New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Sweet and Soiled Science

Limbs and hands from the northeast to the southwest

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

What makes the sap run? Because he or she wants to serve in Congress. Well, that's the first answer that springs to mind this autumn day just after the November elections, and we'll get back to that subject later. But a better answer deals with a better interpretation of the question--regarding maple syrup. That subject was also on my mind, I having recently returned from a trip to the Proctor Maple Research Center in Underhill Center, Vt., while attending the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Burlington.

Turns out that what makes that sap run is devilishly complex. It's so complicated, in fact, that the only way I may ever really understand it is to have the scientists who research this question write a feature article for Scientific American so I can read it.

The key point, though, is that sugar maple trees have the unusual property of producing positive internal pressure after freezing and thawing. That internal pressure can tap, I mean top, that of a car tire, reaching about 40 pounds per square inch. In order to top, I mean tap, the tree, makers of maple syrup rely on the tree tap, I mean top--the branches are really where the action takes place that ultimately brings you your favorite pancake tapping. I mean topping.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Most trees have fibers filled with water, but sugar maples have air-filled fibers. "So," explains top tap (works either way) researcher Timothy Wilmot, "instead of getting the conditions you'd expect--where freezing would cause an expansion and something would come out of the tap hole when it froze--because of the physiology of the maple wood, water is actually sucked up during the freezing period. And during the thawing period, it's pushed out."

Because making the sap run--we're still talking maple trees here--requires a series of freezes and thaws, the entire industry is dependent on temperatures oscillating between a narrow range just below and just above freezing. A growing fear in the northeastern U.S. is that sustained warming will push both that temperature range and the sugar maple range north of the freezing point and border, respectively. Indeed, the sugaring season is getting shorter in Vermont but not in Canada. Yet.

By the way, I took a break in the middle of writing this story to have pancakes and Vermont maple syrup. While eating, I read a short item in the publication Funny Times that concerned a visit to a grade school by a firefighter. He showed the students a smoke alarm and asked if they could identify it. One kid responded, "That's how Mommy knows supper is ready." Just minutes earlier I had shut off a smoke alarm to prevent the hearing damage that ordinarily accompanies my pancake cooking.

Speaking of smoke-filled rooms, back to the election. The week before the voting, a story circulated about the practice among many politicians of using liberal--even among conservatives--dollops of those syrupy hand sanitizers when they're meeting and greeting hundreds of strangers. Seemed like a good and innocuous idea, and one of the few on which George W. Bush and Al Gore publicly agree.

But New Mexico governor Bill Richardson said he found it "condescending to the voters," according to the New York Times. "I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty," Richardson said. Two stats: Richardson holds the world record for most hands shaken--13,392 in eight hours at his state fair and at the University of New Mexico in 2002; a 2005 American Society for Microbiology study of more than 6,000 subjects found that 18 percent did not wash their hands after using a public restroom. So, unless New Mexicans are unusually clean or the venues had no facilities, Richardson probably shook hands with about 2,400 could-be contaminated constituents. And he may have passed along their microbes to the washed masses. Syrupticiously.

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky
Scientific American Magazine Vol 296 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Sweet and Soiled Science” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 296 No. 1 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican012007-61JxvqM2xdHRI75UY8LpCP

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe