STATISTICS CONCERNING THE BEE AND HONEY BUSINESS 
777 
Again, California, the State that un¬ 
doubtedly leads off in the number of its 
beekeepers and the amount of honey pro¬ 
duced, in spite of the fact that the census 
puts Texas ahead, has more commercial 
honey-producers than any other State in 
the Union. In California it may be said 
that at least three-fourths if not four-fifths 
of the honey-producers (the men who send 
honey out by tfie carload) live in the cities 
and towns and not in the outlying districts 
where their apiaries are located. They would 
not be included in the census reports. For 
example, some of the largest honey-pro¬ 
ducers in California, and, in fact, of the 
whole United States, live in San Diego, Los 
Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Pasa¬ 
dena, Fresno,- and San Francisco. A vote 
has been taken at various conventions in 
California, and, in fact, all over the 
United States, showing that the largest 
honey-producers in the country are almost 
never listed in the census report—not be¬ 
cause the enumerators have refused to call 
upon them, but because, under the ruling, 
no beekeepers can be listed unless they are 
farmers or produce over $250.00 worth of 
farm products. 
There are several other States, such as 
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Vir¬ 
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Washington, and Oregon, having a popu¬ 
lation very largely rural, where the census 
figures would be more accurate. If 25 per 
cent were added to their totals the figures 
would be reasonably correct. 
It will be admitted that the census re¬ 
ports, so far as they relate to populations 
of cities and towns, and the country at 
large, and to general products, will be 
reasonably accurate; but so far as they re¬ 
late to the production of commercial honey 
and the aggregate mass of honey produced, 
they are grossly inaccurate—so misleading, 
in fact, that they are a joke. After the 
1900 and 1910 census reports on bees were 
prepared, the deficiency in those reports, 
relating to the bee industry, was laid be¬ 
fore the Bureau, and a promise secured 
that, when the 1920 census was being 
prepared, the names of all beekeepers, 
whether in cities, in towns, or on the farm 
would be secured; but for some reason the 
matter was overlooked or not deemed pos¬ 
sible. At all events, when the 1920 figures 
were available, the same old inadequate 
scheme of taking account of only bees and 
their products on farms was put thru. 
Taking it all in all, the only value that 
the United States census has, is in giving 
something more than a guess at the number 
of bees and the amount of honey produced 
in States having no large cities and a rela¬ 
tively large rural population. Again, the 
census figures for 1900, 1910, and 1920 are 
very valuable in showing that beekeeping 
on farms, instead of going forward is going 
backward. This is easily explained on the 
ground that foul brood, both European and 
American, is cleaning out the farmer bee¬ 
keepers, and the business is now going more 
and more into the hands of the intelligent 
backlotter, intelligent farmer, and the com¬ 
mercial honey-producer. 
For the United States as a whole, the 
totals for all the States as to the amount 
of honey and wax produced could be mul¬ 
tiplied with entire safety by the minimum 
figure 2. It would probably be more ac¬ 
curate to use 3. When it comes to the num¬ 
ber of beekeepers in the United States, 
either of these multipliers would be alto¬ 
gether too high. A minimum of 25 per cent 
could be safely added, with the probability 
that 50 per cent increase would represent 
more accurately the number of beekeepers 
in the United States. This ratio of differ¬ 
ence should be explained on the ground 
that, while the number of beekeepers in 
the United States has not made a very 
great increase during the last twenty years, 
the actual amount of honey and wax pro¬ 
duced has increased by a ratio of from 
300 to 500 per cent. 
If any beekeeper wishes to know what 
his own individual State is doing he will 
have to apply a multiplying figure accord¬ 
ing to the conditions. If his State is large¬ 
ly suburban, like New Jersey, he can safely 
use the multiplier 3 as applying to both 
bees and honey. The same rule would ap¬ 
ply to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 
Connecticut. For New Hampshire, Ver¬ 
mont, Virginia, North Carolina, South Car¬ 
olina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North 
Dakota and South Dakota, Missouri, and 
Arkansas 25 per cent should be added to 
the number of beekeepers and the amount 
of honey produced. For the States of 
