Artificial food proper for Bees may be made by mixing coarse, raw sugar, and good, sound ale, in the following proportions:—
To a quart of ale add a pound and a half of sugar, gently boil them, in a sweet, well-tinned saucepan, over a fire clear from smoke, for five or six minutes, or until the sugar be dissolved and thoroughly incorporated with the ale; and, during the process of boiling, skim off the dross that rises to the surface. Some persons boil these ingredients much longer, and until they become, when cool, a thick, clammy sirup; this not only diminishes the quantity of the mixture, but renders it rather disadvantageous, to weak Bees in particular, by clogging and plaguing them, if, as they are almost sure to do, they get their legs or wings daubed with it. I prefer sirup in a more liquid state.
For spring feeding, I advise—that not more than a pound of sugar be put to a quart of ale, or sweet wort, if it can be obtained, and that a small quantity of common salt be added. By a small quantity I mean—a drachm or two at the most to a quart of the sirup. Salt, it has been said, is conducive to the health of Bees, and the most efficacious remedy for the dysentery, which sometimes affects Bees in the spring; therefore, it may not be amiss to put a little salt into their food, by way of preventive, rather than to have recourse to it afterwards as a remedy.
Speaking of the substances which are proper for the feeding of Bees, Mr. Huish says[I]—"he is perfectly convinced that honey alone is very injurious to Bees, as it in general gives them the dysentery." Whether by this extraordinary passage Mr. Huish has, or has not, subjected himself to the lash of his own ridicule, it would be hypercritical and unbecoming in me to determine. As an apiarian I respect him; in no other character am I acquainted with him. His work on the management of Bees I have read, and have derived information and occasionally assistance from some of its pages. There are in it, nevertheless, several untenable positions, of which I consider the above-quoted passage to be one: and, if what he has remarked somewhat sarcastically, in a note at the foot of page 31, be read in conjunction with this passage, it will be for the candid reader, apiarian, or other, to decide whether Mr. Huish in propriâ personâ does not, oddly enough, exemplify his own remark. It is there said—that "there is no wonder in nature which an apiarian has not seen." Professedly an apiarian himself, he must have seen some, at least, of the wonders in nature, otherwise he never could have been "perfectly convinced"—that honey—"honey alone"—the very substance which Bees, guided by the instinct of their nature, collect with so much industry, and store up with so much care, for their subsistence, should be "very injurious to them, and in general give them the dysentery." From this it seems that the substance, which is the natural food for one stock of Bees, is physic for another, if not poison!! I cannot but express my astonishment that a gentleman, so acute and experienced as Mr. Huish undoubtedly is, should have asserted in the most unqualified manner—that "honey alone is very injurious to Bees." Were this the fact, rich stocks, and all stocks that subsist upon "honey alone" during winter, would "in general" be affected with dysentery in the spring, which certainly is not the case. "In general" rich stocks are healthy and strong in the spring. Poverty is the predisposing cause of dysentery among Bees: a regular supply of their natural—their peculiar food, does not induce dysentery or disease of any sort. Had Mr. Huish analyzed the honey given to Bees as food, and which induced dysentery, he would, I suspect, have discovered that it was not "honey alone," but—medicated honey—honey and brimstone, or honey strongly tinctured either with brimstone or tobacco. That honey, tinctured with the pernicious qualities of those substances, should have a laxative effect upon impoverished, debilitated Bees, is no more than might be expected: but then it is not the honey that has the "injurious" effect, but the essence of the brimstone or of the tobacco that is administered along with it. What effect honey, that has not been stoved and saturated with brimstone or with tobacco, may have upon weak Bees, when given to them for spring food, I pretend not to determine, because I have never tried the experiment. But I do say that before the arrival of spring, honey, that has been drained or expressed from the comb, undergoes fermentation, and that fermentation may, for aught I know, impart to it physical properties, which in its pure, liquid, unchanged state, in the warm hive, it does not possess. I am not chemist enough to venture to assert that it is so, but I think it highly probable that fermentation may alter the properties of honey, and perhaps may render it unwholesome to Bees. But fresh, unfermented honey, even that in the blackest and oldest combs—the very refuse, and all such as the cottage-housewife makes into common mead, if spread upon large dishes and placed in an apiary, will be banqueted upon by the Bees in the most eager manner, and is apparently much enjoyed by them. They soon carry into their hives what they do not consume on the spot, and suffer no inconvenience whatever from the treat. I have feasted my Bees in this way scores of times, and esteem it the very best mode of autumnal feeding, and the most profitable way of disposing of broken combs and refuse honey. "Honey alone" is the natural food of Bees, and if given to them pure and untainted, in its primitive, limpid state, so far from being injurious, it is highly beneficial to them; of this I have not the shadow of a doubt. For autumnal feeding, I prefer honey to all other substances, and recommend it as the most proper food that can be given to them.
[I] Huish on Bees, page 272.
[CHAPTER XV.]
CATALOGUE OF BEE-FLOWERS, &c.