THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



581 



^oxxtspondtntt. 



This mark © indicates that the apiarist ie 

 located near ttie center or the state named; 

 6 north of the center; ? south; O* east; 

 •O west; and thi8(< northeast; xj northwest: 

 o« southeast; and 9 southwest of the center 

 of the State mentioned. 



For tlie American Beo Joarn&L 



Statistics Of tie Ayerage Honey CroD. 



JOHN H. LARRABEB. 



I am so situated that it is impossible 

 for me to consult statistical reports, 

 and I would like to know how and 

 where I can obtain statistics of any 

 kind or even estimates concerning 

 apiculture in the United States. An 

 article on the statistics of apiculture 

 would be very acceptable to me. Can 

 we not have such an article either 

 from the editor's pen, or from that of 

 JSr. W. McLain? 



Larrabee's Point, >oVt. 



[We requested Mr. McLain to give 

 us all the information he possessed on 

 this point. The following is from his 

 pen:— Ed.] 



Editor American Bee .Journal: 

 — In my first annual report to the U. 

 S. Entomologist, you will remember 

 that I called the attention of that 

 officer to the very generally expressed 

 desire that the Commissioner of Agri- 

 culture instruct the correspondents 

 of the Department in the several 

 States, to gather and report statistics 

 and estimates concerning the number 

 of colonies of bees kept within the 

 areas covered by their individual re- 

 ports, upon the fifteenth day of May, 

 each year ; and also to furnish upon 

 the first day of October, an approxi- 

 mate estimate (based upon careful in- 

 quiry) of the amount of apiarian pro- 

 ducts secured, together with full in- 

 formation concerning the condition of 

 the bee-keeping industry, and that 

 the information so obtained might be 

 given to the public through the Bul- 

 letins issued by the Department. 



That such information would be of 

 very great value to those engaged in 

 the business of honey-producing, is 

 readily seen. A knowledge of the 

 supply of any commodity aids the pro- 

 ducers of that commodity in fixing the 

 price of their products. 



Inasmuch as no special appropria- 

 tion has been made by Congress for 

 encouraging and developing the in- 

 dustry of bee keeping, but little of 

 much that is important and urgently 

 needed, can be undertaken. 



The officers of the bureau have done 

 what they could forour industry, with 

 the very limited resources at their 

 disposal, and my instructions have 

 covered a few lines of experimental 

 work which in the judgement of the 

 Entomologist are most valuable and 

 serviceable to those engaged in bee- 

 keeping. 



Of my own accord, I made some ef- 

 fort toward collecting and compiling 



facts and estimates concerning this 

 industry. I wished to be able to give 

 an approximate estimate of the num- 

 ber engaged in bee-keeping in the 

 United States, and the several States ; 

 the number of colonies kept, and the 

 annual product of honey and wax in 

 the United States, etc., but the more 

 I investigated the matter the more 

 unsatisfactory the results of such in- 

 quiry appeared. I obtained the Annu- 

 al Reports of a number of State 

 Boards of Agriculture ; and the re- 

 ports of a number of State Bee-Keep- 

 ers' Associations ; and the tabulated 

 exhibit of statistics concerning bee- 

 keeping in the census of the United 

 States, and I found each available 

 source of information misleading and 

 of little actual value. 



For example : In an annual report 

 of a State Board of Agriculture, the 

 number of colonies of bees reported 

 as being kept in a certain couuty in 

 which 1 was acquainted, was 1,500. I 

 knew that in single townships in that 

 county nearly or quite 1,500 colonies 

 were kept. 



And again, turning to page 2.50, of 

 the United States census for 1880, 1 

 find the State of Tennessee is accredit- 

 ed with producing 2,130,680 pounds of 

 honey, and the State of New York 

 with only 2,088,845 lbs. North Caro- 

 lina is set down as producing 1,591,590 

 lbs., while Pennsylvania has but 

 1,415,093 lbs. Kentucky has 1,500,565 

 lbs. to her credit, while Ohio has but 

 1,626,847 lbs. Virginia has credit for 

 1,090,451 lbs., and the State of Illinois 

 has but 1,310,806; Georgia, 1,056,024 

 lbs. and Iowa but 1,310,138 lbs.; Ar- 

 kansas, 1,012,721 lbs., and Michigan 

 only 1.028,595 lbs.; Wisconsin, 813,806 

 lbs., Vermont, 221,729 lbs., and Indi- 

 ana has only 967,581 lbs. To say the 

 least, these figures are misleading. 



Who that is at all conversant with 

 the facts concerning the industry of 

 bee-keeping in the several States of 

 the Union would admit that the State 

 of New York is second to Tennessee? 

 or that Pennsylvania is second to 

 North Corolina, in the number of 

 pounds of honey produced V 



N. W. McLain. 



[The Table referred to by Mr. Mc- 

 Lain was published in full on page 

 819 of the American Bee Journal 

 for 1884. But it is so manifestly in- 

 correct, that it is entirely useless. 

 Arkansas is credited with producing 

 double the amount of honey which 

 California is credited with ; and North 

 Carolina is given 50 per cent, more 

 than Michigan, and more than either 

 Illinois or Iowa. Our estimate, based 

 upon statistics gathered by us some 

 years ago, is that there are about 300,- 

 000 bee-keepers in the United States 

 and Canada, and the average annual 

 product is one hundred millions of 

 pounds of honey. Our Tabulated 

 Statement by States may be found on 

 page 320 of the Bee Journal for 1881. 



Not only are the figures unreliable 

 with reference to bees and honey, as 



given in the U. S. Census for 1880 ; 

 but the statistics about our industrial 

 condition are equally fallacious. This 

 is admitted by Col. C. D. Wright, 

 chief of the bureau of labor statistics 

 at Washington, in an address given 

 by him before the Social Science 

 Association at Saratoga, N. Y., on 

 Monday of last week. Among the 

 many short-comings of the Census 

 which he pointed out, are the follow- 

 ing : 



The statistics of illiteracy, are from 

 inherent conditions incorrect, because 

 there are thousands of families who 

 do not confess to the enumerators 

 that they have members who cannot 

 read or write. 



Another instance of necessary error 

 is the census of tMe insane, which has 

 not yet even approximated accuracy, 

 because a very large number of insane 

 persons who are not confined in public 

 institutions are never counted. 

 Neither can the prevalence of idiocy 

 be accurately measured, because peo- 

 ple will not tell that they have idiotic 

 members in their families. Likewise 

 many local censuses as well as the 

 national census of mortality are yet 

 in many cases far from approximate 

 accuracy. 



But all enumerators of this kind err 

 on the favorable side. The number 

 of illiterates and idiots and insane 

 persons and of deaths is always too 

 small. Conclusions drawn from them 

 are not always vicious or wrong, but 

 conclusions drawn from comparative 

 statistics of thesekinds are almostsure 

 to be misleading. For example, if 

 the census of the insane at one date 

 be taken more accurately than at a 

 preceding date (which is nearly always 

 the case), a comparison would indi- 

 cate an increase of insanity which 

 the facts do not warrant. The in- 

 crease is really what may be called an 

 increase of accuracy in enumeration. 

 Comparative statistics on these sub- 

 jects, therefore, which seem to show 

 an alarming increase in ignorance or 

 insanity are misleading. 



But a far more general and more 

 important error of the same kind is 

 made in dealing with comparative 

 statements of pauperism. Our pau- 

 perism increases much faster statisti- 

 cally than actually. In the early 

 statistics of pauperism were counted 

 only the inmates of the poor-houses. 

 As census-taking becomes more of a 

 science an effort is made to include 

 all the real pauperism in the land, a 

 very insignificant portion of which is 

 in alms-houses or can be classified as 

 mendicancy. The increase of poverty 

 therefore, which the statistics show 

 may not and probably does not exist. 

 As census-taking becomes more and 

 more accurate, comparative statistics 

 between the past and the present be- 

 come more and more misleading. 



Now, we would suggest, as Col. 

 Wright is very likely to have charge 

 of the next census, that he inaugurate 

 a new plan, and have correct statis- 

 tics of" bee-keeping collected by the 



