. 
| 
. 
\ 
\ 
1 May, 1899.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 371 
#rom these data T was able to calculate the percentage of wax that was added 
by the bees to these respective foundations. I found that such percentages 
varied greatly ; in some foundations the bees added only 75 per cent. of wax, 
whereas in others the percentage went up to as high as 175 per cent. When 
we supplied a heavy foundation the percentage of wax added was the least, and 
when we furnished the bees with the lightest foundation the bees added the 
largest percentage of wax. Thus in ‘‘ Foundation in general use,” (the name 
of one brand foundation supplied to us) we found that the percentage of wax 
added in round numbers, was 75 per cent.; in the “ Patent process,” 12 
square feet per lb., the wax added was 175 per cent We may consider one or 
two as examples or illustrations: The “ Foundation in general use,” 2 inches 
square, weighed 141; the wax that was added by the bees was 1:15; in the 
case of the “ Patent process,” 12 square feet per lb., the weight of the founda- 
tion furnished was 1:00; the weight of the wax added by the bees was 1°76. 
The first conclusion, therefore, I was able to draw from that work 
was that the weight of the wax added by the bees was inversely proportional 
to the wax supplied in the foundation. I do not mean to say by that state- 
ment that they all vary in thesame proportion; sucha deduction is not possible 
from our figures, but it is very evident from these three years’ experiments, 
because the two following years corroborate what I am saying now, that to the 
lightest foundation the largest amount of wax has to be added. When we 
furnish a comb containing a larger quantity of beeswax then there is a less 
quantity of wax added to it by the bees. If our object, then, in furnishing 
foundation comb to the bees is to allow them time and energy for the produc- 
tion of honey which otherwise would be given to the production of beeswax, it 
will be more economical to furnish heavy foundation than a very light one. 
That is one of the deductions we were able to draw from the first year’s 
experiments. ; 
“ Acting on the supposition that that was the main object in furnishing 
beeswax, I said that it pomted to the economy of supplying the bees with a 
foundation of not more than 7% or 8 feet to the pound. ‘That was what our 
results showed. In other words, when you employed a foundation which 
occupied an area of 15 square feet to the pound, then the bees hadto supply a 
very much greater amount of wax in building the cells than they did when you 
supplied a wax foundation of 8 or 9 square feet to the pound. There were 
several other points noted and which are of some importance to you. For 
instance, when we started with a darkly coloured foundation we found that the 
dark colour remained and that there was a heavy and unsightly “fishbone,” as 
it is known, in the resulting comb, and I suppose that that materially affects, 
if not the quality, at any rate the sale of the comb honey. ; 
“Tf it is true, as [have said, that the wax furnished by the bees is inversely 
proportional to the wax furnished them in foundation comb, are we justified in 
carrying that argument to its logical conclusion? Should we endeavour to 
furnish all the wax for the comb? Now, I do not think that possible, and to 
bring before you my reasons for thinking so, I should like to recall to your 
mind what | said with regard to the production of wax—viz., that it is not 
collected by the bees, it is a normal function of certain cells in the bees, and I 
doubt very much if we could go alter the constitution of bees so as to direct 
all their energies towards honey making, and to entirely give up and abandon 
wax production. 1 believe, therefore, that there is a limit wherein it will be 
economical for us to supply the amount of wax, but we should not go beyond 
that limit. 
“hen, another point that was brought out during the second year’s experi- 
ments was that the deposition of wax varied according as to whether clover or 
buekwheat honey were stored. This is a matter that I have not seen noticed 
anywhere; it probably has not hitherto received the attention of any scientific 
investigation. We found invariably that the comb which stored buckwheat 
honey was heavier than that which stored clover honey. When we take the 
same brand of foundation and supply it to bees gathering clover honey and to 
Bl - 
Wm, oP ane) 
eat gt ees Py 
ee raeae 
