402 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



June 25, 



Lt*^ -i'^^y^ 



The Spraying of Fruit-Trees vs. Bees. 



BT PROF. A. J. COOK. 



As is well-known to the bee-keepers, I have urged for 

 many years the danger to bees of spraying fruit-trees while in 

 bloom. I have been the only entomologist in the country that 

 has done so. Indeed, some entomologists in the country, not- 

 ably Prof. F. M. Webster, of the Ohio Experiment Station 

 (formerly of the Indiana Experiment Station), urged the op- 

 posite view ; or, at least, questioned the truth that spraying 

 our fruit-trees while in bloom ever did injury to bees. He has 

 several times intimated that the assertion was made with no 

 experimental facts or convincing observations back of it. He 

 has referred to my opinion as based on nothing couclusive; 

 and takes upon himself great unction as the one to settle this 

 matter. I am very glad that Prof. Webster has made the in- 

 vestigations that he has, although I think they do not add in 

 the least to the certainty of the matter. All scientific re- 

 search is desirable, and we all should welcome any and all if 

 made with care, wisdom and conscientious caution. 



I am glad to repeat the evidence that came to me years 

 ago, and which, to my mind, was just as conclusive and abso- 

 lute as could be needed, and so I repeat that in my opinion 

 Prof. Webster iias not made this matter any more certain. 



We all know that bees never die wholesale except through 

 starvation, or long confinement during the extreme rigors of 

 our severe northern winters. True, bees do succumb to "foul 

 brood ;" but in such cases gradually perish, and by a disease 

 now well understood by all intelligent bee-keepers. The same 

 may be said of " bee-paralysis," and of the new malady which 

 attacks the brood. After years of experience, our many stu- 

 dents of bee-culture — men of great intelligence and culture — 

 know of no other fatality among bees other than those men- 

 tioned above. Now, all at once, such men discovered sudden 

 and terribly devastating mortality among bees, where both 

 mature bees and brood suddenly perished in exceeding num- 

 bers. There was plenty of honey in the hives, and so starva- 

 tion was ruled out. It was during the genial warmth of May, 

 and so winter's rigors could not be held responsible. There 

 was no " foul brood " in the apiary, and often none in the en- 

 tire region : and so foul brood could not be accused as the 

 enemy. In those first years the later bee-diseases were un- 

 known, and, besides, their methods of destruction are so dif- 

 ferent that they could not have been the cause of this new 

 fatality. Plainly then some new evil or cause was at work to 

 produce this great mortality among the bees. 



In every case the bees were in the close vicinity of large 

 orchards. In every case the weather was propitious so that 

 the fruit-bloom was full of nectar and crowded with bees. 

 In every case the orchards were liberally sprayed with the 

 arsenite while still in blossom, and before the extensive visits 

 by the bees. In every case the adult bees and broods per- 

 ished alike and in great numbers. This last condition was 

 unknown in all bee-keeping experience until spraying came 

 into vogue ; and is never witnessed except the bees visit or- 

 chards sprayed with the arsenite while in bloom. Was it then 

 presumption to say that the bees were poisoned with the 

 arsenite ? Was it necessary to make a chemical analysis of 

 the bees or the contents of their stomachs in order to speak 

 ex-cathedra on this subject ? 



Years ago I discovered that by spraying our fruit-trees 

 just after the blossoms had fallen, I destroyed the coddling- 

 moth larvfe. As a consequence of this discovery, I sent 

 abroad the statements far and near to all our fruit-growers, 

 that the so-called apple-worm could be destroyed by spraying 

 the trees at this time. Yet I did not think it necessary to 

 make a chemical analysis to see yhether there was poison in 

 the alimentary canal of the little caterpillars. Prof. Webster 

 has also said the same thing. Did he make analysis or think 

 it necessary in order to announce this fact ? Why not, if this 

 course was necessary in regard to the bees ? How many ento- 

 mologists have stated that Paris green was sure death to the 

 potato beetle, elm-leaf beetles, etc.? We all said so because 

 we sprayed the vines or foliage and the insects died. We 

 thought it proof enough, and did not analyze the contents of 

 the various insect stomachs. Did not Prof. Webster do just 

 this very thing ? If he did not — and I am very sure this is 

 the case — would it be quite fair for me to state that he was 

 giving advice without any sufficient reason that he was cor- 

 rect, or his advice necessarily good '? I have known flour 

 mixed with Paris green to be left in the field with cattle over 

 night. The next morning the Paris green and flour was all 

 gone, and there were several very sick or dead cattle lying 

 around in the meadow. I reported that the cattle had died 

 from eating the Paris green. Was that a piece of great pre- 

 sumption because I did not have the stomachs of the cattle 

 analyzed ? 



Prof. Webster (see Insect Life, Vol. V, page 121) gives an 

 article upon this subject, in which be says : 



" Although ranch has been said with regard to the effect 

 upon bees of spraying fruit-trees with arsenites while in 

 bloom, there seems to have been no careful experiment made 

 for the purpose of securing exact proof, and therefore all as- 

 sertions were necessarily very largely opinionated. Bee-keep- 

 ers were, as a rule, of the opinion that bees would be killed 

 by spraying the bloom, some because their bees had died, 

 others because some one else said such results would follow. 

 Most entomologists did not care to express an opinion based 

 on the very little accurate information on hand, while others, 

 including the writer, doubted the fatality of the measure, be- 

 cause it was thought that the poison thus applied would either 

 blast the bloom, and thus render it distasteful, or the poison 

 would not reach the nectar, and, being insoluble, otherwise 

 would not affect the bees." 



Prof. Webster then goes on to give an account of his ex- 

 periments. His first experiment shows conclusively that he 

 was no bee-keeper, and knew very little about bees. After 

 spraying the tree, he enclosed the same, including the hive of 

 bees, with brown sheeting. Of course, no one with any 

 knowledge of bees need be told that the bees would at once 

 attempt to escape upon finding themselves enclosed, and would 

 soon worry themselves to death. Such a course would be 

 poison to the bees, but they wouldn't get any of the poison. 

 Subsequent experiments, where the trees were sprayed when 

 in bloom, and bees secured which had worked upon the 

 flowers, were more satisfactory. The bees were washed so as 

 to be sure to wash off all the poison, and then by analysis 

 poison was found, showing that bees had taken it. , 



In the same magazine. Vol. VII, page 132, Mr. Webster 

 gives another article upon the same subject, and with very 

 similar results. He concludes as follows ; 



"In summing up the matter, then, I can see no other con- 

 clusion that can be drawn from the results of my experiments, 

 than that bees are liable to be poisoned by spraying the bloom 

 of fruit-trees, the liability increasing in proportion as the 

 weather is favorable for the activity of the bees, and that all 

 bloom must have fallen from the trees before the danger will 

 have ceased." 



To the person familiar with bees, the fact that they are 

 known to die extensively, and in a way in which they are 

 never known to die under other circumstances, after working 

 upon trees which have been sprayed while in blossom, is much 

 better proof than that secured by Prof. Webster. In most of 



