7f38 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Nov. 1. 



the comparative supply of the product at widelj' 

 separated periods. 



Our foreig-n trade in honey has never been larg-e, 

 and tlie balance lias fluctuated. During- five years 

 past oui' average annual expoi'tation lias been valued 

 at only *83.4H9, jind importation at .$r)3.H91, making' 

 the value of the net exiwrtation only $3y,.598. This 

 little exportation goes iirincipally to the United King- 

 dom, France, and Germany, while our foreign par- 

 chases come mainly from the West Indies and Mexico. 

 The balance of trade is too small to att'ect the supply, 

 and our domestic consumption is satisfied with our 

 home production. 



In 18;'j9 our produ-ction was 23,366,357 pounds, and 

 our net importation not far from 3,00(1,000 pounds, 

 making- the sui)ply availalde for consumption that 

 year approximate r.'li.OiHMJOi) pounds. On the basis of 

 the population June 3 ), 1860, this was a per capita 

 supply of eight-tenths of a pound. 



Twenty years later, when tremendous advances 

 had been made in almost eveiy branch of industry, 

 the i)roduction of honey amcmnted to only ;i.5.743,3b8 

 p(mnds, and the otHcial records actually show a net 

 expoi'tation of honey, or something-shipped as honey, 

 amounting- to about .570.000 poumls, making the net 

 supply available about 25,0110,(IOO pounds, or a million 

 pounds less than at the first jieriod. The supply per 

 head was less than five-tenths of a pound. During 

 the same period the per capita consumption of ^ugar 

 and other sweets increased. Wealth and the ability 

 to gratify taste for luxuries are greater, and yet the 

 data seem to show a reduced consumption of this 

 luxurious sweet. 



So anomalous does this appear that some explana- 

 tion must be found. If the supplv per individual 

 unit had been the same in the last iieriod as the first, 

 it would have required a product of 40,(100,000 pounds. 

 What has taken the place of honey in domestic con- 

 sumption? Does the enormous increase in the manu- 

 facture of glucose and other saccharine adulterants 

 indicate that a fraudulent article makes up the re- 

 mainder of the needed supply ? Did our people in 

 1879 consume 1.5,000,000 pimnds as sub.stitute8, in the 

 belief that they had the genuine product of the hive? 

 buch would be a reasonable explanation of the com- 

 parative decline in bee-keeping. 



We heartily indorse (as also will every intel- 

 ligent reader) the vigorous reply made by the 

 editor, Mr. Newman, to a report so manifestly 

 incorrect and absurd. He says: 



The statistical table referred to, from the Census 

 Report of 1880, is manifestly incorrect. One simple 

 Item will show its error so palpably that no further 

 -words will be necessary. California's honey crop is 

 the largest in any State, and yet in the Census Table 

 It 18 credited with only about one-half as much as 

 Arkansas, one of the States producing but a compar- 

 atively small amount of honey! 



It also gives North Canjlina credit for 50 per cent 

 more than Michigan, and more than Illinois or Iowa! 

 Such "statistics" are very misleading, to say the 

 least. 



Our estimate, based upon statistics gathered by us 

 some years ago, is, that there arc 300,000 bee-keepers 

 In the United States and Canada, and the average 

 annual product is 100,000,000 pounds of honey. Our 

 tabulated statement by States may be found on page 

 330 of the Bee Journal for 1881. 



It is a notorious fact that the statistics given in the 

 census of 1880 are utterly unreliable. This was ad- 

 mitted by Col. C. D. Wright, Chief of the Bureau of 

 Labor Statistics at Washington, who was one of the 

 principal persons who directed the formulating of 

 the census that year. In an address delivered before 

 the Social Science Association at Saratoga, N. Y., in 

 1887, Col. Wright reviewed the whole census matter, 

 and pointed out its shortcomings, and then said: 



These two questions— cai)ital invested and average 

 wages— as answered by the census, illustrate the 

 fallacy of attempting to solve a certain line of 

 economic questions through the census as it has 

 existed. In making this criticism, let it be under- 

 stood that I arraign myself as severely as any one 

 else: for within a few years I have followed, in all 

 the census work in which I have been engaged, the 

 old form. Nor did I fully comprehend the enormity 

 of the error, and the infinite harm it has done, and 

 is likely to do. 



With this admission by Col. Wright, of the un- 

 reliability of the Census Report, we are surprised 

 that the statistician, Mr. J. R. Dodge, should attempt 



to make it prove that the industry of apiculture 

 was declining. 



Upon one erroneous conclusion he bases another 

 argument; viz., that, because of the decreased hon- 

 ey production, the people have been annually 

 "consuming fifteen millions of pounds of substi- 

 tutes, in the belief that they had the genuine prod- 

 uct of the hive." 



By intimation, the stati.stician indorses the Wiley 

 lie about manufactured comb honey, years after it 

 has been exploded and acknowledged to be a false- 

 hood, by its author ! 



No, sir; your conclusions are as erroneous as your 

 premises. The production of honey, instead of be- 

 ing only twenty-five millions of pounds, is over one 

 hundred millions— four times as much. Its increase 

 has kept pace with other products; and it is the 

 "pure product of the hive,"' too. 



It is too bad that such incorrect and damaging 

 statements and arguments should he published by 

 tho,se who ought to know better; and, going out un- 

 der the indorsement of the government, they not 

 only deceive tho.se not posted, but also form the 

 basis for other falsehoods. 



The above illustrates vividly the result of 

 setting somebody to collecting facts who is en- 

 tirely unacquainted with the matter in question. 

 It is the old story over, of going to Agassiz and 

 Tyndall to know about the natural history of 

 the honey-bee, when a bee-keeper in his teens 

 could have told either of them what idiots they 

 were making of themselves. This is strong 

 language, I know; but I think it is time that 

 something were done. We pay out our money 

 to somebody supposed to handle the matter in 

 question, and the above shows the result. Any 

 bee-keeper in our land, at all conversant with 

 our journals, could have told the statistician 

 that California has of late years been furnish- 

 ing more honey than half a dozen fair honey 

 States, and that Arkansas is almost entii'ely 

 unknown in the industry. It may be that Ar- 

 kansas has undeveloped resources; but I do not 

 remember that a large report has ever been 

 made through our journals from that State, and 

 yet there are dozens of States comprising bee- 

 keepers who produce honey by the carload. 

 The old adage, " Every man to his trade," is 

 what is needed here. The statistician should 

 be a bee-keeper himself, or else he should con- 

 sult some intelligent, thoroughly posted bee- 

 keeper. The editors of any of our journals 

 could readily point out a competent man at any 

 time; and so with statistics in our other indus- 

 tries. 



SWARMING AND SECTION HONEY. 



FRIEND DOOI.ITTI.E SUGGESTS HOW TO KESTKAIN 

 SWARMING AND ENCOURAGE HONEY- 

 STORING. 



My excuse for writing this article out of sea- 

 son (if any article on bees can be out of season) 

 is from the fact that a party in Colorado is con- 

 siderably agitated over the matter, and wishes 

 me to write an article on the subject as soon as 

 may be. The party says they have no trouble 

 in following the ideas I have sometimes ad- 

 vanced in regard to spreading the brood, which 

 our good friend Mrs. Harrison was sure might 

 be misleading to some, for there was no trouble 

 in getting the hive filled with brood and bees by 

 the time the honey harvest from alfalfa arrived 

 by using the plan; but the trouble was, that 



