BEE-spoke-data/bees-v0 huggingface dataset:
The "1898" deep-cell foundation with considerably longer cell walls, as shown at \(d\) of Plate 4, was not nearly so well worked according to my measurements. This may be due to the fact that the walls are so high that the bees cannot reach to the bottom with their mandibles to take hold of them and pinch them to the natural thinness. They can only thin the lower portion of the walls by scraping them. As a rule, I have found the lower portion of the cell walls of comb on this foundation as thick as those built on the very heavy foundations, while in some cases they have been thinned very nearly to the delicacy of the walls in natural comb. A good illustration of the latter case is shown at the upper half of \(a\) of Plate 4, but even this sample compared with natural worker comb shows a difference in favor of the latter which is hardly noticeable in the photographic reproduction. On the other hand, the illustrations of sections of cell walls on this foundation shown at \(d\), Plate 3, and at \(c\) and \(f\), Plate 4, show plainly the abnormal thickness of the inner third or half of the cell walls as compared with the walls in natural comb shown in \(b\), \(c\), and \(e\) of Plate 3. In fact, a close inspection will show that in many cases the walls of the comb cells seem not to be thinner than the walls in the cells of the foundation before the bees have touched them. In all cases, with this foundation, I have found the walls of the comb cells thicker than in natural worker comb. At \(i\), Plate 5, is shown a portion of Figure 4, Plate 3, somewhat magnified. Notice the thickness of the cell walls in their basal portion.
The cell walls in Figure 4 and the upper half of \(i\) of Plate 2, and the upper third of \(g\) in Plate 3, were built on the foundation shown at \(f\) of Plate 2. The foundation, it will be seen, is almost without walls, yet the bases, at least, of the cell walls in the comb can be seen by the unaided eye to be sensibly thicker than in the natural comb samples.
It seems, then, that keeping the wax out of the cell walls does not entirely remedy the tendency to build heavier bases to the cell walls when plenty of wax is at hand. I do not have a test, however, on strictly "no-wall" foundation, but cannot think the case would be different than in the use of this foundation with such slight walls.
The medium brood and the very heavy foundations also gave cell walls decidedly thicker than those found in natural comb. Examples of cell walls on medium brood foundation are shown at \(d\) of Plate 2, and at \(f\) of Plate 5. In the two first mentioned figures the walls are made thinner than in the long drawn cells of the last named example. All are heavier than in natural comb.
At \(g\) of Plate 2 and \(b\) of Plate 4 are shown examples of comb on the very heavy foundation. In both cases the greater thickness of the walls is very plainly seen. In the first mentioned figure the heavy walls extend, plainly, the entire length of the cells. Compare with sections of natural comb cells in Plate 3.
These studies indicate that it is a mistake to make very deep cells in artificial foundation, unless their walls can be brought down to the thinness of the naturally built cell walls--which is probably impossible--otherwise, the bees will leave them thicker than in the natural comb. The only cell walls that were brought, practically, to the thinness of the natural comb were those built on foundations with a light base and with little wax in the cell walls. The deep cells may be of advantage in other ways, but not in getting a light comb for section honey.
In the preceding table all the weights obtained from the pieces of comb are given.
The first fifteen examples in the table are of worker comb as built by the bees in the natural way. The three following are naturally built drone comb.
The extra thin foundation weighed but 3.60 grains to the square inch, or 13.50 square feet to the pound, and had very slight cell walls. It is shown at \(l\) of Plate 2 in cross section.
The foundation listed as "Thin Super (A)" weighed almost exactly four grains to the square inch, or a trifle more than twelve square feet to the pound, and was rather firm in texture. It is shown in cross section at \(j\) of Plate 2.
That listed as'Thin Super (B)" was of the same weight as the preceding, but of softer texture and had more wax in the mid-rib and less, almost none, in the short walls. It is shown in cross section at \(f\), Plate 2.
Tne "1898" deep-cell foundation is the kind shown at \(d\) of Plate 4. It ran about 5.46 grains to the square inch, or approximately, nine square feet to the pound.
The "1899" deep-cell foundation is that shown in Figure \(g\) of Plate 4, and it weighed 5.10 grains to the square inch or 9.53 square feet to the pound.
The medium brood foundation weighed 8.40 grains to the square inch, or 5.80 square feet to the pound. It is shown at \(c\) of Plate 2.
The very heavy foundation averaged 11 grains to the square inch, or 4.42 square feet to the pound, and is shown at \(a\), Plate 2.
The thickness of the comb sauples in each case is given in the second column in the table, and is stated in inches and hundredths.
The third column gives the weights in grains to the square inch of the samples used, and is the sum of the weights in columns four and five, which give the weights of the midribs and the cell walls respectively.
The column at the right gives the number of square feet of each sample of comb that would be required to weigh one pound.
Each sample was of whole comb, _i. e._, comb drawn to a greater or less thickness but not capped, so that the cells were complete as built.
It would have been better, or at least easier, to compare samples of comb of the same thickn-ss; but comb varies so much in this respect that it was found impossible to do so with the samples at hand in the experimental apiary, and the evidence desired seems to be fairly ample in the data obtained and given in the preceding table.
First, I will call attention to the fact that the three samples of drone comb, varying between.88 and.93 of an inch in thickness,are considerably heavier than samples of natural worker comb of approximately the same thickness.
The sample of comb 1.25 inches thick on extra thin super foundation is but.10 of a grain heavier than the average of the two samples of natural comb of the same thickness. The sample 1.22 inches thick is fully as light in proportion to its thickness. The two thinner comb samples on this foundation do not compare quite as favorably with the natural:
The thickest sample of natural comb measured 1.37 inches, and weighed 13 grains to the square inch. No sample on artificial foundation as thick weighed so little, while one sample 1.25 inches thick on thin super foundation (A) weighed the same. All samples over.75 of an inch thick on medium brood and very heavy foundations weighed from about one-fourth to two-thirds heavier, or from 16.50 to 19.60 grains to the square inch. The sample 1.13 inches thick on deep-cell foundation put out in 1898 exceeds in weight the thickest sample of natural comb by 1.9 grains to the square inch.
The samples of natural comb 1.34 and 1.33 of an inch thick are also exceeded in weight by the same thinner samples of comb on artificial foundations just mentioned.
The heavier sample of natural comb measuring 1.25 inches thick is exceeded in lightness by one sample of comb on thin super foundation of the same thickness, while the other sample of the latter is heavier than the natural.
The two thickest samples of comb on "1898" deep-cell foundation average one-seventeenth thicker than the thickest sample of natural comb, but their weights average more than one-fourth heavier than these of the latter. Their comparsion with the next two samples of worker comb would be still less favorable to the foundation.
The sample of natural comb measuring 1.13 inches thick seems not to be unusually light, as the sample 1.15 thick weighed no more; the one that was 1.18 thick hardly exceeded it, and the one 1.20 thick weighed even less. Comparing this comb with the sample of the same thickness on the "1898" deep-cell foundation, we find the latter is heavier than the former by more than one-half the weight of the natural comb. In other words, it is heavier than the natural comb by almost exactly the weight of the deep-cell foundation. The two samples of comb on this foundation that are.60 and.56 of an inch thick respectively are as heavy or heavier than any of the samples of natural worker comb measuring from 1.20 inches in thickness down.
The "1899" deep-cell foundation produced a comb much nearest the natural in lightness. Comparing the sample 1.50 inches thick with the natural sample 1.37 thick, we see there is but 1.50 grains difference in weight, which would be fully accounted for by the greater thickness of the comb in the case of the latter. Comparing with the two thickest samples of comb on the "1898" deep-cell foundation, either of which is thinner than the "1899" sample, we notice that the latter is, nevertheless, considerably lighter in weight.
If we compare the sample of comb 1.31 inches thick on the "1899" deep-cell foundation with the samples of natural comb measuring 1.33 and 1.35 inches respectively, we find a good margin of difference in favor of the natural samples, although they are somewhat thicker than the example on foundation.
These comparisons bring us again to the conclusion that, of the samples of foundation that we have studied, the thin and extra thin super, and the "1899" deep-cell foundations, are far the best for the production of a comb to compare in quality and lightness with natural comb.
* Now, if we examine columns four and five we shall see that the increased weights of the examples of comb on artificial foundations were due more to the extra wax in the cell walls than to the increased amount of wax in the midribs in cases of the heavy foundations, but not in cases of the thin and extra thin super, or "1899" deep-cell foundations. I will call attention to a few examples and the reader may compare others.
Beginning with the heaviest foundations first, it will be seen that the comb cells in the sample one inch thick weighed 11.50 grains, against 7.50 grains in the case of the natural comb of the same thickness. In case of comb one inch thick on medium brood foundation, the cells weighed 11.00 grains to the square inch.
Take the samples of the same kinds of comb that are.75 of an inch in thickness and the weights of cell walls are, for natural comb, 4.70 grains ; for comb on medium brood foundation, 6.65 grains ; and for comb on very heavy foundation, 7.80 grains. It will also be noticed that the two samples of comb on "1898" deep-cell foundation that were less than.75 of an inch thick had cell walls that were considerably heavier than the natural comb that was of that thickness.
If we combine the two samples of medium brood comb, one measuring 1.30 and the other 1.20 inches thick, we shall have an average of a sample 1,25 inches thick, the cells of which weigh 12.81 grains to the square inch. Comparing this with the weights of the cells of the natural comb samples of the same thickness, we find it exceeds the heavier by 2.31 grains, and is almost one and one-halftimes the weight of the lighter. It even exceeds the weight of the thickest of the natural comb samples by 2.01 grains.
If we take the comb cells on "1898" deep-cell foundation that measured 1.13 of an inch thick and compare their weight with the sample of like thickness of natural comb, we see that the cells of the latter are lighter by 4.38 grains. In fact the cell walls of this sample of deep-cell foundation exceed in weight any of those of the seven thicker samples of natural comb.
The comb samples on the "1899" deep-cell foundation had cell walls that compare very favorably with the natural comb in lightness. The comb 1.31 inches thick on this foundation had cells that weighed exactly the same as cells of natural comb that was 1.33 inches thick, and the cells from the sample 1.50 inches thick did not weigh more than would be expected for natural comb. The sample of comb.75 of an inch thick on this foundation does not compare so favorably in weight of its cells.
If we pass to the comb on thin super foundations we again find very satisfactory comparisons. The cells from comb 1 inch thick and from comb 1.20 inches thick weighed only a trifle more from the foundation than from natural comb. The same is true of the average of the two samples in each case that were 1.25 inches thick. The differences being so slight, go to show that there is practically no difference in the weight of cell walls of natural comb and comb of the same thickness on the thin super foundation.
The samples of comb on extra thin foundation compare equally well with natural comb in the lightness of their cell walls, as may be seen by the table.
By comparing the weights of the comb midribs given in column four, it will be seen that the lightest midribs from comb on foundation are not quite as heavy as the heaviest midribs in natural worker comb, but in every case they are heavier than the average weight (2.10 grains to the square inch) of the midrib of natural comb.
With this additional evidence, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that heavy foundations result in combs heavier than the natural, and that the increased weight is due both to thicker midribs and heavier cell walls, but much more to the latter than to the former in cases where heavy foundations are employed, even though much wax is left unused in the midrib.
The experiments show that to get a light comb, approaching tl'at which the bees naturally build, there must not be a large amount of wax in either the midrib or cell walls of the foundation.
The evidence is also quite conclusive that if the cell walls are very high, as in the "1898" deep-cell foundation, they will not often be well thinned in the building of the comb.
to what extent does the foundation lessen the secretion of wax by the bees?
Let us begin with the comb built on the heavier foundations and compare with the naturally built worker comb, to determine the effect on wax secretion.
Natural worker comb 1 inch thick weighed 10.00 grains to the square inch. The very heavy foundation alone weighed 11.00 grains, or 1 grain more than is necessary to build the comb to that thickness. But when comb was built on this thick foundation, it weighed 18.50 grains, so that the bees added 7.50 grains to the square inch to the foundation that itself contained more wax than was necessary to build the comb. As natural comb weighs but 10.00 grains to the square inch, the bees lacked but 2.50 grains of furnishing as much wax as they would have done if they had built the comb without the foundation. *It is seen that 11.00 grains of wax were furnished the bees in order to save them the expense in food and labor of producing 2.50 grains.
In case of the medium brood foundation weighing 8.40 grains to the square inch, the result was similar. The bees needed to add but 1.60 grains to this to build the comb one inch thick, but they did add 8.10 grains, making a comb weighing 16.50 grains to the square inch. As the amount added in this case is only 1.90 grains less than the weight of the natural comb of the same thickness, it cost the whole weight of the foundation, or 8.40 grains, to save the bees from secreting 1.90 grains of wax.
As another illustration with this same foundation, take the samples drawn to.75 of an inch. The average weight would be 12.50 grains. This is 5.90 grains more than the weight of samples of natural comb drawn to the same thickness, and 4.10 grains more than the weight of the foundation alone, notwithstanding the fact that the foundation as given the bees contained 1.80 grains to the square inch more wax than was necessary to build natural comb to that thickness. In other words, the bees were furnished more wax than was necessary to build the comb three-quarters of an inch thick, and yet they added to this amount more than nine-tenths as much wax as they would have used to build the comb without foundation.
Passing now to the Weed deep-cell foundation manufactured in 1898, we find results fully as surprising. If we compare the sample measuring 1.13 inches thick with natural comb of the same thickness, we find that the latter is lighter by 5.35 grains. As the foundatiou itself weighed only 5.46 grains to the square inch, the indication is that the bees used as much wax from their own secret
ing within.11 of a grain, as they would have done if no foundation had been given.
The samples of comb.56 and.60 of an inch thick on this foundation contain enough wax to make a natural comb one inch thick, and nearly half of the weight was added by the bees.
Reliable results are not so readily obtained in the study of comb samples on the light foundations, as the amount of wax in them is small and the natural variation in comb samples is considerable.
The thickest sample on the thin super foundation (B) was only.90 of an inch. To get as near an average weight of the natural comb as possible for comparison, let us combine the two examples that measure.90 of an inch each with those measuring respectively 1.00 and.80 of an inch. The average would be 8.40 grains to the square inch. The difference between this and the sample on this foundation is 3.10 grains: As the foundation itself weighed 4.00 grains to the square inch, the indication in this case is that the saving to the bees was the difference between these weights, or.90 of a grain to a square inch, or about 23 per cent. of the amount of wax.given.
Far better results were obtained in the use of thin super foundation (A), the average weight of which was 4.07 grains to the square inch.
Comparing comb 1 inch thick on this foundation with natural comb of the same thickness, we find, in case of one of the samples in the table, there is but :20 of a grain difference in favor of the latter. This means that this foundation lessened the amount of wax that the bees secreted, by 95 per cent of its own weight.
The above may have been rather an exceptional piece on the thin foundation. If we compare the sample that measured 1.20 inches in thickness with a similar sample of natural comb, we find a difference of 2 grains to the square inch. As the foundation was almost exactly twice this weight, it indicates that the bees were relieved from secreting an amount of wax equal to half the weight of foundation given.
It is important to notice that to build the comb on this foundation to the thickness of 1.20 inches, the bees added the difference between 11:50 and 4.07 grains to the square inch, which would be 7.43 grains, and this is actually less than they added in cases where they built comb to a thickness of only one inch on the very heavy and the medium brood foundations, and to a thickness of 1.13 inches on the deep-cell foundation, though in any one of these last three cases they were furnished more wax to start with.
Again, if we take the average of the two samples of comb on this thin foundation that were 1.25 inches thick and compare it with an average of the two samples of natural comb of the same thickness, we find that the latter is :40 of a grain lighter to the square inch than the former. This would indicate that 90 per cent. of the foundation was utilized by the bees in making a comb but slightly heavier than the natural. We also find that the bees actually added less to this foundation in order to draw it out to 1.25 inches in thickness than in cases where they built comb to a thickness of an inch on the heavy and medium brood foundations. Further experiments are needed bearing upon this point.
If we compare the comb built on the "1899" deep-cell foundation and the extra thin super foundation with the natural comb, we find results nearly, or quite as good as the preceding. For examples, the comb 1.31 inches thick on the deep-cell foundation was but 1.13 grains heavier than the natural sample 1.33 inches thick, and the sample on this foundation that was 1.50 thick exceeded the weight of natural comb 1.37 inches thick by only 1.50 grains.
In case of the comb on extra thin foundation, the sample that was 1.22 inches thick weighed but 1.11 grains to the square inch more than the natural sample that measured 1.20 inches thick ; and the sample on this foundation 1.25 inches thick is almost exactly an average of the two pieces of natural comb of the same thickness.
It seems, then, from all the evidence furnished by the forty-nine samples of comb listed in the preceding table, that we do not lessen the wax secretion of the bees much, if any, more when we furnish them a heavy foundation than when we furnish them a very light foundation.
These differences between the heavy and light foundations for comb building seem quite remarkable, and in a large series of samples might not result so much in favor of the light foundations ; but the samples recorded in the table were taken without any attempt or thought of favoring one form or weight over another.
The writer believes it is a matter of much importance to beekeepers to produce comb honey with as small an amount of wax as possible. They will, in this way, increase the consumption of their product, as many people object to comb honey because of the large amount of wax they often find in it.
## Methods of using foundation in sections.
It is necessary to use some foundation in sections for comb honey. The best size and form of the piece of foundation to be used as a "starter" is not universally agreed upon, some preferring one form and some another.
The different methods of applying these starters, shown in Figures \(a\) to \(g\) of Plate VI., have been tested in the College Apiary for the past three years.
There was no appreciable difference in the comb produced by using starters in the manners shown by Figures \(a\), \(c\) and \(d\). The only advantage in the long, narrow piece, shown at \(e\), was that it had a tendency to secure the building of worker comb throughout. It has one disadvantage, and that is its large size and short line of attachment, so that if it is not well secured at the top the bees are liable to cluster upon it and pull it loose. The long, narrow piece placed across the top of the section, Figure \(f\), has given rather better results than any of the preceding, as the bees usually attach it quickly at the ends, thus closing the top corners. I have also used many starters like the preceding, but extending about half way down. Figures \(h\), \(i\) and \(j\) represent comb on such starters. It will be noticed there are no holes in the upper corner or sides. At \(n\) is a section of comb built on a full-sized starter, as shown at \(g\). It will be noticed that the comb cells are all uniform in size and the comb evenly filled out. Such comb when filled and capped, is handsome in appearance, like the samples shown at \(s\), and brings the highest market price. In my experiments the sheets that extended half way down gave as good results as those that filled the section. The use of small pieces of foundation in the lower corners, as shown at Figure \(c\), gave no beneficial results.
The use of short strips of foundation in the middle of the bottom of the section, as shown at \(b\), has resulted in somewhat better attached combs at the bottom of the section, especially during a slow honey flow.