189^ 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



283 



the leveler. Except for these two reasons I 

 would not cut down the depth of the cells. If 

 it's a good thing to have the colls built half, it's 

 a better thing to have them entirely built out. 

 For bait combs 1 always prefer those built out 

 as much as possible, only so they are perfectly 

 clean and white, and will not come close enough 

 to the separators to be bridged. 



It may be said that, with such deep cells, the 

 honey will not be evaporated so quickly as in 

 those more shallow, and there may be a very 

 little in this. But if that is any argument in 

 favor of cells ^g" rather than %. it is equally an 

 argument in favor of }% rather than ?8. 



The question as to how much more honey 

 could be secured by having drawn sections than 

 by having merely foundation is one not easily 

 settled. Great difference of opinion prevails as 

 to the difference between the amount of comb 

 honey and extracted from the same colony, 

 some saying nearly the same, and some saying 

 three or four times as much extracted as comb. 

 Whatever the difference may be, it seems there 

 ought to be nearly as much honey obtained in 

 drawn combs in sections as of extracted. If the 

 cells are of the same depth in each case, and the 

 extracting-combs are sealed before extracting, 

 there ought to be no difference. 



Interest in this whole matter has been freshly 

 aroused by the advent of the new foundation 

 with side walls J^ inch deep or less. I confess 

 that I have not been so enthusiastic as some in 

 thinking this new product will be of such im- 

 mense advantage. 



A year or so ago I received from Germany a 

 sample of comb made by machinery, the cells 

 being of full depth, and German bee-journals 

 seemed quite jubilant over it. It was so heavy 

 that there was no thought of using it in any 

 thing but brood-combs; but it took so much 

 wax as to make a brood-chamber full of it 

 rather expensive. So little has been said about 

 it since, that I doubt if it has gone, or, indeed, 

 ever will go, into general use. The sample I 

 have received from The A. I. Root Co. is a 

 marvel of delicacy compared with the German 

 sample, yet before we know how much advan- 

 tage it will be we must know at what price it 

 can be had, and it must be fully and fairly put 

 to the test. 



There is probably no question that, in gener- 

 al, bees will store more honey in old combs than 

 in combs that must be wholly built as the stor- 

 ing is going on. And the nearer we come to 

 furnishing complete combs, the more we help 

 the storing. But cells 3€ or % deep will not be 

 as much help as cells of full depth. Even if 

 wax enough be furnished to make full-depth 

 cells, it isn't easy to figure how much the draw- 

 ing out will cost the bees. 



Again, it is a problem whether under any and 

 all circumstances the bees will thin down the 

 cells to natural thickness. While in some cases 



it might be profitable to pay 1.5.00 a pound for 

 drawn comb to be used as bait, a single section 

 in the first super of the season, it by no means 

 follows that it would be worth any such figure 

 to fill the whole super. After the first super, 

 bait is perhaps of no value: for when an empty 

 super is put under one partly filled, there is no 

 trouble as to bees commencing promptly to fill 

 the empty super if they have any thing with 

 which to fill it. All these things must be taken 

 into consideration in trying to settle upon the 

 real value of the new invention. 



Another thought presents itself. Suppose 

 every thing goes according to or beyond the 

 highest expectation of the most sanguine, and 

 just as much comb honey can be produced as 

 extracted, comb honey not requiring the special 

 skill for its production that is now required, the 

 producers of extracted honey will largely turn 

 to the production of comb honey. That will 

 lessen the amount of wax thrown on the mar- 

 ket, increasing the price of foundation, and the 

 greater amount of comb honey will at the same 

 time lower its price. Will those two changes be 

 a distinct advantage to the present comb-honey 

 producer? 



While I think it wise to look on all sides of 

 the question in considering what may be the 

 real value or lack of value to bee-keepers, of 

 foundation having side walls much higher than 

 at present made, and while I think it may be 

 wise to be somewhat conservative in one's ex- 

 pectations, I do think one ought lo be entirely 

 fair; and some of the objections raised seem 

 not only unfair but against the real Interests of 

 bee-keepers. It might be fair to say, "I don't 

 believe it will do to give bees side walls of 

 greater depth than are now given, for they can 

 not be made as thin as the natural comb, and 

 I'm afraid the bees will not draw them out to 

 the natural thinness," but such an objection, 

 uttered by any fair-minded person, would be 

 followed by the remark, "But it is certainly en- 

 titled to a trial; and if, upon trial, we can have 

 by its use just as good comb honey as we now 

 have, then I can have no objection to it." But 

 that isn't the way the matter is treated. The 

 Review and Progressive teach that the great 

 objection is to the material used. 



Let us look at the argument of the Review. 

 " Comb, natural comb, is of a light, friable na- 

 ture—like the feathery, new-fallen snow." 

 Now, that reads quite smoothly, and, taken 

 with what follows, would make a novice think 

 himself imposed upon if a bit of foundation in 

 comb honey were imposed upon him. But it is 

 misleading, and I can not help wondering that 

 W. Z. Hutchinson, a man whom I look upon as 

 remarkable for his fairness, should be led into 

 such sophistry. Natural comb is " light." Per 

 contra, we are to suppose that foundation is 

 " heavy." Cut a piece of the side wall of a 

 comb, and then cut a piece of the side wall of 



