1895. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



1,200 pounds of honey from each colony, in large apiaries, on 

 an average, will see that we are not up to our high privilege 

 here in the United States. While not up to Australia, yet I 

 find by a careful study of our own bee-papers that it is no un- 

 usual thing to see reports where 50 colonies of bees have pro- 

 duced 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, and even 8,000 pounds of honey, 

 while I have yet to see a report quadrupling such where four 

 times the number of colonies were kept. I oftener find that 

 200 colonies give but little if any better results than do 50, 

 while I know that more work is required to care for 200 dur- 

 ing a year, than is required for 50. To this work we have to 

 add the extra expense of hives, sections, etc., together with 

 the large amount of honey it takes to feed those extra 150 

 colonies. This last, in my opinion, is wherein lies the main 

 trouble in making a large number produce as many pounds 

 per colony as do a few. 



From careful experiments and observations, I am led to 

 believe that it takes at least 60 pounds of honey to carry one 

 colony of bees through the year ; hence, if we only get 30 

 pounds from a colony (an average yield that some bee-keepers 

 tell me they are satisfied with), we get only one-third of the 

 honey our bees gather, to pay us back for all our labor and 

 capital invested ; and also only one-third of the product of our 

 field. This product of the field cannot be overlooked, as I 

 have reason to believe, from past experience. 



Quite a number of years ago I was enabled to secure an 

 average of 166 pounds of comb honey from each of 67 colonies 

 of bees, spring count, as the average result of a single season, 

 and as honey sold at that time at 25 cents a pound, this 

 caused a greatexcitement in my neighborhood, and many went 

 into bee-keeping until I could count over 500 colonies of bees 

 within a distance of two miles from my house, the result of 

 which was a gradual lessening of the surplus honey per col- 

 ony, so that little more honey in the aggregate was obtained 

 from the 500 colonies than I obtained from the 67. 



A few years later a hard winter reduced the number of 

 colonies by about three-fifths, and the result was, that, during 

 the season following, my average per colony was nearly 120 

 pounds of surplus comb honey, and the aggregate amount of 

 surplus was about the same as from the 500. At 60 pounds 

 of honey as food for a colony, it would take 30,000 pounds 

 for 500 colonies. To this add a surplus of 15,000 pounds, 

 which is about what was obtained where the 500 were kept, 

 and we have 45,000 pounds as the product of our field, two- 

 thirds of which was consumed by the bees. 



The season after the hard winter, we had about 200 colo- 

 nies on the same field, -which consumed only 12,000 pounds 

 for their wants, leaving 33,000 pounds as surplus. As the 

 200 gave about 120 pounds each as surplus, or 24,000 

 pounds in all, we had 9,000 pounds going to waste for lack of 

 gatherers, thus giving 250 colonies as about the right number 

 for our field, providing the field remains the same, and we 

 allow that 120 pounds to be set down as a surplus with which 

 all should be satisfied. I believe it possible that bees can be 

 so worked that 200 pounds can be secured as a surplus from 

 each old colony in the spring, in which case 175 colonies 

 would be sufficient for our field. Now I candidly ask the 

 reader if we had not better keep the number in our field at 

 175, thus securing 35,000 pounds of the 45,000 as a surplus, 

 rather than keep 500 colonies and receive only 15,000 of the 

 45,000 pounds as pay for our labor, letting the bees consume 

 the rest. In other words, can we not make a few bees do for 

 us what the market-gardeners of the large cities make a small 

 piece of land do for them, namely, secure as much profit from 

 an acre of land as some of our country people do from their 

 tens of acres ? 



Many an apiarist has allowed his bees to increase until he 

 secured but little surplus from them, and then wondered why 

 his bees were not as profitable to him as they were in years 



gone by, apparently not even dreaming that it took nearly or 

 quite all of the product of his field to supply the wants of the 

 bees as their board. 



1 know that the above line of reasoning cannot be made 

 mathematically correct, yet there is in this thing a large and 

 unexplored region well deserving of our best thoughts and 

 efforts at this time of low prices, and, as a rule, small surplus. 

 Who will be the first to work it out -for us more practically 

 than anything before done ? Borodino, N. Y. 



Suggestions About the Bee-Keepers' Uuiou. 



BY G. W. DEMAEEE. 



I want to suggest that the proper thing to do is to elect a 

 new set of officers for the National Bee-Keepers' Union. I 

 think a change, from time to time, is best for all such institu- 

 tions. 



Let all sentiment be laid aside, and let each member vote 

 for some intelligent " bee-man " (our sister bee-keepers have a 

 higher mission than is found in court decisions) ; properly 

 distributing the number to be elected throughout the country 

 as justly as is practically possible. 



As to any change pertaining to "General Manager," that 

 can safely be left to the judgment of the members. I can see 

 no reason for any change in that respect, as the office of 

 "General Manager" is hedged about by a board of directors — 

 the President and Vice-Presidents. As one of the "old 

 board," I shall positively decline to act in the future. I want 

 to see a change. 



Another thing I want to suggest. Too much money in the 

 "treasury " is a temptation \,o lawsuits. I regard the Bee- 

 Keepers' Union a temporary concern. When we have obtained 

 from courts of repute a sufficient number of decisions to put 

 bee-keeping on even grounds with other pursuits, each bee- 

 keeper must then do his own "lawing." I have practiced the 

 profession of the law, and know whereof I affirm. There is a 

 specific stage of civilization that leads men to resort to the 

 law as a mode of warfare against their enemies. No " union " 

 should encourage that sort of civilization. This world — not 

 this country alone — is becoming full of "unions" and 

 " trusts," and "combines," and " societies," of every earthly 

 description, and there is a cataclysm ahead! or the "watch- 

 ers " of the " signs of our times " are mightily mistaken. 



Christiansburg, Ky. 



[Right in line with the foregoing suggestions by Mr. 

 Demaree, comes the following : — Editor.] 



Officers of the National Bee-Keepers' Union. 



BY FRANK BENTON. 



Heretofore, when voting for officers of the Union, I have 

 felt myself quite in the dark, as no candidates had been 

 named, and even in some instances I did not have a list of the 

 members of the Union from which to choose. Thus, however 

 excellent a man might be named in my ballot, it is very possi- 

 ble the vote would be thrown out because the man was not a 

 member of the Union, or it might be lost, practically, simply 

 because no one else, or but few others, happened to choose the 

 same candidate. 



Believing that many other members have also found them- 

 selves in the same dilemma, I propose to present the names of 

 a few of those for whom I would be willing to vote, and at the 

 same time suggest that other members who see a possibility 

 of improving the nominations by the substitution of other 

 names, or the naming of an entirely distinct ticket, should 

 send on their nominations at once, so they will appear before 

 the voting-time closes. — Jan. 31. 



We want men who occupy no equivocal position on the 

 question of honey-adulteration, in whatever form that evil of 



