194 



JOUENAL OF HORTICULTDEE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



[ February 27, 1873. 



Doubtless some of the exhibitors will be woudering what is the 

 matter with their specimens when received home, but they will 

 no longer wonder when they learn their relative position to the 

 Cats at the Show. More injudicious placing it is scarcely 

 possible to conceive, as I think all will agree that if Cats are to 

 be Bhown with poultry at all, they ought never to be placed 

 above them. I contend that Cats have no right in a poultry ex- 

 hibition, and this opinion was considerably strengthened as I 

 passed up the tier of Cats, and to speak plainly I was glad to 

 get away from them again." 



BEE-DOMICILES, AND BEE SYSTEMS OF 

 MANAGEMENT. 



Tour esteemed correspondent, " A Eenfkewshiee Bee- 

 keeper," does not appear to be a bit more enlightened regard- 

 ing the views I incidentally expressed in a recent communica- 

 tion on the past bee season, notwithstanding that I again laid 

 J)efore him the entire passage for his reconsideration and reflec- 

 tion. I said it was a prevailing error among inexperienced 

 apiarians to look for honey results or amount of stores in virtue 

 of the kind of liivo used, instead of the productiveness of the 

 season and locality. In this I was borne out, not only by my 

 own experience, but by the testimony of most of our more 

 esteemed bee writers ; and it will not do for " A Renfrewshire 

 Bee-keeter " to ignore this testimony on the ground that some 

 crude theorists, with defective knowledge themselves, are apt to 

 repeat errors which, however, have no place in our standard 

 works. Whatever defects, therefore, there may be in oiir bee 

 literature, it is most assuredly not on the point disputed by your 

 correspondent. 



I am still of opinion, however, that "A Renfrewshire Bee- 

 keeper" has, by some confusion of ideas, failed to interpret 

 aright the views I expressed so plainly in the paragraph referred 

 to, and that this failure, as it appears to me, arises chiefly by 

 his confounding two things as one and the same, which are 

 entirely distinct and different — namely, in speaking of bee-domi- 

 cUes and bee systems of management as synonj-mous. The 

 Stewarton hive surely is not synonymous with the Stewarton 

 system, the swiirming with the non-swarming system, or the 

 stDrifying system with the collateral system ; and with refer- 

 ence to modern and autitjuated hives and systems, I have still 

 to repeat the question put to " A Renerewshire Bee-keeper " 

 to explain to me what really constitutes in his estimation the 

 Stewarton system as a modern system, and as distinguished 

 from all other or former systems of bee-management. 



In my remarks, to which exception was taken, I alluded to no 

 systems of bee mmagement whatever, far less did I pronounce 

 an opinion upon their respective merits. I did not even give 

 an opinion as to the comparative merits or utility of any hive as 

 a bee-domicile. I had no such objects in view. They were 

 foreign to my purpose. All I wished to show was that so far as 

 " honey results " or amount of stores were concerned, the hive, 

 qua the hive, had little or no influence. When " A Renfrew- 

 shire Bee-keeper," therefore, tells the readers of the Journal 

 that I consider all hives alike in utility, and all systems of bee- 

 management the same in value, it is an assertion as erroneous as 

 it is unwarrantable, for there is no ground for it in the para- 

 graph referred to. 



A similar confusion of ideas appears to me to prevail in the 

 illustrations given by your correspondent in the number of the 

 ICth January in continuation of the same subject — regarding the 

 quality of honey in different hives. Preference is there made to 

 Ihe superior staples produced in certain manufactories, in virtue 

 of modern improvements introduced, and the skill of the manu- 

 facturers. I am aware it is even so, but neither the Manchester 

 cotton manufactory and manufacturers, nor the Clyde sugar re- 

 finery and refiners referred to, is an apt analogy to the bee hive 

 and its workers. The bee-domicile is neither the manufactory 

 nor the refinery, for the manufactories and manufacturers are 

 both extraneous to it. Both are far removed — away among the 

 sweet-scented pasture-leas of wliite clover, or by the sunny 

 slopes of the purpled heath-clad hiUs. It is there that the bee- 

 manufacturer.s and manufactories may be found, while the hive 

 itself , in whatsoever way improved by modern inventions, is but 

 the simple storehouse in which the completed production is 

 deposited. The whole arguments thus put forward by your 

 esteemed correspondent in support of his hypothesis dissipate 

 on close inspection like the baseless fabric ®f a vision, or topple 

 down like the unstable editicB of a castle of cards. 



Now, let me take leave to draw the attention of your apiarian 

 readers to tlie proposition of Mr. Pettigrew — of testing the value 

 of diilerent kinds of hives. The method suggested by him is to 

 place a certain number of peopled hives in the same garden from 

 '" March till September — that is, during the season of honey 

 gathering, and all managed aUke on the swarming or non-swarm- 

 ing system," and the results would, according to his opinion and 

 belief, settle at once and for ever " fairly and satisfactorily " the 

 question, "Which kind of hive is best ? " and, as a consequence, 

 ■" the country would be ultimately enriched." If such a happy 



and beneficial result could in my opinion be obtained by Mr. 

 Pettigrew's proposition, I should wiUingly lend my helping 

 hand in carrying out all necessary arrangements ; but I quite 

 agree with your excellent contributor "B. & W.," that no satis- 

 factory results could possibly be obtained from such a method 

 of test ; indeed it would be no test at all, for the proposition 

 itself appears to me to be both wrong in its conception, and im- 

 practicable in its very nature. In the first place, Who is to 

 determine that these different kinds of peopled hives are all 

 started in March under equally favourable circumstances or 

 conditions as to stores, population, brood, and queen ? This 

 difficulty surmounted, the conditions of equality in March dis- 

 appear entirely, it may be, in April ; and ere the swarming or 

 honey season come round, the dissimilarity in point of pro- 

 sperity becomes every day only the more manifest ; and all this, 

 be it remembered, quite irrespective of any influence, it may 

 be, cf the particular kind of hive. It is evident that the results 

 in such a case, whatever they maybe, would determine nothing. 

 In short, it would require repeated trials or tests to establish 

 — I do not say a principle, but to approximate to a principle. 

 But what is the principle or object desiderated by the proposed 

 " test ? " Mr. Pettigrew answers, " The best hive." Best for 

 what? "Best for swarming, and best for non-swarming pur- 

 poses." Well, supposing the point gained, which is the best for 

 swarming, another question would still remain behind. Is the 

 best hive for swarming the " best hive '? " Is "best" applied 

 in reference to the multiplication of swarms only, and with no 

 reference to the increase of stores ? Again, Is the best hive for 

 non-swarming purposes the " best hive ? " Is " best " applied 

 to the prevention of swarms, and the increase of stores, but with 

 no reference to the increase of stocks ? Then again, should all 

 this be settled satisfactorily, a further question would crop up 

 — the old knotty question. Whether is the swarming or non- 

 swarming system the "best?" But now lam going "beyond 

 the record," I am getting into the consideration of the best 

 " systems," and not the best " hives ; " and I must pause. 



In conclusion, let me be permitted, in illustration of my own 

 views in reference to this subject, especially as to the alleged 

 effect of hive influence on " honey results," to say a few words 

 in point for the benefit of all whom it may concern. Let us 

 suppose, however, we take a more practicable method than that 

 proposed by Mr. Pettigrew in endeavouring to set this question 

 at rest. Suppose, then, we send into the bee garden in any 

 given locality six different kinds of hives in swarming-time, all 

 peopled simultaneously by prime swarms of equal weight or 

 numbers. " A Renfrewshire Bee-keeper " will, I fancy, send 

 his contribution in the shape of an octagon Stewarton hive, on 

 the assumption, of course, that in virtue of something or other 

 in the form, construction, or material of the hive, the amount 

 of honey stored will at the close of the season be larger than in 

 any other hive. Mr. Pettigrew, on the same principle, sends in 

 his capacious straw, believing also, I reckon, upon the same 

 grounds, that he vrill have no difficulty in coming off victorious. 

 John Chinaman, the " Renfrewshire Bee-keeper's " acquaint- 

 ance, sends in his " old orthodox straw " (one of " proper dimen- 

 sions," however), nothing daunted by the ill-disguised smiles 

 of the " modern " competitors. Mr. C. N. Abbot, Bee-master, 

 Hanwell, also, we shall suppose, sends in his " moveable bar- 

 frame hive," alluded to in his communication in the numl>er of 

 the Journal for February 6th. Mr. Abbot does not say whether it 

 is a Dzierzon, a Baron von Berlepsch, a De Bouvois, a Bevan, a 

 Taylor, a Tegetmeier, a Woodbury, or even a Langstroth frame 

 hive, with its sixty-one points of excellence. .W\ minor differ- 

 ences are, 1 reckon, of little moment in his estimation, provided 

 it is a " moveable bar-frame hive." The whole virtue consists, 

 apparently, in the principle of bars and frames, and in \'irtue of 

 which he confidently beheves his hive will compete successfully 

 in point of honey stores, more particularly with hives such as 

 Mr. Pettigrew's straw, whose damaging point is the " fixity of 

 the combs." I also send in two hives to make up the six, and 

 by way of contrast, not, however, for competition, but for rea- 

 sons to be explained afterwards. Well, one of the hives I send 

 is what I dignify by the name of my " palace hive," it being a 

 most expensively-constructed octagon, made of polished ma- 

 hogany, with vertical frames in two divisions, also of mahogany; 

 so also are all its appurtenances, with its massive ornamental 

 octagon cover. In each of the eight panels is a glass window 

 with shutters, which have brass hinges and knobs, and which 

 are shut by brass catches. The hive altogether is most unique 

 and ornamental, and if cost of material and expense of con- 

 struction have any influence on " honey results," I should fancy 

 I have it here. Along with this beautiful and highly ornamental 

 " palace hive " I send also, by permission, a common " tea-chest," 

 not of the largest size, but one of " proper dimensions." Now, 

 all these six hives (tea-chest included) are fairly peopled ahke 

 by prime swarms. The siart is made, we shall suppose, about 

 the end of May. So at it they all go, " A Renfrewshire Bee- 

 keeper's " Stewarton, with its bars, shdes, &c. ; Mr. Pettigrew's 

 capacious straw, 21 inches by 12; Mr. Chinaman's "old or- 

 thodox straw," not forgetting the "hackle;" Mr. C. N. Abbot's 



