im 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Mak. is. 



that much in return, he is getting good pay; 

 or. if you please, profit." Tliat's it. pay or 

 profit. It's a difference of names. Mi'. Doolittle 

 gets his pay for his sl<ill. and gets no profit. 

 And if he gets a fair price for his skill. h(! is 

 entitled to no profit. Mr. Taylor makes no 

 charge for his skill, and figures a profit. One 

 calls it pail, the other calls it profit. 



If any one should insist that, in Mr. Taylor's 

 case, thei'e is a net profit of $.525 on the (VXX) 

 pounds, independent of any skill. I think a little 

 considei'ution will show him his error. If skill 

 cuts no figure in the case, then Mi-. Taylor has 

 nothing to do but to turn his $1.07 man loose in 

 his apiary, and pay no attention to him all 

 summer long. Or. do yon suppose INIr. Taylor 

 would spend the time and thought he has spent 

 upon bees, pay for books and periodicals, and 

 going to conventions, with no expectation of 

 getting any pay for it? Will he do it just for 

 the fun of i t ? No. he likes fun. but he doesn't 

 believe in that kind of fun "that we alone 

 enjoy ■' without our wives and children having 

 a share in It— unless lie gets pay for it. 



The question whether it is the right way to 

 charge for skilled labor, and if so. how much, 

 is not easily answered in a word. I have at- 

 tempted here to show only that, in the item 

 that shows the greatest disagreement, it is a 

 matter of names rather than any thing else. 



Marengo, 111. V. C. Mii>i,eu. 



[You are quite right, doctor, and we are glad 

 to have you explain it. The whole thing, as 

 we understand it. in a nutshell, is this: Mr. 

 Doolittle figures his profit, or pay. in the amount 

 he charges himself or his apiary for his labor. 

 Mr. Taylor figures in the actual cost of hired 

 labor: and whatever he makes over and above 

 expenses in the production of a crop of honey 

 makes up his profit, and is therefore the pay for 

 his skill in supervising. After all. the two cor- 

 respondents mean about the same, only they 

 look at it from difl(!rent standpoints. What 

 one calls "' cost," the other divides into cost and 

 profit. We can not help believe, however, but 

 Mr. Taylor's use of terms is correct. Here is 

 another well-written article from^Ir. Taylor.] 



ECONOMY IN HONEY PRODUCTION. 



TIIK COST OK A I'OUND OF HONEY : K. I,. TAV 

 r,OR HEPT.IKS. 



In Gleanings of Feb. ]5th. and also in the 

 AmerkuDi Bee Journal of Feb. IStli. I notice 

 that Mr. Doolittle vigorously attacks my ad- 

 dress on the above topic, delivered Dec. 31st 

 last, at the meeting of the Michigan State Bee- 

 keepers' Association; and being impressed with 

 the surpassing importance of the subject. I am 

 constrained to examine as briefly as 1 may, con- 

 sistently with clearness, the objections he raises 

 to the position I there took, and I shall first 

 n^fer to his argumrnt in the Ainericati Bee 

 Journal. 



Our critic there cites my partial indorsement 

 of his figures, made four years ago. where I 

 stated he. had overlooked the losses in winter 

 and from disease. It is only necessary to reply 

 that I am four years older than 1 was then. I 

 trust I know more. Besides, I have found and 

 use a hive that very greatly reduces the neces- 

 sary amount of labor re(|nired in the apiary: 

 and as to winter losses, 1 think I have learned 

 how to reduce them to almost nothing. And 

 then, if it were any sin to grow, it would come 

 with ill grace from him to taunt me with it; 

 for let him compare the. statement he made 

 four years ago of the items which go to make 

 up the cost of the production of honey with the 



one he makes in Gi,e.\nings now. Of course, 

 he made each of them carefully and conscien- 

 tiously, according to the light he had at the 

 time. Then he put the time necessary to care 

 for 100 colonies at 313 days; now he puts 81 

 days, including the time required for the perus- 

 al of apicultural books and journals, and for 

 attending bee-keepers' conventions as the time 

 necessary for the care of 150 colonies I Then he 

 put the interest and taxes, and the wear and 

 tear on plant and hives of 1(X) colonies. at$(>4; 

 now he puts them at $M) on those of 150 col- 

 onies! Now he insists on all owing the apiarist 

 ?5.00perday; then he allowed him but §1.25! 

 So we are in the same skiff'. If not dead we are 

 all moving. What should most concern us is, 

 are we moving in the right direction? 



Of course, this growing knowledge greatly 

 reduces the cost of the production of honey; 

 but I have never shed tears over the reduction 

 of the cost of any thing useful to humanity. If 

 to assume that attitude '• belittles our pursuit," 

 so much the worse for our pursuit; but I feel 

 very sure it can not prevent our rising to the 

 "stature of God's freemen." whatever may be 

 meant by that sonorous phrase. Cotton cloth 

 which once cost .50 cents per yard can now be 

 produced for 5 cents; and if I show that it can 

 be mad(^ for the latter sum, I can not see very 

 clearly how I thereby sink below " the stature 

 of God's freemen," nor why to do so would be 

 " an open insult to (nery cotton manufacturer 

 in the land," nor why the finger of scorn should 

 therefore be pointed at me with the exclama- 

 tion, "Shame on such reasoningl'" 



It must now be evident from this that our 

 critic does not at this point discuss the matter 

 in hand. What he argues is, that a high price 

 for one's labor, or a large income, adds to one's 

 dignity, and exalts one's manhood; but I am 

 inclined to think he is wrong even in that. For 

 myself I should not estimate a man by the gold 

 he possesses, by his hourly income, nor by the 

 price he puts on his labor. For divers reasons I 

 prefer to work in the vineyard, the orchard, 

 and the apiary, even at §1.25 per dav, than fol- 

 low the law at §10.(KJ per day: and Dr. Miller 

 refused the offer of a large salary to engage in 

 an occupation which was not entirely congenial, 

 for the sake of outdoor home life, and work 

 among the bees, where, many years, he accepts 

 less than §1.25 per day with thanks. 



"A man's a man for a' that." 



I f(>el quit(^ unwilling to accept the doctrine 

 that Astor is a belter man iiecause he receives 

 §lt).38 per minute: indeed. 1 greatly doubt if he 

 is so good: and if one should undertake to argue 

 to the contrary. 1 should feel "'shame on such 

 reasoning," even if a feeling of delicacy forbade 

 its exi)ression. No. I can easily conceive of 

 circumstances wherein I would gladly accept 

 an offer of §45 from Mr. Doolittle for six week.s' 

 work, nor would I fr(>l that I had thereby de- 

 graded myself, nor could 1 maki^ snch an offer, 

 made in good faith, a reason for angi-r. 



Tlie rank is but the j?uiiiea"s stamp — 

 The man's the jrowd for a' that. 



After all. the point in my address which is so 

 furiously attacked is a vei-y simple one— the 

 cost of a man's labor for six weeks. One who 

 desires to consider squarely the very question 

 will find little place for rhetorical pyrotech- 

 nics; and if our critic harbors that desire 

 lie may settle it with the greatest ease; but it 

 will not do to mistake for the true question an- 

 other which is quite foreign to the matter; 

 viz., the value of the time of the owner of the 

 apiary. W^hat a basis upon which to calculate 

 the cost of the production of honey! Prof. 

 Cook's time, we will sav, is worth §10 per day; 

 A. I. Roofs. §12, and Mr. Doolittle's, §15. Will 



