446 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



June 15. 



In regard to the point at Issue, I think I can 

 show you that you are away off in your flgures. 

 You do not say anywhere that you have actu- 

 ally tried the Rietsche press yourself. If you 

 have, it is likely you would have said so. But 

 if you have not tried it, you are basing your ar- 

 gument, not on what you actually know from 

 experience, but on what you have read, or what 

 you think would be true concerning the press. 

 You say, "Suppose one makes his foundation 

 as thin as eight L. sheets to the pound." Right 

 here I can not help feeling that you are assum- 

 ing that that number of sheets can be made 

 with the press in question, for you say, "Sup- 

 pose," etc. I do not say that this number can 

 not be made under very favorable circum- 

 stances, and with a special press; but I do not 

 believe that the average bee-keeper can pro- 

 duce that number of sheets. We have one of 

 the Rietsche presses ; and the best we have 

 been able to make so far has been three sheets 

 to the pound, L. size. And such foundation! — 

 clumsy, and with a great waste of wax in the 

 bases. With the directions that came with the 

 machine, the manufacturer states that a kilo of 

 wax will make one square meter of foundation. 

 If I figure correctly, this would be the equiva- 

 lent of SJi L. sheets, nearly, to the pound. Is it 

 not reasonable to assume that the manfacturer 

 would place the number of square inches per 

 pound at its highest limit? At any rate, it is 

 altogether improbable that he would put the 

 figure lower than could be secured by the aver- 

 age bee-keeper ; yet you " assume " that eight 

 L. sheets of foundation could be made per 

 pound on the Rietsche press. 



Now, I am going to " suppose," for the fun of 

 it, that three sheets is all that you can make, 

 for, in fact, that is all we have made with our 

 machine. Allowing you a speed of 150 sheets 

 per hour (which I think is altogether improba- 

 ble), then you will have about 50 lbs. of wax 

 worked up. This, at 25 cts. a pound, would be 

 a total of $12.50. Allowing you 25 cts. an hour 

 for your time, this would make the 150 sheets of 

 foundation cost $12.75. That number of sheets 

 of foundation made by a supply-dealer, just as 

 good, and even better, without any unnecessa- 

 ry waste in the bases, and running eight sheets 

 to the pound, would, at 42 cts., cost $7.87: or. in 

 other words, you would be " in the hole " $4.88 

 per hour, or $48.80 per day, to say nothing of the 

 cost of the press itself, and the mussing-up of 

 things generally. 



Perhaps you will say it is not fair to assume 

 that only three sheets per hour can be made. 

 Well, then, let us assume that five sheets can 

 be made — nearly up to the limit allowed by 

 the manufacturer : then you would make 17 

 cts. per hour 'provided you could turn out sheets 

 at the rate of 150 per hour, which I very much 

 doubt. But you say it is not fair to compare a 

 less number of sheets per pound from the Riet- 

 sche press with the larger number of sheets per 

 pound from the manufacturer. If the dealer's 

 foundation is just exactly as good as and even 

 better than the Rietsche, at the lesser weight, 

 and costs less, I can not see that there is any 

 thing wrong in the comoarison 



I did not dispute the flgure that 1.50 sheets 

 could be made p6r hour, on p. 318, that you re- 

 fer to. It did not occur to me at that time how 

 many it would make. While an expert might 

 equal it under favorable circumstances, I doubt 

 wnether the average bee-keeper could make 

 many more than a sheet every minute. With 

 our press we can't begin to equal even that 

 rate. We had trouble with the sheets sticking 

 to the die-faces, notwithstanding we used sev- 

 eral different kinds of lubricant. 



The majority of bee-keepers who have used 



the modern roller machines, of which we have 

 sold so many, and who are able with them to 

 beat the wax-press all to smithereens in speed, 

 have long since come to the conclusion that it 

 does not pay to make foundation for their own 

 use. It is an art — a trade in itself. If a roller 

 machine can't compete with the large factories, 

 how can an inferior cheap machine? In Ger- 

 many, bee-keepers can not always be sure of 

 securing pure wax in the foundation procured 

 from supply-dealers in that country, and hence 

 has arisen this demand, I believe, for a cheap 

 machine to make their own foundation of their 

 own beeswax. 



With regard to combined section -folders and 

 starter-machines, perhaps you have not had 

 the experience we have. We have carefully 

 tested every machine that has been sent to us; 

 and I have always told our workmen that we 

 desired to have them test the machines careful- 

 ly; and in every case we found we could oper- 

 ate not only much more rapidly, but do better 

 work with our two machines. All the combin- 

 ed machines I have ever seen take too much 

 physical power to fold the section, and even 

 then they do not do a satisfactory job. The 

 Hubbard machine makes use of a long toggle 

 joint, by means of which great power is secur- 

 ed with a very small expenditure of effort on 

 the part of the operator. Even if the combined 

 machines would do the work more rapidly, we 

 should still prefer the Hubbard on account of 

 the superiority of the work. You admit your- 

 self that you have not tested the Daisy ma- 

 chine, although you have one before you. Per- 

 haps you have not tested the Hubbard. If not, 

 then I can hardly see how you are any more 

 unprejudiced in the matter than we are. The- 

 oretically a combined machine ought to do the 

 work more rapidly; but in actual practice it 

 does not do so — in our hands at least. We have 

 had parties write to us before now, praising the 

 merits of their combined machines, for they 

 could do a certain number per hour— that is, 

 fold and starter the sections. It has been a lit- 

 tle amusing when we have compared their fig- 

 ures with those from our two machines, with 

 which we doubled and trebled their best speed. 

 Assuming that the inventors of these different 

 machinps were reasonably expert in the use of 

 them, they ought at least to be able to turn out 

 within 75 per cent of the best output of their 

 machine. By giving their machines credit for 

 doing at least 25 per cent more, even then we 

 have in every case been a long way ahead. I 

 do not know whether I have tried the machine 

 you refer to or not— I think not. If you can do 

 better and faster work, I should be very glad to 

 know it. We are constantly looking for the 

 best in apiculture, and should be glad to know 

 more about it. — Ed.] 



EXTRACTED HONEY. 



HOW WE RUN OUR BEES TO PRODUCE IT. 



By F. A. Snell. 



Each bee-keeper has his own favorite way, 

 and I will give ours. In the extracting-supers 

 we use the same comb-frames, or those of the 

 same size as used in the brood -chambers. We 

 make it a point to remove from the brood- 

 chambers all frames containing a large amount 

 of drone comb, and put in their place good 

 worker combs. By so doing we have but a 

 small number of drones reared, or not more 

 than desired. These drone combs are used in 



