January 5, 1871. ] 



JOURNAL OF HOSTICULTUEE AND COTTAGE GAKDENEE. 



19 



made at the time among some of the most extensive of the 

 Ayrshire bee-keepers, men quite above the meanness of such 

 adulteratiog practices, I was assured it was by no means prac- 

 tised among them — that, indeed, it would not pay ; and from a 

 somewhat lengthened experience of their system I would rather 

 incline to think it might prove a temptation to bee-keepers 

 working on the swarming or some other mode lacking the vast 

 population of Stewarton stocks, by which supers in favourable 

 seasons can be readily filled without any such extraneous aids. 



That Mr. Pettigrew unfairly maligned the bee-keepers of a 

 county where practical bee-keeping has been brought to per- 

 fection, and who turn out supers unsurpassable anywhere — 

 materially assisted by the abundance of white clover in their old 

 pastures, and their painstaking iu moving their stocks from 

 earlier to later districts as the season advances, and procuring 

 swarms from localities earlier than their own — can be clearly 

 demonstrated from the following : — Supposing they were so un- 

 principled as to fabricate sugar-syrup comb in the wholesale 

 manner indicated, so that three boxes could be sent to Man- 

 ohester and come under his review at one lime, duiing a season 

 when, from the unexampled abundance of clover honey, the finest 

 supers were readily procurable at from 9d. to Is. per lb. ; yet 

 this last season, from the extreme dryness of the summer, the 

 staple flower so utterly failed to secrete its wonted nectar, that 

 I was informed by a leading Ayrshire bee-keeper there had not 

 been, he believed, a single completed box of clover honey in all 

 the county. What a chance for the adulterators ! Clover 

 honey not to be had, a warm summer with their bees all idle 

 ready to store ; and how opportunely a railway opeued bringing 

 the finest Greenock crush sugar direct from the refinery to 

 their own doors! And what do we find? After inquiring of 

 the most extensive honey dealers in Glasgow I have had in- 

 variably the same answer — " Not offered a box of honey from 

 Ayrshire this season." This surely requires no comment. 



But how are we to get over the three supers referred to by 

 Jlr. Pettigrew, who positively asserted they were sugar syrup ? 

 " A LAN.iEKSHiRE Bee-keeper," on the other hand, v;ho seemed 

 to have inspected them before their dispatch, was equally confi- 

 dent they contained no more sugar than his pen. Of this I know 

 absolutely nothing. Would Mr. Pettigrew pardon the sugges- 

 tion that possibly he may have been mistaken ? seeing clover 

 honey from Stewarton hives, gathered so rapidly as it was in 

 such a summer as that of 1869, was of a limpid purity not 

 unlike syrup, and likely to cause a party unfamiliar with it to 

 make the mistake, which has frequently been made before. 



To illustrate this, I have a very vivid recollection, in the 

 days of my novitiate, of the first time I examined in a Glasgow 

 Italian warehouse some supers of clover honey. The combs 

 were so massive and straight-wrought, and their contents of 

 such dazzling purity, that I came away thoroughly disgusted 

 with my poor tops at home, of which I had been previously not 

 a little proud, with their twisted unsealed combs irregularly 

 studded with odd pollen-cells and small patches of brood, and 

 all abominably discoloured over the central holes of my straw 

 skeps. I speedily took counsel of my preceptor, a shrewd and 

 most experienced bee-master of the old school, and exactly such 

 as I picture in my mind's eye Mr. Pettigrew to be, and related 

 the marvels I hid witnessed. He listened quietly, unmoved at 

 my glowing description. Had he seen them too ? I asked. 

 With a twinkle in his eye and a shrug of his shoulders, " Oh 

 yes ; yon's all sugar," was the reply I was staggered with. Not 

 quite content with this, I subsequently made repeated excursions 

 into Ayrshire to acquire a knowledge of the Stewarton system, 

 purchased hives, and set to work ; and after a good many years' 

 experience it so happened that I took last season from a Stew- 

 arton stock at one lift three, and the previous season from the 

 •same colony four, 20-lb. supers, that forstraightness and purity 

 would fairly vie with the above, and the stock had not had a 

 single tea-spoonfal of sugar for the last three years, convincing 

 me how thoroughly my old friend had been mistaken. I have 

 been assured by most experienced judges of honey who officiate 

 at the leading shows, that such adulteration of honeycomb is 

 seldom to be met with, that it would not pay, and is resorted to 

 by the merest novices to complete a box or glass, but that the 

 diiierence of colour and rough crystallised appearance at once 

 lead to detection. 



Mr. Pettigrew, in No. 446, remarks, and very justly too, that 

 " Sweetened water never becomes honey, even though twice 

 swallowed and disgorged by bees." He may not be aware, and 

 it may interest him to know, that seven or eight years ago the 

 iheory was advanced that sugar syrup so swallowed underwent 

 a chemical change before being stored by the bees, so as to con- 



vert it into veritable honey ; but this doctrine, though upheld 

 by high authority, including one of the ablest pens whose con- 

 tributions adorn the bee portion of the Journal, our Editors, to 

 their credit be it mentioned, strenuously resisted. — A EENriiEW- 



SHIKE BeE-KEEPEK. 



FOUL BROOD. 



Thkke is a Latin plirase, Tevipora imtfaiitur ct nos vnitamnr in 

 /'His. I woucler wbetlier *' AKenfrewshire Bi?;E-KEEPEr.," or mysnlf, 

 li^ve chant;efl most in our opinions on this very subject of foul brood. 

 I bave biiberto always aclinowledged tbe courtesy of language, and 

 general fairness of "A RENFREwsHiitE Bke-kceper" as a contro- 

 versialist on tbis and otber bee subjects, but iu tbe article before me 

 I fear tbafc bo bas deviated somewbat from this excellent rule. May 

 I not express tbe opiuiou, tbat in taking up tbese articles for criticism 

 and remar]r, after so long an interval of time, be bas overlooked 

 mucb in tbem wbich beboved bim to notice, and inadvertently, 

 perbaps, led him to reiterate charges of " uufairness," which I tbnngbt 

 were long ago refuted and abandoned ? In tbis way be has chosen 

 rather to crack tbe nut than taste the keruel ; to look upon the casket 

 more tbau its contents. May I also be permitted to make a similar 

 observation in reference to Mr. Woodbury's reply to tbese articles im- 

 mediately after their appearance iu the Journal ? 



There is one remark, however, which has been so often made before, 

 an»l which is again repeated, ad nmi-scam, by " A Renfrewshire- 

 JBee-keeper " — namely, tbat I " unfairly ignored " Mr. Woodbury's 

 experiences as to the manner in which foul brood was introduced into 

 his apiary. Now, I cannot see tbis. In combating opinions, we are 

 not ignoring facts. In opposing tbe beliefs and experiences of others 

 by counter beliefs and experiences of our own, we are not necessarily 

 trespassing against tbe rules of "fairness." No. We are merely 

 calling into question the accuracy of observation, tbe correctness of 

 inference. The author of " Tbe Handy Book of Bees," for instance, 

 among other errors he bas committed in the natural history of our 

 little favourites, boldly asserts tbat bees remove eggs, and assist the 

 queen in jilacing tbem iu the cells ! Also, that queens are reared 

 from drone eggs ! And, again, that tbe queeu in setting out on her 

 marriage tour, is pursued ibrough the air by a host of males, probably 

 like a fox by a pack of bounds, so tbat the poor queen comes to grief 

 often, as master Reynard does, and may sometimes be found lying on 

 the ground literally almost worried to doatb, by a cluster of rapacious 

 drones I Tbe author, for whom as a practical apiarian I eutertain a 

 high opinion, and whose *' Handy Book" I have read with much pleasure, 

 is, no doubt, perfectly sincere in bis beliefs; but these, in my opinion, 

 are not facts, but mere fancies, unsupported by evidence, aud contrary 

 to all careful observation and sound experiment. So also as to tbe 

 new method of controlling the fertilisation of tba queen. It is vouched 

 for by several most respectable individuals. Details are given, and 

 evidence is cited, but, nevertheless, and notwithstanding all this, I be- 

 lieve them to be in error. I reckon tbe asserted facts are but fancies, 

 optical delusions it may be, or errors iu observation and experiment. 



Now, if tbis is the kind of "unfairly ignoring," to which "A Ren- 

 frewshire Bee-keeper" refers, bo has not chosen tbe most appro- 

 priate words to characterise what I hold everyone in tbis land of free 

 thought aud utterance is privileged to exercise — viz., tbe unfettered 

 expression of opinions on all subjects, not even excepting this large 

 question in the eyes of apiarians, the origin of foul brood. 



As to the subject foul brood itself, bow stands it? Whence its 

 origin ? How its cure ? Have apiarian authors and writers agi-eed as 

 to the first ? Is there a concensus of opinion as to tbe latter ? I trow 

 not. Is there not rather a Babel of discord and contrariety ? The 

 great aim of some is to discover a remedy for tbe evil ; mine bas been 

 to ascertain its origin, prevention being in my estimation better than 

 cure. I ascribed it, according to my experience, to chill, neglect of 

 tbe brood, and otber cognate influences ; and I bave conceded tbat 

 brood stewed alive by beat may be as disastrous, for augbt I know, to 

 a colony of bees, as brood starved by neglect and cold. Tbe great 

 question is, Have like evil results followed both extremes '? It is not 

 a paradox tbat dissimilar causes may produce similar rssults. "A 

 Rexfee^vshire Bee-IvEEPER " believes that overheating originates 

 foul brood. I believe it frequently may. I also believe that from 

 very opposite causes, such as I have named, tbe same results also fre- 

 quently follow. 



When I first promulgated these views I wrote from personal expe- 

 rience only. I knew nothing of Dzierznn, Baron von Berlepsch, and 

 Quinby's experiences in foul brood. Had I done so I might have 

 dwelt less upon remedial processes, which at best, I admit, are unsatis- 

 factory, and "A Renfre^vshire Bee-keeper" knows that I even 

 then declined to undertake the cure of a hive be was so kiud as to 

 proffer me. 



Let me ask " A Renfeew^shiee Bee-keeper" to look those articles 

 over again upon which he has bestowed some criticism, and see the 

 quotations [ make from various authors and writers, more especially 

 from Dr. Preuss, how similar his views are to my own in respect 

 to the bad effects of unbatched, neglected, or chilled brood, not being 

 removed from any hive, furnishing by their presence " a particu- 

 larly favourable soil " for the introduction of fungi, aad consequently, 

 according to his theory, of foul brood. Why should a critic so fair as 

 "A Renfrewshire Bee-keeper" ignore all tbis evidence I put 



