Cornell University

Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924089551125

POLY peice SECEDE ADA ASS ARSMAS NAN NTT SS
EAAL: TCs
SS eC SEDEN a sana ODOC eas eee IER OIE EO DO
ae Deets PASE SESE Ieee CICS RCA DLAI AC ISN
ASN AEN TENN eA ne POSES OAL EROS O
ee a rents ease Aes As CISL si RAGE SUSE S FMA SNA Sy NN SAV ATINY
anaes ECO et eaeg TDI IGOR RE NO
SAIS SETAE IAAT SN ee ase SMA SA SNM SIA TRA AS ES SN AANSTEA
AEE SSAA EATS POI ICD ODER DICK ORR RU REDE ADENCG

AND WILL: PREVAIL. -

eNO eae FANN EM SSA TNO

Ts ocd
DICER IE zeus CUSSED SN EAS
BAS

was 1S, MIGHTY,

ASNT TVS ET TEA TATION
ODE RASS ADORDOA

:
eee

CERN
yi SEAN aS SARA SAGK mE be ASN
PMO SRE SU SAA SNE resseaatn eae eas PSEOROD sy
rae Cane cue ens ela CaS ee OID SING
PASSAT Sather ; : ne ms Jed 5 SOAAAS
COO IDOI DOC DODO DICK Sen Seed oe TAA

DIC HON IAC DACA OIC SDC ICCICO

Bees & Fruit.

4

Important Part Played by Bees in

The Fertilization of Blossoms.

SPF SAI
“Rh 78

EVIDENCE PRO AND CON.

The articles in this number formed the basis for a symposium in Gleanings in Bee Culture.
It is here putin pamphlet form for handy distribution of bee-keepers among their
fruit-growing neighbors who are inclined to ask for the removal of
bees on the ground of alleged nuisance. A careful read-
ing, it is hoped, will convince'them that
the bees are their friends.

‘SSYMPOSIU!I1 ON BEES AND FRUIT.

Valuable Testimony Supporting the Bee.

A Lively Discussion, Pro and Con.

DO BEES FERTILIZE FRUIT-BLOSSOMS ?

BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION.

[A short time ago there appeared in the Rural
New - Yorker an excellent article from Dr. ©. C.
Miller, on bees and fruit, which was followed
in a later issue by another article taking strong
ground against what the doctor had said. We
wrote to friend M., asking him if he were going
to let the matter drop there. In reply we re-
ceived the following note, asking information
through GLEANINGS.—ED.]

The Rural New-Yorker, reliable paper that
it ison all other subjects, had an item sneering
at the idea that fruit-trees should not be spray-
ed when in bloom, suggesting that the bee-
keeper should keep his bees at home. A reply
was made, saying that. if the bee-keeper should
keep his bees away, the fruit-grower wouldn’t
be troubled with spraying, for there wouldn’t
be enough fruit set to make it worth while to
spray. Then L. E. R., of L., Nebraska, made a
reply in which he says, “I lived several years
in Wyoming; was engaged in the growing of
vegetables, fruits, and flowers, for commercial
purposes, and was in the seed business. We
had no bees in that country until two years
before I left there. We grew apples, crabs,
raspberries, and strawberries, the latter in
great quantities, of immense size and most ex-
cellent quality. Then our wild fruits—plums,
cherries, and service-berries, bore year after
year, the trees being literally loaded down with
fruit. I left that favored clime, and came to
what is termed the fruit-belt of Nebraska; but
I want to tell you that we had more and better
fruit in a day in Wyoming, where we had no
bees to fertilize the blossoms, than I have seen
here in two years, with av apiary at every sec-
ond house.”

I want to ask, through GLEANINGsS, whether
the experience and observation of others cor-
roborate the foregoing statement. Were there
no bees in Wyoming till four years ago? Did
anthers have such crops of fruit as are mention-
ei, with no bees visiting the blossoms? We
ought to seek the truth, whatever it may be,
even if it upsets what has previously been sup-
posed to be the truth. From my own observa-
tion, Ihave always supposed that bees aided
the fertilization of pretty much all kinds of

fruit; but Ido not know that I ever saw them
work to any extent on strawberries. Are they
needed for strawberries? If any of our friends
of Wyoming, or of the fruit-belt of Nebraska,
can give us any light, Isha 1 be much obliged
to have them write to me or to GLEANINGS.
Marengo, Ll. C. C. MILLER.

[The article in the Rural, together with a
recent one by G. M. Doolittle, on page 915,
GLEANINGS for Dec. 15, seems to have stirred
up some little discussion among the brethren.
Among others just received is the following,
which we publish, not so much because it sup-
ports the side of the bee- keeper impartially, but
because of the painstaking care the writer has
used in obtaining the facts.]

BUMBLE-BEES AND CLOVER.

It is an idea often stated, that clover will not
yield seed without the aid of bumble-bees, and
that clover did not yield seed in Australia until
bumble-bees were imported. I did not believe
this, as plants were created first,and for the
higher order of animal life, but so as to continue
existence without animal aid. Therefore honey
was primarily for the bee, and incidentally the
bee helps the plant in gathering the honey. To
find the facts, I made some observations and
experiments,

In 1891 there were 114 acres of medium red
clover that came within 30 feet of my door, and,
being confined to the house by sickness, I
watched this field. There was the usual
amount of rain until April 20; then there was
no rain until June 1, so the clover-florets were
shorter than usual, and the honey-bees worked
on them as much as white clover. Still there
were only few seeds. This clover was not a
small growth, as it made two tons of dry hay
per acre, first crop. When the second crop
bloomed, there were the most bumble-bees I
ever saw, as the best estimate I could make
was that there was one to each ten feet square,
making 4356 working at the same time on one
acre. When the seed ripened, there was a large
crop. This year, being still unable to walk, I
rolled out into the yard in my wheel-chair, and
made this experiment. July 21 I covered some
clover-blossoms with netting. Part of the
florets being open, I tied a small thread around
the open ones. At the same time I gathered
five heads of clover that were ripe, and 447 cap-

BEES AND FRUIT. 3

sules gave 131 seeds. The bumble-bees had
worked on these blossoms, there being few
flowers when they bloomed. Aug. 141 gather-
ed the covered blossoms, also some on some
plants not covered. Where the numbers are
the same, they are part of the same head of
clover.

No.1 48 florets open when covered gave 30 seeds, or 62.5
“a « oe

No.1 67 ‘ notopen * 52.238 9
No.2113 “ notcovered “ 68 “ “ 60.177 %
No.3 182 ‘t covered “ 100 “ “ %.767 %
No.4145 “ not covered “1230 OS ‘* 84 827 @
No.5 63 “ open when covered He ids 18 * 68.254 4
No.5 8 ‘* notopenwhencovered * 60 ‘* * TLA28
No.6117 “ not covered “100 “ “ 83.47 %
No.7 41 “ open when covered imme} Ua “ 75.609
No.7 85 ‘ notopenwhencovered “ 36 “ “ 42 352 9,
No. 8140“ covered “33 “ 23671 &
No.9 76 ‘ not covered St 72m “ 31.578 Z

Nos. 8 and 9 were on a plant about 50 feet
from other clover-plants. Three heads, where
152 florets were open when covered, gave 104
seeds, or 68.421 %; 3 heads, where 236 florets
were not open when covered, gave 111 seeds, or
47.033 %. Loss by covering, 21.388 %.

The total florets not covered, 527, gave 385
seeds, or 73.055 %. The total florets covered,
368, gave 211 seeds, or 57.337 2. Loss by cover-
ing, 15.718 %. :

Alsike and peavine red clover yield seed from
the first blossoms; therefore, it is the nature of
the plant, and not lack of bees, that causes
fewer seed in first blossoms of red clover. The
later blossoms of red clover will yield seed
without the aid of bumble-bees; but their work
adds about 15 % to the yield. So the farmer
who destroys all bumble-bees’ nests is destroy -
ing a Jarge part of his profit if he raises clover.

Bloomfield, Ind., Dec. 28. J.C. GILLILAND.

[This most valuable communication was fol-
lowed again by a private letter from Mr. Doo-
little, inclosing an article from Mr. W.S. Fultz,
which the latter says we at one time refused to
publish. We have no recollection of this; at
any rate, as it seems to be a good one we are
glad to give place to it at this time.]

ARE BEES NECESSARY TO THE PROPER FER-
TILIZATION OF FRUIT-BLOOM?

The assertion has often been made by horti-
cultural journals and bee-papers, that the
honey-bee is an essential to the perfect fertili-
zation of fruit-bloom, and that, without the aid
of bees, the fruit-grower could not carry on his
business with any certainty of a crop, so that
the public have got to believe that such is
really the case. Bee-journals have been very
persistent in asserting that, if there were no
bees, there would be no fruit. This is especially
the case whenever they hear of any fruit-
grower charging that the bees have been de-
stroying fruit.

In studying this question we naturally go
back to the early history of the country, and
we find that the first settlers of this country
found in many places wild fruit growing in
abundance. We also find that, in many parts

of the country, there were nut-trees of various
kinds that showered down their nuts each au-
tumn, and that, within the almost boundless
forests, there were trees of all sizes, from the
tiny yearling to the giant monarch of the
forest, showing conclusively that the nuts and
seeds of the forest had been properly fertilized
for centuries before the advent of the white
man. History also informs us that the first
white settlers of America found no honey-bees,
and that the first bees introduced into this
country came from Europe, and that they were
the German or brown bee. What, then, was it
that fertilized the wild-fruit bloom, the nut and
other trees of the extensive forests of America,
to say nothing of the corn, tobacco, and other
crops that were raised by the Indians?

In discussing this question with bee-keepers
they always refer me to the fact that there
were bumble-bees, wasps, hornets, and other
honey-gathering insects in the country; but
when asked how many of these insects there
were in each nest at the time when trees are
usually in bloom, they were obliged to admit
that the queen was the only one, and that it
was utterly impossible that the extensive fer-
tilization necessary could have been performed
by them.

When the first settlers from the United States
went to California they found various kinds of
fruit growing there. Many of the old Spanish
missions were noted for the fine fruits that were
raised there. The same is also true of Oregon
and Washington, and: yet there were no honey-
bees there. We have a true account of the first
attempts that were made to introduce the
honey-bee into the Pacific Slope. That account,
if given, would make this paper too long, and
is not germane to the subject. It is sufficient to
say, that fruits of different kinds, both wild
and cultivated, were raised without the aid of
the honey-bee. I might here add that the
Mormons found the same state of affairs to
exist in Utah that the early American settlers
found on the Pacific Slope. So much for history,
now for personal observation.

The winter of 1871 will long be remembered
by the bee-keepers of that time as one of great
disaster. Fully 75 per cent of all the apiaries of
Eastern Iowa and Western Illinois were wiped
out of existence. and the others were so decimat-
ed that, in nearly every case, not more than three
or four hives of bees were left, and those were
very weak during the early part of the follow-
ing summer. Several apiaries with which I
was acquainted, that had contained 100 hives
of bees and over, were entirely wiped out of
existence, and bee-keepers in Muscatine Co.,
Towa, and in the adjoining county of Mercer,
in Illinois, sent to Western Kentucky for a sup-
ply of bees to get a new start. These bees were
not brought until after fruit-bloom. The cause
of the great mortality to bees was said to be
poisoned honey that had been gathered by them

4 BEES AND: FRUIT.

during the previous summer. In the snmmer
of 1872 we had a good crop of fruit, although
there were no bees to fertilize the bloom. I
have also.a record that shows that it wasa
good year for nuts, and that walnuts and hick-
orynuts were plentiful.

I now wish to draw. your attention as a fruit-
grower to. the methods in vogue in securing the
proper fertilization of strawberries. No fruit-
grower would think of planting a variety of
strawberry that was pistillate more than 16
feet from a staminate variety.. If he did, he
would not expect to secure much of a crop from
them for want of proper fertilization. If, as
has been so often asserted, the proper fertiliza-
tion is secured by the honey-bees. then there
would be no necessity of this close planting, as
the bee usually, in its flight from flower to
flower, covers much more than the distance
mentioned. I must, however, say that, after
close observation in my 20 years’ expericnce as
a fruit-grower, I never knew bees to work on
strawberry bloom to any extent, and some
years they scarcely visit the strawbeyries at all
when in bloom; yet they were properly fertiliz-
ed, and produced a good crop, showing conclu-
sively that the fertilization of the strawberry
takes place without the aid of honey-bees.

As boy and man I haye kept bees for over 40
years, and during the first 30 years of my ex-
perience I frequently sowed buckwheat, so that
my bees would have fall pasture; but I have to
record the fact that more than half the time
that I raised buckwheat my bees never gather-
ed a pound of buckwheat honey, and yet it
never made any difference whether the bees
worked on the buckwheat bloom or not. I got
a crop of buckwheat all the same. Nature did
its own fertilizing. Four years ago one of my
neighbors had five acres of buckwheat within
half a mile of my apiary of 35 hives of bees, and
I watched that buckwheat closely, in hopes of
getting « good supply of fall honey; but my
bees never visited it, and I got no buckwheat
honey; but my neighbor did get a good crop of
buckwheaat. ;

Basswood is one of our best sources of honey,
and basswood raises seed just the same as
fruit-trees raise fruit, and it is just as neces-
sary that the bloom of basswood and other
forest-trees be fertilized to make them bear as
itis that fruit-trees should be fertilized for the
same purpose. Some seasons I have known
basswood-trees to be laden with bloom, and the
bees worked on it in swarms from daylight
until dark, and the same years the trees would
be full of seed, and other years the trees would
be loaded with bloom, and not a bee would
visit them, and yet the trees would be loaded
with seed. The past summer was just sucha
season with us. Every day during basswood
bloom I passed ten or twelve basswood-trees
from four to six times in making my trips to
market with berries; and although the .trees

were fairly covered with the large clusters of
bloom, a careful watch never showed a Single
bee on, any of the trees, and yet those trees. .
were properly. fertilized, as shown by the large
crop of seed,

I have been living where] now live, for 22
years, and in my dooryard are several good-
sized oak-trees. I have watched those trees
when in bloom, and find that some years the
bees work on the bloom, and other years they
take no noti eof it whatever, and it makes no
difference whether the bees work on it or not.

.The trees raise acorns every year when they

bloom. Wheat, oats, and other small grain,
produce pollen just the same as fruit and forest
trees, and fertilization is just as necessary to
them as to fruits; yet the claim is never made
that bees are necessary to the fertilization of
these crops. The fact is, bees do so little work
on them that they are lost sight of in a discus-
sion of this question. It must be admitted,
however, that, if nature can properly fertilize
these crops without the aid of bees, it can fer-
tilize fruit or any other crop without their aid.

Sometimes the statement is made, that cer-
tain kinds of fruitin«ertain specified localities
have failed to produce fruit, and that the intro-
duction of bees into that locality has caused an
entire change, the bees being credited with fer-
tilizing the bloom, and thus causing the trees
to become fruitful. This claim, in the absence
of more pronounced experiments, is not to be
relied on. Many orchards have failed to bear
fruit for a number of years, and then become
fruitful, although bees were plentiful every
year. In the spring of 1892 my orchard bloomed
profusely, as did all other orchards in Musca-
tine Co. The spring was rather wet, but yet
there were days when the bees worked briskly,
and gathered both honey and pollen, and yet
we had no fruit. The cause of the failure to
bear fruit was not for want of proper fertiliza-
tion. The present year we had no apples, and
other tree-fruits were scarce, and the cause of
the failure was not for the want of proper fer-
tilization, but from other causes. We are in
hopes of a good crop of fruit next year; and if
we get it we shall not give the bees the credit,
as they failed to give us a crop the past two
years; and should the same or a similar calami-
ty that overtook the bees in 1871 overtake and
wipe them out of existence, and should we get
a good crop of fruit next summer, we will not
blame the bees for our failure the past two
years, for we know the causes have been en-
tirely outside of any influence they have had.

There is much more that might be written on
this subject; bnt enough has been given to
show that there are two sides to this question,
and that the only way to bring out all the facts
and arguments bearing on the Subject is to
havean unbiased and unprejudiced discussion
of the same.

I might add, that, after 20 years’ study of the

BEES 'AND FRUIT. 5

matter, I now believe that nature never intend-

ed that vegetable productions, in their love- z

embrace, should ever require the uid of a third

party, any more than the human. family or

animals, and that nature has furnished every

living species or kind the power to reproduce

itself within itself. W.S. Foutz.
Muscatine, Ia.

{This is pretty well answered in an article
we published in 1891, Sept. 15, from the pen of
Prof. Cook. Our comment appears further on.
It is not our custom to reprint old articles; but
in this discussion many of our present readers
may not be able to refer to the back | number
mentioned.]

The producers of flower-seeds in our cities keep
bees in their greenhouses, as they find this the easi-
est and cheapest method to secure that more per-
fect fertilization upon which their profits depend.
Secretary Farnsworth, of the Ohio Horticultural
Society, could account for a very meager crop of
fruit a few years since,in his vicinity, after a pro-
fusion of bluom, only through lack of pollenization.
The bees bad nearly all died off the previous winter.
I have often noted the fact, that, if we have rain
and cold all during the fruit-bloom, as we did in the
spring of 1890, even trees that bloom fully are al-
most sure to bear as sparingly. _

Darwin’s researches considered insects as a whole,
and it is true that all insects that visit flowers, ei-
ther for nectar or pollen, do valuable service in this
work of pollenization. Thus many of the hymen-
optera, diptera, and coleoptera, and not a few lepi-
doptera, are our ever ready helpers as pollenizers.
Yet early in the season, in our northern latitudes,
most insects are scarce. The severe winters so thin
their numbers that we find biurely one, whereas we
can find hundreds in late summer and early au-
tumn. In late summer the bumble-bees and paper-
making wasps number scores to each colony, while
in spring only one fertile female will be found.
This is less conspicuously true of solitary insects,
like most of our native bees, and wasps; yet even
these swarm in late summer, where they were soli-
tary or scattering in the vurly spring. The honey-
bees are a notable exception to this rule. They live
over winter, so thut even in early spring we may
find ten or ffieen thousand in a single colony, in
lieu of one solitary female, as seen in the nest of
bombus or,vespa. By actual count in time of fruit-
bloom in May, l have fouad the bees twenty to one
of all other insects upon the flowers; and on cool
days, which are very common at this early season, I
have known hundreds of bees on the fruit-blossoms,
while I could not find asingle other insect. Thus we
see that the honey-bees are exceedingly important
in the economy of vegetable growth and fruitage,
especially of all such plants as blossom early in the
season. We have all noticed how much more com-
mon our flowers are in autumn than in spring time.
{n spring we hunt for claytonia, the trillium, and
the erythronium. In autumn we gather the asters
and goldenrods by the armful, and they look up
at us from every marsh, fence-corner, und com-
mon. In May our flowers demand a search, while in
California the fields of January and February are
one sea of blossoms. The mild California winters
do not kill the insects, There a profusion of bloom

will receive service from these so-called “ marriage-
priests,” and a profusion of seed will greet the com-
ing spring time. Thus our climate acts upon the
insects, and the insects upon the flowers, and we
understand why our peculiar flora was developed.
Yet notwithstanding the admirable demonstrations
of the great master Darwin, and the observations
and practice of afew of our intelligent practical
men, yet the great mass of our farmers are either
ignorant or indifferent as to this matter, and so to
the important practical considerations which wait
upon it. Thisis very evident, as appears from the
fact that many legislators the past winter, when
called upon to protect the bees, urged that fruit-
growers had interests as well as the bee men. not
seeming to know that one of the greatest of these
interests rested with the very bees for which pro-
tection was asked.

Now that we understand the significance of the
law of adaptation in reference to the progressive
development of species, we easily understand why
our introduced fruits that blossom early would find
a lack of: the “‘ marriage-priests,” and why it would
be a matter of necess ty to introduce the honey-bee,
which, like the fruits, are not indigenous to our
country, just as the bumble-bee must go with the
red clover, if the latter is to succeed at once in far-
off New Zealand.

It is true, that we have native apples, cherries,
plums, etc. But these, like the early insects, were
scattering, not massed in large orchards, and very
likely the fruitage of these, before the introduction
of the honey-bee, may have been scant and meager.

Now that spraying our fruit-trees with the arsen-
ites, early in the spring,is known to be so profitable,
and is coming and will continue to come more gen-
erally into use, and as such spraying is fatal to the
bees if performed during the time of bloom, and
not only fatal to the imago, but to the brood to
which it is fed in the hive, it becomes a question. of
momentous importance that all should know that
bees are valuable to the fruit-grower and the api-
arist alike, and that the pomologist who poisons the
bees is surely killing the goose that laid the golden
egg. That bees are easily poisoned by applying
spray to trees that bear nectar-secreting blossoms,
at the time of bloom, can be easily demonstrated by
any one in a very short period of time. It has been
demonstrated in a frightfully expensive manner in
several apiaries in various parts of the country.
Several bee keepers, whose all was invested in bees,
have lost all this property, all because some fruit-
growing neighbor either thoughtlessly or ignorantly
sprayed his fruit-trees while in bloom; and this in
the face of the fact that, for the best results, even
in the direction sought, the spraying sbould be de-
ferred until the blossoms fall. I have demonstrated
this fact, where the results were entirely in sight.
I have shut bees in a cage, and given them sweeten-
ed water, containing London ‘purple in the propor-
tion of one pound to 200 gallons of water, and in 24
hours the bees were all dead; while other bees, in
precisely similar cages, and fed precisely the same
food, with the poison omitted, lived for many days.

‘We thus see that it becomes very important that
pomologist and bee-keeper alike know the danger,
and also know the loss to both parties in case cau-
tion is not observed to avoid the danger and prob-
able loss. It is also important that, by definite ex-
perimentation, we may learn’ just how important
the bees are in the pollenization of plants. To de-

6 BEES AND FRUIT.

termine this point, I tried many experiments last
spring. I counted the blossoms on euch of two
branches, or plants, of apple, cherry, pear, straw-
berry, raspberry, and clover. One of these, in case
of each fruit or each experiment, was surrounded
by cheese-cloth just before the blussoms opened,
and kept covered till the blossoms fell off. The
apple, pear, and cherry, were covered May 4th, and
uncovered May 25th and May 19th. The number of
blossoms considered varied from 32, the smallest
number, to 300, the largest. The trees were exam-
ined June 11th, to see what number of the fruit had
set. The per cent of blossoms which developed on
the covered trees was a little over 2, while almost 20
per cent of the uncovered blossoms had developed.
Of the pears, not one of the covered developed,
while 5 per cent of the uncovered developed fruit.
Of the cherries, 3 per cent only of the covered de-
veloped, while 40 per cent of the uncovered blos-
soms set their fruit. The strawberries were covered
May 18th, and uncovered June 16th. The number
of blossoms in each experiment varied from 60 in
the least to 212 in the greatest. In these cases, a
box covered with cheese-cloth surrounded the
plants. The plants were examined June 22d. Eleven
per cent of the covered blossoms, and 17 per cent of
the uncovered had developed. To show the details,
in one case 60 blossoms were considered, 9 of which
in the covered lot, and 27 in the uncovered, had
developed. That is, three times as many flowers
had set in the uncovered as in the covered. In an-
other case of 212 blossoms, the fruit numbered 80
and 104. Ina case of 123 blossoms, the number of
fruit was 20 and 36.

These experiments agree with similar ones of for-
mer years, in seeming to show that strawberries
are less affected than other fruit by the exclusion
of insect visits. The raspberry canes were covered
with cheese-cloth May 30, and uncovered July 6. In
every case but one the canes seem to have been
injured by the covers, and so the results were not
considered. In the exceptional case, 184 blossoms
were considered; 93 blossoms developed on the
covered canes. and 160 on the uncovered. In every
case the fruit on the covered twigs was inferior. It
might be thought that the simpl? presence of the
covers was prejudicial; though this could not bea
very important matter, as blossoms covered after
the bees had freely visited them set well, and show-
ed no injury. Thus we see that, in all our fruits—
strawberries the least—the free visits of insects
during tLe period of blooming is absolutely essential
toa full or even a fair crop. In many cases the
covered blossoms all fail to develop. We also see
that, where fruitage does occur, there seems a lack,
as the fruit lacks vigor. The free and ample cross-
fertilization seems to be requisite, not only for a
crop, but for a perfect development and maximum
vigor.

Our experiments with clovers were tried with both
the white and alsike. While the uncovered leads
were full of seeds, the covered ones were entirely
seedless. This fully explains the common experi-
ence of farmers with these plants.

Having the law of the necessity of insects to ac-
complish this function so well demonstrated, it
might be asked. *‘ Why do we have any fruit in case
the blossoms are covered?” This seeming excep-
tion may be no exception. Indeed, this may ccme
from the fact that all insects are not excluded.
Very many insects, like the thrips, and various of

the jassidee, which we know are often attracted to
flowers, either by the pollen or nectar, would be con-
cealed about the plants, and, from their small size,
might gain access, even after the covers were ad-
justed. These would be sufficient to secure purtial
fertilization, and very likely are the cause of the
meager crop which, in a few cases, we secure, even
on the covered twigs.

In case of strawberries, our experiments this
yeur, like some previously tried, seemed to show
that the presence of insects, though important toa
maximum production, are not so necessary as in
case of nearly all other fruit, But we must remem-
ber that the strawberry-plants are not wholly in-
closed. A cloth-covered box rests on the ground
about the plant. This givesa fine chance for in-
sects that burrow in the earth, and for insects that
have pupated in like position to come up during
the three or four weeks of the experiment, and pol-
lenize the blossoms. This, though a possible, and
(shall I say?) a probable explanation, may not be the
real one. But we can still affirm, in case of the
strawberry, that the free visi(s of insects serve sure-
ly to much enlarge the production of fruit.

Thus we see that our horticulturists and farmers
alike, with the apiarist, are dependent for the best
prosperity on the presence and well-being of the
bees, They should realize this fact, and should de-
mand that our legislators not only become informed,
but act accordingly. :

[In the American Bee Journal for Dec. 14
appears a letter from G. W. Brodbeck, of Los
Angeles, Cal., one of the leading bee-kcepers of
the State. We have room for only two para-
graphs of his valuable article, and here they
are:]

The California State Fruit-growers'’ Association
has been in session here this week; and. being in-
terested to some extent in fruit culture, as well as
bee culture, together with Mr. McIntyre (who was a
delegate), we head much cf interest to fruit-zrow-
ers, and, at ifs close, something {hat caused us bee-
keepers to prick up our cars und listen with close
attention.

The subject was “Fertilization.” A gentleman
stated that he had a friend in this State who started
into fruit-growing several years ago, locating 35
miles from any fruit-growing section, or where any
bees were located. The first year that his trees
blossomed, und in expectancy of at least some re-
turns from his orchard, what should be the result
but complete failure! He was advised to procure
some bees to aid in the fertilization of the blossoms,
and since then his orchard has been productive.

{Again, in the American Bee Journal for
Jan 4 appear also two paragraphs from the
pen of C. J. Berry. He is Horticultural Com-
missfoner for Tulare Co.,an inland county that
has of late made great progress in the fruit-
industry. Mr. Berry, whose orchard contains
440 acres, writes:

Bees and fruit go together. I can’t raise fruit
without bees. Some of the other cranks say I'ma
crank; but I notice there is a pretty good following
ufter me, hereavouts, and they keep a-comin’.

Yes, sir,’e. Ihave bees all about my big orchard.
Two years in succession I have put netting over some
limbs uf trees; and, while they blossomed all right,

BEES AND FRUIT. 7

ary fruit; while on the same tree, where limbs were ex-
posed lo the aid of bees, plenty of fruit.

Italics are ours. ‘Such statements, coming
from the fruit-men, are certainly strong evi-
dence in favor of the bee. We may think that
the statements from the bee-keepers would be
biased; but when the fruit-men turn around
and defend the hee, as they surely have done,
will do, and are doing, the old-time opposition
will gradually break down.

This symposium would be incomplete did we
fail to make mention of the fact that, some
three or four years ago, in the State of Michi-
gan a convention of fruit and bee men assem-
bled together for the purpose of discussing their
common interests. The fruit-men acknowledg-
ed generally that the keeping of bees in the
vicinity of their orchards was an important
factor in the production of fruit. At various
conventions of the Michigan State Bee-keepers’
Association there has been furnished abun-
dance of evidence, from bee-keepers and fruit-
growers, that points in the same direction.
Indeed, fruit-growers often become bee-keepers
—not from the honey the bees may furnish
them, but because they have found it necessary
to keep bees in ordér to secure the perfection of
fruit.

You will see that we are disposed to be fair
in the matter, because we have given “both
sides.” But woare not atall afraid but that,
when all the evidence is weighed, the balance
of testimony on the bee side will completely
overbalance the testimony on the other side.

The statement in the Rural (see Dr. Miller’s
article), that fruit has grown where no bees
were known, proves nothing. Potatoes, wheat,
and all other crops, will grow on poor land; but
it would be foolish to say that there would not
be larger crops on good land, or under other
conditions more favorable. It is equally foolish
to assert that, because fruit has been grown
remote from bees, the portation of bees into
that vicinity would have no effect. Again, the
point is made by triend Fultz, that nuts and
some other kinds of fruits, etc., were known
to grow without the fertilization of any bees.
Bee-keepers do not claim—indeed, it would be
foolish to do so—that all products whatsoever
depend for their fertilization upon the sgency
of the bees. All we claim is, that a large num-
ber of fruits are assisted, both in the quality
and quantity of fruit.

Sarees i

[The following appeared in Feb. 15th issue.]
BEES NOT NECESSARY TO THE PROPER FER-

TILIZATION OF FRUIT-BLOOM.
By W. S. Fultz.

In studying this question I have tried to do
so in an unprejudiced manner, being both a
bee-keeper and fruit-grower. I have looked at
it from both standpoints. Why all bee-keepers,
in trying to discuss this question, always merge
it into that of spraying and the destruction of

fruit by bees, is more than I can understand.
There seems to be such a strong undercurrent
of feeling among them all in that direction,
it naturally leads the public to believe that

they have an ax to grind, and that they seek

every opportunity to get it on the grindstone.

As a fruit-grower I have my own ideas of
those other questions; and my experience of 20
years in the business, with an apiary on the
same farm, has enabled me to decide those
questions to my own satisfaction; but I do not
think they have any bearing on the subject
under discussion, and shall ignore them entire-
ly. With me, in discussing this question, there
is no “negro in the woodpile.”

I now wish to draw attention to your editori-
al on page 61, in which you say that my argu-
ments are based largely on negative testiomony,
and that Prof. Cook and the rest rely upon
positive facts and figures. In my article I gave
several instances where I had observed good
crops raised without the aid of bees. If that is
not positive evidence that crops can be so
raised, then I must plead being ignorant as to
what positive evidence is.

(Your evidence on this point is negative, because
you produce no proof that the crop in question
would not have been better by having bees. If for
ten years without the bees your crops were good,
and for ten years with the bees the crops were small-
er and poorer, you would have evidence of positive
character against the bee.—Ep.]

‘With regard to the experiments of Prof. Cook,
Mr. Gilliland, and the others to whom you
refer, I must say that, in my opinion, all such
evidence is negative, or, rather, itis no evidence
at all. When Prof. Cook and the others placed
cheese-cloth or netting over the bloom with
which they were experimenting they interfered
with nature’s methods of fertilization. I would
almost as soon shut up a female hog in a lat-
ticed pen. where she would be kept entirely
from all contact with her kind, and expect her
to be fruitful and multiply, as to expect a fruit-
bloom to become fertilized under the same con-
ditions. Nature intended thata contact should
take place to make that bloom fruitful; and
Prof. Cook, and the others to whom you refer,
covered those flowers and shut off nature’s
methods, and then asserted that, because the
bees could not get to the flowers to fertilize
then, they proved barren or nearly so. Had
those flowers that were experimented with not
been covered, so that nature could have per-
formed her functions, it is safe to say that they
would have been properly fertilized, even if no
honey-bee had ever been near them.

(Your illustration of the hog in the pen is nota
parallel case. Most truit- blossoms will - fertilize
themselves to a large extent, but there is no self-
fertilization in the animal kingdom.—Ep.]

Some other means must be resorted to, when
making those experiments, than covering the
bloom, otherwise all results will be negative.
Any well-posted horticulturist could have told
Prof. Cook what the probable results would be,
at the commencement of his experiments, for

8 BEES AND FRUIT.

they were just what might have been expected.
The bloom operated upon was probably stami-
nate, and produced pollen, and, as a natural
consequence, became self-fertilized, and the re-
sult was an inferior product. I,do not care to
follow or analyze the article of Prof. Cook; his
arguments and conclusions are all based on the
same kind of experiments, and, as a conse-
quence, are all of a negative nature, and of no
force whatever.

Now, Mr. Editor, let us get at the gist of this
question. In the article sent you by Mr. Doo-
little, I simply made the assertion that the aid
of honey-bees was not needed in the proper fer-
tilization of fruit-bloom. NowI am going to
make the broader assertion, that fertilization is
not aided to any extent by them. This asser-
tion is based on the fact that no horticulturist,
however «xpert he may be in the art of artifi-
cial fertilization, can take the pollen from a
honey-bee, and, without changing its condition,
successfully fertilize a fruit-blossom. If an cx-
pert horticulturist can not do this, then how
ean a beedoit? The horticulturist’s object is
to fertilize; the bee’s object is to gather the pol-
len and honey, and carry it tothe hive. The
instinct of the bee does not teach it how to pre-
pare pollen for fertilization purposes. Man’s
knowledge and ingenuity do, and man can take
the pollen from a bee, and, after properly pre-
paring it, make it.successful in fertilizing.

It would be an easy matter to test this thing.
Let three or more persons in widely separated
localities cover at least 100 fruit-blossoms (ap-
ple being the most plentiful would be preferred),
in the Same manner as was done by Prof. Cook
and others. This should be done before the
flowers were fully opened; then when they are
open take a small pair of scissors and remove
the stamens, so that self-fertilization can not
take place, replacing the covers immediately,
and Jet them remain until the pistil of the flow-
ers are in a receptive condition, and then take
pollen from honey-bees that are gathering it
from the same kind of trees, and try to fertilize
the covered bloom with it, just as it is taken
from the bees. If such experiments are suc-
cessful, then bees can assist in fertilizing fruit-
bloom; butif they are a failure, as I am well

. Satisfied they will be, then the claim that they
do assist is not well founded, and should be
dropped by the bee-keeping fraternity.

Wet or even damp pollen, as has been demon-
strated by experiment, is not potent, and will
not perform its intended function. This ac-
counts for the fact that, when we have wet
weather during fruit-bloom, we get no crop.
The pistil] of the flowers pass beyond their re-
ceptive state during the time that the pollen
remains impotent; consequently no fertiliza-
tion can take place that season.

Muscatine, Ia., Jan. 22.

[In view of the bulk of the testimony to the

contrary appearing in this number, it is rather
a strong statement to say that “fertilization is
lot to any extent aided’ by the bees. As to
the other points in your article, honest investi-
gation courts fair criticism.—ED.]

BEES AND FRUIT ON THE ISLANDS OF LAKE
ERIE.

By Thaddeus Smith.

We ought to be able to get a satisfactory an-
swer to this question by bringing together the
facts about it, and looking at these facts with
an unprejudiced mind, not committed to any
particular theory, and not biased by self-inter-
est. I have been a bee-keeper for over forty
years, and I am also a fruit-grower, and I think
Ican look at both sides of the question in an
impartial manner. I will say here, that I have
changed my views about this matter, as I have
done with some other cherished views of bee
culture that I was taught and have taught
others.

Llive upon an island; and when I came here
25 years ago there were but two colonies of bees
here. TheseI bought and immediately Italian-

‘ized, and engaged in raising queens, as there

were no black bees here to mix with them. The
fruit here 25 years ago was more certain, and
less affected by disease, than it has been for
several years just past. The bees have increas-
ed to 100 or more colonies, and have been dis-
tributed to various parts of the island. Shall I
say the increase of bees is the cause of the
decrease of quantity and quality of fruit? No,
far from it. But such is the kind of argument
used by some on the affirmative of this question.

Not very long ago I read a communication to
one of our bee-papers, stating that the writer
had put some stands of bees in one corner of
his garden, or yard, and that the fruit-trees in
that part of the garden had given a good crop
of fruit, while the trees in the other corner of
the garden had failed in fruit. This statement
was given toshow whata great advantage bees
were in fertilizing bloom. Will any intelligent
bee-keeper accept this experiment as a knock-
down argument?

Ihave never met Prof. Cook; but from his
writings and character I have learned to esteem
him very highly. In fact, I have been almost
ready, as the saying is, to swear by any thing
that Prof. Cook would say. Butin the article
republished in GLEANINGs he has certainly de-
duced some unwarrantable conclusions from
some facts stated. For instance, he says: “I
have often noticed the fact, that, if we have
rain and cold all during the fruit-bloom, even
trees that bloom fully are almost sure to bear’
sparingly.” This is accounted for by Prof.
Cook, solely because it was too cold for the bees
to fly. But is there nota much better reason
to account for this failure to fruit? Every
fruit-grower knows that these cold rains fill

BEES AND FRUIT. 9

the bloom with water, and sometimes ice, and
is as destructive to the embryo fruit as a heavy
frost. This damp cold weather would also pre-
vent pollen from being carried about by the
wind. Again, Prof. C. covered some fruit-blooms
with cheese-cloth, and the result was they were
not fertilized as well as those left uncovered.
Any one would have naturally expected this,
as this cheese-cloth would certainly keep off
the pollen floated about by the wind. Did he
or any one else see the bees visit those uncover-
ed blossoms? If not, why make such a positive
statement that the bees were the sole cause of
their fertilization ? 7

But it is not my intention to criticise the ar-
ticles in GLEANINGS, but to give some facts
bearing upon the subject. Within ten miles of
me there is a tight little island in Lake Erie
where no bees are kept; and itis so far from
main land, and other places where bees are
kept, that bees never visit it. This island is
almost entirely used for fruit-growing, and a
success is made of it. But the editor of GLEAN-
INGS says, * That fruit has grown where no bees
were known, proves nothing.” Let’s see. I
have a friend on this same island devoted to
growing fine fruit; and his fruit, whether of
apples, pears, plums, or cherries, or his especial
pride, strawberries and raspberries, can not be
grown to any greater perfection upon any land
of the same quality in the State of Ohio, though
there were 100 stands of bees in the “‘ corner of
the garden.” But this may “prove nothing,”
except the old adage, :

Convince a man against his will,
He’s of the same opinion still.

It may be said that.in the absence of bees,
other insects may have fertilized the fruit-
bloom. Well, ifother insects fertilize the bloom
so perfectly, why say that bees are necessary to
doit? But Prof. Cook shows the improbability
of the other insect theory. He says,-in the
same article quoted before, ‘‘ Early in the sea-
son in our northern latitude most insects are
scarce. The severe winters so thin their num-
bers that we find barely onc; whereas we can
find hundreds in late summer,” etc., showing
conclusively that the fine fruit of this place was
not owing to insect fertilization.

And now for the “ bumble- bee.” Every one
will admit that it isa hum-bug; and I think
this red-clover-seed theory connected with it
is the biggest kind of a humbug. There are
but few bumble-bees on this island, some sea-
‘sons scarcely any. For every single bumble-
bee here, I believe there are ten thousand, and,
I might safely say, ten million clover-heads. In
‘a favorable season, red clover makes a fine
yield of seed here. It would simply be impos-
sible for the bumble-bees to visit all the heads
containing seed. °

Pelee Island, Ont.

[Perhaps some unwarranted conclusions have

been drawn by both sides; if so, let’s have the
fallacies shown up. While you are ‘peculiarly
well situated for getting facts,some of your
conclusions will not stand the closest scrutiny.
For instance, you say you have a friend, a
fruit-grower, on an island where no bees exist,

- whose fruit ‘‘can not be grown to any greater

perfection upon any Jand of the same quality,”
where there are 100 stands of bees. We ask,
how do you know this? and what do you mean
by perfection? The fruit may be “perfection”
in your estimation, but how do you know that
it would not be better if bees were present at
blossom time? We insist, again, that it does
not prove much to assert that a friend of yours
grows the “perfection of fruit’ on an island
remote from bees. If he had grown fruit for
ten years without bees and then ten years with
the bees, there would then be an opportunity
for a fairer comparison. Again,in your last
paragraph you say nothing about the possibili-
ties of the Italians fertilizing the red clover.
The probabilities are, that the ordinary hive-
bees do ten times more pollen-scattering on
these big clovers, because of their numbers,
than the bumble-bees. Here, again, if all bees
were removed, both bumble-bees and hive-bees,
for a tew seasons, from access to red clover,
and then again for a few seasons allowed to
visit the blossoms, the test would be fairer; and
then, how do you know that the bumble-bees
do not do their share? As we see it, friend
Smith, you have unconsciously fallen into the
same error in drawing conclusions that you find
in the writings of those who affirm that bees do

assist in scattering pollen.—Ep.] a

THE ELEMENTS OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE
RECENT DISCUSSION.

By John C. Gilliland.

There are some well-known facts to be taken
into consideration in the discussion of animal
life aiding in the fertilization of blossoms and
plants. We know, both by revelation and
geology, that plants were created before ani-
mal life, and had power within themselves to
perfect seed, and in their natural forms do so
yet. While all forms of pldnts and animal life
are more or less dependent on each other, the
lower furms are more independent than the
higher. Commencing with the lowest, each
new creation was for and looking to a higher
order, and all orders of animal life are depen-
dent on plants for continued existence. All
orders. whether of plants or animal life, were
good, and for a good purpose at first; and the
evil and conflict we see is only perverted good.
There is nothing evil of itself, as all evil is only
perverted good. By the power of his intelli-
gence and selection, man has changed the form
and use of many kinds of both plants and ani-
mals; and who shall say that the lower forms
of anima] life have not done the same? But the
real question is, How much increase is there in

10

seed production of plants by insect aid? Are
not plants entirely dependent on insect aid for
seed production? All progress made is only
filling the duty to “go forth and multiply and
replenish the earth, and subdue it.” By obser-
vation and experiment we find what orders of
plants and animals are useful, or can be so
changed as to be useful, and what order will
aid us in making the change, and then aid the
development of the useful. Also, find the or-
ders injurious, and destroy them. If we could
get all the people in the world to see and think,
the progress in subduing the earth would be as
great in five or ten years as in all the ages past
by the few great minds who have thought and
seen things as they are and might be.

There are several elements of uncertainty in
the facts stated on both sides in Jan. 15th
GLEANINGS. Where fruit and seed do not de-
velop when cold and rain prevent insect visits
when blossoms are open, the same causes pre-
vent the normal development of pollen, and,
by washing off what is developed, prevent it
from fertilizing the blossoms. When a single
blossom is covered to keep off insects. it also, to
a certain extent, prevents the wind from carry-
ing the pollen of other blossoms to it to aid in
its fertilization. A single blossom covered may
not fertilize itself; but if a whole tree were cov-
ered, enough blossoms might be fertilized to
yield a crop of fruit. I saw this chance for
error last year in my experiments, and for this
reason intend to cover all the plants on three or
four feet square by driving stakes and covering
with netting, then gather the ripe seed each
ten days, also ripe seed on a like space by the
side of the covered, and find the seed in each
lot at each gathering. This will take out near-
ly all the elements of uncertainty, and tell
whether the time of blooming or temperature
has an effect on seed production.

I suggest the bee-keepers make experiments
on this question this year on different fruit-
trees and other plants, not covering a single
blossom by itself, but have a large number un-
der the cover, carefully taking notes of weath-
er, rain, cold, and whether bees worked freely
on uncovered blossoms; then how much fruit or
seeds produced from same number of blossoms
under each condition, leaving nothing to guess
at or state from memory. I should especially
like to have E. R. Root, G. M. Doolittle, C. C.
Miller, and Prof. Cook make the experiment;
then if A. I. Root will hold off publication of
that leaflet until fall we may have some very
interesting reading for the public. Cheese-cloth
is very cheap, and it will not cost much to cover
a whole tree.

Bloomfield, Ind., Jan. 20.

(Covering certain blossoms and not others
may bring in some elements of uncertainty, as
you say; but the fact that all the experiments
made by Prof. Cook and others point pretty
strongly toward the agency of the bees. is pretty

BEES AND FRUIT.

good proof. However, we are sure all candid!
bee-keepers want to go to the bottom of things;
and we hope that, ere another year. the experi-
ment will be tried by several in the way you
indicate. We will publish the pamphlet now,
and by fall may get out another. The informa-
tion already secured is too good to hold. If the
covering of individual blossoms to some seems.
objectionable, perhaps the following will an-
swer.—Ep.:]
THE TWO SIDES OF A TREE.

Our apple-orchard is situated in such a way
that it is exposed to both the north and south
winds. About four years ago, as the trees on
the south row (Transcendenteral, that throws.
out a heavy growth of foliage at the same time
it blooms) began to open its bloom, a heavy
south wind prevailed for about five days. I
noticed, during this period, that the bees could
not touch the bloom on the south side of these
trees, but worked merrily on the more sheltered
limbs of the north side. What was the result?
Those limbs on the north side were well loaded
with fruit. while on the south side there was.
almost none to be seen. Does this prove that.
these trees dep-nd on the aid of insects to fer-
tilize the bloom? I leave it to the judgment of
the reader. F. M. Merritt.

Andrew, Ia., Jan. 19.

TESTIMONY FROM A FRUIT-GROWER.

Mr. Root:—Find inclosed an article on ‘“‘ Bees.
for Fruit-growers,” written by the editor, Chas.
A. Green, and clipped from Green’s Fruit-grow-
er, published at Rochester, N. Y. Mr. Green is-
quite a distinguished and well-known fruit-
grower of Western New York, and is eminently
qualified to judge on the fertilization of fruit-
blossoms by the bees. F. H. Fareo.

Batavia, N. Y., Jan. 25.

Is the honey-bee beneficialor detrimental to fruit-
growers? This has been an open question for many
years. It has been contended by some, erroneously,
that bees puncture grapes, peaches, and other fruit
when ripe, greatly to the injury of the fruit. At
the same time, it has been noticed that bees fre—
quent the berry-fields and the orchards in great
numbers during the blossoming season. It was.
granted that, in a few cases, bees migbt be benefi-
cial in fertilizing the blossoms, more particularly
of the strawberry, which was known to be often
pistillate.

It has now become demonstrated that many kinds.
of fruits, if not all kinds, are greatly benefited by
the bees, and that a lurge portion of our fruit, such
as the apple, pear, and particularly the plum, would
be barren were it not for the helpful work of the
honey-bee. This discovery is largely owing to Prof.
Waite, of the Agricultural Department at Washing-
ton. Prof. Waite covered the blossoms of pears,
apples, and plums, with netting, excluding the bees,
and found that such, protected blossoms of many
varieties of apple and pear yielded no fruit. In
some varieties there was no exception to the rule,
and he was convinced that large orchards of Bart-
lett pears, planted distant from other varieties,

BEES AND FRUIT. li

would be utterly barren were it not for the work of

- the bees, and even then they could not be profitably
grown unless every third or fourth row in the or-
chard was planted to Clapp’s Favorite, or some oth-
er variety that was capable of fertilizing the blos-
soms of the Bartlett.

In other words, he found that the Bartlett pear
could no more fertilize its own blossoms than the
Crescent strawberry. We have already learned
that certain kinds of plums will not fertilize their
own blossoms, such as the Wild Goose, etc.

The fruit-growers of the country are greatly in-
debted to Prof. Waite for the discovery he has made.
The lesson is, that fruit-growers must become in-
terested in bees, and I do not doubt that within a few
years it will be a rare thing to find a fruit-grower who
does not keep honey-bees, the prime object being to
employ the bees in carrying pollen from one blos-
som to another from the fields of small fruits as
well as for the large fruits.

Think of the changes that have occurred in the
last twenty years. In olden times there were as
many bees as there are now, and there were nota
thousandth part as many orchards or berry-fields
as now. Therefore, if the honey-bee has to visit the
blossoms as in olden times it will have to visit one
thousand, where in olden times they Lad to visit
only one blossom. I verily believe that the barren-
ness of many orchards may be owing to the scarcity
of bees.

During some seasons, the scarcity of bees may be
less noticed than other seasons. If the season isa
dry one during the blossoming time, many blossoms
are fertilized by the winds and other insects than
the honey-bee; but it the season is wet, and pro-
longed rains occur, the honey-bee has no power to
fulfill its helpful mission.

This is a question that should receive the atten-
tion of every fruit-zgrower. The honey-bee is useful
and profitable by itself alone. C, A. GREEN.

BEES AND FLOWERS.
By G. M. Doolittle.

It was with more than usual interest that I
read the different views relative to the aid bees
render in the matter of fertilizing flowers of
various kinds, in the last number of GLEANINGS;
but what interested me still more was the fact
that friends Root proposed to put the pros and
cons of the whole matter in pamphlet form
for general distribution. This is something we
have needed fora long time, and,if I am not
greatly mistaken, the doing of this will havea
greater influence toward dispelling the mist
which has gathered before the eyes of the farm-
er aud horticulturist — gathered more largely
through jealousy than otherwise, than any
thing heretofore done. I said jealousy had
been largely the cause of this mist gathering
before the eyes of the horticulturist and farmer.
J think I hear some one ask why these should
be jealous. Only from that innate weakness,
common to all, that causes a restlessness to
come over us at seeing others more prosperous
than weare. No sooner did it go out that Doo-
little was making money out of bees than a few
about me began looking around; and when they

saw bees at work on the bloom in their orchards,
meadows, and buckw heat-fields, they began to
reason that Doolittle was getting rich from that
which belonged to them, and from this sprang
the thought that the saccharine matter found
in the flowers was placed there for the develop-
ment of the fruit; and as the bees took away
this sweet as fast as it was secreted by the
flowers, an injury must result to the product.
coming from these flowers and their fields,
which injury did much to enhance Doolittle’s
gains. ad

.Since going into the queen business I have
heard less of this than formerly; but from my
own experience I doubt not that every prosper-
ous bee-keeper has either heard something sim-
ilar to this, or. if he has not heard it, his neigh-
bors have talked it when not heard by him. I
have even been asked for ten pounds of nice
comb honey as pay for wuat honey the bees
gathered from a ten-acre lot of Canada thistles.
which the owner of the land had allowed to
grow up through his shiftlessness.

Such a pamphlet as the one proposed will do
away with all this way of thinking, if placed
in the hands of those about us before they be-
gin to be jealous; and instead of their think-
ing that we are getting rich off their broad.
acres they will welcome the bee-keepers of the
land as a blessing in helping them to secure
good crops of fruit and grain.

It will be remembered that I have taken a
little different view of the matter than most of
the writers on this subject; and as I believe
this view is the right one, I wish to say a few
words further by way of emphasis inthe mat-
ter. The view I hold to, and, as I believe, the
only right view, is, that the first object of hon-
ey n the flowers was not as a food or luxury for
man, nor even to sustain the ife of the bees,
but asa means to an end, and that end was,
that the fruit, or female blossoms of plants,
which could not be possibly fertilized in any
other way, might be fertilized through the agen-
cy of insects which would be attracted to these
flowers by the tempting and attractive morsels
of sweet they spread out before them as a
sumptuous feast, while honey as food for the bee
and for the use of man came in as a secondary
item. As Gregory puts it in his treatise on
squashes, “The primary reason why a squash
grows, is, to protect and afford nutriment to the
seed—the use of it as food being a secondary
matter,” and the same reason holds good when
we look into this honey matter. Why is honey
placed in the flowers? To attract insects that
the blossoms may be properly fertilized, prima-
rily; and, secondly, for food for these insects,
which food for insects, in case of the bee, is util-
ized by man.

Why I come to quote Gregory, as above, was
because I knew he said something that was fa-
vorable toward the bee side of this fertilizing
matter; and in looking it up I ran across the

12 BEES AND FRUIT.

sentence quoted above. As Gregory is not a
bee-keeper, what he sayscan be taken as an
unbiased decision. Here is whut he says for the
bee along this line: ‘‘ The female blossoms of
the squash are so covered and hidden by the
tall leaves, that it is evident that the fertilizing
pollen must be conveyed to them by the bees, to
whom the squash-field appears to be a rich har-
vest: field. All of the crossing or mixing of
squashes is caused by the pollen from the male
flowers of one variety being carried by the bees
tothe female flowers of another variety.” He
further states, that, if the bees are kept from
these female blossoms by means of netting or
otherwise, the embryo squash, at their base,
will always turn yellow and die, unless pollen
is carried by man from the male tothe female
blossoms, as is done in the hybridizing of
squashes to produce different varieties. Here
is something for Mr. Fultz and the doubting
ones to disprove before they can establish the
merits of their side of the matter, for I aver
that, if honey is placed in any one flower to at-
tract insects so that seed can be perfected, and
if no seed can be perfected without these in-
sects, in that variety of flower, then honey was
placed in all flowers which secrete nectar, for
the sole purpose of attracting insects as aids in
their fertilization, and that fruitage to its high-
est perfection can not be obtained except by the
aid of these insects which are attracted by this
nectar. I also aver, that, if the above is true,
and I can see no logical reason why it is not,
then all plants and trees whose blossoms do not
secrete honey are capable of self-fertilization
through the agency of the breeze or otherwise;
hence the taking of all classes of plants and
nut- bearing trees to sustain an opposite theory
is fallacious, and not worthy of the best efforts
of any person. As a matter of history that
should go into the pamphlet to make it com-
plete, I would cite the case of bees being ban-
ished, years ago, by statute, from the town of
Wenham, Mass., on account of their supposed
injury to the apple crop of that town. While
so banished, the interior orchards of the town
gave scarcely any fruit, the little given being
very imperfect; while all around the borders,
where bees were kept, the fruit set and perfect-
ed in the usual style. After a few years of such
conclusive proof as this, that the bees were the
orchardists’ best friend, the law was stricken
from the statute, and the bees invited back,
to the perfect satisfaction of a)J] concerned.
Again, I wish to note, as a matter of history,
that, during the past season of 1893, very little
buckwheat honey was secured from the buck-
wheat regions of the State of New York—so lit-
tle that we have had, for the first time in my
remembrance, buckwheat honey selling in our
markets for nearly if not quite the same price
as No. 1 clover honey, while it usually sells for
about two-thirds the price of clover honey.
And what has been the result? Why, the un-

heard-of thing of buckwheat grain bringing 75
cts. a bushel, on account of its scarcity, while»
the best of white. wheat is selling at only 62 cts.
per bushel. As a general thing, buckwheat
brings from one-half to two-thirds the price of
wheat. Thatit now brings nearly one-fourth
more than the best of wheat tells very largely,
under the circumstances, on the side of the bee.
Borodino, N. Y., Jan. 22.

[The following is an extract from a recent
government bulletin entitled Insect Life, page
254.—Ep.]

BEES OF GREAT VALUE TO FRUIT AND SEED
GROWERS,
By Frauk Benton.

At last fruit-growers and bee-keepers are getting
into right relations with each other. The numerous
discussions which have taken place regarding the
value of bees as fertilizers of fruit-blossoms, and of
those blossoms of plants grown for their seeds, and
regarding the alleged damage to fruit by bees, have
led to close observation and careful experimenta-
tion, the results of which show that the interests of
these two vlasses of producers conflictin but trifling
respects—that, in fact, bee-keepers and fruit-grow-
ers are of great help to each other, and indispens-
able if each is to obtain the best results in his work.

Bee-keepers have never complained but that the
growing of fruit in the vicinity of their apiaries
was a great benefit to their interests, hence their
position has been merely a defensive one, the battle
waxing warm only when poisonous substances were
set oui to kill off the bees, or when fruit-growers
sprayed their orchards with poisonous insecticides
during the time the trees were in blossom; or,
again, when efforts were made to secure by legisla-
tion the removal of bees from a certuin locality as
nuisances. Fruit-growers first relented when close
observation and experiment showed that wasps bite
open tender fruits; that birds peck them; that they
crack under the action of sun and rains, and hail
sometimes cuts them, the bees coming in only to
save the wasting juices of the injured fruit. The
wide publicity given to the results of the experi-
ments made under the direction of the United
States entomologist, and published in the report of
the Commissioner of Agriculture for 1885, have no
doubt contributed much to secure this change
among fruit-growers.

But now it would appear that the bees have not
only been vindicated, but that, in the future: fruit-
growers are likely to be generally regarded as more
indebted to bee-keepers than the latter are to the
fruit-growers, for the amount of honey the bees
secure from fruit-blossoms comes far short of
equaling in value that part of the fruit crop which
many accurate observations and experiments indi-
cate is due to the complete cross-fertilization of the
blossoms by bees The observations and researches
of Hildebrand, Miiller, Delpino, Darwin, and oth-
ers, a8 well as the excellent explanation of the sub
ject in Cheshire’s recent work,* have gone far to
prove how greatly blossoms depend upon the agency
of bees for their fertilization and hence for the pro-
duction of seeds and fruits.

The facts they have brought forward are gradual-

*” Bees and Bee-keeping, Scientific and Practical,” by Frank
R. Cheshire, F. L. 8., F, R. M. 8., Vol. L, pp. 279-388,

BEES AND FRUIT. 13

ly becoming more widely known among fruit-
growers and bee-keepers, and additional evidence
;accumulates. A case illustrating very clearly the
value of bees in an orchard has recently come to
the notice of the writer, and its authenticity is con-
firmed by correspondence with the parties named,
who are gentlemen of long and extensive experience
in fruit-growing, recognized in their locality as
being aut%orities, particularly in regard to cherry
culture. The facts are these: For several years the
cherry crop of Vaca Valley, in Solano Co., Cal., has
not been good, although it was formerly quite sure.
The partial or complete failures have been attribut-
ed to north winds, chilling rains, and similar cli-
matic conditions; but in the minds of Messrs. Bass-
ford, of Cherry Glen, these causes did not sufficient-
ly account for all the cases of failure.

These gentlemen recollected that formerly, when
the cherry crops were good, wild bees were very
plentiful in tne valley, and hence thought perhaps
the lack of fruit since most of the bees had disap-
peared might be due to imperfect distribution of
the pollen of the blossoms. To test the matter they
placed, therefore, several hives of bees in their
orchard in 1890. The result was striking, for the
Bassford orchard bore a good crop of cherries, while
other growers in the valley who had no bees found
their crops entire or partial failures. This year
(1891) Messrs. Bassford had some sixty-five hives of
bees in their orchard, and Mr. H. A. Bassford writes
to the Entomologist: ‘‘Our crop was good this sea-
son, and we attribute it to the bees.’’ And he adds
further:

Since we have been keeping bees our cherry crop has been
much larger than formerly, while those orchards nearest us,
five miles from here, where no bees are kept, have produced
but light crops.

The Vacaville Enterprise said last spring, when
referring to the result of the experiment for 1890:

Other orchardists are watching this enterprise with great
interest,and may conclude that, to succeed in cherry culture,
a bee-hive and a cherry-orchard must be planted side by side.

And now that the result for 1891 is known,
“others,” so Mr. Bassford writes, ‘‘who have
cherry-orchards in the valley are procuring bees to
effect the fertilization of the blossoms.”

HOW BLOSSOMS ARE FERTILIZED; WHY SOME
FLOWERS ARE MORE GAUDY THAN OTH-
ERS; EXPERIMENTS OF CHARLES
DARWIN.

By J. E. Crane.

Many volumes have been published in sever-
al different languages upon the fertilization of
flowers—the first by Christian Conrad Springel,

in 1793; but the subject attracted but little at--

tention until thirty or forty years later, since
which many botanists have given the subject
much attention. Our most eminent botanists
now classify flowering plants in their relation
to fertilization into two classes: Anemophilous
and Entomophilous—literally, wind-lovers and
insect-lovers. The flowers fertilized by the
wind are dullin color, and nearly destitute of
odor or honey. The sexes are frequently sepa-
rated, either on the same or on separate plants.
They produce a superabundance of pollen, light
and dry, easily transported by the air or wind.

Pines, firs, and other conifera, are familiar

examples, which sometimes fill a forest with
“showers of sulphur” when shedding their
pollen. Our nut-bearing trees are examples
among decidious trees. The grasses and grains
are familiar to all. A kernel of cornu will grow
as well alone as with. other plants; but * the
ear will not fill” unless it c.n receive the wind-
wafted pollen from neighboring plants. On
the other hand, those plants which seem to
have need of bees or other insects to carry their
pollen from one flower to another have more
showy blossoms, with bright colors, or white,
which are showy at dusk. or they give outa
strong perfume or nectar, or both. The pollen
grains are moist or glutinous, or hairv, or other-
wise so constructed as to adhere to the insects
that visit them, and thus be carried from
flower to flower. In this class of plants or
flowers many ingenious arrangements are pro-
vided to secure cross-fertilization. One sex is
found in one blossom, and the other in another,
on the same plant, as in the squash and melon
families. In other species the sexes are found
upon separate plants, as the willow-trees. In
some plants the pistils appear first, and become
fertile before the stamens ripen their pollen. In
others the stamens shed their vitalizing dnst
before the stigma of the pistil is ready to
receive it.

The common red raspberry matures its pistils
first,so that, unless the bees or other insects
carry the pollen toit from other earlier blos-
soms, the fruit is imperfect.

The partridge-berry is very interesting. The
blossoms upon about half of the plants produce
their stamens first; the other half, the pistil.
In a week or ten days the order is reversed in
the same flowers.

Many flowers that invite insects appear to be
capable of self-fertilization, and often are; but
the pollen from some neighboring plant of the
same species seems more potent. Some flowers
are so constructed that the stamens are placed
so that their pollen can not fall upon the stig-
ma of the same flower, but with special adapta-
tion for the transport of pollen by insects from
one flower to another. One curious plant pro-
duces small inconspicuous flowers early in the
season, capable of self-fertilization; later in the
season it produces more showy flowers that can
become fertile only through the agency of in-
sects.

Many plants remain constantly barren unless
they receive the visits of insects. Many of
your readers have doubtless observed how the
fuecshia or begonia never produces seed in a
closed room; yet, when set out of doors in sum-
mer, they seed abundantly. Still other plants
never produce seed because the insects that
feed upon their blossoms have not been import-
ed with the plants.

But this isa large subject, and to me one of
great interest. asIstudy the many ways the
Author of nature has provided for the best

14

‘good of all his works. A large number of ex-
amples have been given of the value of bees as
agents in the production of fruit and seed, but I
will give one or two more.

Mr. H. A. March, of Puget Sound, while h: re
last summer, informed me that he produced
darge quantities of California seed, and found
‘bees very valuable, as the seed was much more
‘abundant when bees were provided to work on
the flowers.

The stone fruits seem almost incapable of
-self-fertilization, as is often proved by trying to
grow peaches under glass, success seeming to
come only when bees are provided when the
trees are in bloom. :

Acurious problem has presented itself to the
horticulturists of this country for a number of
years past, in the refusal of some varieties of
the chicka plum to produce fruit in the North-
ern States unless set near some other variety or
species of plum, that insects might carry the
pollen from one to the other. Such a tree I can
‘see from my window as I write, that is a bank
of bloom every spring, but has never, to my
knowledge, produced a crop of fruit.

Now, suppose it were true that all trees or
plants that produce fruit or seed of value for
the use of man would become fertile without
the aid of bees or other insects, would it prove
them of no value? Not at al]. Enough has
been written to show that the Creator has de-
sired cross-fertilization among plants, and has
wisely provided for itin a multitude of ways;
and the chances of such fertilization appear to
be as great among plants as among our bees,
for which such special arrangement has been
made. We might assume it to be valuable or
necessary, even if we could see no good reason
for it. We all know that birds or domestic
animals will prove fruitful for one or perhaps
several generations in spite of the intermar-
riage of near relations; but itis, I believe, the
universal experience that such unions are most
unwise, and, as a rule, prove injurious.

Some twenty-five or thirty years ago Charles
Darwin, in studying this subject, and noting
the provisions of-‘nature for the cross-fertiliza-
tion of flowers, became so much interested in it
that he began a large number of experiments to
test the value of insects in cross-fertilization,
and the effects of cross and self fertilization
upon plants. His experiments were conducted
with great care and continued through several
years; and his book on the effects of “ Cross
and Self Fertilization,” describing these experi-
ments, containing several hundred pages, is very
interesting reading to say the least.

Of some 125 plants experimented with, more
than half were, when insects were excluded,
either quite sterile or produced less than half
as much seed as when insects were allowed to
visit them. Among his catalogue of these
plants I notice the white and red clover. His
experiments with these are very similar to

BEES AND FRUIT.

those of Prof. Cook, late of Michigan Agricul-
tural College. He says, page 361, of red clover,
“ One hundred flower- heads on a plant protect-~
ed by a net did not produce a single seed, while
100 heads on plants growing outside, which
were visited by bees, yielded 68 grains of weight
of seeds; and as 80 seeds weighed two grains,
the hundred heads must have yielded 2720
seeds. His experience with white clover was
nearly the same.

Another most interesting result of his exper-
iments was that plants grown from seed from
self-fertilized flowers were, as a rule, when
grown side by side with seed from cross-fertil-
ized flowers, much less vigorous, although in
other respects the conditions were as nearly
alike as it was possible to make them. On page
871 he says, “ The simple fact of the necessity
in many cases of extraneous aid for the trans-
port of the pollen, and the many contrivances
for this purpose, render it highly probable that
some great benefit is thus gained; and this con-
clusion has now been firmly established by the
superior growth, vigor, and fertility of plants of
crossed parentage over those of self-fertilized
parentage.”’

Middlebury, Vt., Feb. 8.

STRONG EVIDENCE FROM CANADA, ON BEES AS
FERTILIZERS.
By Allen Pringle.

It would seem that there are two sides (and
sometimes more) to every question outside of
mathematics. Until Iread the pros and cons
on the above subject in the last issue of GLEAN-
inq@s I had supposed that this matter was set-
tled, and fairly within the category of what is
called ‘ exact science.”” While my own opinion
on the subject remains unchanged, I realize the
fact that others have contrary opinions; and,
hence, line upon line, fact upon fact, and argu-
ment upon argument, may be necessary to es-
tablish what is already established. The sub-
ject is one of practical importance to bee-keep-
ers, and this is sufficient justification for the
space given and the invitation to discuss. As
is often the case in such controversies, both sides
are right and both wrong—that is, partially so.
Itis more than probable that the bee-keepers
have been claiming too much for the bees in
the fertilization of fruit-bloom; and now “the
party of the other part” is going too far the
other way, and denying them any credit or func-
tion in the matter at all. When the bees were
attacked by the fruit-men as the enemies of
ripe fruit, and all sorts of charges made against
them, the bee-keepers felt called upon to defend
their pets, and in so doing discovered that there
could be no fruit raised without bees, and told
the fruit-men so, and the whole world also.
This wasa mistake. Fruit may be raised with-
out the aid of the honey-bee. There are other
means of fertilization and cross-fertilization—
other winged insects—the wings of the wind,

BEES AND FRUIT.

‘etc. But for certain fruits and clovers, the bee
‘is, par excellence, the ministering angel in their
fruition. Let no one deny this. The man of
experience, as well as the man of science, will
contradict him if he does.

I have kept bees for 30 years, and have grown
fruit and clover alongside for 30 years. I have
also studied a little and experimented a little in
this line as well as many other lines. As to
some kinds of fruit—notably apples—I have ob-
served that if, during the bloom, the weather
was such that neither the winged insects nor
the wind (being wet and cold) could perform
their function with the flowers, the fruit was
non est. When the weather at other times was
favorable, and the bloom abundant, I have ex-
cluded the bees from certain portions of the
tree, only to find the fruit also excluded—but
only from those certain’ portions.

In the spring of 1892 I was summoned to ap-
pear before a legislative committee of the
House of Assembly of Ontario, at Toronto, to
give evidence as to the effects on the apiarian
industry of spraying fruit-trees, while in bloom,
with Paris green and other poisons. Our On-
tario Bee-keepers’ Association had moved for
an act to prohibit the spraying while the trees
were in bloom, as the bees were being poisoned
in various places, and the spraying at such a
time was unnecessary, and, indeed, injurious
to the fruit as well as poisonous to the bees.
The Minister of Agriculture, for the enlighten-
ment and guidance of the legislative committee
in a matterso important where the interests of
the apiarists and horticulturists were alike in-
volved, had summoned the Jeading men in both
industries in the province to appear before the
committee, to present the facts, the experiences,
the pros and cons of both sides. The scientists
were also summoned from Ottawa and Guelph—
Dominion and Provincial entomologists — to
speak for science. The questions of spraying,
fertilization, etc., were discussed. The horti-
culturists, with one single exception, admitted
the valuable and indispensable offices performed
by the honey-bee in the fertilization of the
fruit-bloom: and this was corroborated and con-
firmed by the entomologists. The fruit-grow-
ers agreed that ‘‘ the bees play a very important
part in cross-fertilization, and, therefore, should
not be destroyed;” that ‘‘ we are very generally
dependent upon insects for the fertilization of
our orchards. To destroy them to any extent
would be very injurious to fruit growers.”

Prof. James Fletcher, Dominion Entomologist,
said, ‘Bees do not visit fruit-bloom in dull
weather, and then we get little fruit in conse-
quence.” It may be well to quote Prof. Fletch-
er here on a cognate point also, as being a high
authority. He said: * As to bees injuring fruit,
there is no direct evidence. Wasps may start
the work, and then bees continue it. We have
never been able to find a case of primary injury
by bees.” (See officia] report of meeting.)

15

The consensus of the meeting was, that ‘‘ bee-
keepers and fruit-growers are of great help to
each other, and even indispensable, if each
class is to obtain the best results in their
work.”

The act we sought of the legislature became
law in this Province. as follows: ‘ No person,
in spraying or sprinkling fruit-trees, during the
period within which such trees are in full
bloom, shall use or cause to be used any mix-
ture containing Paris green or any other poison-
ous substance injurious to bees.”” The penalty
clause follows, which I need not quote.

The two following facts are well established;
viz., that bees perform an important and well-
nigh indispensable function in the fertilization
of fruit-bloom; and that, in order to properly
protect the fruit from the ravages of destruc-
tive insects, it is not necessary to apply the
poisonous remedies at a time when the bees
will be injured thereby—that is, during full
bloom, when the bees visit the trees for nectar.
Darwin, Hilderbrand, Miiller, and other nat-
uralists, have, by their observations and experi-
ments, placed these matters (of such prime im-
portance to the bee-keeper) beyond question.

Selby, Ontario.

NECTAR FROM CORN - BLOSSOMS; DO STORMS
WASH OUT THE POLLEN OR KEEP THE
BEES AWAY FROM THE BLOSSOMS?

By EH. H. Schaeffie.

Iam pleased to see Mr. Doolittle champion-
ing the bee as the fertilizer of fruit-blossoms.
Unfortunately these articles appear in bee-
journals, where “‘ the whole need no physician,”
for every bee-keeper is more than willing to
credit the ‘‘ blessed bees” with all the blessings
man is heir to... Itis the fruit-grower who needs
educating, and, in consequence, the articles
should be published in fruit-growers’ journals.

For years past I have each year driven from
fruit-ranch to fruit-ranch throughout the cen-
tral and northern counties of this State, and
have endeavored by tongue and pen, to correct
the false impressions under which many of the
fruit-growers labor; and it is surprising how
ignorant these otherwise intelligent people are,
and how bitterly they denounce the bee. For-
tunately this prejudice is being removed, and
the more intelligent orchardists now declare that
the fruit-grower to be successful, must plant
bees as well as fruit-trees if he would reap the
greatest possible results, while the old fanatics,

Once wedded fast,

Hug their delusions to the last,
and can not be convinced that the bee and
his keeper are other than two evils that should
be legislated against, or by-force driven out of
existence.

Last spring I visited the Oak Leaf apiaries of
Mr. 8S. L. Watkins, of Grizzly Flats, Cal. The
profusion and diversity of bloom was simply
wonderful; but the bees were not confined to