April 13, 1899. 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL, 



227 



ered from fall flowers — a class of honey that doesn't keep 

 as well as clover after the bees almost wintered on the 

 combs that it was in. 



If these combs had been m\ne, I would liavc extracted 

 /he honey out of every one of t/wm, Tigiit after I took them 

 out of the hive, and then heated the honey until a g-ood 

 wax}' foam raised on top of it ; after skimming it I would 

 have fed the honey to the bees in the ei'enings when the bees 

 were gathering- little or no honey during the day. The bees 

 would have fed the most of the honey direct to the larvie 

 just then, and by steady and regular feeding at such times 

 the most of the old honey would have been profitably used 

 up, a very much larger quantity of bees reared, and not one 

 cell of dead brood would be found in any colony during the 

 time the feeding was going on. 



Miss Damon, it is my opinion if you had extracted 

 every particle of honey out of every comb last spring, be- 

 fore vou used any of the combs, j'our colonies would have 

 beenall right last fall. When your bees began dying at a 

 rapid rate last fall, a prompt removal of every comb for 

 combs with better stores is what should have been done, 

 and if these could not have been had, I would have crowded 

 the bees on a limited number of nice empty combs and then 

 fed them plenty of granulated sugar syrup until they filled 

 them and sealed them over nicelv, and then all would have 

 been right. Woodburn, Ont., Feb. 27, 1899. 



Wax-Secretion, Etc.— A Reply to Cog-itator. 



BY K. C. AIKIN. 



ON pages 2 and 3 appears an article from myself in which 

 I referred to comb-building and wax-secretion and their 

 effect on the yield of surplus. I referred to certain doc- 

 trines that have been commonly accepted in the past as 

 correct, tho now largely disbelieved, viz.: That 15 to 25 

 pounds of honey are consumed, over and above that which 

 would otherwise be, for each pound of wax made into comb. 



I also said that I did not believe that so much was lost 

 to the bee-keeper, but " that all normal colonies, when gath- 

 ering nectar and ripening and storing the same, secreted 

 more or less wax regardless of the need of it," inferring 

 that it might be as well to let the colony build some comb. 

 I further said that " a 10-frame hive, Langstroth size, takes 

 nearly two pounds of wax to construct its combs. Surplus 

 honey from the sime hive to the amount of 25 pounds means 

 about three pounds of wax secreted, which, at the ratio of 

 15 of honey to one of wax, means 45 pounds of honey con- 

 sumed in comb construction." 



I also said, " the brood-combs should contain not less 

 than 35 pounds " (which is surely very reasonable, for I 

 have known 10-frame hives, when full, to contain over 50 

 pounds of honey), " which, added to the 25 pounds of sur- 

 plus received, would make 60 pounds." Is there any over- 

 drawing or rash statement in that ? There is a plain state- 

 ment that a colony has built all its comb and stored 6n 

 pounds of honey. 



Now, if it be true that the wax used in these combs 

 would cause the consumption of IS pounds of honey to one 

 of was produced, then surely the colony, if no wax was 

 secreted or comb built, but instead had been given all eoinds 

 needed to receive all they gathered, that stock of honey must 

 at least equal the 60 pounds plus all consumed to make wax 

 (comb). 



I have a large solar extractor. I once cleaned this and 

 loaded it with 100 Langstroth combs, putting \\\ frame and 

 all. After removing the wax and refuse, the solar was 

 again loaded with 100 combs as before. These were nearly 

 all natural combs, and yielded about 18 pounds of wax to 

 the 100. I do not know ho%v much was was in the refuse, 

 nor how much soakt into those 200 brood-frames, but surely 

 some. This corroborated the statement of others, that about 

 two pounds of was would build comb in 10 Langstroth 

 frames. 



Since the publication of that article, on pages 2 and 3, 

 I have made two more experiments. Honey from 25 sections 

 4'4s4'4Xl/s, and full separatored, was cut out and melted, 

 and a second 25 treated likewise. I neglected to put down 

 the figures, so I have them somewhat indefinitely in my 

 mind, but I remember distinctly that one lot gave me 17 

 pounds of honey, and the other a little more— I think it was 

 18 or 19 pounds— and of wax one gave 14 ounces, and the 

 other either a little more or a little less— I think a little 

 more. 



The section experiment shovrs clearly that very close to 

 ■one pound of wax is used to hold 25 pounds of honey. This 



is fully in line with the two pounds to 10 Langstroth-frame 

 combs. Counting the necessary waste in the melting of 

 the 100-comb lots, I should say that my estimate of three 

 pounds of wax in the brood-chamber and a 25-pound surplus 

 of section-honey stored as indicated in that former article, 

 was not overdrawn one bit. And more, the addition to the 

 60 pounds of 45 more represented in the wax (105 in all) 

 should represent the honey gathered by that colony if the 

 15-to-l theory is correct. 



I further stated that if it was true that bees were kept 

 from fielding X-o secrete and manipulate this <(7a.r, that an 

 additional amount must be lost in that way, and I guest 

 that at '3 the total honey gathered, putting it at '3 of the 

 60 pounds, whereas it should have been '3 of the 105 or 

 more. According to the basis of figuring used, I said, " A 

 S7varm hived and building all its comb and yielding a_ 25- 

 pound surplus, should, if given all the comb it could use, 

 have yielded, in addition to the 25 pounds, 65 pounds more — 

 a total of go pounds of surplus." 



At the bottom of page 81, and top of page 82, Cogitator 

 makes an unfair reference to me, and misrepresents what I 

 said. I did not say " that 25 pounds of surplus comb honey 

 means three pounds of wax secreted," and I hereby demand 

 that Cog-itator come down on his knees and receive his just 

 reward, and that hereafter he will not set me up in such a 

 light as he there does. 



A certain preacher wisht to condemn a certain fashion 

 in hair-dressing, and took for his test, "Top-knot come 

 down ;" whereas the whole text was, "Let him that is on 

 the house-top not come down." etc. To take detacht sen- 

 tences, and sometimes even paragraphs, would make any of 

 us appear as fools. 



No, sir, Mr. Cogitator, I stick to it that 10 Langstroth 

 combs and 25 pounds of section honey represent just about 

 three pounds of wax. You admit that "the current 

 ratios should be hauled dawn a long- way," so we will haul 

 itdownto8'3 instead of 15, and still the easel supposed 

 would give 50 pounds instead of 25, which ratio your hum- 

 ble servant would haul down at least by another 4'(,. 



Now suppose the colony to be an old establisht one, 

 having all its brood-chambers full of combs, only that in 

 sections to build. Take your own figures of one pound of 

 wax to 20 of honey, and let us figure some more. If a pound 

 of wax costs five pounds of honey, then the ratio as between 

 that stored when comb is built, and when no wax-secretion 

 is necessary, is 20 to 25. At 10 it is 20 to 30 ; at 15, 20 to 35 ; 

 at 20, 20 to 40. I will take the 5 to 1 as the nearer correct of 

 any of them, and if you or any other cogitator can prove 

 me wrong, just pitch in. 



Beware that you do not fall into the error of accusing 

 me of saying that there never are conditions under which 

 the yield as between comb and extracted will not exceed 

 the ratio of 4 to 5, but as far as wax-secretion alone con- 

 cerns the question I challenge you to prove that I am not 

 rig-ht. I have repeatedly made this challenge — or one very 

 similar — and in something like two years it has not received 

 an attempt at answer. 



Come over some evening, Mr. Cogitator, and we will 

 play checkers and talk bees, and have a good old bee-con- 

 vention. Will vou come ? Larimer Co., Colo. 



The " Long'-Idea Hive " and Its History. 



MR. YORK : — I would like to ask in regard to the hive 

 Mr. Poppleton uses. What is the size of the frame, 

 and how many does he use for extracting ? I have a 

 few one-story hives with frames 11 ''2 inches deep and 12'2 

 long, with 16 in a hive. Would you consider it a good hive 

 for extracted honey ? There is no surplus arrangement on 

 top of this hive, the honej' to be extracted from the outside 

 brood-frames. F. EaTingkr. 



[We referred the foregoing questions to Mr. Poppleton, 

 who kindly replied as follows : — Editor.] 



Editor York : — At j'our request, I will try to answer 

 Mr. Eatinger's questions. 



The frames I use are what is commonly called the 

 " American frame," said to be 12 inches square, but mine 

 are actually ll'ixll'i inside measure, being practically the 

 same as Mr. E. has. In my opinion a shallower frame than 

 these should never be used in single-story work. 



Sixteen frames are not enough. My hives will hold 24 

 frames each, with a thin division-board in each end. One 

 of the advantages of this method of working bees is that 



