~ha

RelRtion of Bers
to Fruit Growing

11J. l~ewe II

FRUI
BY

DEPT.

BEE

~C 1 lE

ain Lib.
c. Dept

An address dell
Horticultural So
Reprinted from
Meeting of t he

l,

THE

RELATION

BEES

OF

TO

FRUIT GROWING
BY WILMON

An

NEWELL

address delivered before

the

Georgia

State

Horticultural Society, at Athens, Ga., Aug. 3, 1903.

Reprinted from the

Proceedings of 27th Annual

Meeting of the Georgia State Horticultural society.

,..

. ......

., " "

. . . . :-=

.,

. s: . : ~ ~ . ,. .
., , ,'~:\ ~, ~ , ": ~:. ::,:, ~\ ~ ~ ,'':.
~

> ,.

,,

~.~~nu-vv-;~
~

THE RELATION OF BEES

By Wilmon

An address delivered before the Ge

at Athens, Ga., Augqst 3rd, rgo3.
Reprinted from the Proceedings of
ing of the Georgia State Horticultural S

....: ..:
#

. ... ...
... . ......
:.:: ~...(." ..... .: ...
: :.. .....
. '. :
..

::
::

'

'

Mr. President and Gentlemen:

The entomologist in his wo
groups of insects, t hose which ar
are beneficial. There is no nee
class; the various insects which
den and field crops, and infest
kinds are examples. As a matt
received the most attention. It is
tion of the farmer or fruit gro
attracted to. the death of his tree
stant yet quiet and unassuming
cessfully hold in check many inju
it is as much the dutv of the en
iunease and distributi~n of benefo
means for controlling the injuriou
vtnience we may place the benefi
those which are indirectly of b
parasitic habits upon injurious SIJ
direotly beneficial in that they er
ducts. The former group may b
"larly-bird" beetles which destro
and plant lice; and by the para
most part very minute insects r
which livC> as parasites upon the a
destructive pests. Of insects dir
the silk-\'\ orm, the cochineal inse
with the latter that we now hav
bees to fruit growing has not re
the average orchardist. I am co
a subject of much importance, an
tionship will, I trust, be of some

BRARY,
IVER SITY
-OF-

CALIFORNI.A..

THE RELATION OF BEES TO FRUIT GROWING.

By Wilmon Newell.

An address delivered before the Georgia State Horticultural Society

at Athens, Ga., August 3rd, r903.
Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Georgia State Horticultural Society.

... .. .

._,._ .....

Mr. President and Gentlemen:

The entomologist in his work meets with two immense
groups of insects, those which are injurious and those which
are beneficial. There is no need of discussing the former
class; the various insects which destroy our fruit trees, garden and field crops, and infest stored products of various
kinds are examples. As a matter of course, this group has
received the most attention. It is but natural that the attention of the farmer or fruit grower should be more forcibly
attracted ta, the death of his trees or crops than to the constant yet quiet and unassuming work of insects which successfully hold in check many injurious species. Nevertheless
it is as much the duty of the entomologist to assist in the
iw:rease and distribution of beneficial insects as it is to devise
means for contro!ling the injurious ones. As a matter of convt:nience we may place t he beneficial insects in two groups,
those which are indirectly of benefit to mankind by their
parasitic habits upon inj urious species, and those which are
direotly beneficial in that they create useful commercial products. The former group may be illustrated by the various
"lacly-bird" beetles which destroy myriads of scale insects
and plant lice; and by the parasitic Hymenoptera-for the
most part very minute insects resembling bees or waspswhich live as parasites upon the adults, larvae or even eggs of
destructive pests. Of insects directly beneficial we may cite
the silk-worm, the cochineal insect and the honey-bee. It is
with the latter that we now have to deal. The relation of
bees to fruit growing has not received much attention from
~he average orchardist. I am convinced, however, that it is
a subject of much importance, and a discussion of this relationship will, I trust, be of some little interiest. It seems to

me very essential that we should arrive at a clear understanding of the relationship of these two industries, Horticulture
and Apiculture, as they are of mutual benefit to ea-ch other.
In this connection I wish to read you a short paragraph
from the address of your illustrious President, Dr. P. J.
Beckmans made before this body at the second annual meeting at Ma'con, Ga., on August II and 12, ~877. This paragraph bears directly upon our present subject and reads as
follows:
"Insects are absolutely needed to fertilize the flowers of
several of our standard products; they carry the pollen from
one flower to another in species where the male and fem.ale
flowers are distinct in others whose organs of reproduction
are so formed that they require artificial aid in being fertil_ized, insects are almost the only means to prevent the species
from becoming extinct. Our watermelon grower.s would find
their occupation gone if honey bees and other msects were
out of existence. Clover seed would have to be brought from
Europe if we did not have the bumble bee to fertilize the
flowers.
"We must not forget that to the agency of insects we
owe most of our wonderful variety of fine peaches, apples,
pears and other fruits; it is by insects that in most cases ~he
flowers of our fruit trees are fertilized by the pollen which
they carry from one flower to another, and th_us numberl~~s
fruits of superior value have resulted from this cross-fertilization.
"Insects have been the earliest hybridists on record, and
" have been the primary cause of the origin of more. desirable
perfected horticultural products that can be attributed to
our own efforts."
It is unnecessary for me to call your attention to the
arowth of the Georgia fruit industry within recent years; its
~rogress is manifest. The bee-_keeping industry in . G~orgia,
on .the other hand, is but partially developed and is m the
future destined to make material progress.
In parts of the United States the bee-keepers and fruit
men have not always lived in harmony and brotherly love.
This unpleasant state of a_ffairs ~a? often been broug~t about
by the erroneous impression e~istu~g amoi:g the frmt growers that the bees in1ured the npemng frmts. On the other
hand, bee-keepers have often suffer.ed serious dama~e by orchardists spraying fruit trees while m full bloom. It is not my
intention to advocate the interests of either party to the detriment of the other, but instead to carefully consider available facts bearing upon the question. I believe. that an impartial consideration will lead us to the conclusion that not
only are these two industries perfectly harmless to each other, but that they are mutually beneficial and that every or-

chardist will find it profitable

er upon a small scale. In ord
subject l will state it in the for

PropoJition 1 . -1 hat Insect.

of .Fruit Bloom, and that tlie Ho1
plishes this End t/ian any other ,

Under this heading I wish

to the subject of self-sterility
fact that many varieties of fru 1
blocks, often fail to set fruit
at hand. In other words, ma1
of fertilization by their own l
is a notable illustration of ti
Goose blossom being unable tc
som, whether upon the same
Waugh the pollen from vVild
fertilizing the ovules of almo
Careful studies of self-sterilit
Kerr, Waugh and Fletcher.
Univ. Bui. No. 181.) the Keiff
and \V illowtwig appl es, Susq
cherry as being among the va
sterile. Waugh ("Plums and
that all the native varieties ,
hybrids (so far as observed)
rieties, are self-sterile.
Hall, Beach and Booth, in
Exp. Sta. Bui. 223) have foui
Eldorado, Merrimac and Sal
They have also shown that p
of grapes is powerless to fert
sterile of self-fer,ile v.trJLties.
So far as I am aware bt
made with regard to self-steril
It is not my intention to
sterilit y except so far as the n
above cited cases are sufficient
cross-pollination, or the transfe
one variety to the blossoms of
for self-sterility naturally di
The first of these is the plantir
will prop~rly fertilize each oth~
culture. recommends poll enize
Havin g plan ted the proper var
soming age. attention should
For the most part, fruit grc
pended upon this being accom1
Hand pollination in orchards i~
ble. The wind may to some e

hould arrive at a clear understandthese two industries, Horticulture

_ of mutual benefit to ea.Ch other.
rish to read you a short paragraph
tr illustrious President, Dr. P. ].
lis body at the second annual meet~gust l l and 12, 1877.
This paral our present subject and reads as

needed to fertilize the flowers of

oducts; they carry the pollen from
_pecies where the male and female
fhers whose organs of reproduction
equire artificial aid in being fertilizonly means to prevent the species
lur watermelon growers would find
honey bees and other insects were
leed would have to be brought from
Ive the bumble bee to fertilize the
1

l that to

the agency of insects we

fol variety of fine peaches, apples,
s by insects that in most cases the
are fertilized by the pollen which
r to another, and thus numberless
ave resulted from this cross-fertili-

~e earliest hybridists on record, and

1use of the origin of more desirable
roducts that can be attributed to

industry within recent years; its

~eit bee-keeping
industry in Georgia,
me to call your attention to the

partially developed and is in the

material progress.
~d States the bee-keepers and fruit
ed in harmony and brotherly love.
tffairs has often been brought about
ion existing among the fruit growl the ripening fruits. On the other
"ten suffered serious damage by orees while in full bloom. It is not my
interests of either party to the det. stead to carefully consider availe question. I believe t hat an im ead us to the conclusion that not
.:ies perfectly harmless to each oth1mally beneficial and that every or2

chardist will find it profitable to himself become a bee-keeper upon a small scale. In order to more clearly set forth the
subject I will state it in the form of propositions.
PropoJition I . -1 hat Insects a1e Essential for the Pollination

of .l!ruit Bloom, and that the Honey B ee .LII01e '1'/wroughly Accomplishes this End thnn any otlier , nsect.
Under this heading I wish first of all to call your attention
to the subject of self-sterility in fruits. It is a recognized
fact that many varieties of fruits, when planted in large, solid
blocks, often fail to set fruit mi.less other varieties are near
at hand. In other words, many varieties are not susceptible
of fertilization by their own pollen. The Wild Goose plum
is a notable illustration of this, the pollen from the Wild
Goose blossom being unable to fertilize any Wild Goose blossom, whether upon the same or another tree. According to
Waugh the pollen from vVild Goose is capable, however, of
fertilizing the ovules of almost any other variety of plum.
Careful studies of self-sterility have been made by Waite,
Kerr, Waugh and Fletcher. The latter mentions (Cornell
Univ. Bu!. No. r8r.) the Keiffer and Bartlett pears, Vv'inesap
and Willowtwig apples, Susquehanna peach and Napoleon
cherry as being among the varieties partially or totally selfsterile. Waugh ("Plums and Plum Culture," p. 285.) states
that all the native varieties of plum, except Robinson, all
hybrids (so far as observed) and mauy of the Japanese varieties, are self-sterile.
Hall, Beach and Booth, in their studies of grapes (N. Y.
Exp. Sta. Bu!. 223) have found that Black Eagle, Brighton,
Eldorado, Merrimac and Salem are practically self-sterile.
They have also shown that pollen from self-sterile varieties
of grapes is powerless to fertilize the ovules of either selfsterile of self-fer.ile v.1rH..ties.
So far as I am aware, but little investigation has been
rnade with regard to self-sterility in peaches.
It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of selfsterility except so far as the remedy may be concerned. The
above cited cases are sufficient to emphasize the necessity of
cross-pollination, or the transfer of pollen from the blossom of
one variety to the blossoms of another variety. The remedy
for self-sterility naturally divides itself into two steps.
The first of these is the planting of such varieties adjacent as
will prop~rly fertil'ze each other. \tVaugh , in his book on plum
culture. recom mends pollenizers for 184 varieties of plums.
Having planted the proper varieties and having them of blossoming age. attention should be given to the pollination.
For the most part, fruit growers have in the past depended upon this being accomplished without their attention.
Hand pollination in orchards is of course entirely impracticable. The wind may to some extent distribute pollen but the
3

most important agency is that of insects. Various wasps,

beetles, butterflies and bees visit the blossoms in quest of nectar and carry the grains of pollen from one to another. However, no insect so effectually accomplishes this distribution
of the pollen as the honey bee, and by various students this
insect is regarded as of more importance in this respect than
all others combined. For this reason, the more honey bees
th.ere are in the vicinity of the orchard the more thorough
will be the pollination. Many fruit growers state positively
that the fruit yield has been materially increased after the introduction of several colonies of bees into their orchards.

'
Proposition 2.-That Bees Take Part in Disseminating
Pear
Blight and Brown Rot, but that the.~e Diseases Would be Practically as Prei,alent ci:en were there no Floney Bees.
The disease known as blight or fire-blight, is familiar to
all. There are few orchardists who have not witnessed with
dismay the sudden death of twigs and limbs on their favorite
apple and pear trees. The disease causes the infected twigs to
turn a deep brown or black, as if they had been scorched by
fire. Its progress is rapid and at times seems to sweep through
the orchard or nursery like a veritable conflagration. Fireblight is caused by a very small germ or microbe, so small as
to be invisible except with the aid of a high-power microscope.
This germ (Bacillus Amylovorus), 1i ves and multiplies in the
tend er, growing tissues of the wood and is found in abundance in the dying twigs . w aite (Yearbook, Dept. of Agr.
for 189~. p. 296) bas found that this bacillus, while not particularly hardy or resistant, survives the winter in the tissues
of the infected twigs and branches at the point of contact
of the healthy and dead wood. When the sap rises in the
spring gum exudes upon the infected twigs and these masses
of gum are found to be teeming with the blight bacillus.
Various insects visit these twigs anrl sucking up the gummy
secretions. take with it thousands of the germs. The insects
also visit th e opening blossoms in search of nectar and leave
therein the germs from the infected twigs. The bacillus can
live and multiply in the nectar. of the blossoms and hence
is carried by the visiting insects from one blossom to another. \"\rhile bees do assist in spreading the blight, we cannot
lay the blame for th e malady at their doors, for were they
entirely removed a horde of other insects would still continue
me dissemination. Among these we may mention various
'----. 'H emiptera)' wasps. bumble-bees. butterflies, hornets.
A1es and beetles. Theoretically the removal of all insects from
the orchard would prevent the spread of blight, and doubtless such would be the:' case. Such removal, however, is utterly impossible and were it accomplished even cross-polli4

I I

nation would be at an encl an

certain failure of the crop in
partially or totally self-sterile.
Waite (1.c.) has shown
tical remedy for blight is to c
eel twigs and branches, keepi
ly disinfected while doing th
means for controlling and prev
ods put in use after the di.seas
vVe come now to a brief COi
disease is likewise only too f~
and plums. The rotting of th
and upon the market is the cau
The brown mushyappearance
needs no description. The clise
low form o_f vegetable life wl
from the blight germ, and is c
gous disease." Whereas in the
tion of a single germ serves
case of brown rot the dissemin
fruiting bodies. These spores c
the seeds of higher plants. U
the familiar brown rotting of fr
The fact that this disease
rainy seasons has often given t
by damp weather. The preseno
favorable to the development o
seasons must be regarded as
for brown rot, and not as its ca
For our present purpose w
brown rot, that attacking the bl
growing fruit, bearing in mind,
the disease is identically the sa
other insects, visit the diseased
criminately and doubtless in t
although so far as we are awar
proven. Here again, were the b
semination would still take plac
insects.
\i\There the growing peaches
the observer will find many be
decaying portions, as well as up
been broken open by too rapid
this way it is possible for the
spores from decaying fruit to t
is injured or broken open.
We wish right here to emph
parts of the honey bee are so co
pun ctn res, bites or lacerates the s
5

... . . . , . .
'
. . -"'.! ,:, :

..... ...... _.
~

that of insects. Various wasps,

visit the blossoms in quest of necollen from one to another. How[ly accomplishes this distribution
bee, and by various students this
re importance in this respect than
this reason, the more honey bees
the orchard the more thorough
any fruit growers state positively
h materially increased after the ins of bees into their orchards.

'
Take Pmt in Disseminating
Pear
at the.~e Diseases Would be Practiere no Honey Bees.
blight or fire-blight, is familiar to
ists who have not witnessed with
f twigs and limbs on their favorite
isease causes the infected twigs to
, as if they had been scorched by
d at times seems to sweep through
,e a veritable conflagration. Fire>mall germ or microbe, so small as
e aid of a high-power microscope.
vorus), lives and multiplies in the
the wood and is found in abundaite (Yearbook, Dept. of Agr.
that this bacillus, while not parsurvives the winter in the tissues
branches at t11e point of contact
ood. When the sap rises in the
e infected twigs and these masses
teeming with the blight bacillus.
twigs and sucking up the gummy
1sands of the germs. The insects
oms in search of nectar and leave
infected twigs. The bacillus can
ectar of the blossoms and hence
sects from one blossom to anothspreading the blight, we cannot
dy at their doors, for were they
other insects would still continue
these we may mention various
bumble-bees, butterflies, hornets,
alh- the removal of all insects from
he spread of blight, and doubt,e. Such removal, however, is utit accomplished even cross-polli'.S

..

'

.. ....

: :> ~- ~;

It, ....

..

...

' '...
,e"'

'

;. z:. \:_~ .:,~.

nation would be at an end, and the result would be an almost

certain failure of the crop in the case of varieties which are
partially or totally self-sterile.
Waite ( 1. c.) has shown that the only logical and practical remedy for blight is to cut out during winter all infected twigs and branches, keeping the pruning knife thoroughly disinfected while doing the work. We must look to this
means for controlling and .preventing blight, and not to methods put in use after the disease is rampant in the orchard.
vVe come now to a brief consideration of brown rot, which
disease is likewise only too familiar to growers of peaches
and plums. The rotting of the fruit upon the tree, in transit
and upon the market is the cause of an enormous annual loss.
The brown mushyappearance of fruit destroyed bybrown rot
needs no description. The disease, like blight, is caused by a
low form of vegetable life which differs in many respects
from the blight germ, and is commonly designated as a "fungous disease." Whereas in the case of blight the introduction of a single germ serves to produce the disease, in the
case of brown rot the dissemination or spread is by spores or
fruiting bodies. These spores correspond in a general way to
the seeds of higher plants. Unless these spores are present
the familiar brown rotting of fruit cannot take place.
The fact that this disease is most prevalent in damp,
rainy seasons has often giYen the impression that it is caused
by damp weather. The presence of moisture is essential and
favorable to the development of the fungus, and hence damp
seasons must be regarded as offering conditions favorable
for brown rot, and not as its cause.
For our present purpose we may consider two phases of
brown rot, that attacking the blossoms and that attacking the
growing fruit, bearing in mind, however, that in both cases
the disease is identically the same. Honey bees, as well as
other insects, visit the diseased and healthy blossoms indiscriminately and doubtless in this way spread the malady,
although so far as we are aware. this has not been definately
proven. Here again, were the bees entirely removed the dissemination would still take place through the agency of other
insects.
\i\There the growing peaches rot while still upon the trees
the observer will find many bees busily at work upon the
decaying portions, as well as upon over-ripe fruit which has
been broken open by too rapid growth or by accident. In
this way it is possible for the bees to carry the brown rot
spores from decaying fruit to the flesh of other fruit which
is injured or broken open.
Vve wish right here to emphasize the fact that the mouthparts of the honey bee are so constructed that the bee never
punctnres, bites or lacerates the skin of sound fruit.
5

..

..

\: _.: ..

This was demonstrated in experiments conducted by Prof.

Riley as early as 1885, (U. S. Ent. Rep. 1885), and again in
1901 by M\f. John Fixter of the Canada Department of Agriculture.
(See Report of Entomologist and Botanist in Annual Report on Experimental Farms for 1901, p. 254.) Mr.
Fixter exposed to the attack of bees, sound fruit, sound fruit
dipped in honey, and fruit which had the skin cut and punctured. The bees readily took the juice from the punctured
fruit and cleaned off the honey from the dipped fruit. Although the bees were in a starving condition they failed to
puncture any of the sound fruit. Hence we see that only
after decay has softened the fruit skin or the latter has been
injured from other causes can the little honey bee obtain access to the fruit. The introduction of brown rot into healthy
and sound fruit, by the honey bee, is therefore impossible.
He who doubts this statement will find the confirmation in
his own orchard, where, if he will observe closely, he will
find that the bees do not visit the sound fruit. The same
does not hold true of other insects which have powerful biting
or piercing mouthparts. It has been shown by Scott and
Fiske (Bul. No. 31, Div. Ent. n. ser. pp. 24 to 36), that the
Curculio opens the way for the entrance of the brown rot fungus and also that the leaf-footed plant bugs (Coreidae) piercing healthy and diseased fruit alike, are material agents
in spreading this disease.
We must therefore conclude, both from observation
and from the experience of many fruit growers, that the
more abundant the honey bees the more thorough will be the
cross-pollination in our orchards, and as a result the better
will be our crop. We also see that although the bees do take
part in the dissemination of fire-blight and possibly to a limited extent, brown rot, yet the removal of the bees would not
perceptibly decrease the prevalence of these diseases. The
balance of the account, when all things are considered is decidedly in favor of our friend the bee. We therefore strongly
urge the keeping- of bees in or near every orchard-not in the
old style "box-hive" or "gum"-but in frame hives of modern make and pattern, which will yield a defini t e and not inconsiderable profit in the honey produced.

experiments conducted by Prof.

Ent. Rep. 1885), and again in
e Canada Department of Agriomologist and Botanist in AnFarms for 1901, p. 254.) Mr.
of bees, sound fruit, sound fruit
ich had the skin cut and punck the juice from the punctured
ney from the dipped fruit. Altarving condition they failed to
fruit. Hence we see that only
fruit skin or the latter has been
n the little honey bee obtain acIuction of brown rot into healthy
~ey bee, is therefore impossible.
ent will find the confirmation in
he will observe closely, he will
isit the sound fruit. The same
sects which have powerful biting
[ has been shown by Scott and
~ t. n. ser. pp. 24 to 36), that the
he entrance of the brown rot fun6ted plant bugs ( Coreidae) pierc1 fruit alike, are material agents

~
'

bnclude, both from observation

f many fruit growers, that the
res the more thorough will be the
hards, and as a result t he better
ee that although the bees do take
fire-blight and possibly to a limite removal of the bees would not
evalence of these diseas es. The
all things are considered is decidthe bee. We therefore strongly
or near every orchard-not in th-e
um"-but in frame hives of 111 0 ich will yield a definite and not inmey produced.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE

STAMPED BELOW

APR 16 1984 RECD

30m-l,'15