October 19, 1876. ] 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



357 



Blondinstte, and third a Fairy Swallow. The Selling classes 

 were large, and contained some cheap birds, some of which 

 changed owners. 



PIGEONS.— Cabbiees.— Cocfc.— 1, E. Beckwith. 2 and 3, J. Kendall, vhc, H. 

 Yardley, J. Kendall, E. Beckwith. Hen.— 1, J. Kendall. 2, E. Beckwith. S. H. 

 Parker, vhc, H. Parker, T. H. & A. Stretch, E. Beckwith. Poutebs.— Cock or 

 Hen.— 1, E. Beckwith. 2, E. A. Thornton. 8, J. Royle. vhc, A. P. Byford, H. 

 CroBby. Tumblebb— Short Jaced.— Cock or Hen.— 1 and 2, H. Yardley. 3, E. 

 Beckwith. vhc, E. Beckwith, H. Crosby. Babbs — Cock or Hen.— I, E. Beck- 

 with. 2 and 3, J. Royle. vhc, H. Yardley. Jacobins.— Cock or Hen.— I, 2, 

 and 3, W. Harrison, vhc, J. Gardner. Tuebits.— Blue or Silver.— Cock or 

 Hen.— 1, J. Gardner. 2, H. Yardley. S, J.Fielden. vhc, E. A. Thornton. Any 

 other colour.— Cock or Hen.—i and 2, E. Beckwith. 3, J. Gardner, vhc, A. 

 Roberts. Fantails — Cock or Hen— 1, J. Walker. 2. W. J. WarhnrBt. 3, J. F. 

 LorersidKe. vhc, J. Walker, J. Wood. Owls.— English.— Cock.— 1, T. Pincock. 



2, H. Verdon. 3, J. W. StanBfield. vhc, J. Brown, E. Beckwith, T. H. & A. 

 Stretch, J. Booth, W. Harrison, J. W. Stansfleld. Hen.—l, J. W. Stansfleld. 2, 

 J. Royle. 3, T. Pincock. vhc, J. Brown. H. Verdon, J. Fielden. Dbagoonb.— 

 Blue or Silver.— Cock or Hen.—l and 2, J. Stanley. 3. C. Waddington. vhc. J. 

 E. Warner, H. Yardley, A. McKenzie. Bed or Yellow.— Cock or Hen.— 1, R. and 

 J. Eoroyd. 2. J. Stanley. S.J.Gardner. vhc t J. Gardner. Any otter colour. 

 —Cock or Hen.—l, J. Gardner. 2. A. McKenzie. 3. T. Charnley. Any colour. 

 — Young.— 1, R. & J. Ecroyd. 2, W. Smith. 3, T. Putman. Antweeps.— Bed or 

 Blue^hequered.—Cock.-l, J. Kendrick, jun. 2 and 3, R. & J. Ecroyd. vhc, R. 

 and J. Ecroyd, J. & J. Bradley. Any other colour.— Cock.— I and 3, R. & J. 

 Eoroyd. 2, F. Eastwood, vhc, R. & J. Ecroyd, W. Hilton. Long-faced.— Cock 

 or Hen.—l and 2. C. F. Herrieff. 8. R. & J. Ecroyd. vhc, R. & J. Ecroyd, W. 

 Hilton. Any colour. — Young. — 1, C. Gamon. 2, T. Charnley. 8, J. Kendrick, 

 vltc, R. &J. Ecroyd, J. Stanley. Tbumpetebs. -Coefc or Hen.—l, 2, and 3. J. 

 Beckwith. vhc, E. A. Thornton. Nons oe Magpieb. — Cock or Hen. — 1 and 3, 

 E. Beckwith. 2, O. J. Monlds. Tumblekb.— Long-fnced.— Cock or Hen. — 1, H. 

 CroBby. 2, E.Walker. B.J.Brown. Lieeliest Bied foe Flying Pubposes. 

 — 1, G. Haydock. 2, J.Hobson. S.F.Eastwood. ANr otheb Vabiett.— 1, J. 

 Royle. 2 and Extra 2, E. Beckwith. S. W. Harrison. Extra 8, O. J. Mould. 

 vhc, J. Kendall, J. Royle. Selling Class.— 1. F. Eastwood. 2, E. Beckwith. 



3. T. E. Hamsworth. Cock or Hen.—l, E. Beckwith. 2, J. Young. 8, E. G. 

 Keay. 



Judges. — Messrs. E. Hutton and W. Sefton. 



DO BEES GATHER HONEY OK MAKE IT? 



My simple answer to this question, which has been again 

 brought to the front in this Journal, is that the latter is an im- 

 possibility. Unless beeB bring sugar into their hive3 apart from 

 the substance which Mr. Pettigrew calls crude honey, or excrete 

 it from their own bodies, they gather it abroad from froit or 

 flowers, or in rare instances in the form of honeydew. Mr. 

 Pettigrew's notion is that bees excrete it from their own bodies, 

 and in support of his opinion he quotes the statement of a 

 certain Professor Riley, an American, by whom the truth is so 

 well told that Mr. Pettigrew ventures to repeat it in two suc- 

 cessive issues pf this Journal. "Honey," he says, "iB a secre- 

 tion of bees to some extent as well as wax." But presently he 

 says that the " crude honey found in flowers and gathered by 

 the bees is afterwards changed and converted into honey proper. 

 After having been gathered and disgorged it is reswallowed, 

 and then passes through a process of preservation, in which it 

 is thickened and sweetened, resulting in honey, as the Professor 

 puts it." With all respect to Mr. Pettigrew I must say, as I 

 have said before, that these random and curious assertions are 

 not proven, and therefore the truth of this presumed fact is 

 still lying in dreamland. 



It is singular to observe how ready Mr. Pettigrew is to endorse 

 the notions and statements of this American gentleman, happen- 

 ing as they do to coincide with his own opinions, whereas a 

 while ago, in respect to the value of Italian bees, the testimony of 

 a number of Americans was ridiculed and contemned by him, in 

 common with everything from America, in the moBt unmeasured 

 terms. I repeat, with all respect both for Mr. Pettigrew and his 

 American friend Prof essor Riley , that we have as yet nothing bat 

 bare assertion for all these curious statements. True, there is 

 an allusion to a certain other American, a " chemist and botanist 

 of Louisiana, who described the changes undergone by nectar in 

 the elaboration into honey in the bee's stomach." Now this is 

 just what we want to know. Will Mr. Pettigrew favour us with 

 the data upon which this chemist founded his argument ? 

 Doubtless the same authority which notified the fact to the 

 "Housekeepers' Convention in St. Louis," also contains the 

 details of this remarkable discovery, which certainly was new 

 to the Journal of Horticulture till it was mooted by Mr. Petti- 

 grew. I can imagine no more interesting subject to bee-keepers, 

 on which the patient and exhaustive mind of the scientific Presi- 

 dent of the British Bee-keepers' Association, Sir John Lubbock, 

 might be brought to bear, than this question of the presumed 

 manufacture of honey in the stomach of the bee, if indeed he 

 should think it worth a second thought. At present I say we 

 have nothing but statements and assertions in Bupport of the 

 theory, which without the most satisfactory proofs will remain 

 assertions and nothing more, however frequently and persistently 

 reiterated. 



The secretion of wax from honey is an entirely different thing, 

 for honey is known to be little more than the quintesence of 

 sugar, which contains the fatty elements which are th9 ingre- 

 dients of wax. But where does the sugar come from ? Mr. 

 Pettigrew says it is not found in the crude honey gathered in 

 the flowers, it is elaborated in the stomach of the bee. Is it 

 so 1 Prove it, I say. It must, however, be elaborated out of 

 something in the stomach of the bee. For "out of! nothing 



comes nothing." Now, Mr. Pettigrew, please to tell us what is 

 that something out of which bees make honey; but in the 

 name of everything that is scientific, do not repeat the same 

 tale in the same form. Till the proof positive is furnished, or 

 at least till reasonable grounds for believing such a very ex- 

 traordinary thing are supplied us, nobody will be convinced 

 whose opinion is worth a groat. 



Of course, we all know very well from our first practical ex- 

 perience of honey, that at first, especially at certain seasons, 

 particularly towards the close of the honey season, it is thin 

 and watery. Ton may call this crude honey if you like. I do 

 not object to the term. Also, of course, we all know that beeB 

 transport the honey from cell to cell. At first they put it into 

 any vacant cell which happens to be ready for it. At night, or on 

 wet or gloomy days, it is carried away if there be a good quantity 

 of it in the cells usually appropriated to the queen's use for 

 breeding purposes, and removed to the permanent honey stores 

 wherever these may be. In process of transfer the bees reswallow 

 it and diBgorge it. All this we know well. I for one believe 

 (and it is at least a reasonable belief), that owing to the heat of 

 the hive a great evaporation takes place in the honey, both 

 when deposited temporarily and when transferred, and that it 

 thickens, and, of course, becomes sweeter and richer in the 

 process of thickening. But do not tell me that the bees have a 

 conjuring power hidden somewhere in their diminutive honey 

 sacs, which are scarcely larger than a big pin's head — a power to 

 convert the watery sugarless juice (according to Mr. Pettigrew), 

 extracted from flowers into real honey by means of the sugar 

 latent in the said tiny sacs. 



Now for a bit of real " fact." A friend of mine, who is such 

 an enthusiastic bee-keeper that he can never let bees alone 

 wherever he finds them, tells me that about seven weeks ago, 

 happening to be visiting a lady in Staffordshire who keeps bees, 

 he offered to take her honey for her. This was done, and on 

 carefully examining the combs, which were rich in honey in 

 open cells among the brood as well as in the upper stores of the 

 hive, he could see no difference in the honey. What was in the 

 open cells was just as rich and as perfect honey as that which 

 was sealed-up. He pointed out the circumstance to his hostess 

 in special reference to Mr. Pettigrew's theory, with which he 

 was well acquainted. Now, I do not mean to say that this uni- 

 form richness is to be found under all circumstances and in 

 every season alike the Bame. I know it to be otherwise. But 

 in this instance the bees were still hard at work bringing honey 

 into the hive ; and it is a proof of the remarkable productiveness 

 of the season, that quite to the last the honey was as rich or 

 nearly so as it had been at the beginning. There was no crude 

 honey in the bive at all. Can Mr. Pettigrew account for this on 

 his theory ? Usually the case is very different. In this country, 

 at least, our honey is uniformly thick and very rich in May._ It 

 is gathered from the April and May fruit blossoms, especially 

 from the apple blossoms. In June that gathered from the early 

 white clover is still rich, though paler than that gathered earlier. 

 In the latter part of July and early August it is often very 

 thin and poor with an acrid flavour; and at this time, when the 

 honey harvest usually takes place, there will be found all the 

 difference which Mr. Pettigrew describes between his crude 

 syrup in the open cellB and the richer honey stored in the 

 upper part of the hive. — B. & W. 



HOW I OBTAINED 13Hlb. OF HONEY IN SUPERS 

 FROM A STOCK OF BEES IN A STRAW SKEP. 



The stock which yielded the honey exhibited I bought, toge- 

 ther with three others, at a sale of farm stock, October 29th, 

 1875. It then weighed about 30 lbs. gross. Early in the spring 

 of this year I intended to have driven out the bees and to have 

 placed them with their comb in a bar-frame hive. During 

 March and April this hive was treated similarly to all my others 

 — namely, fed gently with barleysugar and liberally supplied 

 with artificial pollen. The great benefit arising from this treat- 

 ment was strikingly shown in this particular hive. It was kept 

 snug and warm, and young bees were being " brushed down" 

 very early whenever there waa a gleam of sunshine. The num- 

 bers increased daily so rapidly that I had doubts about disturb- 

 ing the brood comb in transferring to the bar-frame hive. I 

 was advised to let well alone, and to wait until twenty-one days 

 after swarming before I disturbed the combs. Meanwhile to 

 delay swarming a little, and to increase the chance of a very 

 heavy swarm I put on a box of sectional supers on May 24th. 

 This was instantly crowded, and on June 1st was nearly full of 

 comb and honey. It was then that I determined to give addi- 

 tional room, to work as many supers as possible, and to defer 

 transferring until autumn. 



I placed another sectional super with a slit in the top under 

 the partly filled one, and June 17th both supers were fall and 

 being sealed. Sunday and Monday, June 18 th and 19 th, were 

 hot and sultry days. A swarming mania seized my apiary. In 

 bar-frame hives I generally prevented swarming, but from the 

 skeps out the bees would come. Among others an enormous 



