218 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



Again, in the year 1907, a consump- 

 tive demand for Pacific coast clierries 

 was checked and almost destroyed 

 through the effects of abnormal prices 

 which placed the goods virtually beyond 

 the reach of the average housekeeper, 

 and to this day cherries have not been 

 reinstated in the estimation of the con- 

 suming public, and instances might be 

 multiplied. 



In many instances, consumers are 

 already paying high enough prices for 

 honey, but it is equally true that in many 

 instances producers are not receiving 

 enough for their product — there are too 

 many go-betweens. I think that one 

 part of the problem is to get the pro- 

 ducer and consumer closer together. It 

 is not possible, as a rule, to eliminate 

 the middleman, but the closer that the 

 producer can get to the consumer, the 

 better prices will the former realize. As 

 a rule, our honey (Hutchinson's) goes 

 direct to the consumer, or to the bottler 

 who sells to the consumer. At the 

 most, there is only one go-between, and 

 this explains why we are able to secure 

 ten cents per pound for our white ex- 

 tracted honey put up in 60-pound cans. 



BLL-POWER OR MAN-POWER? 



An Old-Time Consideration of the Ques- 

 tion of ''Keeping More Bees." 



Really new ideas in the bee business 

 are decidedly scarce. It is only of late 

 that very much attention has been given 

 to spreading out and the running of out- 

 apiaries, but the idea is not new. In 

 looking through some old journals re- 

 cently, my eye was caught by the above 

 title, and I proceeded to read. The 

 article was written by Prof. J. Has- 

 brouck, and published in the American 

 Apiculturist in 1884 — 26 years ago. 

 The ideas advanced are just as valuable 

 now as then, and I think them worthy of 

 reproduction. Here is what the Professor 

 said: 



There is an unmistakeable tendency 

 among those largely engaged in the honey 

 industry in this country, to divide into 



two schools: the one, keeping compara- 

 tively few bees, and relying upon various 

 forcing operations, involving a great deal 

 of labor, to secure a large crop of honey; 

 the other, by getting com.paratively little 

 from each of many stocks, letting the 

 bees do the most of the labor, — try to 

 get a larger aggregate yield. The one, 

 in the language of Mr. Doolittle, says, 

 "the greatest number of colonies kept 

 should not be our ambition, but the great- 

 est yield from a given number." The 

 motto of the other class is, "the greatest 

 amount of honey possible, at the least 

 expense;" the one party is always fight- 

 ing the "increase," viewing it only as so 

 many hungry mouths to be filled with 

 what they prefer to have in "the shape 

 of surplus." The other believes that if 

 a few bees are a good thing, more are 

 better, and that, if it will pay to feed 50 

 stocks, it will pay to spread over more 

 ground and feed 100, provided they are 

 put to good use. 



The honey business has been so ad- 

 vertised and "boomed," in various ways, 

 that the supply has rather outrun the 

 demand, and it is becoming to every 

 honey producer to study to take his 

 honey on just as small a margin as 

 possible so each one should consider 

 which of the above policies seems the 

 wiser for him to adopt in his locality and 

 circumstances. Mr. Doolittle has evi- 

 dently been studying the subject, and he 

 plainly indicates his convictions, in the 

 article above quoted, when he asks, 

 "Which IS considered the better farmer, 

 the man who employs certain help to 

 work 200 acres of land to secure a 

 certain yield therefrom, or the man who 

 uses the same help on 100 acres and 

 secures as large, if not a larger amount, 

 than does the other from his 200 acres?" 



Well, according to that supposition, the 

 100 acre farmer evidently has the best 

 of it; but, I submit, friend Doolittle, you 

 have put the most "brains" on the smaller 

 farm, to make it yield as much as, or 

 even more than, the one twice as large, 

 contrary to the natural course of events. 

 Now, admitting that an outlay in muscle 

 pays better than an investment in soil, I 

 still think, that to be fair, you ought to 

 allow the man on the 200 acre farm at 

 least one-half more income than the 

 other. Now remembering that labor is a 

 heavier expense than interest on capital, 

 tell us, which is doing the better business? 

 But suppose, the one, a stickler for the 

 "most thorough cultivation," should em- 

 ploy his expensive labor in trenching his 

 land with a spade, to get a larger crop 

 per acre, as he certainly would; while the 



