258 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



April 28. 



in profusioc, and yet yield no honey, shows that plants need 

 water to develop at their best, and should suggest to orchard- 

 ists that they irrigate liberally in the winter, especially if the 

 summer supply of water is likely to run short. 



Los Angeles Co., Calif., March 25. 



More Suggestions on Rendering Beeswax. 



Br C. p. DADAJJT. 



I have received the following questions to be answered in 

 the American Bee Journal : 



Mr. Dadant; — Tho I was much interested in your "Sugges- 

 tions on Rendering Beeswax." on page 1'.I4. there are some things 

 1 do not fully understand. In previous articles you have recom- 

 mended the sun extractor; in this you urge heating the wax 

 slowly with water, but boil a little you say. 



1. What I want to know is, whether this is the final process 

 following the extractor. 



2. Or do you boil \t first, then place it in the sun extractor ? 

 Until last season I was troubled with that •• greenish, grayish. 



grainy residue " you spealj of. I then made a sun extractor and 

 put everything into it the first thing — old comb, scrapings from 

 the bottoms of supers, etc. The final process being to put the wax 

 from the extractor into a flour-sacli — thin, slazy cloth — place the 

 sack in a tin pail, one-third full of water, set the pail into an iron 

 kettle of water, and the kettle on the stove. After the wax was 

 thoroughly melted (it did not fc-«V). the sack was raised from the 

 pail, the wax squeezed out. and the pail set in a n'unn place to cool, 

 to prevent cracking. With the exception of a thin, grayish-white 

 substance on the bottom of the cakes, the wax seemed to be of ex- 

 cellent quality. 



3. Do you think my process correct ? A. F. Foote. 



Answer. — Your process is all right, and it would be diffi- 

 cut to recommend a better one. When I recommend the ren- 

 dering of beeswax over water, it is not to the exclusion of the 

 sun extractor, but for the benefit of those who have no sun 

 extractors, or wish to render their beeswax, especially cap- 

 pings, between the months of August and May, at a time 

 when the sun extractor has no power. There are really only 

 four months of usefulness in a sun wax extractor, and when a 

 bee-keeper has a hundred dollars' worth of beeswax tied up he 

 does not usually wish to wait till the sun gets high enough in 

 the sky, especially if there is any process by which he can 

 render his beeswax and have it clean and good without loss. 



The sun extractor is available during the busy months of 

 the apiary when you are likely at any time to have a few small 

 pieces of comb, new or old, or a few scraps that would either 

 be lost or drag about, or be eaten by the moth. With the 

 sun extractor, usually in close reach of the apiary, it takes 

 but a minute to put those scraps where they will at once, 

 mechanically, be rendered into very good beeswax by the rays 

 of the sun. If the sun extractor is kept, as is the custom with 

 the careful bee-keeper, with neatness, the beeswax that will 

 come from it will need no rendering unless residues or dark 

 combs have been melted. Care must be taken that such resi- 

 dues as have been rendered up with acid be kept separate, as 

 these are sure to have some effect upon the metal, and damage 

 the color of the original beeswax. 



Old combs usually are not worth putting into a sun ex- 

 tractor. They are so thick and loaded with foreign matter 

 that it absorbs all the wax that would otherwise run out. The 

 very best process to be followed with these was given years 

 ago by my father in the American Bee Journal ; these combs 

 must be crusht as near to a pulp as possible, then put into 

 water to soak for a week or so, loaded down so as to be under 

 water, and then melted with plenty of clean water. When 

 old combs are melted without having been previously crusht, 

 it usually happens that some of the melting wax runs into the 

 empty cells which still remain in shape, being held to this 

 shape by the cast-skins and cocoons of the bee-chrysalis, and 

 it is next to impossible to remove any of it. The soaking for 

 a few days ahead thoroughly saturates the cocoons and cast- 

 skins, as well as other residue of whatever nature, except the 

 propolis, and the beeswax becomes much more easily liberated 

 if properly melted. 



The cappings, which are gathereJ together generally 

 about October, are most generally rendered during the winter, 

 and when the matter is attended to intelligently, the beeswax 

 is as good as that from the sun extractor. The main advan- 

 tages of the sun extractor are its availableness at all times 

 during the summer, as above mentioned, and the slight bleach- 

 ing of the beeswax which remains a few days in it. 



In this connection it is well to mention that it is not ad- 

 visable to leave the beeswax too long in the sun extractor, un- 

 less the extractor is so made that the liquid wax runs into a 

 pan sheltered from the light. Beeswax that has been thor- 



oughly bleacht loses its nice bee-smell, and takes up an odor 

 resembling that of tho old-time wax-candles. This is cer- 

 tainly not desirable. But the best service of the wax extrac- 

 tor is to prevent the water damaging of beeswax by inexperi- 

 enced bee-keepers, or to return such damaged beeswax to its 

 proper condition. 



In any beeswax that is rendered by water, a small amount, 

 more or less, of this water-damaged beeswax can be found. 

 But if this is allowed to separate by a slow cooling process, it 

 will be found that most of the impurities are dragged to the 

 bottom with this beeswax. What must be avoided is the dam- 

 aging of the entire mass by careless heating, and as sudden 

 cooling of the mass. It is a very peculiar fact that water 

 may be held in suspense in a large amount, and yet not per- 

 ceptible to the touch. We have seen beeswax that was thus 

 damaged, and seemingly dry, lose iiO per cent, of its weight 

 by sun-rendering, which was evidently due to the evaporation 

 of the water. flancock Co., III. 



A Perpendicular-Disk Section-Cleaner. 



BY FRANK .J. CLARK. 



I send you herewith a photograph of my section-cleaner. 

 I have read several descriptions of section-cleaners, but I fail 

 to see any that I should be willing to exchange mine for. The 

 more I read about other kinds, the more I value my own, and 

 I believe that on some points it is superior to all others. 



I probably should not have thought anything more about 

 section-cleaners if it had not been spoken of so many times in 

 the bee-papers. It will readily be seen how mine is con- 

 structed, by the photograph. Sections to be cleaned on all 

 sides have only to be turned down on their side to clean their 

 top, and down on their opposite side to clean the bottom, 

 where with all other machines you would have to turn the box 

 bottomslde up to clean the top, which is always the worst side 

 to be cleaned, and in some cases would cause them to leak, 

 which would be avoided with my cleaner. 



As for cleaning the edges, you can clean all the edges on 

 one side with one movement against the disk. 



The disk is covered with sandpaper. No. 2J-2 or 3. 



I cannot say whether this machine will clean sections any 

 better than any other, as I believe they all clean them well ; 

 but I do believe this cleaner will clean sections faster, and 

 with no leakage or breakage. 



I have written to patent attorneys in regard to having it 

 patented, and am about entering into an agreement with a 

 firm of bee-supply manufacturers to make and place them on 

 the market. Cayuga Co., N. Y. 



The Utah Law on Foul Brood or Bee-Diseases. 



BY E. S. L0VE8Y. 



I send a copy of Utah's new foul brood law. I have re- 

 ceived a number of letters of inquiry in regard to this law, 

 and have sent out some type-written copies, but in order to 

 accommodate all interested I send it for publication in the 

 American Bee Journal. While I am aware that no act of this 

 nature is, or ever has been, perfect, and this law has no excep- 

 tion, I think that the copy presented to our legislature by our 

 foul brood committee was an improvement on the one past. 

 Still, I believe that If our bee-keepers will read and note this 

 law carefully, they will find it one of the best, if not the very 

 best, on the subject in the United States. 



A great deal has been written, and much praise has been 

 bestowed, on the Wisconsin law, some writers saying that it 

 is the best law in force on the subject. While my object is 

 not to decry the merits of any law, after a careful study of 

 the Wisconsin law I have to admit that as far as our State is 

 concerned it would be of very little benefit to us, and I fail to 

 see where it can be of material benefit to any populous bee- 

 keeping community, as it only provides for one inspector in 

 the whole State, while we have single counties that no one 

 inspector could cover. It will be seen that whether there are 

 few or many bee-keepers or colonies of bees in any county or 

 district, or in the entire State, this Utah law is so worded 

 that it can be made to reach every colony of bees and every 

 bee-keeper in the State, if necessary. It provides that the in- 

 spector shall visit all colonies of bees at least once a year, 

 and as many more times as may be necessary. It is short and 

 to the point, and it gives our bee-keepers ample authority to 

 put it into active force. Then if bee-keepers will take an 

 active interest I see no reason why it should not be a success. 



Our foul brood committee have been energetic In this mat- 

 ter, and they have workt faithfully for years in importuning 



