EXTRACTION OF BEESWAX 
13 
SUMMARY. 
In summing up the facts given in the preceding experiments, I draw the 
following conclusions: 
In some ways the solar extractor is a good extractor for the beekeeper 
to have. It is convenient and requires very little attention. The solar ex¬ 
tractor does not remove as much wax from the comb as the steam extrachjr. 
The residue, or slumgum, from the solar extractor may be worked over in 
the steam extractor and some wax obtained. The solar extractor can re¬ 
move honey from the comb, but with ordinary comb and warm weather the 
honey is not of a very good quality. 
The heat of the sun seems to bleach some kinds of wax, besides ex¬ 
tracting it from the comb. In other cases it is difficult to notice any bleach¬ 
ing in wax which is exposed to the sun. 
The steam wax extractor removes more dirt than the solar extractor. 
The steam extractor will remove honey from the comb, but the honey is 
u.'iuaUy very dark. In efficiency the steam extractor has an advantage of 
from ten to twenty per cent over the solar extractor. 
In efficiency the solar wax extractor number two has a slight advantage 
over solar extractor number one, about one per cent for number one 
comb, for number two comb two per cent, and for number three comb about 
one per cent. 
The addition of an extra pane of glass to the solar extractor raised 
the inside temperature on an average of 17 degrees F. The efficiency of the 
extractor was increased on an averags about seven per cent, for number two 
comb and two per cent for number three comb. 
The addition of a lamp to the solar extractor raised the efficiency of 
me extractor on an average about one per cent. 
The addition of a lamp to the double glass extractor did nir/ increase 
the efficiency of the extractor over 0.7 per cent. 
Soaking the comb in water before using the solar extractor increased 
the yield of wax on an average, about one per cent. 
The soaking of the comb in dilute (5 per cent) sulfuric acid increased 
the yield about five per cent over that not treated. 
Of the steam wax extractors, the Root proved the best. The results 
show that for the same comb, number two, the Root produced one per cent 
more than the Ferris and ten per cent more than the Swiss. 
Pressure applied to the comb under hot water gives a larger per cent 
wax than when the comb is pressed in steam. Heating with dilute sulfuric 
acid and pressing under water gave the best results. For number two comb 
this method excells in efficiency the single glass solar extractor by thirty- 
six per cent., the double glass solar by twenty-nine per cent., the Swiss steam 
wax extractor by eighteen per cent, the Ferris steam wax extractor by nine 
per cent, and the Root steam wax extractor by over seven per cent. 
For number three comb, heating with dilute sulfuric acid and pressing 
under hot water, excells the single glass solar wax extractor by thirty-five per 
cent, the double glass solar wax extractor by about thirty-two per cent, the 
Swiss steam wax extractor by twenty-four per cent, the Ferris steam wax 
extractor by nineteen per cent, and the Root steam wax extractor by seven 
per cent. 
The above shows that the slumgum from 100 pounds of wax treated by 
the ordinary solar wax extractor will retain from thirty-four to thirty-six 
pounds of wax, which can be removed by heating with dilute sulfuric 
acid and pressing under hot water. If the Root extractor, which is the best 
