516 



AMERICAN BEE JOUPNAL 



Aug-. 15, 1901. 



I Contributed Articles. | 



Pear-Blight and Bees in California. 



liV I'ROF. A. J. COOK. 



THE relation of bees to the spread of pear-blight has 

 become a very important question, not only in Califor- 

 nia, but everywhere in our country. For if there is 

 any section where this microbe disease of the pear is not 

 now in evidence, there is no knowing when it may break 

 out. Thus a right or wrong position taken now, and 

 defended and carried out, not only concerns California but 

 every fruit-grower and every apiarist the country over. 



The disease has existed in our country for many years. 

 It was long a serious menace to pear-culture, in many sec- 

 tions, even before its nature and cause were known or even 

 dreamed of. It usually commences early in the season, 

 soon after the trees bloom, and first manifests itself in the 

 dying back of the twigs. This continues till the whole 

 ti.ssue of the tree seems affected, as shown in the close, con- 

 tracted bark on the trunk and main branches. The dis- 

 eased tree is soon lost to usefulness, and is a centre for the 

 spread of the disease to adjacent trees. All this was well 

 known years ago. It was also known, as is generally true 

 of microbe diseases, whether of plants or animals are the 

 victims of their attack, that some kinds of pears and some 

 trees seemed more susceptible to the encroachments of this 

 foe than were others. 



Some years ago Prof. Arthur, then, I think, connected 

 with the Geneva, N. Y.. Experiment Station, determined 

 that there was a bacterial affection. He not only identi- 

 fied the specific microbe, if I remember correctly, but he 

 inoculated trees at will, and always produced the malady. 

 Prof. Arthur then suggested — though as I remember he did 

 not prove it — that bees and other nectar-loving insects very 

 likely carried the germs from affected to healthy trees ; and 

 that this was a probable cause of the rapid spread of the 

 evil. This conjecture seemed more than plausible, for the 

 rapid spread seemed to occur just after the time of bloom, 

 and it would seem very probable that the active, tender 

 stigma would be a good seed-bed for the germs. If these 

 latter were in the nectar or the pollen, it would certainly be 

 easy to convey them from diseased bloom to those that are 

 yet exempt. 



Prof. BurriU, or the Illinois University, who was first to 

 discover and describe the microbe, did much to give us more 

 knowledge of these bacteria of the pear. 



More recently. Prof. Milton B. Waite, of the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture (the same who demonstrated that 

 many varieties of pears are sterile to their own pollen, and 

 must be cross-pollinated to bear fruit, and who recom- 

 mended with emphasis that the honey-bee, as the most sure 

 agent in this important and necessary work, be kept in the 

 near precincts of the apiary, in large numbers) has given 

 attention to this pear bacillus, known to science as Bacillus 

 amylovorus, BurriU. He discovered it working freely and 

 multiplying rapidly in the nectar of the flowers, and even 

 collected the germs from the tongues of the bees, and. from 

 these, started artificial cultures of the bacillus. His 

 experiments seemed to show that while the microbes could 

 be carried easily by insect or other flower-loving animal, it 

 was of such a nature that it could not be carried easily, if 

 at all, by wind. By carefully conducted experiments, cov- 

 ering the flowers. Prof. Waite seemed to show that nectar- 

 loving animals, and not the wind, were almost exclusively 

 the agents to spread this disease. 



Prof. Milton B. Waite is assistant chief of the Depart- 

 ment of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology, of the 

 Department of Agriculture. That he is a very able au- 

 thority goes without saying. While it is desirable that oth- 

 ers confirm the conclusions of Prof. Waite— for in these do- 

 mains of minute life the problems are too intricate and too 

 complicated to be easily settled— yet there seems little 

 probability that he is wrong. 



Prof. H. B. Pierce, government pathologist, stationed 

 at Santa Ana, Calif., has in some measure confirmed Prof. 

 Waite's conclusions. He has investigated the pear-blight 

 of Banning and Hanford, Calif., and proved it to be the 

 genuine pear-blight of the East, and has, by inoculation, 

 produced the disease. He is a very able, careful and con- 



scientious worker in this field, and his opinion is very valu- 

 able. He accepts Prof. Waite's conclusions, and thinks 

 that the reason that pear-blight in California acts differ- 

 ently from that of the East, in often taking a fresh start 

 late in the season, is owing to the fact that the pear-tree 

 here often blooms twice in the year, and thus aftords the 

 ready opportunity for its spread late as well as early in the 

 year. 



It has been argued that Prof. Waite is, or may be, 

 wrong in his conclusions, as young trees in the nursery, 

 which from age could not have borne blossoms, still sufl:'er 

 and die from this disease. We know that buds as well as 

 bloom are tender and active in the early spring just as they 

 are pushing forth. They also are covered with a glue 

 which the bees gather for their propolis. These should be 

 examined for the microbes. It is quite likely that they 

 share with the bloom in furnishing a nidus and nutrient 

 for the germs, and by luring the bees may also be active 

 instruments in the fatal spread of the germs, 



WHAT SHALI, WE DO, THEN ? 



The bee-keepers of the great San Joaquin Valley have 

 agreed to remove their bees in the time of orchard-bloom. 

 I am glad of this, for it shows that they are ready and will- 

 ing to do the right thing. But is this the wise thing? 

 There are myriads of other insects, as also many colonies 

 of escaped bees, that can not be removed. Were it not 

 true, the pears would not be pollinated, and, as Prof. Waite 

 has also shown, these are necessary to a crop. Better the 

 trees go. than to cumber the ground in fruitless state. 

 These being present, the removal of the apiaries will not 

 remove the evil. Their removal will soon demonstrate this 

 when the fruitmen, who are so desirous to be fair and just 

 as are the bee-keepers, will ask that the latter be left undis- 

 turbed. 



While I feel sure that we need apiaries near large 

 orchards to cross-pollinate the bloom properly, and thus aid 

 to secure a full crop, I am just as sure that there are quite 

 enough other little nectar-loving insects, to scatter the 

 disease. Pollination must be wholesale ; only a few inocu- 

 lations per tree are necessary to work the havoc. Thus 

 while removal of the bees will interfere with the crop, it 

 will not materially check the spread of the dread disease. 



I believe it will be a more sure remedy to try to breed 

 pears that are immune, as Prof. Pierce is doing with the 

 walnut. This will insure trees that are invulnerable, will 

 leave the bee-keepers undisturbed, and will preserve to 

 the orchardists the bees, which, in their grand work of 

 cross-pollinating the bloom, are invaluable aids in all suc- 

 cessful agriculture. Los Angeles Co., Calif. 



Rendering Combs— A Method of Doing It. 



BY ADRIAN GETAZ. 



DURING my thirteen or fourteen years of bee-keeping, I 

 had my old combs, drone-comb cut out, combs (I must 

 say to my shame) more or less eaten by the moths, and 

 full of webs, etc., accumulate until something must be 

 done. Some two or three years ago, I rendered by the ordi- 

 nary process, all that could be advantageously treated so, 

 and inade comb-foundation out of it with the help of a 

 home-made cement mold. A full description of the process 

 was given at the time in the American Bee Journal. 



But I had yet some of the worst combs and some of the 

 refuse of the melting of others. And here let me tell you 

 that the moth-eaten combs are the very meanest thing to 

 deal with that can be found in that line. I did not want to 

 go into much expense, as the wax to be obtained was not 

 worth very much ; at least I thought so, but I got consider- 

 ably more than I expected. 



All the materials needed to construct the apparatus I 

 used, were an old tin bucket, a piece of old tin to make an 

 outside jacket to confine the heat of the oil-stove around the 

 bucket, some scraps of wire and strong galvanized iron, a 

 scrap or piece of wire netting, and some nails in place of 

 rivets. 



While on the subject, it may be well to say that wire 

 nails heated red hot, and then slowly cooled, become soft 

 enough to make excellent rivets. I had the oil-stove 

 already. 



If j'ou melt some combs in a receptacle of any kind 

 with a quantity of water, and let it cool, and then investi- 

 gate carefullj', you will see that the wax has come entirely 

 above the water, being lighter. The refuse, cocoons, moth- 

 webs, etc., being somewhat lighter than water, form amass 



