156 



THE AMERICAN APICULTURIST. 



ANSWER BY W. M. KELLOGG. 



"In 3'our opinion would it be 

 good policy to discontinue the use 

 of the extractor as suggested by 

 the Editorial in May number of 

 Api? 1 had intended to send an 

 article on that same editorial, and 

 I will say a great big ISO. Each 

 one will answer from his own lo- 

 cality and market. With my crop 

 of over 7000 lbs. from season of 

 '86 to date, I have sold of comb 

 914 lbs. out of 1,360 lbs., and of 

 extracted 4,181 lbs. out of about 

 5,940 lbs. Of this the comb has 

 gone slowly, by coaxing and much 

 talk, in little dribs at fifteen cents, 

 with considerable protest at its 

 being so high, while with the ex- 

 tracted it has been an easy sale at 

 ten cents and not a word against 

 the price, man}' wondering why I 

 chaige more for comb than for ex- 

 tracted. Again, it has been poor 

 people who bought, as a rule, the 

 extracted, while it is mostly the 

 town people who bought the comb 

 as a dainty dish to set off the table 

 for company. Of course a few of 

 the poorer class bought comb, and 

 some of the better able bought ex- 

 tracted. Now suppose I had pro- 

 duced only comb honey, and sold 

 only at the same price of fifteen 

 cents. I should probably have sold 

 comb honey to some who wanted 

 extracted but could not get it. 

 My sales would not have gone 

 above 1,500 lbs. at that figure. 

 Well, what if I had put the price at 

 twenty five cents as suggested? 

 The result would have been a few, 

 and a very few, of the better-able 

 class would have bought, under 

 worse protest than now, a few hun- 

 dred pounds ; the poorer class, 

 scarcely a pound. With first class 

 sorghum, good enough for any one 

 to eat, at fifty cents per gallon, 

 maple syrup plenty at $1.25, and 

 good sugar from five to seven cents 

 per pound, the sale of comb honey 



at twenty-five cents in this vicinity 

 would be ver}' small. I think all 

 this discussion in regard to forcing 

 people to buy what they don't feel 

 at)le to buy, by reducing the pro- 

 duction among those who are al- 

 ready in the business, by combina- 

 tion or otherwise, is time and 

 woi'ds lost. Our products will have 

 to stand the test of demand and 

 supply like any other. In my 

 opinion, instead of the extractor 

 being the cause of the decline of 

 the price of honey, I think it is 

 more to be laid at the door of those 

 who have "boomed" beekeeping to 

 its death. The more producers the 

 less consumers. I used to sell 

 comb honey at twenty-five cents, 

 and extracted at twenty cents and 

 had no trouble till others got at it 

 and knocked the bottom out with- 

 out the asking by consumers. But 

 the cheapening of everything is the 

 main factor in the case. The lai-ge 

 producer is spoken of. Where is he? 

 Point him out (don't refer to Cal- 

 ifornia). Name one man who lives 

 entirely bj^ the sale of honey alone. 

 I don't know of one, do you ? No 

 sir, they each and every one add 

 something else to the production 

 of honey. Comb honey with me 

 costs more than twice that of ex- 

 tracted. The question raised as to 

 fruit, in May Api is a queer one 

 to me. When berries, here, are 

 scarce and high, we all buy less, and 

 my honey sales are very much lar- 

 ger. AVhen fruit is ver}' plentiful 

 and cheap, 7H?/ family get all we can 

 possibl}' use and put away. But 

 when strawberries are twentj'-five 

 cents a box, we can get but few. 

 Last season several barrels of cran- 

 berries were sent to our city with- 

 out orders, with the injunction, 

 "seZ/ them" . The grocers put them 

 at five cents a quart all over town 

 and they went like hot cakes to 

 hungry men. I am willing to fall 

 into line in any way to make bee- 

 keeping more profitable, but it is 



