American Bee Journal - October 2020 Vol 160 No 10

The Gold Rush and the Honey Bee

Peter L Borst 2020-09-17 00:11:04

Editor’s note: This is a continuation of a series, begun in April as “Coming to America: Beekeeping in the New World.”

John and William Harbison were born in Western Pennsylvania in the early 1800s. Their father kept bees in rustic hives, so they were exposed to beekeeping at an early age. Before discussing their success in transporting honey bees to California, I want to describe the unique hive they used and popularized. The typical hive of the period was little more than a wooden box. Some more ambitious beekeepers had learned to provide two compartments, one for the queen and the rearing of brood (developing bees), and another above this, for the storage of honey. These compartments were accessed by means of doors, one for each section. Often the beekeeper would arrange glass jars over holes in the shelf, and the bees stored their honey in the jars — not knowing that it would be subsequently removed by their keeper.

During this same period Prokopovych (Прокопович), working in the Ukraine, developed and built hundreds of cabinet hives and it appears that he was the first to place wooden frames in the upper chamber of his hives, to obtain comb honey in small wooden boxes. This technique would be adopted by the Harbisons, but they took the hive one step further, by providing moveable frames in the lower chamber so that the combs with the queen and her brood could be examined and even removed in order to propagate bees in new hives, which the Harbisons called “colonizing.” William (W.C.) Harbison wrote:

We claim an improvement in the mode of constructing, and using the frame — that is essentially different from any previous known device, yet for a similar purpose for which frames have long been used. For which improvements, letters patent, were granted January 4th, 1859. (Harbison 1860)

He is referring to the fact that their hive is a cabinet hive where the frames can be removed from the back, individually, without disturbing the other frames. Previous hive designs had frames which were hung crosswise, so that the beekeeper had to remove all the other frames to access the one farthest inside. That the Harbisons were able to successfully move colonies of honey bees from the east coast to the west coast, via Panama, is in a large part due to the design of their hive. Many thousands of beehives were shipped west beginning with the California Gold Rush boom, but most perished during the long voyage.

It is interesting to note that while the Harbisons’ hive gradually fell into disfavor, one very much like it is still considered standard in Slovenia and neighboring countries. The hive, called the “A-Ž hive” in honor of inventors Alberti and Žnideršič, has back opening cabinet doors, and frames which are removed like books in a bookcase. The Harbisons were well aware of the newly patented Langstroth hive, but preferred their cabinet hive. Ironically, W.C. told a newspaper reporter from the Dollar Newspaper for January 21, 1857:

I will venture the prediction that both Quinby’s hive and mine will ere long be cast aside, to give place to a hive constructed in such a manner that the apiarian can have access to every part of the hive at pleasure, without injury to the colony. In this particular both Mr. Quinby and myself have signally failed. The invention of such a hive was reserved for Mr. Langstroth. (Cook 1880)

the haRbisons bRing bees to califoRnia

Growing up in southern California, I was exposed to Gold Rush lore at an early age. We diligently learned of the Forty-Niners, and their exploits. California gold was discovered in January of 1848, but it took a year before the news reached the east coast, when President Polk made an official announcement in his State of the Union address to the U.S. Congress (LOC 2020). The following year, some 100,000 people from around the world rushed to California. While a great many were engaged in the actual prospecting and mining of gold, there was also the huge contingent of people whose aim was to sell goods and services. California was viewed as the place to go to get rich quick. It turned out to have valuable resources other than gold, which figured in the success of people like the Harbisons. The central valley of the state was destined to become one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, and the forests of virgin redwood trees constituted a find whose value exceeded the discovery of gold. For many decades, nearly everything wooden — from houses to hives — was made from redwood lumber.

One of the principal biographers of John S. Harbison was Lee H. Watkins. He was apiary technician for the Entomology Department at UC Davis for many years, and wrote a lot about early California beekeeping. He was published in various magazines, including the San Diego Historical Society Quarterly. Sadly, Lee died unexpectedly in 1972, about 64 years old, leaving behind a great deal of unfinished work. His bibliography of works on Apiculture and Sericulture was completed by William Pickens in 1975. Watkins wrote this about John Harbison’s California adventure:

It took only a few weeks of unrewarding digging near Campo Seco, Calaveras County, to convince him that gold mining was not for him. He then traveled to Sacramento and went to work on December 5 at the T. F. Gould and Company’s sawmill in Sutterville, where he was employed until the fall of 1855. He also soon wrote East (probably his brother, William) for some seeds and a few trees, and when this arrived in February 1855 he opened a nursery on the Jefferson property in Sutterville. (Watkins 1969)

Using their varied expertise (long distance traveling, beekeeping, lumber milling, nursery growing and general entrepreneurship) the Harbisons were able to do what many had tried and subsequently would fail to do, bring live bees to California where none were, and begin the rapid buildup of beekeeping and honey production on the west coast. An article in the Sacramento Daily Union, December 5, 1857, declared:

On Thursday afternoon last, the firm of W.C. & J.S. Harbison, shipped on board the Indiana, Capt. Laughlin, sixty-seven colonies of bees for California. J.S. Harbison, of Sacramento city, had them in charge; who, it appears has been here the past season arranging his hives in a proper manner, and having the bees lay in their stock of provisions for their long journey. Every comb in the hive is firmly supported in its place, and each hive is ventilated and covered with painted canvass, in order to protect the bees from heat and rain. These gentlemen have much experience in the bee business — in fact the pioneers in doing a heavy business in Lawrence county [Pennsylvania] and, if successful, will be the pioneers in the trade in California. This we believe is the heaviest shipment of bees ever made to the El Dorado; however, if we recollect, an attempt was made some time since, but failed, in consequence of not having them properly packed to pass through a tropical climate. A colony of bees in California, we are told, is worth about $100, and thus we may judge that if these gentlemen succeed with this shipment they may soon realize a fortune with their bees. (Anon 1857)

sheRman Was theRe

In the course of my research into the Harbisons, I stumbled upon a fascinating series of articles, published in the California Historical Society Quarterly, beginning in 1944 and with the title “Sherman Was There: The Recollections of Major Edwin A. Sherman.” Here was another ambitious and enterprising man, destined to cross paths with the Harbisons. While the Harbisons’ books ring true, and are filled with information of the time, Sherman wrote considerably more than they did, and by his own account, was the actual writer of John S. Harbison’s “Bee-keeper’s directory.” In his words:

August of 1859, I received from a friend a letter of introduction to a Mr. John S. Harbison, who lived near the Sacramento River about four miles below Sacramento City, and who, I was informed, wanted some capable person to write his book on “Bee Culture.” (Sherman 1945)

According to Sherman, he apprenticed with Harbison for four months, working during the day and writing at night. He states that hives were still selling for $100, but the shrewd Harbison knew that if the market began to saturate, prices would plummet, so Harbison persuaded Sherman to become an agent and sell hives in a part of California where they were still lacking, namely Los Angeles. He soon learned that spring arrives two months earlier there than in Sacramento, and by March the hives were filled with bees and preparing to swarm. Central to Harbison’s system was to multiply the colonies at will, before they issued swarms, which would simply head for the hills.

As luck would have it, Sherman was called to jury duty at the point at which the most work needed to be done — forming new saleable colonies — before the swarming fever took hold and caused his investment to be lost. He wrote that the local Sheriff was so adamant about Sherman’s duty as a juror, that he didn’t even have time to wash his hands. These were literally coated with the sticky aromatic resin that bees paint all over the inside of beehives. Following his story, the smell of the resin was so attractive to the bees that they pursued him to the court house and proceeded to sting the Judge, the jury and worst, the horses tied up outside. The trial was dismissed and our beekeeper led his bees out of the courthouse, now a hero.

Now, I don’t know how much credence to place in this tale but Sherman states that he took the proceeds from the sale of hives to purchase a printing press and a newspaper: The San Bernardino Herald. This he renamed The Patriot, and he referred to it as “a staunch uncompromising Union journal, loyal to the government and the American flag.” His story continues with “The Discovery of Silver in Nevada,” and from there we say farewell and bid him luck.

beekeeping takes off in califoRnia

John Harbison’s California beekeeping career began in the vicinity of Sacramento, which is located at the southern part of the Sacramento Valley. It merges imperceptibly with the San Joaquin Valley directly to the south, forming what was referred to as the Great Valley, or more commonly, the Central Valley. It comprises over a third of the acreage of California. The value of this region was immediately recognized and in a few years the vast meadow was turned into farmland, leaving about one percent of the native grassland untouched. Unfortunately, this happened so quickly that there is little record of the original botany of the region, and it was quickly replaced by farm crops and their associated weeds.

The settlement of California by white people has been so recent, and the peculiarities of its flora and fauna so different from most other parts of the world, that the introduction of many plants and animals common elsewhere, but not indigenous here, has occurred within the memory of men of this generation, or the one preceding. (Fox 1878)

I have been unable to find out what made up the original flora of the Great Valley, but it was primarily grasses — hence the fact that it was quickly plowed up and sowed to wheat. Some beekeepers apparently thought honey came from the tall “tule grass” (Schoenoplectus) which grows up to ten feet high in some places. One writer stated:

The tule has been mentioned as a honey plant since many beekeepers claim it to be one, but the writer believes that it yields no nectar. Honey buyers often refer to honey gathered along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers as “tule honey.” In marshes about Sacramento River. (Richter 1911)

The Central Valley marshes had many species of plants, but the main source of honey was probably Cephalanthus, also known as buttonbush.

In the Sacramento and some other valleys in California, the Cephalanthus abounds along streams of water or in the edges of the Tule lands, where it grows very large and yields immense quantities of honey, of the best quality in the State, and scarcely inferior to any in the world. (Harbison 1860)

There are also many references to wild mustard (Brassica spp) as a honey plant:

The California honey, made from mustard blossom, the flower from which most of the honey is gathered in this valley, is equal to any I have ever tasted. It has sold in San Francisco at from $1.25 to $1.50 per pound. (Appleton 1858)

Even Harbison refers to it in his 1861 “Bee-keeper’s Directory,” stating, “Mustard affords a larger amount of valuable pasturage to the acre than almost any other plant. It blooms throughout the month of May, and part of June.”

It is difficult to know when the flora of the Valley was no longer predominantly native, and when it had become mostly crops and weeds. Many of these had been imported earlier by Russian settlers who established Fort Ross about 1814, a hundred miles or so west of the Sacramento Valley. They grew a variety of crops including wheat and barley as well as vegetables such as potatoes, beets, cabbages, and also mustard.

the move to san diego

Harbison was not to remain in the Sacramento area. He was a sharp businessman and had already realized that if he was successful in making his fortune by supplying the local settlers with bees and hives, eventually everyone would have them and the market would collapse. As mentioned, he had agents plying the trade in other counties. In this way, he was not only look ing for new opportunities to sell hives and bees, but he sought to find new untapped pastures where he could produce honey himself, which still commanded a high price.

The Great Valley periodically flooded and finally, “all his earthly belongings were lost in the Sacramento Valley in the flood of 1862”(Hanson 1923). Harbison had learned of the bee pastures of San Diego County, where the hills and mountains abounded with species of sage (Salvia) and buckwheat (Eriogonum, Polygonum). He rebuilt his apiaries from those that had escaped the flooding, and in 1869, moved his holdings to San Diego. His knack for selling Harbison Hives seemed unbounded and as a result by 1876, census records showed over 23,000 colonies of bees in that county (Fox 1878).

The result of this explosion in beekeeping was inevitably a glut of honey on the local market. Undaunted, Harbison took advantage of the newly completed (1869) transcontinental railway which was shipping products back and forth between California and the Eastern United States. The American Bee Journal of November, 1873 reported:

Clark & Harbison, of San Diego, Cal., have made quite an extensive shipment of honey to this city [Chicago]. They sent one car-load containing 21,000 pounds comb honey, which is the largest shipment ever made at any one time to this market. Mr. Harbison informed us that they had obtained over 60,000 pounds comb honey this season from their southern apiaries alone. (Anon 1873)

In the following years he produced over one hundred such freight car loads of honey. Harbison’s California Sage Honey could be purchased in stores all along the east coast. At the time, the standard package for the honey consumer was a wood box with a glass cover, holding five pounds of honey. Harbison introduced smaller one- and two-pound “sections” which were more attractive to the consumer, and quickly became the standard package for comb honey.

Eventually, the honey extractor was invented and widely adopted. The demand for liquid honey surpassed that for honey in the comb. Harbison never made the switch from comb to liquid honey. Instead he reduced his holdings in bee hives and followed other lucrative pursuits.

By the late 1880s Harbison had considerable investments in real estate and orchards himself, as well as being active in the Harbison Wholesale Grocery Company. Though he had 500 colonies of bees in 1893, most of them were rented out. One hundred colonies were still in his possession when he died [in 1912]. (Watkins 1969)

Beekeeping in San Diego County struggled against many setbacks. One of these was the notion of fruit farmers that honey bees were detrimental to their crops. Not only did they not realize the need for bee pollination but they were convinced that honey bees ate the fruit. Even when court testimony revealed wasps as the real culprits, fruit growers burned whole apiaries in retaliation.

haRbison and the italian bees

The Harbisons expanded their influence throughout California by importing bees from the East and manufacturing hives by the thousands. Also, both John and his brother William published full length books on bee biology and the method of employing their hives. Like those of Langstroth, Quinby and others, these books were widely read and absorbed by beekeepers.

Following the importation of the Italian bee to New York by Langstroth and Parsons, this breed was rapidly adopted by progressive beekeepers, in part because of its productivity, ease of management, etc., but also because of its attractive golden appearance. Not to miss out on another opportunity, John Harbison obtained Italian bees to propagate and sell to the willing beekeepers in California, that they might convert to superior stock.

In 1865 he went east, and on his return brought with him selections of Italian bees, made from the most noted apiaries in the eastern states, and also seventeen of the choicest queens he could find. The hives of Harbison are now composed entirely of the very best honey making bees. (Anon 1873)

In a very real sense, Harbison was the primary driver of apiculture in California, although it is plain that had he not done it, others would have. But his efforts were so strong and successful, that he earned the title “King of the Beekeepers.” In the hills east of San Diego a deep valley bears the name “Harbison Canyon.” Like much of California, it is a high risk area for wildfires. The slopes are covered with the black button sage and wild buckwheat that filled Harbison’s hives and those of countless beekeepers in the decades since. When the summer sun scorches the chaparral, the scrubby bushes are fire waiting to happen. But when the winter rains come and soak their roots, the hills come alive with blossoms and the honeycombs fill with nectar.

citations

Anon. (1857). Honey Bees in Sacramento. Sacramento Daily Union. Vol. 14, No. 2089.

Anon. (1873). Apiaries in San Diego, Cal. American Bee Journal. Vol. 7, No. 9.

Anon. (1930). Old Fort Ross - A Stronghold of the North. California History Nugget. Vol. 3, No. 3.

Appleton, F. G. (1858). California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences. Vol. 9, No. 8.

Cook, A. J. (1880). The Bee-keepers’ Guide: Or Manual of the Apiary. Chicago, Ill., T. G. Newman.

Fox, C. J. (1878). Bee-keeping in California. Bee-keeper’s Magazine. Vol. 6, No. 11.

Hanson, F. (1923). How Honey Bees First Came To California. The Western Honey Bee. Vol. 11. No. 1.

Harbison, J.S. (1861). Bee-keeper’s directory; or, The theory and practice of bee culture. H.H. Bancroft.

Harbison, W.C. (1860). Bees and Bee-keeping: a Plain, Practical Work. CM Saxton, Barker & Company.

Library of Congress. (2020). The Discovery of Gold. www.loc.gov/collections/ california-first-person-narratives/articlesand- essays/early-california-history/ discovery-of-gold/

Richter, M. C. (1911). Honey Plants of California, Bul. 217. University of California, Berkeley.

Sherman, A. B., & Sherman, E. A. (1945). Sherman Was There: The Recollections of Major Edwin A. Sherman. California Historical Society Quarterly. Vol. 24, No. 3.

Watkins, L. H. (1969). John S. Harbison: California’s first modern beekeeper. Agricultural History. Vol. 43, No. 2.

Watkins, L. H. (1969). John S. Harbison: Pioneer San Diego Beekeeper, The Journal Of San Diego History, San Diego Historical Society Quarterly. Vol. 15, No. 4.

©American Bee Journal. View All Articles.

The Gold Rush and the Honey Bee
https://americanbeejournal.mydigitalpublication.com/articles/the-gold-rush-and-the-honey-bee

Menu
  • Page View
  • Contents View
  • Advertisers
  • Website
  • Contact Us

Issue List

April 2026 Vol 166 No 04

March 2026 Vol 166 No 3

February 2026 Vol 166 No 2

January 2026 Vol 166 No 1

December 2025 Vol 165 No 12

November 2025 Vol 165 No 11

October 2025 Vol 165 No 10

September 2025 Vol 165 No 9

August 2025 Vol 165 No 8

July 2025 Vol 165 No 07

June 2025 Vol 165 No 06

May 2025 Vol 165 No 05

April 2025 Vol 165 No 4

March 2025 Vol 165 No 03

February 2025 Vol 165 No 02

January 2025 Vol 165 No 1

December 2024 Vol. 164 No. 12

November 2024 Vol. 164 No. 11

October 2024 Vol. 164 No. 10

September 2024 Vol. 164 No. 9

August 2024 Vol 164 No 8

July 2024 Vol 164 No 7

June 2024 Vol. 164 No. 6

May 2024 Vol. 164 No. 5

April 2024 Vol. 164 No. 4

March 2024 Vol 164 No 3

February 2024 Vol 164 No 2

January 2024 Vol 164 No 1

December 2023 Vol. 163 No. 12

November 2023 Vol 163 No 11

October 2023 Vol. 163 No. 10

September 2023 Vol. 163 No. 9

August 2023 Vol 163 No 8

JULY 2023 Vol 163 No 7

June 2023 Vol 163 No 6

May 2023 Vol 163 No 5

April 2023 Vol. 163 No. 4

March 2023 Vol. 163 No. 3

February 2023 Vol 163 No 2

January 2023 Vol. 163 No. 1

December 2022 Vol. 162 No. 12

November 2022 Vol. 162 No. 11

October 2022 Vol. 162 No. 10

September 2022 Vol. 162 No. 9

August 2022 Vol. 162 No. 8

July 2022 Vol. 162 No. 7

June 2022 Vol 162 No 6

May 2022 Vol 162 No 5

April 2022 Vol. 162 No. 4

March 2022 Vol 162 No 3

February 2022 Vol. 162 No. 2

January 2022 Vol 162 No 1

December 2021 Vol. 161 No. 12

November 2021 Vol. 161 No. 11

October 2021 Vol. 161 No. 10

September 2021 Vol. 161 No. 9

August 2021 Vol. 161 No. 8

July 2021 Vol 161 No 7

June 2021 Vol. 161 No. 6

May 2021 Vol 161 No 5

April 2021 Vol 161 No 4

March 2021 Vol 161 No 3

February 2021 Vol. 161 No. 2

January 2021 Vol. 161 No. 1

December 2020 Vol. 160 No. 12

November 2020 Vol. 160 No. 11

October 2020 Vol 160 No 10

September 2020 Vol. 160 No. 9

August 2020 Vol 160 No 8

July 2020 Vol. 160 No. 7

June 2020 Vol. 160 No. 6

May 2020 Vol 160 No 5

April 2020 Vol. 160 No. 4

March 2020 Vol. 160 No. 3

February 2020 Vol. 160 No. 2

January 2020 Vol. 160 No. 1

December 2019 Vol. 159 No. 12

November 2019 Vol. 156 No. 11

October 2019 Vol. 159 No. 10

September 2019 Vol. 159 No. 9

August 2019 Vol. 159 No. 8

July 2019 Vol. 159 No. 7

June 2019 Vol. 159 No. 6

May 2019 Vol. 159 No. 5

April 2019 Vol. 159 No. 4

March 2019 Vol. 159 No. 3

February 2019 Vol. 159 No. 2

January 2019 Vol. 159 No. 1

December 2018 Vol. 158 No. 12

November 2018 Vol. 158 No. 11

October 2018 Vol. 158 No. 10

September 2018 Vol. 158 No. 09

August 2018 Vol. 158 No. 8

July 2018 Vol. 158 No. 7

June 2018 Vol. 158 No. 6

May 2018 Vol. 158 No. 5

April 2018 Vol. 158 No. 4

March 2018 Vol. 158 No. 3

February 2018 Vol. 158 NO. 2

January 2018 Vol 158 No 2

December 2017 Vol. 157 No. 12

November 2017 Vol. 157 No. 11

October 2017 Vol. 157 No. 10

September 2017 Vol 157 No 9

August 2017 Vol. 157 No. 8

July 2017 Vol. 157 No. 7

June 2017 Vol. 157 No. 6

May 2017 Vol. 157 No. 5

April 2017 Vol. 157 No. 4

March 2017 Vol. 157 No. 3

February 2017 Vol. 157 No. 2

January 2017 Vol. 157 No. 1

December 2016 Vol. 156 No. 12

November 2016 Vol. 156 No. 11

October 2016 Vol. 156 No. 10

September 2016 Vol 156 No 9

August 2016 Vol 156 No 8

July 2016 Vol. 156 No. 7

June 2016 Vol. 156 No. 6

May 2016 Vol. 156 No. 5

April 2016 Vol. 156 No. 4

March 2016 Vol. 156 No. 3

February 2016 Vol. 156 No. 2

January 2016 Vol. 156 No. 1

December 2015 Vol. 155 No 12

November 2015 Vol. 155 No. 11

October 2015 Vol. 155 No. 10

September 2015 Vol. 155 No. 9

August 2015 Vol. 155 No. 8

July 2015 Vol. 155 No. 7

June 2015 Vol. 155 No. 6

May 2015 Vol. 155 No. 5

April 2015 Vol. 155 No. 4

March 2015 Vol. 155 No. 3

February 2015 Vol. 155 No. 2

January 2015 Vol. 155 No. 1

December 2014 Vol. 154 No. 12

November 2014 Vol. 154 No. 11

October 2014 Vol. 154 No. 10

September 2014 Vol. 154 No. 9

August 2014 Vol. 154 No. 8

July 2014 Vol. 154 No. 7

June 2014 Vol 154 No 6

May 2014 Vol. 154 No. 5

April 2014 Vol. 154 No. 4

March 2014 Vol. 154 No. 3

February 2014 Vol. 154 No. 2

January 2014 Vol. 154 No. 1

December 2013 Vol. 153 No. 12

November 2013 Vol. 153 No. 11

October 2013 Vol. 153 No. 10

September 2013 Vol 153 No 9

August 2013 Vol. 153 No. 8

July 2013 Vol. 153 No. 7

June 2013 Vol. 153 No. 6

May 2013 Vol. 153 No. 5

April 2013 Vol. 153 No. 4

March 2013 Vol. 153 No. 3

February 2013 Vol. 153 No. 2

January 2013 Vol. 153 No. 1

December 2012 Vol. 152 No. 12

November 2012 Vol. 152 No. 11

October 2012 Vol. 152 No. 10

September 2012 Vol. 152 No. 9

August 2012 Vol. 152 No. 8

July 2012 Vol. 152 No. 7

June 2012 Vol. 152 No. 6

May 2012 Vol. 152 No. 5

April 2012 Vol. 152 No. 4

March 2012 Vol. 152 No. 3

February 2012 Vol. 152 No. 2

January 2012 Vol. 152 No. 1

November 2011 Vol. 151 No. 11

October 2011 Vol. 151 No. 10

September 2011 Vol. 151 No. 9

August 2011 Vol. 151 No. 8

July 2011 Vol. 151 No. 7

June 2011 Vol. 151 No. 6

May 2011 Vol. 151 No. 5

April 2011 Vol. 151 No. 4

March 2011 Vol. 151 No. 3

February 2011 Vol. 151 No. 2

January 2011 Vol. 151 No. 1

December 2010 Vol. 150 No. 12

November 2010 Vol. 150 No. 11

October 2010 Vol. 150 No. 10

September 2010 Vol. 150 No. 9

August 2010 Vol. 150 No. 8

July 2010 Vol. 150 No. 7

June 2010 Vol. 150 No. 6

May 2010 Vol. 150 No. 5

April 2010 Vol. 150 No. 4

March 2010 Vol. 150 No. 3

February 2010 Vol. 150 No. 2

January 2010 Vol 150 No 1

December 2009 Vol. 149 No. 12

November 2009 Vol. 149 No. 11

October 2009 Vol. 149 No. 10

September 2009 Vol. 149 No. 9

August 2009 Vol. 149 No. 8

July 2009 Vol. 149 No. 7

June 2009 Vol. 149 No. 6

April 2009 Vol. 149 No. 4

March 2009 Vol 149 No. 3

February 2009 Vol. 149 No. 2

January 2009 Vol 149 No. 1


Library