Method:

A 20 A test orchard, was partitioned into four quadrants with an untreated buffer between test plots. One plot remained untreated as a control. At recommended label rates and using air blast sprayers, three commercial attractants, Bee Scentä , Bee Hereä , and Fruit Boostä , were applied to individual orchard quadrants when king blooms were approximately 5% open. The participating grower applied the materials at label rates.

Bee Colonies. At the rate of one colony per acre, twenty bee hives, averaging 45,000 bees per colony, were moved in on the evening after spray applications were made. Colonies were placed in groups of four (as per commercial beekeeping procedures) equidistant through the center of the orchard. Foraging honey bee activity was evaluated by counting the number of bees visiting apple blossoms during a one minute walk around treated trees. Foraging bee counts were made in both morning and afternoon hours. All counts were made by the same observer.

Monitored Trees. In each quadrant, portions of ten designated trees, containing approximately 200 flower clusters, were tagged and counted at bloom and after fruit set was completed (mid-summer). At harvest, a sample of 25 apples were taken, at random around the tree periphery, to determine average fruit weight, length/diameter ratio and finally, the number of seeds in each apple were counted. The apple crop was estimated on a scale of: 1 = No Crop, 5 = Full Crop, and 10 = Excessive.

Results:

Honey Bee Foraging. There was a highly significant difference between Fruit Boost™ and the control. There was also a highly significant difference between Fruit Boost™ and the other two treatments. Also there was a significant difference between Bee Scent™ and the control. There was no difference between Bee Here and the control. Data is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Influence of commercial bee attractant products on honey bee foraging in a commercial Red Chief orchard near Johnstown, Ohio, 1998.

Treatment	Bee Here™	Fruit Boost™	Bee Scent™	Control
N	8	8	8	8
Min Foragers	48	58	59	49
Max Foragers	90	136	84	72
Mean	65.75a	102.25c	71.75b	55.25a
Std Dev	14.079	22.173	7.285	7.363

Means followed by a letter within row are significantly different at the .05 level by Duncan’s multiple range test.

Fruit Set and Crop. As expected, Fruit Boost™ treated trees had the highest fruit set percentage (11.38) and the greatest number of seeds per fruit (5.2) (different at .05) and had the lowest average fruit weight (185g) (different at .05). There was no difference in fruit set, fruit weight or seeds per fruit in either Bee Scent™ or Bee Here™ tests. Data is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Influence of bee attractant products on fruit set and crop of Red Chief Delicious in a commercial orchard near Johnstown, Ohio in 1998.

Treatment	Fruit Set%	Crop Estimate	Avg. Fruit wt. (g)	L/D	Seeds/Fruit
Check	7.78	2.3	201a	.88	4.2b
Bee Scent	5.18	2.3	203a	.88	4.4b
Bee Here	10.06	3.1	203a	.87	4.7b
Fruit Boost	11.38	2.8	185b	.89	5.2a

Means followed by a letter within column are significantly different at the .05 level by Duncan’s multiple range test.

Discussion. Fruit Boost™ is the only product having an attractive action mimicking the honey bee queen mandibular pheromone. The product is not commonly available in the Eastern US and Eastern Canada. In this study, the product showed promise, but observations are based on a single year’s data. Both Bee Scent™ and Bee Here™ are products mimicking honey bee orientation pheromones. Previous studies conducted at Ohio State have indicated that Bee Scent™ performs best in light bloom seasons and is most attractive to foragers immediately after application (Tew and Ferree, in publication). That observation was not supported by the preliminary results in this study. Common reasons, such as weather, tree health, location, and competing floral sources could account for the difference in observation. Due to the widespread effects of the 1998 El Nino weather pattern, an important variable is that the blooming period came nearly four weeks earlier than normal. Though not significant, Bee Here™ crop averages were greater than the control averages. Though a more readily available commercial product, as with Fruit Boost™, this was our first observation using Bee Here™.

This commercial orchard was selected because it has historically had a pollination problem. Pollinator trees are set out geometrically, but there still appears to be a problem with pollen transfer. Even with the positive results of Fruit Boost, the 1998 crop estimate was still low, but better than the estimate of the control quadrant.

Though showing usefulness in some cases, other bee attractant study results on apple crops have been erratic. Since honey bee forgers are opportunistic when selecting floral sources and since most pollinator populations across the US are depressed, application of a dependable forger attractant would be beneficial to commercial growers. We hope that future studies will continue to delineate the types of products and methods of application that would concentrate honey bee forager activity on apple crops.

Literature Cited:

Tew, James E. and David C. Ferree. (In Publication). The Influence of a Synthetic Foraging Attractant, Bee Scent, on the Number of Honey Bees Visiting Apple Blossoms and on Subsequent Fruit Production. The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.

Companies Producing Attractants Used in this Study

Bee Here™

Troy Biosciences, Inc.

2620 N. 37^th Drive

Phoenix, AZ 85009

Fruit Boost™

Phero Tech Inc.

7572 Progress Way

Delta, B.C. Canada V4G 1E9

Bee Scent™

Ecogen, Inc.

2005 Cabot Blvd. West

Langhorne, PA 19047-1810