IN DEFENCE OF THE HONEY BEE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3148, 15 July 1914, Page 17

IN DEFENCE OF THE HONEY BEE.

By J. A.

At a recent ploughing match dinner •- at Wyndham one of the speakers, in enumerating the ills that beset the farmers, included in his list the “robbing of the clover by the bees.” It seemed somewhat strange to the writer to see the bees classed alongside the rabbit and noxious weeds -nuisances as one of the ills that efflict the poor farmers. Lot us see whether this seeming ill is not a blessing in disguise. The contention of some farmers is that the bees, in gathering tire nectar from the clover bloom, are depriving the farmer of that which' should make clover of more value as a stock food, while they give him nothing in return. To anyone who does not look into the matter this contention may seem unanswerable; but a closer examination will, I feel sure, show that the bees give more • than they take, and instead of being classed as one of the many ills, deserve something better at the hands of the farmer. « That which we describe as a clover bloom is really a number—usually about 50 or 60— of small separate florets grouped together. These florets are grouped in circles near the end of a single stem. In maturing, each row of florets, beginning with those lowest on the stem, opens in succession, secretes a minute quantity of nectar, and awaits in erect form the visit of an insect to fertilise it. The secreting of the nectar, it is quite evident, is Nature’s plan for attracting the necessary insect. This is proved in the case of red clover. The common bees could not reach the nectar in the red clover, consequently, until the humble bee was imported this variety of clover did not seed,. When the bee visits the flower it quickly runs round the row of open florets, taking the nectar, but in turn causing their fertilisation. As soon as this is done that row of florets turn down, secreting no more nectar, but developing pods containing seed. This happens to each row of florets in succession until the whole bloom is. fertilised. Nature’s plan, then, is that the nectar she provides is the price that has to - be paid for fertilisation. Whether is is done by bees or some other insect the price is still the same. What I have said narrows the question down to this: Whether is the nectar or the seed the more valuable to the farmer? That ho cannot get both is quite clear. If on the one hand the nectar is the most valuable for food purposes, then the bees are at fault. If, however, the seed is the more valuable for food purposes, then the debt is on the farmer’s side. To settle the question re- v quires some very minute calculations, for we' must get at the relative weight and food value of each before a final settlement can be reached. So far as I know there is no moans of accurately finding out the difference in weight between the nectar taken by the bees and the resulting weight of seed after fertilisation has taken place. It has, however, been stated that, in order to get a single load to take home the bee must visit several hundred clover blooms. A bee’s load is just a drop, and in order to reduce it to the consistency of honey probably fully one-third of it is evaporated. If each of the blooms visited produced one secd—iand they may produce several, —then we have several hundred clover seeds against two-thirds of a drop' of honey. That is as near the proportion as I can 'get. It must bo clear to anyone that the weight of seed is greatly in excess of that of the nectar. Probably it is more than 50 times as great. Now, as to food value. Honey is not a nitrogenous food; it is a heat-giving and fat-forming food. The seed of the legumes, on the other hand, are rich in nitrogen,' and are classed as flesh-forming foods. As every dairyman knows, if we want a cow to do her best < it is not the former, but the latter, description of food we must give her. For instance, a ration of peameal or brati or lucerne hay will give, as a rule, the desired stimulus to make dairy stock do their best, and that is just what we get

by the fertilising of the clover. Contrast the food value of a crop of peas with no pods, and one with, say, 40 or 50' bushels of peas per acre, and we have ait® easierseen example of what happens in_ the case of clover. I think the evidence in favour of the .good work done by the bees is overwhelming. The case is clearly made out. I would say that it would pay every farmer, apart from any honey returns, to see to it. that either his own or his neighbour’s bees have a good time on his clover. The cheery hum is worth something, and when the farmer knows that it is going to result in more milk he will be fully able to appreciate it. _ Some years ago the fruit men in California believed that the bees were damaging the grapes by puncturing them to get the juice; but time reduced this to the fact that, w'here grapes were cracked and the juice exuding, the bees would sometimes take it, but they would not puncture the fruit of themselves. The apple men also objected at one time to the bees, and, without any hesitation, sprayed their trees when in full bloom. So much evidence, however, has accumulated of late years as to the work of the bees in cross fertilisation and the better crop of better fruit resulting, that horticultural -,nd agricultural papers alike all urge orchardists not to spray during bloom time in order to save the bees. In the States, now, fruit men offer free sites for apiaries to bee-men, believing that it pays them to have them close to their orchards. It may •be that the writer is known to a good many of those who will read this, and it may be regarded by them as a bit of special pleading for the bees. The writer is a beekeeper with 200 colonies* of bees; but he is also a dairy-farmer, and for the season just his dairy herd tested highest in the factory to which the milk goes. So that, clearly, the bees did no damage there. —i