240 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



was not nearly as bad, and the honey, with 

 only 10 per cent, of water added, was during 

 the month returned to the consistency of 

 very fair honey. 



Nectar extracted two or three days after 

 the combs were placed in the hives contain- 

 ed, during the dry weather of July and Au- 

 gust, from 10 to If) per cent, of water above 

 the amount always found in honey that has 

 been sealed in the comb by the bees. This 

 was determined by evaporating in test tubes 

 in hot water. 



Summary.— (1) The method at present 

 promising best results for artificial evapora- 

 tion is that by solar heat under glass well 

 ventilated. A small portion of a greenhouse 

 or forcing- house arranged for conserving 

 the heat of the sun, and so located that honey 

 could be run into the shallow vats directly 

 from the mouth of the extractor and drawn 

 off from the bottom of the vats into market- 

 ing receptacles, should give good practical 

 results. 



(2) Very thin honey or nectar will not 

 sour as quickly as supposed by many, and 

 may be safely kept during any period of 

 cloudy weather we may have during the hot 

 summer months. 



(3) The method of exposing to the air in a 

 warm room can not be depended upon to 

 ripen very thin honey, although it may be 

 serviceable for evaporating a very small per- 

 centage of water. 



(4) The method of evaporating by artifi- 

 cial heat of stove or furnace is expensive 

 and troublesome, requiring constant watch- 

 ing and care and not giving as good results 

 as had been hoped for. 



(5) The possibilities in the line of evapo- 

 rating honey for the purpose of increasing 

 the yield and preventing granulation are 

 very great. A series of experiments to de- 

 termine the increase in production by ex- 

 tracting freshly gathered honey would be 

 next in order and value. When the utility of 

 this method is fully demonstrated supers 

 with fixed frames and extractors holding 

 whole cases will be used and other appara- 

 tus conformable to the needs of the new sys- 

 tem." 



Feeding back honey to secure the comple- 

 tion of unfinished sections at the close of 

 the harvest was also tried with five colonies. 

 From the feeding of .S38 pounds there was a 

 gain in weight of 254 pounds. There was 

 also an aggregate gain of 3(5 pounds in the 

 brood chambers. With extracted honey at 

 8 cents and comb honey at 14 cents there was 

 a profit of $11.20. Feeding honey where 

 there were no partly finished combs to give 

 and the bees were obliged to build combs 

 from foundation was not profitable. It was 

 tried with only two colonies and ll^^Jpounds 

 fed. 7i)}^ pounds of honey and an increase 

 in the weight of the brood nests amounting 

 to lG3ij pounds was the result. Only .f 1.81 

 for the trouble. The honey was thinned with 

 12 per cent, of water and fed warmed. 



Why Bee-Keeping is Neglected at the State 

 Experiment Station, 



The bee, like charity, begins to hum, 



Of that sweet nectar, Solons, give me some. 



The following article by Dr. Miller was 

 written for the Illinois, State Bee-Keepers' 

 Convention, and I copy it from the A. B. J. 



"Many thousands of dollars are annually 

 spent in agricultural experiments, the money 

 therefor being taken from public funds. To 

 prove the wisdom of this, needs no very ex- 

 tended argument. Only by actual experi- 

 ment can a farmer ascertain many things 

 necessary for the profitable prosecution of 

 his calling. If in each township one farmer 

 should make experiments for all the rest, the 

 cost would thereby be greatly reduced; and 

 if a single set of men at one place, having 

 all the requisite appliances, with the power 

 to command the most favorable surround- 

 ings, make the experiments for all the farm- 

 ers in the State, then the cost is reduced to a 

 minimum per capita. 



Perhaps, however, the simple fact that in 

 the different States these experiment sta- 

 tions are continued year after year, funds 

 being freely voted for such purpose, is the 

 strongest proof of the wisdom and economy 

 of such outlay. 



It is a notorious fact that with very few 

 exceptions the interests of bee-keeping are 

 utterly ignored in all the experimental sta- 

 tions. In our own great State of Illinois, I 

 do not know that a single dollar of public 

 money has ever been spent in apicultnral ex- 

 periments. 



The utter neglect of this branch of agricul- 

 ture can only be justified, if it can be justi- 

 fied, at all, ou one of two grounds. First, on 

 the ground that the products of bee-keeping 

 are too insignificant to warrant an outlay 

 for experiments. Let us look at this. 



Suppose that throughout the r>.'>,000 square 

 miles of the State all the various vocations 

 are nicely adjusted, so that all are full, just 

 the right number of farmers, merchants, 

 blacksmiths, etc., for the highest welfare of 

 the State, only there are no bee-keepers. 

 Now suppose a bee-keeper be dropped on 

 each 10 square miles of territory with 100 col- 

 onies of bees. Then suppose an average 

 crop of iiO pounds per colony, at an average 

 price of 12>^cents per pound. The 5,600 bee- 

 keepers would produce 21^^ million pounds 

 of honey, worth in round numbers $3,500 

 000. Is that amount of clean-cut addition 

 to the total resources of the State not worth 

 considering? 



The census of 1880 shows the potato crop 

 of that year in the State of Illinois te be 10,- 

 3r)5,707 bushels. At 25 cents per bushel, the 

 value is .$2,.5;»1,427. Our estimated honey 

 crop is worth about a third more than this. 

 Of buckwheat there were raised 178,8.59 

 bushels. At 75 cents per bushel, $i:M,143— 

 not one twenty-fifth the value of our esti- 

 mated honey crop. Were there no experi- 

 ments on behalf of potatoes and buckwheat? 

 Of cheese, in 1880, Illinois produced 1,035, - 

 0<)9 pounds. Figured at the same price as 

 honey, that makes $129,384. Multiply by 2G, 



