ISU'J 



(il.KANINUS IN HKE CULTURE. 



1S7 



it (Id t(i say. tliiM'i'foro. that I'rdl'. t'ook can i)ro- 

 <iiu"(' lioiit'v at a less cost than Mr\ Root, and 

 Mr. I\(UU "at a less oust llian Mr. Doolittlc V 

 Why. if tliat were .»;(). when we i-onsidcr tlial 

 the time (>r the f^rcal mass of Ijcc-kccncrs is 

 wortli ()nl> aliont #=!. ".'."> jx'r dav. one i-oiild not 

 fail to sec tiiat Mr. Doolittlf niiist inevitably he 

 distanced in so nne(|uai a race. |{iii it is not 

 so. and we may still expect to see him come out 

 aheaii. How does tlie lionaii/a farmer, whose 

 lime is worth •i'.V) [)erday.or the gn'iit lawyer 

 wliose time is worth $I(H) per day. calculate the 

 cost of the w h(>at that is produced on his farm? 

 Why. they would liprnre with the other ex- 

 penses tiie amount neci'ssary to hire the labor 

 required to piiniuce the crop; and if either 

 chose to drive team on the farm foi- a week or a 

 month, he would not be so unjust to his wheat 

 crof) as to charire it with ^.V) or ^l(K) a day for 

 driving! K^am. We ousilit, in like manner, to be 

 fair with our honey cro[). If Mr. Dooliltle can 

 get the work i)f the apiary done at i?l. :.',"> [)or 

 (lay (we don't work here on Sunday), he ought 

 not to be heard to impose his own labor upon it 

 and chariie therefor SI.") per day. I have had 

 no trouble in getting it done at a ligure consid- 

 erably less tiian Sl.L'.'i. 



Turn now to the figures in the criticism in 

 Gleaxixhs. It is putting it mildly to say that, 

 when I examined them, 1 was .somewhat sur- 

 prised. We find yoked together Heddon hives 

 and Doolittle wagesi How could they get to- 

 gether in the same apiary ? or has he adopted 

 that excellent hive? Is Mr. Doolittle calculat- 

 ing the cost of honey production in his own 

 apiary, or in some apiary where the Heddon 

 hive is known to be used ? It is rather startling, 

 too, to find tliat. because tlie apiarist has stud- 

 ied the apiarian books and journals, and at- 

 tended the bee-keepers' conventions, and be- 

 conii- tliereby skilled, and his time valuable, 

 he allows him S.").(X) a day for his work, and then 

 turns around and allows him So.CKJ a day for the 

 time spent in reading the books and journals 

 and attending the conventions! and that, not 

 stopping ther(i, he goes on, allowing him the 

 cost of the books and journals and of attending 

 the con-ventionsi I have been much in and out 

 of law offices, and it is evident they are no place 

 to learn how to make charges. 



Mr. Doolittle does not attack my figures for 

 cost of plant, except that he takes the hives out 

 of that category; but for what reason, I fail to 

 .see. I put colonies of bees, hives and all, at 

 ?.5.{X1, which is more than the wholesale market 

 price will warrant. Hut granting his point for 

 th(! time, he lives where money commaniis a 

 high rate, or else he is unfortunate in the cost 

 of his Heddon hives, to make tin; double Inter- 

 est. 30 cents, on each. Here th(>y cost less than 

 Sl.tiO each; and as they will last fifty years, 

 with little repair. I could not conscientiously 

 charge double interest, even on that; but, of 

 course, I do not allow common mechanics So.OO 

 per day, nor machinery in like proportion, 

 Ilowever, I see no reason why hiv(!s should be 

 separated from the plant and made an extra 

 charge. 



It is possible he intends these hives for 

 swarms. If that be so, then of course the apia- 

 ry should have credit for the swarms, which 

 would make a further very material reduction 

 in the cost of the honey crop. 



Freights and commissions will, of course, 

 vary. These charges here for moving the 

 crop in question, (HM) pounds, from my apiary 

 to the railway, one mile, thence to Chicago, 

 nearly 'M) miles, with commission for selling, 

 would amount to ?•)."). .50; adding cartage in 

 Chicago, say ^r^..^, makes ?;()8— just my figures 

 which are attacked. ItisdiHicult to imagine 

 where our critic would ship his honey so as to 



nearly double these tigui'es (his figures an; ?!;.'.>), 

 unless hi- allows all railroad men *.").(H) ]„'r day 

 too. .Seventy dollars foi' sugar! and. besides, 

 ,?r).(K) i)er day for feeding it! At the end of the 

 last season (a veiy poor one) many of my hiv(\s 

 had from 50 to do pounds of honey, exclusiv(! of 

 bees and frame.s. It is evidently unsafe to 

 write about what does not come under onci's 

 own pi'i-sonal observation, or else pcM'haps Mr. 

 Doolitlle's Heddon hi ves operate differently. I 

 do not now feed much sugar for winter stones, 

 though last fall I might have madt^ ^\'>0 by ex- 

 tracting and feeding sugar, in which case the 

 ?70 would go on the other side of tin; account. 



Mi. Doolittle intimates that- this attempt to 

 show that the cost of the production of honciy 

 may be reduced, or " this lowering the standard 

 of our calling,'" as he puts it, is made to show to 

 the world a larger net ijiolit. No. he fails to 

 catch th(^ gist of my address. As he says, the 

 average yield has h(!en decreasing for the last 

 twelve years; and. judging from his statement, 

 it is decreasing more rapidly here than in New 

 York, as it is four years at least since we have 

 had an average of 40 pounds. With these facts 

 in mind 1 undertook to open the question as to 

 the actual necessary cost per pound at different 

 averages to lead to the determination, as near 

 as might be. of the point where all gain ceases, 

 that we might know when we must still further 

 reduce the cost or quit the business, I think 

 my figures are still too high for the great ma- 

 jority of bee-keepers. I am still convinced that 

 it is a laudable thing to strive to reduce the 

 cost of production, and to demonstrate how 

 that may be don<!, that we may reap all the 

 possible profit, while there is a possible profit, 

 and avoid loss when a profit is out of the quesT 

 tion. 



1 still think, as I thought when I wrote the 

 address, that economy in honey production is 

 the sheet anchor of the apiarist's hope. Econo- 

 my in honey production was the title of that 

 address; it was the thread that ran all through 

 it, and gave it consistency. Criticism ini.sses 

 the mark and loses its value when it fails to 

 discover the heart and life of the thing criticis- 

 ed. Economy in the production of honey is the 

 question of paramount interest to bee-keepers, 

 and it must come more and more to the front. 

 W'hat the vocation now needs most iS' critically 

 exact statements with full details of the actual 

 necessary expense of money and time required 

 in the production of a crop of honey. The 

 thoughts and pirns of int(^lligenl apiarists can 

 not do us better service than in giving us such 

 statements from real life, eschewing fancy sup- 

 plies and fancy wages. How many will volun- 

 teer to keep accurate accounts during the sea- 

 son now opening? R. L, Tayi^oh. 



Lapeer, Mich. 



COST OF PRODUCING HONEY. 



VALUABLE I'OINTS FROM ONK WHO DOES NOT 



MAKE BEE-KEEPING HIS EXCLUSIVE 



BUSINESS. 



In the .Jan, 15111 Gleanings there is, as I con- 

 sidered it, a very fair and conservative article 

 in regard to the cost pel- pound of comb honey 

 from a large specialist, Mr. R. L. Taylor. In 

 Feb. loth number, by Mr. (J. M. Doolittle, is an- 

 other that setiins to me wild. These men are 

 both-up, away up, in the profession, and their 

 opinions are worth something — in fact, all they 

 can get for them, so I presume it is hardly be- 

 coming in a very light weight to criticise those 

 opinions or differ with them; but, " fools rush 

 in where angels fear to tn^ad." 



Now, from the point of view of one who is a 



