1896. 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



389 



THE EVENING SESSION— Spraying Fruit-Teees. 



At the evening session Prof. L. R. Jones, of the Experi- 

 ment Station, read a very interesting paper on spraying. 

 After some remarks upon the general subject of spraying and 

 Its growing importance to the horticulturist and fruit-grower, 

 he passed at once to the main topic of the paper — the danger 

 of poisoning bees by the use of arsenical sprays on fruit-trees. 

 He gave a history of the controversy on spraying, speaking of 

 the experiments by Prof. A. J. Cook, of California, and Prof. 

 F. M. Webster, of Wooster, Ohio. None of the experiments 

 were accepted by the Association of Economic Entomologists 

 as conclusive evidence that bees were killed by arsenical 

 sprays until Prof. Webster's report at Rochester, N. Y., in 

 1894. These last experiments ended the controversy. 



Prof. Jones sent seven questions to the following, who are 

 considered as among the leading entomologists of the country : 



L. 0. Howard, Entomologist United States Department of 

 Agriculture; Dr. J. A. Lintner, State Entomologist, Albany, 

 N. Y.; Prof. P. M. Webster, Wooster, Ohio; Prof. M. V. 

 Slingerland, Assistant Entomologist, Cornell Experiment Sta- 

 tion, Ithaca, N. Y.; Prof. S. A. Beach, Horticulturist, Geneva 

 Experiment Station, Geneva, N. Y.; Prof. J. A. Fletcher, En- 

 tomologist Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada. 



The following are the questions sent and a summary of 

 the answers received : 



1. Do you consider it a demonstrated fact that honey- 

 bees may be poisoned by arsenical or other sprays applied to 

 fruit-trees when iu blossom ? 



Lintner (Aug., 1893)— No. 



Webster (Aug., 1892)— No. (Aug., 1894). Yes. Bees 

 are liable to be poisoned. 



Howard— No. (Considers further experimentation neces- 

 sary.) 



Fletcher — Yes. 



Slingerland — I consider the fact fully demonstrated by 

 Webster. 



Ques. 2. — Do you consider it a demonstrated fact that 

 bees visiting such sprayed trees may convey the poison to the 

 hive and contaminate the comb of honey with it in such a 

 manner as to render this unfit for human food ? 



Lintner — No. 



Webster, (Aug., 1894)— Brood evidently killed by the 

 arsenic brought. 



Howard — No. (Considers further experimentation neces- 

 sary.) 



Fletcher — Yes (?). (Cites poisoning of brood by arsenic.) 



Slingerland —Webster's experiment would indicate it, but 

 the fact not fully demonstrated. 



Ques. 3. — Do you consider that spraying apple or pear 

 trees with arsenical poisons during the blossoming period 

 gives appreciably better protection to the tree than can be 

 gained from spraying before and after the blossoming period? 



Prof. Lintner makes no positive statement, but considers 

 it probable. 



Prof. Howard uniformly recommends spraying before and 

 after; never during blossom. 



Fletcher — I am sure there is no advantage in spraying 

 when in blossom. 



Slingerland— No. The insects can be as effectually 

 reached by spraying before and after. 



Ques. 4.— Do you consider that spraying fruit-trees during 

 the blossoming period is liable to be injurious to the tree in 

 any way ? and especially in the way of interfering with ferti- 

 lization of the blossoms? 



Fletcher— Yes. 



Prof. Beach is of the opinion that the fertilization of the 

 flower might be interfered with. 



Slingerland — Yes, a liquid spray of any kind would be 

 injurious. 



Ques. 5. — Do you find fruit-growers In your State or 

 locality spraying during the blossoming period? 



Fletcher— No. 



Beach — No. 



Slingerland— No ; I know of no New York fruit-grower 

 who sprays when the fruit is in bloom. 



Ques 6. — Do you favor any attempt to forbid by legisla- 

 tive measures the spraying of fruit-trees during the blossom- 

 ing season ? 



Lintner — Decidedly opposed to it. 



Slingerland — No. (Considers it both unnecessary and 

 impracticable.) 



Ques. 7. — Are you at present using, or recommending for 

 use in spraying, any compounds or solutions containing sugar 

 or other sweet substances which might induce bees to eat it ? 



Howard — Not for fruit trees. Glucose with arsenate of 

 lead for elms, shade-trees, etc. 



Fletcher — No. Sugars, etc., are unnecessary. Use lime 

 instead. 



Beach — No. 



Slingerland — No. 



REPORT ON EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED. 



The report of work done at the Experiment Station for 

 the previous season was given by D. D. Howe, Farm Superin- 

 tendent, and O. J. Lowrey, of Jericho. 



Experiment No. 3 was with different-sized frames, shallow 

 brood-chambers, and wintering bees in the same. No percep- 

 tible difference has yet been noticed. 



No. 7. — To see if bees would use yellow wax in building 

 comb and finishing the capping of the honey. It has been 

 proven that they will, by the mottled appearance of the comb 

 honey finished during said feeding. 



No. 8. — Experiment with the Langdon non-swarmer. 

 Proved not satisfactory in the production of honey or preven- 

 tion of swarming. 



No. 9. — The experiment of cutting out drone-brood once 

 in ten days to prevent swarming. It did not prove a success. 



No. 10. — Three samples of comb foundation, one made on 

 Given press and two made on roller mills, and given the bees 

 to fill under like conditions. It was exhibited and sampled by 

 members of the convention. The examination proved that 

 they conld not distinguish honey stored on the roller founda- 

 tion from that stored on the press foundation. 



The committee on nomination of officers for the Associa- 

 tion for the ensuing year gave their report, recommending 

 that the old officers be re-elected. This was done with the 

 exception that C. W. Fisher resigned, and O. J. Lowrey, of 

 Jericho, was elected Secretary. 



The committee on resolutions submitted their report, 

 which was unanimously adopted as follows : 



Resolved, That our thanks are tendered to the proprietor 

 of the Van Ness House for favors shown us during the meet- 

 ing. 



Resolved, That the thanks of the members of this associa- 

 tion be tendered to the Central Vermont railroad for reduced 

 rates during this session. 



Resolved, That we express our hearty thanks to Prof. L. 

 R. Jones for his painstaking effort in procuring reliable in- 

 formation from the best authorities in the country on the sub- 

 ject of spraying of fruit-trees, showing the uselessness of 

 spraying while in bloom, thus protecting the interests of the 

 bee-keepers as well as producing the best results to the fruit- 

 grower. 



Resolved, That we highly appreciate the interest shown 

 by the Board of Control and Director of the Vermont Experi- 

 ment Station, as well as the labor performed by the Farm 

 Superintendent iu the work of the apiary. Committee. 



The committee to confer with the Board of Control at the 

 Experiment Station in regard to work to be done there the 

 coming season are, 0. J. Lowrey, R. H. Holmes and M. F. 

 Cram. 



REMOVING CHAFF CUSHIONS IN SPRING. 



Ques. — " How early in the spring should the chaff cush- 

 ions be removed ?" 



M. A. Everest — Locations and colonies vary greatly in 

 regard to the time the cushions should be removed. Much 

 judgment is needed. I remove from strong colonies about 

 May 20. 



R. H. Holmes — I remove chaff cushions at about the same 

 time, but question if it is advisable to leave them on so long. 



H. L. Leonard keeps the cushion on until he puts on sec- 

 tions, unless they need feeding. He has raspberry honey, so 



