BEES AND FRUIT. 



ary fruit; white on the same tree, wherelimbs were ex- 

 posed to the aid of hees, plenty of fruit. 



Italics are ours. 'Such statements, coming 

 from the fruit-men, are certainly strong evi- 

 dence in favor of the bee. We may think that 

 the statements from the bee-keepers would be 

 biased; but when the fruit-men turn around 

 and defend the bee, as they surely have done, 

 will do, and are doing, the old-time opposition 

 will gradually break down. 



This symposium would be incomplete did we 

 fail to make mention of the fact that, some 

 three or four years ago, in the State of Michi- 

 gan a convention of fruit and bee men assem- 

 bled together for the purpose of discussing their 

 common interests. The fruit-men acknowledg- 

 ed generally that the keeping of bees in the 

 vicinity of their orchards was an important 

 factor in the production of fruit. At various 

 conventions of the Michigan State Bee-keepers' 

 Association there has been furnished abun- 

 dance of evidence, from bee-keepers and fruit- 

 growers, that points in the same direction. 

 Indeed, fruit-growers often become bee-keepers 

 — not from the honey the bees may furnish 

 them, but because they have found it necessary 

 to keep bees in order to secure the perfection of 

 fruit. 



You will see that we are disposed to be fair 

 in the matter, because we have given "both 

 sides." But wi are not at all afraid but that, 

 when all ihe evidence is weighed, the balance 

 of testimony on the bee side will completely 

 overbalance the testimony on the other side. 



The statement in the Rural (see Dr. Miller's 

 article), that fruit has grown where no bees 

 were known, proves nothing. Potatoes, wheat, 

 and all other crops, will grow on poor land; but 

 It would be foolish to say that there would not 

 be larger crops on good land, or under other 

 conditions more favorable. It is equally foolish 

 to assert that, because fruit has been grown 

 remote from bees, the up >rtat'on of bees into 

 that vicinity would havo no effect. Again, the 

 point is made by friend Fultz, that nuts and 

 some other kinds of fruits, etc., were known 

 to grow without the fertilization of any bees. 

 Bee-keepers do not claim— indeed, it would be 

 foolish to do so — that all products whatsoever 

 depend for their fertilization upon the agency 

 of the bees. All we claim is, that a large num- 

 ber of fruits are assisted, both in the quality 

 and quantity of fruit. 



i 



[The following appeared in Feb. 15th issue.] 



BEES NOT NECESSARY TO THE PROPER FER- 

 TILIZATION OF FRUIT-BLOOM. 



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 standpoints. 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. 



As a 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 

 under discussion, and shall ignore 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 which 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. 



[Tour evidence on this point is negative, because 

 you produce no proof that the crop iu question 

 would not have been better by having bees. If for 

 ten years without the bees your crops were good, 

 and for ten years with the bees the crops were 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, His 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 off nature's 

 methods, and then asserted 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 have been properly fertilized, even if no 

 honey-bee had ever been near them. 



[Your illustration of the hog in the pen is not a 

 parallel case. Most fruit - blossoms will ■ fertilize 

 themselves to a large extent, but there is no self- 

 fertilization 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 



