224 
GENERAL HONEV HARVEST. 
rent, and ultimately more profitable to the owner, 
than the almost universally practised mode by suffo- 
cation, which is too well known to need description. 
The latter system may yield a greater return in pro- 
portion to the hives operated upon, — but in the 
former, there is a much greater number of hives 
available. For example ; Suppose two apiaries, each 
containing five stock-hives at the end of July, ex- 
clusive of as many swarms recently thrown. The 
owner of the one, practising the depriving system, 
takes from each of his stocks ten lbs. of honey, making 
an amount of fifty lbs. as his honey-harvest. The 
owner of the other, an abettor of suffocation, proceeds 
in September to smoke his five old hives, and receives 
from each twenty-five lbs. of hone}’, making an amount 
of 125 lbs. as his honey-harvest, between two and 
three times the quantity of the other. In the follow- 
ing year, the Depriver has his five old stock -hives, 
and the five swarms now become stocks also ; from 
the whole ten he now takes 100 lbs. of honey, while 
at the same time his apiary is augmented h_y the ad- 
dition of ten new swarms, making twenty for the fol- 
lowing year; while his rival possesses only his 
former number of five yielding 1 25 lbs. In the next 
year, that is, two years from the commencement of 
the comparative trial, the Depriver has twenty stock - 
* hives yielding 200 lbs., — and so on by a geometrical 
ratio, — while the other remains at his original 125 lbs. 
This calculation is made on the supposition that each 
owner takes but one swarm from each stock, and 
without making any allowance for losses and failures 
