418 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE, 



May 15 



would poison them. And there were two or 

 three others who were disposed to g-et into 

 a hot arg-ument. But arg-ument, under such 

 circumstances, never accomplishes much. I 

 listened to what they had to say; then after 

 talking with them a little I left them fairly 

 g-ood-natured — so much so that Mr. Mother- 

 al came out in one of the papers with a 

 statement to the effect that I was quite a 

 decent sort of chap, even if I was one of 

 those bee-men. In the mean time it appears 

 that Mr. Motheral has become sour again, 

 and is in for a fight, judging- from what I 

 can hear from the local bee-keepers. (Say, 

 can't you bee-men sweeten him up ag-ain?) 



It will be remembered that an agreement 

 was made between the bee-keepers and the 

 fruit-men that a certain district about two 

 miles square should be cleared of bees. 

 This was done, and in the mean time cer- 

 tain experiments are being- conducted by 

 which whole limbs and whole trees are 

 covered with mosquito-netting. In the Han- 

 ford Journal of April 19th Mr. Motheral 

 comes out with the statement that all the 

 Bartlett trees in his orchard that were not 

 protected by mosquito-netting- were affected 

 by blight; that those trees that were cover- 

 ed were not affected; that, further, in Mr. 

 Charles Downing's orchard, he under- 

 stands, where these experiments were con- 

 ducted on a larger scale, the same results 

 were seen. 



Mr. F. E. Brown, Secretary of the Cen- 

 tral California Bee-keepers' Association, 

 immediately made an investigation, and re- 

 ported his findings in the Hanford Senlinel. 

 He visited, he says, the Downing- orchards 

 and several others in that vicinity. True 

 enough, several of the large trees were pro- 

 tected by the netting so that no bees could 

 get at the blossoms; " but contrary," he 

 says, " to the report of Mr. Motheral, there 

 was plenty of blight; however, not so much 

 as on the trees uncovered; yet the difter- 

 erence is not so great, and there is no more 

 fruit upon these trees than on the trees not 

 protected. The reason is, the fruit was not 

 pollenized, and the blossom with the stem 

 attached dropped off." 



Prof. M. B. Waite, of the Department of 

 Agriculture, who read a paper before the 

 joint session of the National Bee-keepers' 

 Association and the American Pomological 

 Society, at Buffalo, admitted that, while 

 bees might scatter pear-blight, other in- 

 sects besides bees could carry the infection; 

 but that, as most of our pears are sterile to 

 their own pollen, and that this was espe- 

 cially true of the Bartlett pear, insects were 

 necessary for mingling the pollen. ' ' In Cal- 

 ifornia," he said, " they have had such 

 outbreaks of pear-blight that many thoug-ht 

 they can dispense with the services of the 

 bees in this way, that the Bartlett pears 

 would set all their fruit, if necessary, with- 

 out the visits of the insects. " But he seemed 

 to be doubtful whether, even if the bees did 

 scatter the virus, the pear-growers could 

 afford to dispense with the bees. 



If what Prof. Waite says is true, then it 



appears that Mr. Motheral, one who seems 

 to be the chief accuser of the bees, is mis- 

 taken; and if covering- up the trees so that 

 not a single bee can get to them does not 

 prevent pear-blight infection, it would look 

 as if the removal of the bees would in no 

 way affect the result any more than, per- 

 haps, it would diminish slightly the amount 

 of the blight. But the decrease in the 

 blight would be more than offset in the less- 

 er quantity of fruit set, as the bees, na- 

 ture's pollinators, would, if the pear-men 

 could have their way, be absent. 



GOVERNMENT APICULTURAL WORK. 



Dr. Miller's Attitude toward it; the Introduction of 

 New Stock. 



BY DR. C. C. MILLER. 



Prof. Benton, page 372, seems to think I 

 justly deserve "the severest criticism which 

 due courtesy will permit." After reading- 

 his article through, it hardly seems to me 

 he has taken much account of courtesy, due 

 or undue. In his report, Mr. Greiner made 

 the statement quoted by Prof. Benton, " It 

 was believed," etc., and it is a common 

 thing- to understand that as meaning "It 

 was believed by the convention." I so un- 

 derstood it, and had no idea that I was mis- 

 quoting. I am sorry that I did not quote 

 literally, so there could be no possible mis- 

 understanding-, and for not doing so I ask 

 pardon of Secretary Greiner and the Onta- 

 rio Co. Association. It maj' be a question, 

 however, whether my understanding of the 

 matter does not come nearer the truth than 

 does Prof. Benton's. I understood that the 

 general view at the convention was that it 

 was better for government to spend money 

 to advance control of mating than to spend 

 it on importing foreign queens. Prof. Ben- 

 ton intimates that this was the view of 

 "some member or two or three members. " 

 Mr. Greiner says: " While the Association 

 did not take action on this proposition, still, 

 the matter was brought up again by another 

 member, showing that it had gotten a hold. 

 Undoubtedly it will be pushed on at some 

 future time." Is it likely Mr. Greiner 

 would take the trouble to say, "it had got- 

 ten a hold," if at most it had gotten hold of 

 only three members? Would he say, "Un- 

 doubtedly it will be pushed on at some fu- 

 ture time" unless he thought the majority 

 of the Association would favor it? 



Prof. Benton saj's I seem ready to throw 

 cold water on any work in the bee line that 

 the government mig-ht sanction. In that he 

 surely is mistaken. I do not know of a sin- 

 gle instance in which I threw cold water on 

 any work in the bee line that gfovernment 



