The Sorghum Sugar Question

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


On page 411, Vol. XII., of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, and in subsequent numbers, we expressed our opinion that crystallizable sugar was not obtainable from the Sorgho cane. We did so, having the authority of eminent chemists and practical refiners to support our opinion; and as far as they had examined, they were right. But neither they nor we had gone quite far enough, for we have received a sample of beautiful crystallized sugar, prepared by Mayland Cuthbert, of Philadelphia, also some samples of the same from E. G. Ward, of New Bedford, Mass., equally good. We carefully examined them and were at a loss to account for it. Has the great problem of converting syrup into sugar been solved ? thought we ; it cannot have been. We were in an inexplicable difficulty concerning this phenomenon until we saw a communication in the Prairie Farmer, from Dr. Ostrander, of Lexington, 111., whose experiments, if confirmed by subsequent investigations, seem to solve the difficulty. He says :— " I purchased a sugar (crushing) mill of two iron rollers, 5J inches in diameter, and 14 inches long, and had new gear wheels cast, both of a size, to give equal motion to the rollers. I commenced grinding and boiling, and soon found that six gallons of juice would make one gallon of superior syrup. I then built a mill with wooden rollers, 18 inches in diameter, and went at it in good earnest, and found that it now took eight gallons of juice for one of syrup. Upon investigating the cause, I found there were two jnices distinct from each other in the cane, viz.: a crt/slalli-zable and an uncri/stallizable saccharine juice. The iron rollers expressed both, the wooden rollers only one. The juice run from the iron rollers granulated easily, while the juice from the wooden rollers could scarcely be said to grain. My cane was twice frozen solid before it was worked or cut." The above announcement will stimulate additional researches into the nature of the Sorgho plant, and we shall hope to see Dr. Ostrander's position carefully tested. If found to be correct its future value for sugar-making will become a question of importance in an economical point of view. FRENCH SILK MANUFACTURE—The production of cocoons in France has been diminished from about 58,500,000 pounds in 1853, to about 15,750,000 in 1856. The aggregate production of silk in the world is estimated at a value of $200,000,000.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 13 Issue 12This article was published with the title “The Sorghum Sugar Question” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 13 No. 12 (), p. 94
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11281857-94a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe