EXTRACTION OF BEESWAX 
9 
other near the top. By pulling the cork out of the upper hole the .wax 
which has risen to the top can be drawn off and by using the lower hole 
all of the wax and water can be removed. The whole apparatus must be 
kept as warm as possible. An inside can with holes in the sides was 
tried but did not give good results. 
In the following, average results are given because in the first two 
trials some of the wax adhered to the bag and follower. This method 
proved very efficient, giving about one per cent, more wax than the Root 
extractor with number two comb and about six per cent, more witli 
Dumber three comb. The main points in this method were received 
f^om Mr. Gill of Longmont, Colo., whose method is somewhat similar 
except that in his case the wax was dipped from a boiler and placed in 
the press. 
Sulphuric Acid and Pressure Under Water. It was thought that 
the addition of acid to the water in the experiment might increase the 
efficiency of the method. The comb was heated in a porcelain lined tub 
with a solution of five per cent, commercial sulphuric acid. When the 
wax had melted it was poured into the sack in the press and pressure 
applied quickly in order not to have the acid in contact with the metal 
any longer than necessary. The wax and water were drawn off, boiling 
water added, the slumgum stirred and pressure applied again. This 
water was drawn off and put with the rest. As this was an experiment 
to determine the efficiency of the press a tin can was used, but in prac- 
tmal work it would be necessary to have everything acid proof, as hot 
acid even when diluted, is very destructive to most substances. The 
can could be made of wood or porcelain lined ware. The latter would 
probably be the better. 
This method was easy to manipulate and rapid and was the most 
efficient of all the methods used. This method gave about seven per 
cent, more wax for number two comb and seven per cent, more for num¬ 
ber three comb than did the Root extractor. 
Comparison of Different Methods. The following table shows the 
efficiency of all methods with combs number two and three and are aver 
age results. Number one comb was not used in all the extractors be¬ 
cause most methods give good results with new clean comb: 
Result in Percent. 
Comb. Comb. 
No. 2 No. 3 
Solar extractor, single glass.31.02 10.24 
Solar extractor, double glass.38.27 12.79 
Swiss steam extractor.48.59 21.30 
Ferris steam extractor .58.02 25.60 
Root steam extractor .59.43 37.83 
Pressure under water .60.55 44.42 
Pressure under water with sulphuric acid.67.02 45.19 
COLOR OF THE WAX. 
The wax produced by the Root, Ferris or Swiss extractor did not 
have a good color and would have had to be refined before it could be 
used. The wax from the solar extractors was always a better color than 
