298 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



where between 5o,ooo,cxK)and 60,000,000. 

 We will suppose that the sections, on the 

 average, when filled with honey and 

 placed on the market, will hold some- 

 thing like "s of a pound. After talking 

 with various members of this convention 

 between sessions, I am inclined to place 

 that as a fair estimate. To make even 

 figures, then, we will estimate that there 

 are 50,000,000 pounds of comb honey pro- 

 duced annually in the Uuited States. *• 

 * * * 



While, perhaps, three years is not long 

 enough time to reduce the figures to a 

 good average, yet I should say the last 

 three years, considering that two of them 

 were very poor, would give us a very 

 conservative figure. 



After speaking of the value of the comb 

 honey produced, Mr. Root goes on to say, 

 regarding the amount of extracted honey 

 produced, that 



It is more difficult to get at the amount. 

 However, I think we ean safely estimate 

 that, in view of the fact that extracted 

 is produced much more largely in the 

 South than in the North, and that a good 

 manv bee-keepers in the Northern por- 

 tions of the country produce the liquid 

 article, it will be fair to assume that there 

 would be just about twice as much ex- 

 tracted honey produced as of comb, this 

 would give an aggregate of something like 

 100,000,000 pounds, of extracted every 

 year. 



Now, if the above statement of 3Ir. 

 Segelken is correct, and we have no rea- 

 son to doubt its reliability, and if Mr. 

 Root's estimates are approximatel)' true, 

 we find that one half as much extracted 

 honey as is produced in the United vStates 

 is sold in New York alone, and the sa-ne 

 is true of one-fifth of the comb honey. 



The above figures are very interesting 

 to those who wish to be posted in regard 

 to the importance of our industry; bui I 

 believe the actual facts, or a correct 

 statement, would show a much larger 

 production of honey than Mr. Root esti- 

 mates. His figures are based on the out- 

 put of sections for three years, two of 

 which were very poor ones for honey pro- 

 duction, and certainly, as he saj-s, his es- 

 timate is a very conservative one. 



Sta. B. Toledo, O., Oct. 3, 1899. 



»^ Department of 



riticism 



CONDUCTED BY R. L. TAYLOR. 



The best critics are they 

 Who, with what they gainsay, 

 OflFer another and better way. 



STENOG. — .\NOTHER UNPROFITABLE DIS- 

 CUSSION. 

 The above writer (Gleanings, 495) says 

 "some time ago I asked why hives can- 

 not be discussed as calmly as weather. 

 Mr. Taylor says it is because I said the 

 Standard dictionary is the latest and by 

 far the best of its kind ever printed." 

 What I did say was "well mainly, I sup- 

 pose, because such reckless statements 

 as this one for instance, about dictionaries 

 are not made about the weather. ' ' vStenog. 

 here doubtless does not quite come up to 

 Gleanings' standard of fair dealing. In 

 the same item he does himself like in- 

 justice in a remark about the word "boil." 

 Then he goes on to say "But you mustn't 

 say 'some time since Gleanings eschewed 

 grammar' why is the word since instead 

 of ago used in such cases?" Its forests 

 were long since cut away. — Rossiter 

 Johnson. How many ages since has Vir- 

 gil writ? — Roscommon. Stenog's. con- 

 troversy seems not to be so much with 

 me as with our standard writers. 



( This looks to me like the beginning 

 of another dictionary quarrel, similar to 

 the one indulged in V>y our friends Tay- 

 lor and Miller. Of course, we wish to 

 use good grammar in our bee journals, 

 and I believe that the attention that has 

 been called to it of late has not been en- 

 tirely unprofitable, but I think that no 

 good will come from its continuation; es- 

 Tiecially when conducted in the hair- 

 .spiitting style and drawn out to great 

 length. The space can be better em- 

 ployed in discussing subjects relating to 

 practical bee-culture. — Ed. ) 



