i:6 



(JLEANINCS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Fkb. 15. 



Wilder Grahame's advic<\ to raise regular 

 patches of white clover convenient to a largo 

 apiary to l<eep bees busy and keep out other 

 honey, is Wild(^,r advice than often gets into 

 Gleanings, How large a patch, and how con- 

 venient to a large apiary, to accomplish the 

 object? 



An octogenarian in Germany ascribes much 

 of his good health to drinking ^o?iei/ tea— a ta- 

 ble-sponnful of best honey in a teacup of boil- 

 ing water. I've tried it a good many titnes, 

 and find it a refreshing drink. You may or 

 may not like it. For convenience, keep some 

 honey thinned in advance. 



The British Bke Jourxat. says that, Jan. 

 .'>, in the suburbs of London, the thermometer 

 marked 10° above zero, ■* a lower point than it 

 has done for many a year." When I read that, 

 I went in my sliirt-sleeves to look at my ther- 

 mometer, and found it 2.") degrees lower, in the 

 middle of a bi'ight sunshiny day. 



Wasps are troublesome across the water, but 

 not on this side, as I nuMitioned in a former 

 Straw. 11' rr Reepi'u replies that our trouble- 

 .some skunks are unknown there. ]5uthesha'n"t 

 have the last word, and I rise to tell him we're 

 not so cruel to children as they are in (xermany. 

 Just think of making little children use a lan- 

 guage that floors an old chap like me! 



A FEW years ago there were hundreds of 

 small cabinet-shops scattered over the country, 

 making furniture hy hand or with light power, 

 but they have all disappeared, so far as manu- 

 facturing is concerned. The large factories are 

 doing it all, and we now get better and cheaper 

 furniture. I predict thf same future for the 

 bee-supply trade.— 3f. U. Hunt, at Mich. Con- 

 vention. 



C#^-.Z^«^^ 



'mmmm 



Our Symposium on Bees and Fruit. 



Valuable Testimony Supporting the Bee. 



A Lively Discussion, Pro and Con. 



We will first let those on the negative side 

 give their arguments. These will then be 

 followed by those on the ariirmative.— Ed.] 



bees not neckssarv to the proper fer- 



TlLIZ.VriON OF FRUIT-IJI.OOM. 



By W. S. Fultz. 

 In studying this question I have tried to do 

 so in an unprejudiced manner, being both a 

 bee-keeper and fruit grower. I have looked at 

 it from both stand poinis. Why all bee-keepers, 

 in trying to discuss this question, always merge 

 it into that of spraying and the destruction of 



fruit by bees, is more than I can understand. 

 There seems to be such a strong undercurrent 

 of feeling among them all in that direction, 

 it naturally leads the public to believe that 

 they have an ax to grind, and that they seek 

 every opportunity to get it on the grindstone. 



Asa fruit-grower I have my own ideas of 

 those other questions; and my experience of 20 

 years in the business, with an apiary on the 

 same farm, has enabled me to decide those 

 questions to my own satisfaction: but I do not 

 think they have any bearing on the subject 

 und> r discussion, and shall ignor(^ them entire- 

 ly. With me, in discussing this question, there 

 is no " negro in the woodpile." 



I now wish to draw attention to your editori- 

 al on page 61, in vvhich you say that my argu- 

 ments are based largely on negative testiomony, 

 and that Prof. Cook and the rest rely upon 

 positive facts and figures. In my article I gave 

 several instances where I had observed good 

 crops raised without the aid of bees. If that is 

 not positive evidence that crops can be so 

 raised, then I must plead being ignorant as to 

 what positive evidence is. 



[Your evidence on tin's point is iie<rati\-p, l^ecause 

 you produce no profif tliat tlie crop in quO'^tion 

 would not have been t^etter by liavinji: Ix'es. ]f for 

 ten years witlnmt ilie l^ees youi- crojis w(^re yood, 

 and for ten years ivith tlie lieestbe crops wen small- 

 er and poorer, you would have evidence of positive 

 character against the bee.— Ed.] 



With regard to the experiments of Prof. Cook, 

 Mr. Gilliland, and the others to whom you 

 refer, I must say that, in my opinion, all such 

 evidence is negative, or, rather, it is no evidence 

 at all. When Prof. Cook and the others placed 

 cheese-cloth or netting over the bloom with 

 which they were experimenting they interfered 

 with nature's methods of fertilization. I would 

 almost as soon shut up a female hog in a lat- 

 ticed pen. where she would be kept entirely 

 from all contact with her kind, and expect her 

 to be fruitful and multiply, as to expect a fruit- 

 bloom to become fertilized under the same con- 

 ditions. Nature intended thata contact should 

 take place to make that bloom fruitful; and 

 Prof. Cook, and the others to whom you refer, 

 covered those flowers and shut oft' nature's 

 methods, and then ass(,M'ted that, because the 

 bees could not get to the flowers to fertilize 

 then, they proved barren or nearly so. Had 

 those flowers that were experimented with not 

 been covered, so that nature could have per- 

 formed her functions, it is safe to say that they 

 would hav»! been properly fertilized, even if no 

 honey-bee had ever been near them. 



[Yciur illustration of the liog- in the p(Mi is not a 

 paiallel case. Most 1 ruil - blossoms will lertilize 

 tliiMiisclves to a large oxti'iit, l)ut there is no self- 

 f.rtili/.ation in the animal kingdom.— Ed] 



Some Other means must be resorted to. when 



making those experiments, than covering the 



bloom, otherwise all results will be negative. 



Any well -posted horticulturist could have told 



Prof. Cook what the probable results would be, 



at the commencement of his experiments, for 



