• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Fertilizer and liming recommen...
 Pollen as food
 Honey production in Florida
 Experimental evidence of honeybee...
 Summary and recommendations
 Acknowledgments
 Literature cited






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 497
Title: Honeybees and other factors in Florida's legume program
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026681/00001
 Material Information
Title: Honeybees and other factors in Florida's legume program
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 14 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Killinger, G. B ( Gordon Beverly ), 1908-
Haynie, John D
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1952
 Subjects
Subject: Honeybee -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Legumes -- Pollen -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Pollination -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 14.
Statement of Responsibility: by G.B. Killinger and John D. Haynie.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026681
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925762
oclc - 18267100
notis - AEN6418

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Fertilizer and liming recommendations
        Page 7
    Pollen as food
        Page 8
    Honey production in Florida
        Page 8
    Experimental evidence of honeybee importance to legume seed crop
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Summary and recommendations
        Page 13
    Acknowledgments
        Page 13
    Literature cited
        Page 14
Full Text


June 1952


Bulletin 497


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA





Honeybees and Other Factors in

Florida's Legume Program

By G. B. KILLINGER and JOHN D. HAYNIE


Fig. 1.-Bees on Kenland Red clover growing on a Pensacola Bahia sod,
showing cage for controlling honeybee pollination of the blossoms.


Single copies free to Florida residents on request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA









BOARD OF CONTROL

Frank M. Harris, Chairman, St. Petersburg
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
Eli H. Fink, Jacksonville
George J. White, Sr., Mount Dora
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee
EXECUTIVE STAFF
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.'
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir.,
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.s
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. EcOnomist'
R. E. L. Greene. Ph.D., Agr. Economist s
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
Zach Savage. M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurloek, M.S.A., Associate
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate'
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate a
H. W. Little, M.S., Assistant'
Tallmadge Bergen, B.S., Assistant
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economist
Eric Thor, M.S., Agr. Economist
J. L. Tennant, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
H. W. Little, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist

Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr.
Statistician 2
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician 2
J. K. Lankford, B.S., Agr. Statistician

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frszier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer'
J. M. Johnson, B.S.A.E., Agr. Eng.3
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Eng.

AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist 1-
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D.. Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Darrel D. Morey, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant
Myron C. Grennell, B.S.A.E., Assistant
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant 3
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant *'
H. E. Buckley, B.S.A., Assistant
E. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., An. Husb.i
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist
S. John Folks, Jr., M.S., Asst. An. Hush. *
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3
John P. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.S
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman 3
C. E. Combs, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Animal
Husbandman
E. F. Johrston, M.S., Asst. Animal Husband-
man
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D.. Dairy Tech.'
R. B. Becker. Ph.D.. Dairy Husb.3
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.'
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech. s


P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.'
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech.
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech.
James M. Wing, M.S., Asst. Dairy Husb.

EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor
L. Odell Griffith, B.A.J., Asst. Editor
J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor 8

ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist'
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist

HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall. Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden. Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford Thompson, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.

LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist1
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West. M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.2
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lill'an E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.' s
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Hush.
SOILS
F. B. Smi:h, Ph.D., Microbiologist'1
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist'
J. R. Ncller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist'
Charles F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Micro-
biologist 4
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
I. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist 4
V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
James H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil
Surveyor
S. N. Edson, M.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor '
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
0. E. Cruz. B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue. Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
H. F. Ross, B.S., Soils Microbiologist
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist
VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian'
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist










BRANCH STATIONS
NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, Jr., M.S., Entomologist
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Hush.
T. E. Webb, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Chipley
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist
H. 0. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist 4
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
J. W. Davis, B.S.A., Asst. in Ent.-Path.
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. D. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
I. Stewart, M.S., Asst. Biochemist
W. T. Long, M.S.. Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
E. J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Hort.
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
I. H. Holtsberg, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist-
Pathologist
K. G. Townsend, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist-
Pathologist
J. B. Weeks, B.S., Asst. Entomologist
E. C. Lundbert, B.S.A., Asst. Biochemist
N. F. Shimp, M.S., Asst. Chem.
R. B. Johnson, M.S., Asst. Entomologist

EVERGLADES STATION. BELLE GLADE
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Hush.
C. C. Seale, Asso. Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. N. Stoner, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
W. A. Hills, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
W. G. Genung, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
H. L. Chapman, Jr.. M.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
Thos. G. Bowery. Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
M. R. Bedsole, M.S.A., Asst. Chem.


SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin. Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-
man in Charge

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ben. F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Geo. Swank, Jr., Ph.D,, Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
W. R. Langford, Ph.D., Asst. Agron.

SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge

GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
W. G. Cowperthwaite, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
Amegda Jack, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist

FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist*
L. H. Stover, Asst. in Hort.

Strawberry-Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Vegetables-Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Pecans-Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist2
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist 2

2 Head of Department
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
SOn leave.



























CONTENTS
PAGE

INTRODUCTION ............--............. ................. 5

FERTILIZER AND LIMING RECOMMENDATIONS -- ---.....------......................... 7

POLLEN AS FOOD ......-- ......---------- --- .................... ..... 8

HONEY PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA .....-....--.............. .... ... ....- ................ 8

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF HONEYBEE IMPORTANCE TO LEGUME SEED
CROP .............. .. .. ... --- ..... ...... ...-.. .......... ..... 9

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .---..--- --........... ......-... ---...... 13

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......-----...----- -- ---...-1............... ................... 13

LITERATURE CITED ......-- ---------......................- .......- ......... ............ 14










Honeybees and Other Factors in

Florida's Legume Program

By G. B. KILLINGER and JOHN D. HAYNIE 1

INTRODUCTION
During the past two decades the acreage of legumes, par-
ticularly pasture legumes, has increased in Florida from a few
hundred to many thousands of acres, either in pure stand or in
combination with annual and perennial grasses.
It has long been recognized that Southern agriculture has
prospered under a legume rotation system of farming. Livestock
ranchers recognize the benefits from having both summer and
winter legumes in their grazing program.
Some legumes dependent upon self-reseeding have failed in
Florida because they did not set sufficient viable seed for the
next season's volunteer crop. In some years these legumes
seeded well, while in others they produced few or no seed.
Farmers and seedsmen have noted that good seed crops were
produced during those seasons when bees were plentiful and
other factors were favorable. In recent years the number of
honeybee colonies has been increased in Florida and other states.
Correspondingly, there has been a decided increase in legume
seed production.
Amos (1) reports a 50 percent increase in Crimson clover
seed in Tennessee over a three-year period in the presence of
honeybees, as compared with no honeybees being present. Red
clover seed yields are directly correlated with the density of the
honeybee population, according to Beard and Dunham (2), Ohio
extension specialists. These men report that for a three-year
period honeybees were responsible for 82%, bumble bees 15%
and other insects 3% of the pollination on red clover. Vetch
seed yields in Texas were increased from 194 to 361 pounds per
acre where honeybee colonies were placed near the fields (3).
Some legumes require cross-pollination and some require trip-
ping of the flower (which results in self-pollination) to produce
seed. Insects, especially bees, are capable of completing both
cross-pollination and tripping.
Several factors have been responsible for the lack of forage
1Apiculturist, Florida Agricultural Extension Service, Gainesville.







Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations


legumes in Florida until recent years. Soil conditions are ex-
tremely variable in Florida, ranging from almost pure sands to
clays and organic peats and muck, and from very acid (pH 3.5-
4.0) to alkaline (pH 7.0-9.0). Soil moisture also varies from
very dry to wet, depending upon drainage conditions, with some
areas underwater for a few weeks or months during certain
seasons. Temperatures vary from below 30F. at times during
winter months in northern and western Florida to a condition
where it seldom falls below 400F. in southern Florida, and with
summer temperatures seldom reaching 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
With proper attention to some of these factors, the growing of
legumes has become a reality.
Due to droughts, excessive rains and widely varied tempera-
tures from year to year, it has been difficult to give definite
recommendations on winter legume culture that would insure
satisfactory stands, growth and reseeding throughout the state.
Various sections of the state, depending upon soil type and
fertility, can now grow Crimson clover, Southern White clover,
Kenland Red clover, Hubam clover, Floranna,2 Black Medic, Big
Trefoil, Lupines and many summer legumes successfully.
Floranna is an annual white sweet clover released by Florida Agri-
cultural Experiment Station in the fall of 1951.

Fig. 2.-White clover-Carpet grass pasture in late March. Note the
profuse amount of clover blossoms.







Honeybees and Other Factors in Legume Program


Most winter legumes greatly stimulate growth of the perma-
nent perennial grasses which follow, Figs. 2 and 3. In some
cases it has not been possible to produce as good grass growth
with high rates of nitrogen and mineral fertilization as was
obtained following clovers.

FERTILIZER AND LIMING RECOMMENDATIONS
Vigorous plants are a first requirement for seed production.
For this reason a brief discussion of nutritional practices are
pertinent to this bulletin. At present most winter legumes grow
on the acid soils of Florida only after the soil has been treated
with approximately two tons of calcic or dolomitic limestone per
acre and 500-600 pounds of an 0-12-12, 0-14-10 or 0-10-10 ferti-
lizer per acre. Annual applications of the phosphate-potash
fertilizer with limestone reapplied every four or five years is
recommended for successful clover production. Certain soils
may require an application of one or more of the minor elements
before legumes will grow satisfactorily. To date copper, man-

Fig. 3.-Close-up view of Carpet grass thriving in White clover-Carpet
grass pasture in late March. Most winter pasture legumes and grasses
grow well together.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


ganese, zinc and borax have given the greatest response on such
soils.
POLLEN AS FOOD

Bees are dependent upon pollen as their protein supply for
feeding the young brood in the colony. It is while the bees are
gathering this pollen that plants become cross-pollinated and
flowers are tripped to allow self-pollination. Wind also trans-
ports pollen to other flowers in most plant species. However,
for certain plants this operation is almost completely carried out
by bees and other insects.
The honeybee and the bumblebee rely on nectar and pollen
producing flowers for their existence, Fig. 4.

HONEY PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA

In 1950 the U. S. Department of Agriculture (4) reported
208,000 colonies of honeybees producing 15,600,000 pounds of
honey in the state of Florida. Most of Florida's honey crop is
made from citrus, tupelo (blackgum), saw palmetto and gall-

Fig. 4.-Pasture of Hubam clover in bloom. Honeybees work this plant for
nectar and pollen and produce substantial quantities of honey.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


ganese, zinc and borax have given the greatest response on such
soils.
POLLEN AS FOOD

Bees are dependent upon pollen as their protein supply for
feeding the young brood in the colony. It is while the bees are
gathering this pollen that plants become cross-pollinated and
flowers are tripped to allow self-pollination. Wind also trans-
ports pollen to other flowers in most plant species. However,
for certain plants this operation is almost completely carried out
by bees and other insects.
The honeybee and the bumblebee rely on nectar and pollen
producing flowers for their existence, Fig. 4.

HONEY PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA

In 1950 the U. S. Department of Agriculture (4) reported
208,000 colonies of honeybees producing 15,600,000 pounds of
honey in the state of Florida. Most of Florida's honey crop is
made from citrus, tupelo (blackgum), saw palmetto and gall-

Fig. 4.-Pasture of Hubam clover in bloom. Honeybees work this plant for
nectar and pollen and produce substantial quantities of honey.








Honeybees and Other Factors in Legume Program


berry blossoms. There is a wide variety of other domesticated
and wild flowering plants also which contribute to honey pro-
duction within the state.
The rapidly increasing acreage of pasture legumes, especially
clovers, should greatly augment honey production in Florida. On
most warm spring or summer days many honeybees and bumble-
bees can be seen .vigorously working Crimson clover, White
clover, Hubam clover, Floranna and Kenland Red clover blossoms.

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF HONEYBEE IMPORTANCE
TO LEGUME SEED CROP
During the springs of 1949, 1950 and 1951 experiments were
conducted to evaluate the honeybee with respect to clover seed
production.
In the spring of 1949 cages were constructed six feet square
and 30 inches high for controlling honeybees and other insects.
These were covered with cheesecloth on all sides and on top,
Fig. 1. Two of these cages were placed in a uniform field of
Kenland Red clover in March and all clover blossoms were
plucked off at that time. One of these cages was opened at a
corner and an ordinary hive of honeybees was placed at the
opening. The bees from this hive could enter the cage or go
outside as they wished, but other insects could not enter the
cage without going through the hive. The other cage served
as a check area, with all bees and most other insects excluded.
In addition, a six-foot-square area of clover was staked off near
the cages in the same field to determine the combined effect on
seed production of partial shading from the cages and of pollina-
tion by other insects, including bumblebees.
The Red clover seed were harvested from the two caged areas
and the staked plot in May. Twenty seed heads were plucked
at random from each of the three areas. Pods per seed head
and percentage of pods carrying seed were determined from these
20 seed head samples. Finally, each 36-square-foot plot was
cut and the seed harvested for yield. Results of this test are
given in Table 1. Red clover seed yields were increased from 11.2
pounds to 57.9 pounds per acre when bees were allowed to enter.
the caged plots. Staked plots in the open without cages yielded
83.5 pounds of seed per acre, which was due to the combined
effects of plenty of honeybees, some bumblebees and the fact
there was no shading from a cage.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations-


In 1950 the same experiment was repeated on Crimson clover,
Sweet clover (Hubam) and red clover at several locations in the
state. In the case of the sweet clover, the cages were four feet
high and all cages were covered with a coarse plastic 16-mesh
screen, Fig. 5. On one season's observation it was thought the
plastic screen allowed more sunlight and air movement, thus
subjecting the clovers to more normal conditions than was had
with the cheesecloth used in 1949.

TABLE 1.-EFFECT OF HONEYBEES ON RED CLOVER (Trifolium pratense)
SEED PRODUCTION, 1949.
I Lbs. of Seed per
Av. from 20 Seed Heads I Acre Calculated
Treatment I No. Pods I ~ Pods I from Harvested
per Head with/Seed 136-Sq.-Ft. Plot
Caged- no bees ..................... 91.6 0 11.2
Caged with honeybees ........... 74.6 53.0 57.9
Not caged-all insects .......... 83.6 81.1 83.5


Results of 1950 pollination and seed production studies are
given in Table 2.


Fig. 5.-Hubam sweet clover, showing caged staked plots used to study
effect of honeybees on seed production. Note plastic screen used on cages
in this test.








Honeybees and Other Factors in Legume Program


TABLE 2.-EFFECT OF HONEYBEES ON CRIMSON CLOVER (Trifolium incar-
natum), SWEET CLOVER ((Hubam) Melilotus alba annua) AND KENLAND
RED CLOVER (Trifolium pratense) SEED PRODUCTION, 1950.

Crimson Clover (Dixie Reseeding)
North Florida Experiment Station, Quincy, Florida
Lbs. of Seed per
Av. from 20 Seed Heads Acre Calculated
Treatment No. Pods % Pods from Harvested
per Head with/Seed 136-Sq.-Ft. Plot

Caged-no bees ...................... 65 3.1 3
Caged with honeybees ............ 72 72.2 64

Not caged-all insects .......... 71 83.1 105

Crimson Clover (Dixie Reseeding)
Monticello, Florida
Lbs. of Seed per
Av. from 20 Seed Heads Acre Calculated
Treatment No. Pods % Pods from Harvested
Super Head with/Seed 36-Sq.-Ft. Plot

Caged-no bees ..................... 69 0 3
Caged with honeybees .......... 66 13.6 31
Not caged-all insects ........ 65 6.2 10

Sweet Clover (Hubam)
Micanopy, Florida
SLbs. of Seed per
Av. from 20 Seed Heads Acre Calculated
Treatment No. Pods % Pods from Harvested
per Head with/Seed 36-Sq.-Ft. Plot

Caged- no bees .................... ............ 3
Caged with honeybees ........... ...... ...... 7
Not caged- all insects .......... ............ 74

Red Clover (Kenland)
Gainesville, Florida


Treatment


Lbs. of Seed per
Av. from 20 Seed Heads Acre Calculated
SNo. Pods % Pods from Harvested
Iper Head with/Seed 36-Sq.-Ft. Plot

75 0 0
77 10.4 38
76 26.3 40
J ________________________


Caged-no bees .................
Caged with honeybees ..........
Not caged-all insects ..........







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 3.-EFFECT OF HONEYBEES ON KENLAND RED CLOVER (Trifolium
pratense) AND SWEET CLOVER ((Hubam) Melilotus alba annual) SEED
PRODUCTION, 1951.
Red Clover (Kenland)
Gainesville, Florida
A Lbs. of Seed per
Av. from 20 Seed Heads Acre Calculated
Treatment I No. Pods I % Pods from Harvested
_________I per Head I with/Seed 36-Sq.-Ft. Plot
Caged-no bees ................. 78 0 8
Caged with honeybees .......... 80 77.7 96
Not caged-all insects ........ 79 73.4 88


Sweet Clover (Hubam)
Gainesville, Florida
Lbs. of Seed per
Av. No. of Seed from Acre Calculated
Treatment 20 Seed Spikes from Harvested
36-Sq.-Ft. Plot
Caged- no bees ....................... 21 153
Caged with honeybees ........... 26 200
Not caged-all insects .......... 22 161


The experiment at Quincy with Crimson clover showed a de-
cided increase in clover seed in the presence of honeybees. The
caged plot without honeybees produced 3 pounds of seed per
acre, caged with honeybees 64 pounds of seed per acre and not
caged but open for all insects 105 pounds of seed per acre. The
same experiment at Monticello was a failure from the stand-
point of total seed production. Without honeybees the Crimson
Clover seed yield was 3 pounds per acre, caged with honeybees
31 pounds per acre and not caged but with all insects 10 pounds
of seed per acre. The entire field of Crimson clover in which
this experiment was located failed to produce enough seed to
combine. Factors other than pollination interfered with seed
production on this field. The Sweet. clover (Hubam) was grazed
until April and was blooming vigorously at the time cages were
placed in the field. Hot, dry weather prevailed after the experi-
ment started and no seed was found on some 20 spikes from each
cage. A small quantity of seed was found, however, when the
entire plot was harvested. Hubam clover under the cage without
bees produced 3 pounds of seed per acre, with bees 7 pounds







Honeybees and Other Factors in Legume Program


and the plot not caged 74 pounds of seed per acre. The Hubam
plants under the cages appeared to wilt and dry up before much
seed could mature. Kenland Red clover produced 38 pounds of
seed per acre with honeybees, 40 pounds per acre in the open
with all bees and insects had access to the flowers, and no seed
on the caged plot where bees were excluded.
In 1951 the same experiments were conducted with Kenland
Red clover and Hubam on the Experiment Station farm near
Gainesville. Kenland Red clover seed production was increased
from 8 pounds per acre from caged plots without honeybees to
96 pounds per acre on plots caged with honeybees. There was
not as large a seed increase on the Hubam clover under similar
treatment, as 153 pounds of seed per acre were produced without
honeybees and 200 pounds with the caged honeybees. These
data are given in Table 3.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Data from three years' study with honeybees and, winter
legumes show that all clovers at all locations produced more seed
in the presence of honeybees than when bees and other insect
pollinators were excluded. This is in agreement with evidence
from other states during recent years, and indicates that the
presence of honeybees is important to insure satisfactory seed
:rops of these legumes.
In some of the tests insect pollinators not under control, but
including honeybees as well as wild pollinators, gave good seed
crops. However, reliance on pollination from uncontrolled bees
and other insects may result in a poor seed crop.
For best results honeybee colonies should be placed as near as
possible to the legume field to be pollinated, or be evenly spaced
within the field. One colony of honeybees per acre is recom-
mended for the pollination and seed set of legumes listed in this
bulletin. However, any colonies placed near these legumes while
they are in bloom will be beneficial.
Research workers in other states have found an increase in
legume seed production with the use of up to five colonies of
honeybees per acre.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgment is made to R. W. Wallace, W. C. Rhoades, F. A. Robin-
son and Raymond H. Burgess for help given in the course of these legume
pollination studies.







Honeybees and Other Factors in Legume Program


and the plot not caged 74 pounds of seed per acre. The Hubam
plants under the cages appeared to wilt and dry up before much
seed could mature. Kenland Red clover produced 38 pounds of
seed per acre with honeybees, 40 pounds per acre in the open
with all bees and insects had access to the flowers, and no seed
on the caged plot where bees were excluded.
In 1951 the same experiments were conducted with Kenland
Red clover and Hubam on the Experiment Station farm near
Gainesville. Kenland Red clover seed production was increased
from 8 pounds per acre from caged plots without honeybees to
96 pounds per acre on plots caged with honeybees. There was
not as large a seed increase on the Hubam clover under similar
treatment, as 153 pounds of seed per acre were produced without
honeybees and 200 pounds with the caged honeybees. These
data are given in Table 3.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Data from three years' study with honeybees and, winter
legumes show that all clovers at all locations produced more seed
in the presence of honeybees than when bees and other insect
pollinators were excluded. This is in agreement with evidence
from other states during recent years, and indicates that the
presence of honeybees is important to insure satisfactory seed
:rops of these legumes.
In some of the tests insect pollinators not under control, but
including honeybees as well as wild pollinators, gave good seed
crops. However, reliance on pollination from uncontrolled bees
and other insects may result in a poor seed crop.
For best results honeybee colonies should be placed as near as
possible to the legume field to be pollinated, or be evenly spaced
within the field. One colony of honeybees per acre is recom-
mended for the pollination and seed set of legumes listed in this
bulletin. However, any colonies placed near these legumes while
they are in bloom will be beneficial.
Research workers in other states have found an increase in
legume seed production with the use of up to five colonies of
honeybees per acre.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgment is made to R. W. Wallace, W. C. Rhoades, F. A. Robin-
son and Raymond H. Burgess for help given in the course of these legume
pollination studies.







14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

LITERATURE CITED

1. AMOS, JOHN. The effect of honeybees on the pollination of Crimson
clover. Am. Bee Jour. 91: 8: 331-333. 1951.
2. BEARD, D. F., and DUNHAM, W. E. Honeybees increase clover seed pro-
duction 15 times. Ohio State Univ. Ext. Bul. 253. 1945.

3. THOMAS, F. L. Vetch seed growers ask for honeybees. Am. Bee Jour.
,90: 1: 315. 1950.
4. TOWNSEND, J. C., JR. Florida October honey report. USDA Bur. Agr.
Econ., Orlando, Florida. October 16, 1950.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs