> This discussion (thanks to my error) has gone far
> afield.
I am afraid you are pushing me a step farther afield.
> I do not think
> you are saying that sucrose is a contaminant of
> honey
Indeed, I do not.
I say syrup sugar "honey" is a lower quality product
than nectar honey. Then, if nectar honey is diluted
with sugar syrup "honey", the honey quality is
affected.
>, since it is a
> component of nectar and in some plants, the dominant
> and nearly
> exclusive sugar. In essence, those plants are
> producing "sugar syrup".
No. They are producing nectar : a mix of sugars, yes,
but with other molecule which, even at low
concentration, are responsible for the taste of the
product (I mean other tastes than "sweet"). All nectar
have saccharose solution, yes, but all saccharose
solutions are not nectar.
If I considere an analogy: wine is mostly composed of
water. If you add water to the wine, you affect its
quality. No contamination here. Just diluting the
taste, modifying product's balance. I could have
chosen whisky as well. Change only the kind of water
used for scoth preparation, you will change the
taste... just because of some trace (really trace this
time) minerals in different waters.
> I do not know how you can separate the sucrose in
> cane sugar syrup from
> the sucrose in nectar since sucrose is sucrose.
I do not either. And I would be very curious to know
if there is a method of analysis to distinguish sugars
origin in honey. Saccharose (I use saccharose because
I think sucrose is a synonym of saccharose but I am
not sure) is saccharose, yes. And so ? The trouble is
not so much that saccharose is added, the trouble is
that only saccharose is added (and I stop here because
I do not want to enlarge the debate to the
modification of sugars proportion in honey when syrup
sugar -which will end in a 50% fructose, 50% glucose
solution - is added).
> I have some difficulty with any definition of "pure"
> honey since it gets
> us into the morass of "organic" and the like. Honey
> that comes from
> nectar (and aphids) can also have other collected
> "nectars" (like soft
> drinks) as has been noticed by most beekeepers.
Once again, I do not accept this argument (but I can
accept or refuse, it won't change anything). I
understand some bees can, times to times, collect some
mL (milliliters) from an exotic source of sugar. OK.
And consequently one can produce honey from sugar
syrup ? Or consciently dilute nectar honey sold
"natural honey"? I do not understand the logic here
(but there are many things I do not understand). Those
sources are exceptions. Otherwise, change your
location (using "your", I do not point anyone, once
again nothing personnal in my discussion).
> So
> if any sugar syrup
> "honey" ends up in a super it would be undetectable
> as an added sugar,
> and truth is, would have little effect over all
> since it would be
> overwhelmed by the sucrose already present in the
> nectar brought in by
> bees. Especially if the bees were collecting from
> plants whose nectar
> was primarily sucrose.
Several hypothesis here. It would mean that sweet is
sweet, whatever sugars propotions are while the 3
sugars have different tastes(thus their relative
proportions should change the type of "sweet"
sensation). It would mean the dilution does not affect
the product... which means, at its extreme position,
that trace substances in nectar (responsible for the
floral taste) do not participate in the taste...some
kind of paradox.
Anyway the real test is easy for all: just eat your
"winter honey" (in early spring) and then eat some
summer honey. If you do not make the difference, I
agree : why bother ?.
Hervé
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Avec Yahoo! soyez au coeur de la récolte de dons pour le Téléthon.
http://fr.promotions.yahoo.com/caritatif/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
