Comparison from (some) Sweeteners...

For a change, this makes brief comparison between some natural sweeteners. The idea of it, of course, originated from nowadays rather usually discussed aspect; Human agriculture often favors a limited number from plant. Typically described as creation of monocultures (at least environmentally speaking/biologist often use the word). One doesn't have to look too far, but fx some from most commonly cultivated plants, fx wheat (w. some other favored cereal), rice, sugarbeet/-cane, soya, coffee, etc. (From more recent timing also often there's mention of various sources to biofuels, (fx) maize, palm oils, etc.) ...Of course, this is a selective list, to which quite a few other plant could be added.)

Maybe worth noticing also that sugar grown in the MSW appears cultivated from the domestic sugarbeets, while some from alternatives 'offered' here are imports. Ecologically makes therefore not that much of a difference...But, on the other hand, many from mentioned as well are lot healthier alternatives.

So, we're here mainly comparing some alternatives for (/from) the sugars. Energy and carbohydrates listed on basis of information from product packages - So that likely differs a little between different products manufactured of the same sweetener (Regular sugar seems said to contain 1700 Kj / 400 ckal and 100 g Carbohydrates [Cbhr] on 100 gram) ;

Honey
(what else; ...it contains): 1400 kj/335 kcal energy /Cbhr: 82 g)

Honey, of course, is recommended from it's many healthy qualities. As the insects make it, it's a natural product indeed (Actually, I don't even consider bees completely domesticated animals for they spend large part of their tasks away from the human kept nest). Also, I'm not so convinced from the bee-keeping being that environmentally benefiting than sometimes adverted, because bees often are maintained for pollinating certain plants in cultivation. Depends completely from the scale of it, of course...And, bees do appear important pollination agents in Nature.

There's various different labels from honey; Products may differ fx from what the main source plant of bees, whether the product is imported or is it homegrown, etc - Seems fx mentioned that some made by the bees visiting flowerings of the Lime (Tilia) has always been very appreciated among nest-keepers...Bees also are kept very widely cultivated around most everyplace and there's variety from spiced honey as well.
So, for sweetener it serves well and I often tend use honey on teas, fx. Less suitable to some other foodstuff, perhaps, but I guess I'd probably use honey anyway just because of it being so healthy.

Agave-Syrup
(1249 kj/298 kcal; Cbhr: 77 g)

...To the contrary, isn't been on commercial manufactures very long (apparently). Squeezed (apparently?) from cactus (/and related plants?). I find this quite tasty too and makes even lighter alternative as a sweetener on various uses. Taste might need a little getting used to.  Fair trade product and sold in liquid form. And, it's not bad at all either; As the only negative aspect I find, appears that packaging is on plastic bottles (Although, that feels quite practically manufactured so it can have some other uses after been emptied...)

Maple-Syrup
(1140 kj/270 kcal; Cbhr: 67 g - Only 62 actual sugar)

...Likewise this also is advertised among healthiest from natural sugars. Made of the sap from (Canadian) Sugar Maples, Acer Saccharum, (which contains 5-7 per cent sugar).

Seems as well that around the 19th century when most sugar was made from Sugarcane, sugar prices peaked and also sap from European maples (Norwegian maple, A. Platanoides, which contains 3-4 per cent sugar) was commonly manufactured. Noticeably, it was during imperialistic era and the trade market, when most sugar to Europe was at the time imported from colonies. After the sugarbeet farming gained ground, probably more commonly around the end of 19th century, also production from the sugar maples declined. [Acc. The book History of Foods (2003) the cane- and beet-sugars becoming  the dominant sweeteners in the World, particularly the production from sugarbeet, is quite recent phenomenom - For an interested there seems be somewhat lengthier paragraphs from this subject on that book; Of the history of sugar-making, development of it's techniques and the trade throughout the modern times, See (from) the online version of it].

...Even that the Maples syrup appears often recommended w. pancakes and similar, I find that not any particular favorite dessert of mine. But well, so tasty with the ice cream every once in a while...

Fructose
(1692 kj/398 kcal; Cbhr: 100 g)

The amounts from energy and carbohydrates in Fructose seem almost the same as from usual sugar. Also taste is generally quite similar. Main difference is that one needs add that only about 1/3 less (Fructose is actually somewhat sweeter from taste). Other meaningful aspect is that it's as well healhier in comparison to regular sugar (Yet, seems it sometimes advised that one shouldn't consume but a limited amount from Fructose at daily uses...); Comes on a solid form (granulated sugar), so can be used quite easily.

Birch-sugar
(1000 kj/240 kcal; Cbhr: 100 g)

...This locally manufacured variable(/product) is also sold on granulated form. This too is manufactured of a tree, from Birch (Betula pendula). Doesn't taste much like sugar, actually hasn't the same sweetness at all. But, as well mentioned 100 per cent Xylitol, and therefore not negatively affects the teeth ...Which is, in fact, quite meaningful aspect. So I'd probably favor this too, at least every once in a while.

There could've been some other manufactured alternatives, very probably (Also fx variety from different products manufactured of the sugarcanes). - But, due that this was mainly to recommend some alternatives from sugars, seems it also sometimes advertised the Coconut Sugar (it's not the same product as the sugar palm, however) from some of it's benefits from manufactures (and the healtniness on uses), especially due that (it's said) lot lesser water uses needed  on it's manufactures (than on cane sugar production) ...However, I've not more especially checked of it, or had that product available/tested on this comparison from natural sweeteners, so just said in passing...

But, summa summarum, conclusively I find I can probably have a place for any of these, there's some proper usages for each of them - Birch-sugar and syrups mostly would go w. tea, rarer on baking; Honey has many uses, also on desserts (sometimes); And fructose simply is similar of use as the sugar, it also is a bit cheaper than most from these...).
(...And, additionally feels to me also of some importance remark that I actually consider sugars necessary for the uses of human body, etc. - Ever if exercising any physically demanding 'sports' it is of proper need, fx. The bestway to gain the lost energy would probably be eating some sugarine fruit(s), but often bar of cholocate or other sweets does the purpose adequate well; at least acc. my experience from (Unless not eating those too regularly, of course - I'll let you choose the amount yourself...:) Like often is talked from, people in the developed world generally use too much sugar, and the similar expected to take place on most countries with raising levels of living standard...) ...Like it was earlier remarked they're (,ie these 'natural sugars', not the chocolate bars or sweets) also somewhat healthier alternatives to sugar. So, in the end of it, we just notice that common wisdom 'Variety is the spice in life'. (W -G.)

-------



Oak; The leaf and a few acorn.
(Acorns were gathered for food on prehistoric times.)



...Because it's now an occasional custom representing these examplaries from Fennoscandian nature in pairs (ie some plant and insect species at the same), we have a few here. For the main part of this was devoted to sweeteners, would've perhaps been more suitable select fx (Norwegian) Maples (Acer platanoides) for this too....But I guess the Zeus won't mind too much if these paragraphs are from the (English) Oak (Quercus robur) instead; (Also, little funnily, seems it being that the English common names for some trees are based on country names, in spite of that both of these tree, fx, are found pretty common from grow on much larger regions of Europes)
...Anyway, Oak(s) are trees at a family of beeches (Facaceae), and on mid-Europe grows numerous species, but only this singular one (Q.Robur) is said originally to grow on Fennoscandia. As for some of their qualities/characteristics the Oaks - in particular the Sessile Oak (Q.petraea) and Q.Robur - fx are mentioned rather resistent to moisture and so they've lot been used on construction works since long-time past. In the former days it was so popular on ship-building of the reason that wood from Oak only becomes stronger and more compact when kept in contact with water.



Even (much) further on times at the pasts - after latest Ice ages - seems the Downy Oak, Q. Pubescens, actually been a tree that consisted the largest part on forests at Central Europes. Later, with the slight warmer climates, Beech (Fagus sylvatica) seems much gained on it's places. Like also renown, Oaks have always been very appreciated trees; Not only by the ancient Greeks, but (ao) Teutonic (German) tribes and Celts associated it for their highest deities. Also has enjoyed appreciated status in Christian religious means.….Culturally one can also think from that often imaginative, little horrifying picture from a (very) old tree - on popular literatures, comics and cartoons, fx. Unless that (image) isn't borrowed from the looks of an old Spruce, or Yew, it most often appears drawn resembling the old Oak.



From it's current overall range the English Oak seems cover most of the Central and S. Europes. However, and like often typical for human uses of the nature, trees positive 'status' wasn't in the past enough from preventing it's overuses. In fact, seems that at many places - at the world and Europe - the human history also tells from an exhaustive uses of the Oak(-forests). Fennoscandia is no exception, although Oak grows there on it's ecological Northest edges. (Pretty) much like elsewhere best part from the original (natural) Oak-forests were exploited already during  the 17th/18th centuries. (...Although, the past use of Oak/changes on landscape during the centuries may have been somewhat more limited than on many places, largely due the above said reason. And, also from reason that human settlement appears lot younger than on most parts of Europe; Earliest traces from human agricultures at Fennoscandias are said date back to only about 3000 years - So, the trees actual natural extent, preceding that human brought alteration from landscapes, is maybe little difficult from estimating precisely.)



Whatever the  timing, or scale that migh have proceded,  larger parts was converted to sowing fields (Groves and other places where Oaks would grow often made best fertile lands), and some as well went to construction purposes. Not much surprisingly lots also was used to the ship-building, as the Sails were the main armament of the emerging countries with coastal line on Baltic sea (ie that was about 17th century onwards). Because of the growing need for material to this - and from somewhat lesser extent to other purposes - still as late as the early 19th century it was planted cultivated Oak-forests on parts of Scandinavia (by the Crown). ...Wich wasn't ever adequate for halting the demand from exceeding  the supply. Yet, some of those planted forests still survive and are said become somewhat aged by now.

In brief it makes quite typical an example from human exhaustive uses of the 'resource'. (However, originating from those planted forests, as well from the Oak been commonly planted on roadsides, parks and gardens, it is said that singular trees/small patches now grow on a more Northern range than the tree naturally would appear.) Conclusively maybe is also worth noting that Oak wasn't a sole hardwood tree of which the natural forests were extensively consumed on human uses even before the beginnings from our modern era - or, the times of  "so called" economic forestry practices.



Ecologically Oak is said an important tree to many species; In fact no other tree on N. Europes hosts so many insects. It's said that very old trees – Oaks can grow to 1000 years, but on North the average maxim seems closer smthg like 500 – offer living environments to a countless number. Some of those species wouldn't even appear on Fennoscandian Nature otherways (fx, from Finlands regional are 9 species of butterfly/moth seem said from increasing solely on Oak). Acorns of Oak are as well very nutrient rich - They contain 390 kcal per 100 g; And 30-60 per cent starch, 10 per cent sugar. (So them are harvested by several larger animals.)

 ------



Araniella cucurbitina
(Hanging on gossamers between leafs
of the Oak-sapling)

...Likewise than  from the plant selection, of the insects perhaps most proper choice on this would've been some Hymenopteran species (ants, bees, wasps, ao) - as the main part from this was devoted to sugars. But this time it's a Spider (...yes, very stricktly speaking they're not insects, but don't let that be an obstacle...). Spiders appear very numerous from species on most parts of World. For a selection on this, fx the Araneus diadematus (the species renown from it's elaborate web), would've made nice choice. Or, some of the flower-spiders, they're even said capable from changing their color during a few days time, (between yellow and white). Anyway, this example on pic (mostly probably is) Araniella cucurbitina ('Green Cucumber Spider')...Selected since it's said  commonly appearing on forested regions, and mentioned found on places (ao?) where there grows some Oak. Bright from colour and quite symmetrical by look (Perhaps little horrifying too...)
...And it was there by purpose: After mating the female is said rolling its eggs (offpsring) within the leafs and remaining on guard there. ; Similarly like the Oaks, spiders easily exceed human time-scales, before there was most of the now present organisms(/animals), there already were the spiders... (G.U.J.)