22 
Bulletin 54. 
foundation is drawn out by bees into a comb approximating the 
lightness of the natural product. 
In contrast to this last example, but also in harmony with 
results given on preceding pages, notice that the “1898” deep-cell 
foundation gave a comb heavier than the preceding, though the 
honey weighed less by more than one-fourth. The proportion of 
wax to honey was greater in this case than in any of the others, 
except that of natural comb only .75 of an inch thick. It should 
have given a larger proportion of honey than any of the samples 
built on small starters, as the comb in the latter was thinner in 
every case. 
From the facts given in the above table, it is evident that if we 
are to secure a comb honey with the least possible amount of wax, 
it will be necessary to have it built in sections that will secure the 
greatest thickness of comb. In this way we can also economize 
very considerably the labor and energy of the bee in wax secretion 
and comb building. 
Attention might also be called to the fact that it takes more 
wax and more work for the bees to cap ten pounds of honey in thin 
comb than in thick comb. 
The reader will not understand that I am advocating the use 
of deep sections; there may be other reasons why they are not pre¬ 
ferable; I am only mentioning points which, according to my 
experiments, favor thin sections. 
