The Michigan Bee-Keepers' Association held their 28th annual convention
on Jan. 2 and 3, 1894, in the Common Council Chambers in the city of
Flint. The convention was called to order by President Taylor, and the
following members paid their dues:
M. H. Hunt, Bell Branch.
L. A. Aspinwall, Jackson.
Hon. R. L. Taylor, Lapeer.
Wm. Anderson, Imlay City.
H. D. Cutting, Tecumseh.
W. Z. Hutchinson, Flint.
August Koeppen, Flint.
Earl Post, Atlas.
E. M. Miller, Swartz Creek.
M. S. West, Flint.
H. Webster, Byron.
H. L. Hutchinson, Mayville.
E. G. Grimes, Vernon.
Byron Walker, Evart.
Chas. Koeppen, Flint.
Andre Torry, Flint.
M. McWain, Grand Blanc.
L. H. Root, Prattville.
Jas. Cowe, Imlay City.
Jno. Cowe, Imlay City.
Pres. Taylor then read the following essay, entitled,
=Apicultural Work at Experiment Stations.=
If I appear to any to go into devious paths in a brief treatment of the
topic assigned me, it is owing to the latitude which the topic itself
gives me.
And first I ask, do bee-keepers want it? that is, do they want that
sort of work at the stations? I am sometimes in doubt about it. I judge
somewhat from the course of my own feelings in the matter. Before I
became connected with the work and began to study into it, I was not
inclined to esteem it over highly, but now if I were to express my
thoughts and feelings freely, you would no doubt think me on the verge
of the domain whose inhabitants are called cranks. Such is the effect
of contact and acquaintance. Now, while the great body of bee-keepers
has not the enthusiasm which close contemplation begets, yet if called
upon they would vote pretty unanimously in favor of the work.
Then the question suggests itself, why would they vote for it?
Provision has been made by the general government by which the
agricultural college of each State is to receive annually a certain sum
of money to be devoted to the support of an experiment station in the
interest of agriculture and kindred pursuits generally. This sum was
to be in the first instance, as I understand it, $15,000, and after
that to be increased by the sum of $1,000 each year until the amount of
$250,000 is reached, which is then to remain fixed at that point. That
is, that is to be the course of affairs, unless the ideas of economy
of the present administration at Washington require that this money be
kept in the general treasury. This is a considerable sum of money, and
apiculture is equitably entitled to all and more than it is now getting
in this State.
Now is it simply because they are equitably entitled to it, that the
bee-keepers would claim a just share to be devoted to apicultural work,
like a school-boy unwilling that his fellow should use his sled whether
he wants it himself or not? Or is it because they feel it is not only
their right, but to their advantage? Have they such a lively faith in
the probable value of results that they will scrutinize and study them?
That bee-keepers should have an active interest in these matters is of
the utmost importance if the work is to go on. Those in authority are
generally quite ready to be directed by the will of those they serve,
if they can learn certainly what that will is.
Can the work be made of real value? Take one item. For myself, I have
become more and more impressed with the importance of a thorough
knowledge of foundations designed for use in sections for the
production of comb honey. Much has been guessed, but so far as I can
learn little is yet _known_ on this subject. In the experiment of
which I recently gave an account, one of the objects aimed at was to
determine, if possible, if there was a difference among them, and, if
so, what kind was of such a nature as to enable the bees to work it
down most nearly to the thinness and character of natural comb. To
me the results were very satisfactory and encouraging, and this not
because one kind was shown to be better than another, but because it
appeared that a method had been hit upon by which the relative value of
foundations could be practically determined.
But this, it seems, is only a beginning. Now that a door is open, many
other questions come up at the very threshold and press for a solution.
What makes the difference among foundations? Is it the character of
the machine used in making, or the character of the wax? or is it the
method of dealing with the wax? Then, if comb from foundation is made
as thin as the natural comb, is it still more tenacious, or is it
equally friable and tender?
Again, it is well understood that the natural comb is not composed
entirely of wax, but that other substances are combined with the wax.
Can anything be done to imitate the natural comb in this, and so make
foundation even less subject to the charge of being an adulteration
than it is at present? This suggests the matter of economy of wax in
the use of foundation thus: What is the per cent. of wax wasted, not to
say worse than wasted, when so made into foundation that the septa of
comb resulting is 60 per cent. thicker than the septa of natural comb?
or, to put it in another way, if foundation whose septa the bees will
work down to a thinness of 90/10,000 of an inch is worth 60 cents, what
is that worth whose septa the bees will work down to a thickness of
60/10,000 of an inch? Probably from 25 to 40 per cent. more. If a man
uses much foundation, this should touch him at the tenderest point.
I try not to be carried off my feet by enthusiasm, perhaps,
nevertheless, I may be. What do bee-keepers who stand off at arm's
length think of the value of such investigation?
It will not do to say it is better not to agitate these and such like
questions, it will only call the attention of consumers to the defects
of comb honey as now produced, and injure its sale. It can hardly
injure the sale of honey for consumers to know that we are trying
earnestly to improve its quality, but if on eating it a heavy wad of
wax forms in the mouth, that will do the work though the eater may
hardly know exactly why. Nothing finds so ready a market as goods that
give a fine sensation to the palate in every particular. We are bound
to make our comb honey equal in every respect to that produced by the
bees unaided by foundation, if we can.
I can think of nothing that would have a greater tendency to popularize
the work of the station, and to excite the interest of the bee-keeping
fraternity in it, than to enlist as many as possible in the matter
of making suggestions as to subjects and methods of experiment, but
more especially as to _methods_. Subjects are plentiful and easily
discovered, but simple and satisfactory methods are often slow to
suggest themselves. I meditated upon the matter all summer before
a practical plan for the comparison of combs made from different
foundations presented itself; to another mind the first thought would
have been the right one.
Now, I am at work endeavoring to discover a method of procedure for
determining the cause of the wintering trouble. I want it to be so
plain that every one will recognize it as the right one, and be
compelled to accept its utterances as final. It is hardly necessary to
say that it is still undiscovered, but perhaps our own journal, the
_Review_, might furnish us the key by means of a symposium of numerous
brief articles addressed to this one point.
Finally, as a closing paragraph, I want to take this opportunity to
make a suggestion to the apicultural journals of the country. I am no
journalist—I make no professions of knowing how to conduct a journal,
and, I am not going to offer any advice on that point, but I wonder if
some of them without detriment to themselves could not give a little
more active assistance in sustaining the work by an effort to create a
more general interest in its behalf. For that purpose, probably nothing
could be better than candid criticism.