. Last summer it was proposed 

 to change its constitution so that its money 

 and influence could be used in fighting adul- 

 teration. Soon it was seen that money might 

 be needed to secure legislation favorable to 

 bee-keeping. As new needs would be con- 

 tinually springing up, it was proposed to so 

 change the constitution that the money and 

 influence of the Union could be used for any 

 purpose thought advisable by the advisory 



