394 MINNESOTA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



fruit-grower and the apiarist alike, and tliat the pomologist who poisons 

 the bees is surely "killing the goose that lays 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 beekeepers, 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 should be deferred until the blossoms fall. 1 have demonstrated 

 this fact, where the results were entirely in sight. I have shut bees in a 

 cage, and given them sweetened water containing London purple in the 

 proportion of one pound to two hundred gallons of water, and in twenty- 

 four 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 caution is not observed to avoid the danger and probable loss. It is 

 also important that by definite experimentation we may learn just how 

 important the bees are in the pollenization of plants. To determine this 

 point, I tried many experiments last spring. I counted the blossoms on 

 each of two branches or plants of apple, cherry, pear, strawberry, raspberry 

 and clover. One of these, in the case of each fruit or each experiment, 

 was surrounded by cheese-cloth just before the blossoms opened, and kept 

 covered till the blossoms fell ofE. The apple, pear and cherry were cov- 

 ered May 4th and uncovered May 25th and May 19th. The number of 

 blossoms considered varied from thirty-two, the smallest number, to 

 three hundred, the largest. The trees were examined June 11th, to see 

 what number of the fruit had set. The per cent, of blossoms which de- 

 veloped on the covered trees was a little over two, while almost twenty 

 per cent. of the uncovered blossoms had developed. Of the pears, not one 

 of the covered developed, while five per cent, of the uncovered developed 

 fruit. Of the cherries, three per cent, only of the covered developed, 

 while forty per cent, of the uncovered blossoms set their fruit. The 

 strawberries were covered May 18th and uncovered June 16th. The 

 number of blossoms in each experiment varied from sixty in the least to 

 two hundred and twelve in the greatest. In these cases, a box covered 

 with cheese-cloth surrounded the plants. The plants were examined 

 June 22d; eleven percent, of the covered blossoms and seventeen per 

 cent, of the uncovered had developed. To show the details, in one case 

 sixty blossoms were considered, nine of which in the covered lot, and 

 twenty-seven in the uncovered, had developed. That is, three times as 

 many flowers had set in the uncovered as in the covered. In another case 

 of two hundred and twelve blossoms, the fruit numbered eighty and one 

 hundred and four. In a case of one hundred and twenty-three blossoms, 

 the number of fruit wlas twenty and thirty-six. 



These experiments agree with similar ones of former years in seeming 

 to show that strawberries are less affected than other fruit by the exclu- 

 sion of insect visits. The raspberry canes were covered with cheese-cloth 



