ence; but would be liable, at any time, to lose it by trespassing
cattle. He might have suitable soil in the beginning, but without
knowledge, for the proper application of manures, it might fail to
produce; unless a _chance_ application _happened_ to be right.

But with the _intelligent_ farmer the case is different: fences in
order, manures judiciously applied, and with propitious seasons, he
makes a sure thing of it. Call him "_lucky_" if you please; it is his
knowledge, and care, that render him so. So with bee-keeping, the
careful man is the "lucky" one. There can be no effect without a
preceding cause. If you lose a stock of bees, there is a cause or
causes producing it, just as certain as the failure of a crop with the
unthrifty farmer, can be traced to a poor fence, or unfruitful soil.
You may rest assured, that a rail is off your fence of management
somewhere, or the proper applications have not been made. In relation
to bees, these things may not be quite so apparent, yet nevertheless
true. Why is there so much more uncertainty in apiarian science than
other farming operations? It must be attributed to the fact, that among
the thousands who are engaged in, and have studied agriculture, perhaps
not more than one has given his energies to the nature and habits of
bees. If knowledge is elicited in the same ratio, we ought to have a
thousand times more light on one subject than the other, and still
there are some things, even in agriculture, that may yet be learned.

It is supposed, by many, that we already have all the knowledge that
the subject of _bees_ affords. This is not surprising; a person that
was never furnished with a full treatise, might arrive at such
conclusions. Unless his own experience goes deeper, he can have no
means of judging what is yet behind.

In conversation relative to this work, with a person of considerable
scientific attainments, he remarked, "You do not want to give the
natural history of bees at all; that is already sufficiently
understood." And how is it understood; as Huber gives it, or in
accordance with some of our own writers? If we take Huber as a guide,
we find many points recently contradicted. If we compare authors of our
day, we find them contradicting each other. One recommends a peculiarly
constructed hive, as just the thing adapted to their nature and
instincts. If a single point is in accordance with their nature, he
labors to twist all the others to his purpose, alth