1921 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



turage of Southern California is pret- 

 ty thoroughly stocked, so there is 

 little room in the sage belt for begin- 

 ners, unless they buy an old range. 



I believe California now leads in 

 the production of honey. The honey 

 for the most part is of excellent 

 quality. There is no more delicately 

 flavored honey than that produced oy 

 the sages, and it is of excellent body 

 when allowed to ripen properly. The 

 orange honey is also beautiful to 

 look upon, and is of a spicy flavor, 

 recalling the fragrance of the orange 

 blossom itself. It is a very common 

 practice for beekeepers here who can 

 obtain suitable locations to move 

 fnom orange to sage and thus get 

 two flows in one season. Some then 

 move to the lima bean fields and get 

 three. The bees there are largely 

 Italian, though Cyprians, Carniolans 

 and Caucasians are used by some. Of 

 course, there are plenty of hybrids. 

 Almost all the beekeeping counties 

 have county clubs, which serve to 

 keep the members in touch with each 

 other's work and socially. 



The State has a good foulbrood 

 law. providing for an inspector for 

 each county where the beekeepers 

 demand one. The system of inspec- 

 tion has been thorougli, the inspec- 

 tor giving his whole time to the work 

 during the season, and subiect to call 

 at any time. American foulbrood has 

 been greatly decreased, and is al- 

 together under control. European 

 exists in some localities, but is not 

 near the menace that it was. 



California. 



LOOKING BOTH WAYS 



By Dr. E. F. Phillips 



The anniversary of the founding of 

 the American Bee Journal gives op- 

 portunity to look backward over what 

 has happened during the sixty years 

 since it was first published. Those who 

 live in the past and direct their view 

 only backward fail to see the bigger 

 things that are ahead and. on the 

 other hand, if we look forward we 

 fail to take advantage of the lessons 

 of the past and lack perspective. 

 Modern beekeeping is so new that 

 there has not been time for a long 

 historical record, but we can learn 

 some lessons from what is now a 

 matter of record. 



The founding of the American Bee 

 Journal followed closely the invention 

 of the movable-frame hive by Lang- 

 stroth, which made commercial bee- 

 keeping a possibility. Samuel Wag- 

 ner, the worthy founder of the Jour- 

 nal, was a close associate, of Lang- 

 stroth and did much to connect the 

 American work with that done in Eu- 

 rope. The early issues of the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal were filled with ex- 

 cellent articles of scientific interest, 

 and these early issues are still valuable 

 for permanent record. In those days 

 the interest of the beekeeper was 

 largely in a study of the things that 

 bees do, and not so much in what the 

 beekeeper does. This work and that 

 of early American beekeepers was 



the basis for the beekeeping of today, 

 which rests almost solely on obser- 

 vations on bee behavior and not on 

 development in apparatus. There 

 was a time in American beekeeping 

 when the sentiment seemed to be that 

 we can get apparatus to do the work 

 of the beekeeper, but this almost re- 

 sulted in the destruction of the indus- 

 try in the days of comb-honey pro- 

 duction. Undue emphasis on appa- 

 ratus and systems of management 

 took the attention of beekeepers 

 away from the needs of the bees 

 themselves, and as a result there was 

 a tendency to squeeze every possible 

 drop of the honey away from the 

 brood-nest and into the supers. This 

 policy resulted in small colonies, and 

 in the death of an abnormally large 

 percent of the bees in winter. 



If one could get far enough away 

 to view the whole industry it would 

 be clear that, as a result of this sort 

 of teaching, there is today a lack of 

 attention to the behavior and needs 

 of bees and comparatively too much 

 attention and thought is given to ap- 

 paratus. As a result of the type of 

 teaching prevalent thirty years ago, 

 the common practices throughout the 

 country are almost everwhere defi- 

 cient, in so far as the needs of the 

 bees are concerned. There is almost 



always too little honey left witn the 

 bees, not sufficient protection is given 

 them in winter and their needs in 

 spring are not supplied adequately. 

 This is a remnant of an earlier day 

 in American beekeeping and is still 

 greatly retarding the proper develop- 

 ment .of the industry. It is essential 

 to call attention to the difference be- 

 tween the common practices in bee- 

 keeping and those of the successful 

 beekeeper, for it is not intended that 

 the foregoing statement should be ap- 

 plied to progressive beekeepers who 

 study their problems adequately. 



This look at history and at the 

 present practices of what we may call 

 the average beekeeper, which are the 

 result of what has gone before, should 

 not fail to point out to us what should 

 be the line of attack on our problems 

 for the future. In so far as beekeep- 

 ers of the past have failed, their fail- 

 ures should serve us as lessons of 

 what to avoid. It is equally import- 

 ant that we avoid the tendency to 

 claim for the present day all of the 

 good things in beekeeping. We are 

 constantly confronted with "discov- 

 eries" that we later find clearly de- 

 scribed in Langstroth or Quinby, and 

 this failure to keep before us the 

 good things of the past is as bad as 

 to hold fast to the weaknesses of the 



J. S. Harbison, the pioneer honey producer of California. 



