Chapter 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.

R. L. TAYLOR.

* * * * *

At the close of the essay Pres. Taylor remarked: "I suppose it is known that no appropriation has been made to continue this work for more than one year, and whether it is to be continued will depend somewhat upon the action taken by this meeting. It would also be well to have a committee appointed to decide in regard to the line of experiments that are to be conducted."