1898 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



261 



cocoons in the middle. It gave 8 lbs. of fair 

 wax, with a moldy smell, and the cheese 

 weighed 18^'s Ihs. 



Fourth lot. Melted the cappings from a 

 ton of honey, in the sun extractor, and got 

 20j4 lbs. of wax. Slumgum showed very 

 little wax; but, by stirring, it might in a day 

 or so have given another pound ; worked the 

 refuse in the press, and got 7)^ lbs. more; or, 

 the sun extractor took 7 '2 per cent of the wax 

 obtainable. I am satisfied that, with the best 

 construction and management, the sun ex- 

 tractor will not save over 80 per cent of the 

 wax in cappings, even here in California. All 

 of this wax was as bright and clean as it is 

 possible to get it in a small way, and brought 

 23 cts. per lb. here in Ventura. 



Fifth lot. A neighbor had eight colonies 

 that died in the winter or early spring, and 

 left the hives with the combs in them remain- 

 ing in the apiary until about Sept. 1, when I 

 helped him dispose of them. We took the 

 stuff out — worms, moth-cocoons, and webs, 

 with the little comb remaining on the frames, 

 and rendered it all together, and got 2()^ lbs. 

 of clean yellow wax ; also four or five of a 

 crumbly wax that I suppose to be myricin. 

 It probably came from the excrement of the 

 worms. 



In order to test cappings refuse further, I 

 got oVo)4 lbs. of a brother bee-keeper who had 

 a large crop of honey this year. This lot 

 yielded 96 lbs. of wax, 91 of cheese, and V26}4 

 was either soluble or passed off with the 

 water. Had I been able to get the amount of 

 wax secured in the sun extractor, this would 

 have been a conclusive test of its effectiveness. 



I worked several other lots with similar 

 results, but the above will cover the whole 

 range of wax-producing material. 



Ventura, Cal. 



[In the past, the merits of the wax-press 

 have been exiolled by various bee-keepers; 

 and I am aware, also, that excellent showings 

 have been made — almost if not quite as good 

 as those you have given ; but there seems to 

 be a difference of opinion as to whether the 

 solar wax-extractor gets all the wax there is to 

 be obtained out of the slumgum. Boardman 

 stoutly insists that the large solar extractor 

 that he uses does a clean job. If I remember 

 correctly he sent us some of his slumgum in 

 proof. We put it through our process, but 

 the amount obtained was comparatively small. 

 We discontinued the press several 3ears ago. 

 Instead, we save up our slumgum until some 

 time when we can make a regular day of ren- 

 dering it. Then we put it into our large 

 steaming-vat, with four or five times the usual 

 quantity of sulphuric acid, and let it cook and 

 settle. Usually this strong acid solution will 

 remove all the wax there is in the stuff. I 

 know the residue will burn brightly when 

 thrown into the fire ; but Mr. Boardman says 

 it is nothing more than propolis that he can 

 not get and does not want. 



I wish, friend Rapp, seeing that j'ou are 

 successful with the press, you would try a 

 strong solution of sulphuric acid in the man- 

 ner I have described ; then take the residue 



and compress it in your press; if you then 

 secure a large quantity of wax, we shall have 

 to give up, perhaps, that the press is ahead 

 yet — at least, that jour press is, in your hands. 

 —Ed.] 



THE SIZE OF WORKER COMB. 



A Correction from Thos. Wm. Cowan, Editor of the 

 British Bee Journal. 



Dear Mr. Root: — On page 144 you refer to 

 the " number of cells of worker comb to the 

 linear inch." Will you kindly look at my 

 "The Honey-bee; its Natural History, Anat- 

 omy, and Physiology"? On page 180 you 

 will see that I say, "The average size of a 

 worker-cell between the parallel sides is 1 of 

 an inch, or 0.2 (a printer's error makes it 0.02; 

 but it is two-tenths of an inch). Then I go 

 on, "We say 'average,' because considerable 

 variation exists in different parts of the same 

 comb, as both Reaumur and Huber found." 

 I then go on to summarize the large number 

 of measurements I took; and if you will read 

 the details you will see what a variation there 

 is. You say, " It has been said over and over 

 again in bee-books and bee-journals, that there 

 are five cells of worker comb to the inch, so 

 that we have come to believe it;" also that 

 Cook is the only authority you have run across 

 who says worker-cells are a little more than \ 

 inch; but in my book you will find that, out 

 of 36 measurements that were taken, I found 

 the greatest aggregate diameters of any one 

 series of ten cells to amount to 2.11 inches, 

 which you see makes them considerably larger 

 than I inch. On the other hand, the least 

 came to 1.86, which makes them smaller. 

 You will also see that, to reduce the possibil- 

 ity of error, I also measured a large number of 

 series of 60 cells, which, if the cells are exactly 

 \ inch, would occupy a space of 12 inches. 

 However, in almost every case the 12 inches 

 was exceeded, although not always. Please 

 also note that, on page 181, I say that cells 

 worked by Carniolan bees are larger. Nearly 

 the whole of the chapter is devoted lo the 

 measurements of combs and cells ; and as I 

 know these were most carefully taken, with 

 most accurate instruments, I am certain of my 

 facts. You refer to Cheshire ; but has it 

 occurred to you to test his figures? He tells 

 us the length of the worker-cell is J|, whereas 

 is is only ||, showing his cell to be nearly 

 double the right length. His cell, drawn on 



paper, would look like this : / \ How 



would a bee like it ? A sim- i y i 1 a r 



error is made with drone- \ / cells, 



which he says are j-'g' but which are only ^/^ 

 inch long. He criticises Langstroth, who shows 

 a cell with an acute angle, and says, "100° is the 

 limit the bee can reach," and that no angles 

 of less than 100° are found. 1 have been able 

 to confirm Langstroth's statement b}- showing 

 similar combs, and demonstrating that bees 

 frequently work at a less angle, even, than 

 90°. I also show that, in the matter of angles, 

 these differ considerably when carefully mea- 

 sured with a goniometer. I have for a long 

 time considered that we should use the ex- 



