Talk:Honey/Archive 3

reference 57 is problematic
According to ref 57 many active ingredients in honey loose activity at 37 deg C. 37 deg C is body temperature and is very improbable, since the temperature in the bee hives easily reaches 37. It claims that the honey caramelizes at 50 deg C, which does not sound probable. You need to heat sugar to 110 to 180 deg C to achieve caramelization. Ref 57 leads to a low-quality popular Ukrainian magazine and should not be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.247.199.50 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That ref definitely does not seem to be very reliable, although I can't locate any actual info about honey there. I can't read Russian. Much of that is incorrect, or at least incomplete. As I recall, honey at any temperature above 0 degrees C will darken and degrade due to the Maillard reaction. This chemical reaction increases in speed with increasing temperature. However, honey stored for long periods of time at room temperature will usually show more degradation than honey will that has been heated to 60 degrees C for a couple of hours. This reaction does have an effect on active ingredients, color, and taste.


 * Caramelization is quite a different process, which is essentially burning of the sugar. The caramelization temperature of honey is typically lower than that of the fructose alone, (which, in turn, is lower than that of the glucose), and this is caused by acids which honey contains. Variations in the acid content alter the caramelization temp, but it is usually between 70 - 80 degrees C. Most books recommend never heating honey above 70. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * However, it is quite possible that crystallized hney has an even lower caramelization temp, due to higher acid concentration in the liquid (fructose) part of the mixture. I'll try to take some time to research this in the future, if nobody beats me to it. (Winter is usually a slower season for me.) If anyone reads Russian, perhaps you can find the info in the above reference. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

honeyshimmer
Has anyone made honey fluff yet edible honeyshimmer that makes everything taste sweeter

Honey makes clumps of dextrose as well as fructose crystals You could use these crystals to make something like cotton candy yet from honey rather than sugar. Then add the juice of the fruit that makes everything sweeter (wonderberry) thus enjoying honeyshimmer would make everything sweeter tasting, possibly more honeyshimmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.32.10 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unprocessed honey
The article references unprocessed honey, but nowhere in the article is this described. Rklawton (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions and comments
1. "Some cultures believed honey had many practical health uses. It was used as an ointment for rashes and burns, and to help soothe sore throats when no other medicinal practices were available."

Adding a source for this would be nice. What cultures thought like that?

2. What beer brands contain honey?

3. "In India, honey is harvested from forests in bee's natural habitat. It is said that honey will be consumed by the bees on the new moon day, so it is cultivated the day before."

Is that a popular belief or is there a scientific proof for the claim?

4. Two ranges of temperature are given in the article for optimal crystallization: 13-17°C and 10-21°C. I think these figures should be merged into a unique range.

5. Figures for temperature are given in °F (°C) and °C (°F). There should be only one system to preserve consistency and avoid confusion.

6. "chelation of free Iron"

Does "Iron" have to be capitalized?

7. I would remove the photo named "View Honey Al Jabal Alkhdar near the city of Bayda, Libya". It really doesn't show anything particularly important or interesting.

ICE77 (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi ICE77.


 * 1. & 2. I do not have much knowledge of cultural uses or beliefs about honey, so i really won't have any response to those particular concerns. I do know that certain beers do contain honey, used as a fortifier before fermenting. I can't remember the brands, although I can tell you that they give me a serious hangover. That would be OR anyway.


 * 4. Only one of these temperature ranges has a source. I have checked several other sources as well, such as Postharvest technology of fruits and vegetables Volume 1 By L. R. Vermal, The ABC and Xyz of Bee Culture By A. I. Root, E. R. Root, and Crystallization in foods By Richard W. Hartel. Optimum crystallization rate for most honey types is around 14 degrees C, although this optimal temperature will vary slightly, depending on the composition. For instance, acacia and chestnut honeys do not crystallize, while honey from brassica will crystallize almost immediately. In particular, a higher fructose or dextrin level will delay crystallization and, to a lesser degree, so will a higher water content. No optimum temperature range I've seen, though, is quite as broad as 10-21 degrees C. Usually, it's much closer to 14.


 * 5. I agree that the same system of listing temperature should be used throughout. This may be my fault, as the physical properties section was my doing.


 * 6. Iron should not be capitalized.


 * 7. I agree that the picture adds little to the article.


 * I also would like to point out that some of the info in the "Preservation" section seems innacurate. According to all of these references I listed, there are very little detrimental effects from heating honey as high as 60 degrees C. Above 60 is when enzymes like invertase and antimicrobial agents are destroyed. Most store-bought honey is heated in the 50-60 range for processing and packaging, to lower viscosity for easier handling. (One book, Crystallization in foods, says that one of it's sources, identified as "Crane," suggests that pasteurizing honey to 77 for 5 minutes, rapidly cooling to 0 and holding it there for five days, can delay crystallization for up to 2 years. However, I've read a few sources that agree that storing it below 5 degrees C (putting it in the freezer) can make it last for quite a long time.) Zaereth (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zaereth. Thanks for the feedback.

4. If there is only one source for the optimum crystallization range, let's use that one and eliminate the other one. If no source is available, then it should not be in the article.

5. Feel free to fix as needed.

6. Same as above.

7. Go ahead and remove the image if you want.

Feel free to also fix the "Preservation" section as needed. This article is not bad. I just think it needs a little work.

ICE77 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'll probably get to this sometime in the near future. Right now, aside from being very busy in real life, I am working to sort out many of the problems in articles such as xenon arc lamp, arc lamp, and gas-discharge lamp. I'll have to put this article on the back burner for now. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Health benefits of honey
There is a website with a high Google search which tells us the health benefits of honey:

http://www.homeremediesweb.com/honey_health_benefits.php

I shall leave others to decide whether it is informative enough to be used in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes honey so acidic?
Is it formic acid from the bees' body? Or are there any other major acids in it, maybe from the nectar too? -- 77.187.135.213 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Honey is not terribly acidic. The average pH of honey is 3.9, but can range from 3.4 to 6.1. Honey contains many kinds of acids, but the amount and types vary from the different types of honey. These consist of aliphatic, aeromatic, amino and organic acids.
 * Aliphatic acid content is so small that they are pretty much a non-factor.
 * Aeromatic acids come from the flowers, and contribute greatly to the aroma and taste.
 * Amino acids are almost neglible in honey, accounting for only 0.05-0.1% of the composition. The main acid is proline.
 * Organic acids account for most of the acids in honey, which accounts for 0.17-1.17% of the mixture. Of these, gluconic acid is the most prevalent. Gluconic acid is formed by the actions of an enzyme called glucose-oxidase. Other organic acids are minor, but do consist of formic, along with acetic, butyric, citric, lactic, malic, pyroglutanic, and succinic. I hope that helps answer your question. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great answer! MadZarkoff (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried adding this information, but was reverted with a somewhat ambiguous summary about needing better sourcing. I think the sources i provided were adequate, but I can easily provide many other sources, such as Beekeeping by Mahindru, Food chemistry by Hans-Dieter Belitz, or Postharvest technology of fruits and vegetables - Volume 1 by L. R. Verma. However, as my time is very limited, and this really doesn't interest me that much anyway, I will probably not bother to get back to this. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. An unnoticed timing glitch.  Earlier today, an anonymous editor added content in the "honey-producing countries" section that looked suspicious.  I opened the edit history and began digging into the source materials and some other resources and found that that addition was not supported so I reverted the edit.  Unfortunately, it seems that you were editing a different section at the same time I had the old version open and the revert accidentally overwrote your contribution as well.  It's been put back now.  Thanks to Materialscientist for catching it.  Rossami (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had to get to a meeting yesterday, and so didn't look at the history. Thanks for the explanation, because now your edit summary makes more sense. Thanks to Materialscientist as well. Zaereth (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C for correction.
I've studied Russian, so I noticed instantly that there was a false etymology for the Russian (and, generally, Slavic) word for "bear," which comes from "honey eater." I've corrected the article. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8C for the correct etymology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethical Concerns
The Ethical Concerns section that's been added to this page recently is absurd. It is filled with content which takes the worst examples of irresponsible beekeeping and portrays them as routine and assigns value judgments to other facts without evidence or basis. (For example, it says that the drones are killed in the artificial insemination process, ignoring the fact that the drones also die in the natural honeybee mating process. While perhaps sad, it is not an ethical implication of beekeeping.  For another example, diseased bees are generally treated by the beekeeper if treating can heal them.  There is, however, no treatment for American Foulbrood and AFB is highly infectious.  Killing the bees and burning the equipment is a severe form of quarantine designed to save the lives of the neighboring bees not yet infected.  Allowing the infection to propagate would in fact be the unethical behavior, not the reverse.)

What few sources are in the section fail to substantiate the claims made in the section.

Pending a complete rewrite of that section for factual accuracy and balanced presentation, I am removing the section from the page. See this diff to recover content in support of a rewrite. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There are people who do not eat honey on ethical grounds. How do you suggest this is included so as to meet your standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrazerKirkman (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns of bias
No mention of honey production being a suspected cause of CCD. No ethical concerns section. Only positive things to say about allergies despite people having honey allergies. Muleattack (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly that's because honey production is not a suspected cause of CCD. Honey production techniques were the same both before and after the CCD occurred, for one thing.  No credible source connects honey production to CCD. There is no "ethical concerns" section because there are, in fact, no ethical concerns with the product we call honey.  There are ethical and unethical beekeepers but that's another article entirely. Finally, there are zero confirmed cases of allergy to honey itself.  Some very, very few people have had allergic reactions to the pollen in honey.  And some types of honey come from plants which are toxic to humans.  Both of those situations are already discussed and are different from a "honey allergy".  Rossami (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your position on vegans? They exist, they claim an ethical objection (however well founded) to the production of honey. Coverage doesn't imply support for veganism, merely recognition of their notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The ethical concern (at least as sourced from Vegetus.com) is not from vegans but from "Vegetus", and so far as I can tell, they aren't a notable group. As a result, I'm going to remove the section until such time as someone finds a source that says "vegans" (a notable group) object to eating honey. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The vegan society notable enough? http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/animals/bees-and-honey.aspx Muleattack (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nice work! Rklawton (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry that is not good enough. This no more belongs in the article on Honey than it would belong in the articles on Beef, Chicken or Fish.  Vegans are opposed to all of those on exactly the same grounds.  The vegan concerns belong in the article about veganism, not here.  Rossami (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Do you deny the existence of vegans (and plenty of them)? Or that the references you've just deleted is WP:RS?
 * Per your WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST above, Pork Andy Dingley (talk) 07:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Issues_with_meat_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Ethical_concerns Muleattack (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I tend to agree with Rossami. Vegans don't eat a lot of stuff, but is it really relevant to this article? Or the milk article? That tells me something about vegans, but not about the actual subject of these articles. It is irrelevant and trivial, except in the vegan article. Should we also list vegans in, say ... the moose article? How about the dall sheep article? Do vegans eat sea urchin? Many people who play Starfox 64 use the phrase "Do a barrel roll," but does that really need to be in the article about barrel rolls? The Amish have ethical concerns about using blenders, but does that really need to be in the blender article? To me, listing all of the people who do or don't like honey, for whatever reason, seem like irrelevant trivia. To concentrate on the views of only one small subsect of population seems like advocacy. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A mention in an article like ham or pork would be out of place in my opinion but does belong in the 'parent' article of meat. Honey though, doesn't have a 'parent' article, it's it's own category of food and as such I think it should get a mention. Muleattack (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So vegans don't oppose honey. Honey isn't an ethical problem. Honey exists. Gathering and/or eating honey is a problem primarily for vegans. Thus, the opposition to eating honey should go on the vegan page... The problem is that this article's scope just isn't that limited. This article also includes tangents ranging from culture to nutrition. As a result, it appears that including a "controversy" would be appropriate. In checking the "meat" article, vegans are only mentioned in passing under the section on "health". They are also listed under "see also", but that's it. Thus, the point that vegan opposition does not appear in other food articles to anywhere near the degree it does here serves as a very convincing argument that it should not appear on this page, either. Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rationale for exclusion #2: I just checked out the vegan article, and as it turns out, vegans do not uniformly reject honey. As a result, opposition to honey appears to be a subset of a notable minority. But I see no indication that this subset is sufficiently notable for inclusion here without violating WP:UNDO. Rklawton (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean WP:UNDUE and that is exactly my problem with including it here. It is such a fringe opinion that its inclusion in this article gives an appearance of controversy which is unsupported by the evidence.  And to answer a question above, given the other patently false claims made at the sites provided so far, no we have not met the required threshold for WP:RS either.  Rossami (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, right WP:UNDUE. Gees, thanks. And yes, I think we'd need reliable sources indicating this isn't fringe, and I don't see those forthcoming. Rklawton (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See. Bongo  matic  02:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "silly and dogmatic" - and that's sourced. I'd say we skip it here then. And it sounds like at least one authority would prefer not to see it in the vegan article, either. Rklawton (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New source explaining mechanisms, including a new one
http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/7/2576.long

I used it twice, but don't know how to make it only show up once in the ref list. 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed my own problem by using http://dare.uva.nl/document/175222 as the second source, which is the full paper. FX &#9742; 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

World's oldest honey
There has been multiple recent attempts to add info about some honey found in Georgia (the country, not the state). I agree that the source used, by itself, is not very reliable, but I have heard this from other sources, including the University of Alaska, here. A quick google search revealed many other sources too. Based on this, if some more, better sources are provided, I would not object to the addition.

However, the addition, as it was written, is far too closely paraphrased to the original source, which may lead to copyright issues, so it would need to be rewritten in the user's own words. Zaereth (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)