T'mm JEMEitiC'SK @s^ j&^mnmi^. 



699 



The latest official record of produc- 

 tion by States is the return of the 

 national census for the year 1879. It 

 made the honey production 25.743.208 

 pounds, and wax 1.105,689 pounds. 

 After careful study of all available 

 data of local values and market prices, 

 the average farm value of the honey 

 was estimated at 22 cents per pound, 

 and the wax at 33 cents, making the 

 aggregate value of apiarian products 

 at the place of production, 16,028,383. 

 The product of the principal States in 

 that year was as follows : 



STATES. HONEi'. 



Lbs, 



Tennessee 2,130,689. 



New York 2,088,845. 



Ohio 1,62H,847. 



North Carolina.... 1,591,590. 



Kentucky 1,500,565. 



Pennsylvania 1,415,093. 



lUinois 1,310,806. 



Iowa 1,310,138. 



Virginia 1,090,451. 



All other 11,678,184. 



WAX. 

 Lbs. 

 86,431 

 ■79,756 

 56,333 



126,286 

 46,912 

 46,610 

 45,640 

 39,565 

 53,200 



524,984 



Total 25,743,208 1,105,689 



Under the head of •all other," in 

 the above statement, there is grouped 

 the production of 36 States and Ter- 

 ritories, ranging from 1.056.034 

 pounds of honey in Georgia to 50 

 pounds in Idaho. 



The census of 1870 was defective in 

 its returns of product for many crops, 

 and its record of honey and wax in 

 1869 is undoubtedly much too low. It 

 made the honey product only 14,702,- 

 815 pounds, too low in the aggregate, 

 though the falling ofl' in all States in- 

 dicates that it was a year of short pro- 

 duction. Illinois was the leading 

 State, with a crop of 1.500.000 pounds, 

 while North Carolina stood second. 



The returns in 1860 were more satis- 

 factory, and they show that the product 

 of 1859 was but slightly exceeded by 

 the crop of 1879, after 20 years of 

 growth. The production of wax was 

 actually greater. Many States show 

 a product greater than that of 1879, 

 and the aggregates of 23,366,357 

 pounds of honey and 1,322,787 pounds 

 of wax indicate that there has been a 

 comparative decline of the industry, 

 the increase of population being taken 

 into consideration. 



The nine States given in the preced- 

 ing table as those of principal produc- 

 tion in 1879, produced 14,000,000 

 pounds ; the same States 20 years 

 earlier had a record of 13,900.000 

 pounds. With our rapid annual in- 

 crease of population, to stand still in 

 aggregate production is to retrograde. 

 A more striking way of showing the 

 decline in the industry is by a study 

 of the comparative supply of the pro- 

 duct at widely separated periods. 



Our foreign trade in honey has 

 never been large, and the balance has 



fluctuated. During five j'cars past our 

 average annual exportation has been 

 valued at only |,82,489, and importa- 

 tion at 152,891, making the value of 

 the net exportation only !f;29,598. This 

 little exportation goes principally to 

 the United Kingdom, France and Ger- 

 many, while our foreign purchases 

 come mainly from the West Indies and 

 Mexico. The balance of trade is too 

 small to effect the supply, and our 

 domestic consumption is satisfied with 

 our home production. 



In 1859 our production was 23.366.- 

 357 jjounds. and our net importation 

 not far from 3 000,000 pounds, making 

 the supply available for consumption 

 that year approximate 26.000.000 

 pounds. On the basis of the popula- 

 tion June 30, 1860, this was a jier 

 capita supply of eight-tenths of a 

 pound. 



Twenty years later, when tremen- 

 dous advances had been made in al- 

 most every branch of industry, the 

 production of honey only amounted to 

 25,743,208 pounds, and the official 

 records actually show a net exporta- 

 tion of honey, or something shipped 

 as honey, amounting to about 570.000 

 pounds, making the net supply avail- 

 able about 25.000,000 pounds, or a 

 million pounds less than at the first 

 period. The supply per head was less 

 than five-tenths of a pound. During the 

 same period the per capita consump- 

 tion of sugar and other sweets in- 

 creased. Wealth and the ability to 

 gratify taste for luxuries are greater, 

 and yet the data seem to show a re- 

 duced consumption of this luxurious 

 sweet. 



So anomalous does this appear that 

 some explanation must be found. If 

 the supply per individual unit had 

 been the same in the last period as the 

 first, it would have required a product 

 of 40,000,000 pounds. What has taken 

 the place of honey in domestic con- 

 sumption ? Does the enormous in- 

 crease in the manufacture of glucose 

 and other saccharine adulterants indi- 

 cate that a fraudulent article makes 

 up the remainder of the needed sup- 

 ply- ? Did our people in 1879 consume 

 15.000.000 pounds of substitutes in the 

 belief that they had the genuine pro- 

 duct of the hive ? Such would be a 

 reasonable explanation of the com- 

 parative decline in bee-keeping. 



[The Statistical Table referred to 

 from the Census Report of 1880. is 

 manifestly incorrect. One simple item 

 will show its error so palpably th.at no 

 further words will be necessary. Cali- 

 fornia's honey crop is the largest of 

 any State, and yet in the Census Table 

 it is credited with only about one-half 

 as much as Arkansas, one of the States 



producing but comparatively a small 

 amount of honey ! 



It also gives North Carolina credit 

 for IjO per cent, more than Michigan, 

 and more tlian 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 are 300,000 bee-keepers in the 

 United States and Canada, and the 

 average annual product is one hundred 

 millions of pounds of honey. Our 

 Tabulated Statement by States may be 

 found on page 320, of the Bee Jour- 

 nal for 1881. 



It is a notorious fact that the statis- 

 tics given in the Census of 1880 are 

 utterly unreliable ! This was admitted 

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

 Bureau of Labor Statistics at Washing- 

 ton, who was one of the principal per- 

 sons who directed the formulating of 

 the Census of that yeai". 



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 — capital in- 

 vested and average wages — as an- 

 swered by the Census, illustrate the 

 fallacy of attempting to solve a cer- 

 tain line of economic questions through 

 the Census as it has existed. In mak- 

 ing this criticism, let it be understood 

 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 1 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 unreliability of the Census Re- 

 port, we are surpi'ised that the Sta- 

 tistician, Mr. J. R. Dodge, should at- 

 tempt to make it prove that the indus- 

 try of apiculture was declining. 



Upon one erroneous conclusion he 

 bases another argument, viz : that be- 

 cause of the decreased honey-produc- 

 tion, 'the people have been annually 

 •consuming fifteen millions of pounds 

 of substitutes, in the belief that they 

 had the genuine product of the hive." 



By intimation, the Statistician en- 

 dorses the Wiley lie about manufac 

 tured comb honey, years after it has 



