102 



AMERICAN BEE lOURNAL 



Feb. 13, ]902 



other methods of distribution the pear- 

 blight germ might have, and I set 

 about with quite an elaborate series of 

 experiments, to find out the truth of 

 the matter. The main question was 

 whether the pear-blight germ was car- 

 ried by the wind. If it could be blown 

 by the wind, it would not make anj- dif- 

 ference whether the bees carried it or 

 not. but it was not blown by the wind, 

 it became a matter of considerable im- 

 portance. So, having gone through 

 one spring in Washington, I moved up 

 to western New York and passed 

 through another spring the same year. 



-\ gentleman near Brockport, N. Y., 

 very kindlj' turned over a small orchard 

 to me in which I could start a small, 

 artificial epidemic of pear-blight. We 

 inoculated about 6 or S trees, and about 

 eight or ten small branches on each 

 tree. Before inoculating them, I cov- 

 ered a large portion of the tree with 

 bags of various density, mosquito-net- 

 ting, cheese-cloth and paper, reasoning 

 that by covering the trees with mos- 

 quito-netting, if the disease is blown 

 by the wind it would certainly blow 

 through the mosquito-netting and 

 appear under the bags. 



The disease gradually spread from 

 my centers of infection, but in no case 

 did the disease get through the mos- 

 quito-netting, although a large percent- 

 age of the clusters broke down, on the 

 trees that were infected, outside of the 

 mosquito-netting. We inoculated blight 

 in the bags and kept it in : we inocu- 

 lated it outside, and kept it out. 



Now, in further support of the view 

 that I have taken that pear-blight is 

 not borne by the wind, we have two 

 important facts : The first is that pear- 

 blight virus is always a sticky mass, 

 which cannot be blown by the wind. It 

 is a gummy material that can readily 

 be carried by anything that touches it, 

 but not by the wind. The second fact 

 is that the pear-blight germs on drying 

 rapidlj' die. In ordinarj' orchard con- 

 ditions, a few days after the twig dries 

 out the germs die. So that pear-blight 

 germs are not lying around promiscu- 

 ously. We have no evidence whatever 

 that we can get infection in any other 



way. So I think you will be willing to 

 accept my proposition, that bees are 

 active agents in carrying pear-blight 

 on blossoms, and that the blight is not 

 carried by the wind. • 



Now we have been giving the honey- 

 bee such a bad record that it is with 

 great pleasure that I turn to another 

 phase of this subject. Very early in 

 this work, the question came up in my 

 mind, if the hone)'-bee was doing this 

 unfortunate work, what was its func- 

 tion on the blossoms ? The question 

 came up. Are our pear-blossoms of 

 such a nature that they required this 

 insect fertilization by the bees ? So I 

 started out to determine the relation- 

 ship between the bees and the fertiliza- 

 tion of the blossom. The result was a 

 long series of experiments lasting over 

 three years. 



On account of the limited time, I 

 shall have to state ver\- briefly the re- 

 sults of this poUenization work. In the 

 first place it came out that most of our 

 pears, as a result of careful hand-pol- 

 lination on tests, are sterile to their 

 own pollen. Cross-pollination is char- 

 acteristic of our orchard fruits. It is 

 perhaps not true of peaches and 

 quinces, but as far as apples and pears 

 are concerned, cross-pollination is a 

 necessity. 



By trying a large number of experi- 

 ments, I concluded that insects were 

 the largest agents in cross-pollination. 

 The blossom of the pear is not of the 

 type of wind-fertilized blossoms, but is 

 distinctly of the insect-fertilized type. 

 Now this matter is so complicated that 

 it will be impossible, in the short time 

 at my disposal, to go into the details 

 of fertilization. To make the story 

 short, we may say that from the bio- 

 logical standpoint, the bees are doing 

 their normal, natural work in visiting 

 the pear and apple blossoms. The 

 blossoms are for the bees to pollinate, 

 are developed by insects, and the in- 

 sects have been developed in correlation 

 to them. It is a normal, biological 

 process, the visiting of orchard fruit- 

 blossoms by bees. The bees are there 

 performing their proper function. 



Now the question is, Is the honey- 



bee to be looked upon as useful or as 

 injurious? Do its beneficial effects 

 equal its injurious effects ? When there 

 is no pear-blight about, it is easily de- 

 cided in favor of the usefulness of the 

 bee, but when there is an outbreak of 

 blight, it is a rather hard question to 

 decide. 



There are no doubt times when pear- 

 blight is rampant in an orchard, when 

 it would be better not to have the 

 honey-bee or any other insect in there 

 until the blight is past. On the other 

 hand, from the standpoint of the bee- 

 keeper, it can be said that in most 

 cases wild bees and other insects would 

 do a large part of the work, both good 

 and bad, without the honey-bee, so that 

 we could not get rid of the infection of 

 the blight even if we do dispense with 

 the presence of the bee. 



I feel satisfied that in the Eastern 

 United States the honey-bee must be 

 looked upon as a useful element in the 

 orchard. I have an apiary in my own 

 orchard. The people in California 

 have had some terrific outbreaks of 

 pear-blight and are very much con- 

 cerned over the matter, and they have 

 reached the conclusion that they can 

 dispense with the honey- bee as an 

 orchard pollenizer ; that their Bartlett 

 pears will set all the fruit that is neces- 

 sary, without insect fertilization. I 

 have never investigated the subject in 

 California. My only knowledge of the 

 case is due to my observation of Cali- 

 fornia fruits. There are so many seed- 

 less Bartlett pears from California that 

 it looks as if they were necessarily self- 

 pollenized, and there may possibly be 

 some truth in their views that their 

 pears will set without cross-pollination. 

 In that case, it moves the thing a lit- 

 tle against the bee, and if pear-blight 

 is rampant in an orchard, it would cer- 

 tainly be desirable— at times at least — 

 not to have bees about. 



In conclusion, I may say that I have 

 had just barely to touch upon matters 

 of extreme importance that should re- 

 quire an evening for their discussion, 

 but I am prepared to defend my prop- 

 ositions by further explanation, if you 

 find it necessary. M. B. W.\ITB. 



Report of the California Bee-Keepers' Association. 



BY CEO. W. BRODBECK. 



The echoes of the last step of the departing delegates 

 of the California State Bee-Keepers' Association is faintly 

 passing away, but we trust that the work accomplished 

 and the inspiration engendered will result in the beginning 

 of a new era in the honey-industry of this great State long 

 to be remembered. 



The announced meeting was for Jan. 15 and 16, which 

 met in the Chamber of Commerce, in Los Angeles. Pres. 

 G. S. Stubblefield presided, with J. F. Mclntyre as secre- 

 tary. 



To the wide-awake and intelligent bee-keeper it has been 

 evident for some time that we had reached a critical period in 

 the history of our industry, and while space will not per- 

 mit me to define the conditions that confront us, to the ob- 

 servant reader and the California bee-keeper this undoubtedly 

 will not be necessary. Recognizing the prevailing conditions 

 and the danger ahead, the bee-keepers of Southern California 

 met last October and organized a temporary association for 

 the purpose of co-operating in marketing their product, 

 along the lines and methods so successfully demonstrated 

 by the California fruit-growers. 



A Central organization was effected, which selected a 

 board of nine directors, composed as follows : G. S. Stub- 

 blefield. W. T. Richardson. M. H. Mendleson, G. W. Brod- 

 beck. E. A. Honey, F. M. McNay, H. C. Williamson, D. 

 A. Wheeler, and W. W. Bliss. 



The object of this was initiatory to the organization of 

 local associations wherever bee-keepers were disposed to 

 do so. This previous action resulted in the presentation 

 of the project to the members assembled at this annual ses- 

 sion, it being the principal theme of the meeting. Mr. A. 

 H. Naftsger, President of the Southern California Fruit 

 Kxi'hiino'fi: Prof. A. K Scivaa'ui' of ""• I- i(hi'"i> Km it- 

 Growers' Association, and W. B. Chamblini:. the father of the 

 exchange system in California — all presented their views and 

 practical experience in relation to this subject, urging upon 

 the bee-keepers the necessity of organization as the only means 

 of the disposal of their surplus product. 



Prof. Cook followed with an urgent appeal for imme- 

 diate action, the result of which was the selection of the 

 following committee: Prof. A. J. Cook, J. F. Mclntyre, and 

 F. McNay, with power to select others to aid in the organi- 

 zation of local associations in every county and section. 



The Redlands bee-keepers have been the first to fling 

 their banner to the breeze, with the selection of H. C. 

 Williamson as president. When these local associations are 

 completed they will be asked to select a delegate to meet 

 in Los .'\ngeles for the purpose of organizing a permanent 

 Central Exchange, composed of a specified number of direc- 

 tors of their own selection, and who will then supervise 

 and conduct the business of ithe local associations with 

 the prospective plan for the utilization of the selling agency 

 of the fruit-growers. 



The election of officers for the ensuing year resulted as 

 follows: G. S. Stubblefield, president; J. F. Mclntyre, Ven- 



