1903 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



97 



bee-keepers to raise, something' like buck- 

 vvheat or alfalfa. I have an idea there are 

 lots of them. There is also a work to be 

 done in the way of experimenting- with re- 

 puted hone3'-plants (such as catnip) on a 

 grand scale — something that can not be 

 done by private means. 



There is also a chance to do something 

 for bee-keeping in connection with forestry. 

 Some of the great reservations would make 

 excellent bee-keeping preserves. Then in 

 planting trees for either timber or shade, 

 due regard should be had to the interests 

 of bee-keepers. This is a rather difficult 

 and knotty problein, and to be undertaken 

 only by a wealthy government. It would 

 be well if a beginning were made along 

 these lines, for some of them would take 

 man}' jears to solve; and seeing other in- 

 dustries get valuable help from the govern- 

 ment, bee-keepers need not be slow about 

 the asking. The cost of a single warship 

 would paj' $100,000 a year for 30 years. 

 The same sum of money might double the 

 bee output of the United Stated. 



[Your two last sentences suggest why the 

 funds are not forthcoming more readily for 

 experimental work. It has always seemed 

 to me there is too much fuss and flurry about 

 the big armaments. Millions of dollars are 

 wasted in useless navy equipment. Take, 

 for example, the big lb-inch gun erected off 

 Sandy Hook. Even the best government ex- 

 perts condemn it, now that it is just com- 

 pleted, and thus a cool 8100,000 is wasted. 

 There are numerous other examples of this 

 kind, and yet there is an}' amount of needed 

 experimental work that would be useful to 

 the peaceful citizens of the United States, if 

 it were not for such foolishness. As Mr. 

 Morrison verj- properly says, the cost of 

 one warship alone would give us 6100,000 

 for 30 years. Warships are all right in 

 their place; but too many of them make a 

 drag on civilization and progress. I hope 

 our nation will not adopt the policy of 

 Great Britain in this respect. The most of 

 her navv' equipment to-day is out of date, 

 and it would be practicallj' useless when 

 pitted against modern armament. If we 

 keep on building warships j'ear after year 

 we shall have a lot of out-of-date smashing 

 machines. It does not seem as if we can 

 ever have anj' very great war again, not- 

 withstanding the jingoes who rant over 

 Venezuela. — Ed. ) 



PEAR-BLIGHT. 



Are Bees Chief Agents in Spreading it? 



BV J. K. JOHNSON. 



Lately scientific investigation seems to 

 prove this; but experience proves just the 

 I pposite. After considerable experience 

 Hiid observation, and after careful study 

 and thought, I have found the following to 

 be facts: 



1. Any bad-blighting variety planted in 



soil very rich in nitrogen, or made rich 

 with barnyard manure, and given plenty 

 of moisture, will, in most instances, blight 

 before it ever reaches the blossoming peri- 

 od. I have both bees and trees, and I have 

 never yet seen a bee alight on a pear-tree, 

 large or small, when not in blossom. My 

 first experience was to set little year-old 

 trees, Bartlett and Kieft'er. These were 

 healthy trees, and free from blight; but I 

 made the same mistake that nearly all first 

 make; and that is to plant in the garden in 

 the richest soil I had. This was in Kan- 

 sas. However, there were no other pear- 

 trees on the place, neither did my near 

 neighbors have any pear-trees. The sea- 

 son was wet; and before the summer was 

 over, all were dead with blight — first the 

 Bartletts then the Kieffers. 



2. I have seen large pear-orchards, dur- 

 ing a wet season, badly blighted. When 

 the weather turned off dry the blight would 

 stop without any cutting-out at all; and if 

 it continued dry, trees would sometimes do 

 well, the blight having been checked com- 

 pletely. 



Some years, if the spring was dry, the 

 trees would be covered with blossoms, and 

 bees would be busy from morning till night 

 every day on bloom. A Bartlett and Kief- 

 fer, right side by side, bees working on 

 both busily, the Bartlett would blight, and 

 the Kieffer be perfectly free. According to 

 the theory that bees are the chief agents in 

 spreading blight, the Kieft'er would be 

 thoroug-hly inoculated with the bacteria; 

 but if Kieffer is planted in rich soil it will 

 blight. Major Holsinger, an extensive 

 fruit-grower in Kansas, and an able writer 

 in the Western Fruit Grower, has about 

 4000 Kieffer pear-trees, some planted 18 

 years. They are practicaly free from 

 blight, although Bartletts and Lecontes 

 have blighted to death in his orchard. 

 Now, why did not the Kieffers blight? Be- 

 cause, not being over-stimulated with nitro- 

 geneous fertilizers, they have been so far 

 practicaly immune to blight. In the East 

 we hear no complaint about bees spreading 

 blight. Why? Because land is not so new 

 or rich; but in California, a State which is 

 remarkable both in climate and soil, which 

 causes all trees to make rapid growth, these 

 trees have been planted by the thousand, 

 largely Bartletts. With the climate and 

 soil favorable to blight, and then bad-blight- 

 ting varieties planted, could any one won- 

 der at their having an abundance of blight? 

 California is remarkable for fine fruit, but 

 the wrong place for pear-growing; however, 

 if they plant varieties not so apt to blight 

 they may succeed; but not without bees to 

 pollenize the blossoms. 



The National Fruit Grower, of St. Joseph, 

 Mich., for Jan., 1902, says that the blight 

 bacteria was first announced in 1880 by 

 Prof. Burrill, who said trees may be inocu- 

 lated by the aid of insects; but as the germs 

 float in the air the mischief may be done by 

 the wind. Prof. Waite sa3's the germs can 

 live onlj' in a liquid or semi-liquid. I be- 



