260 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



Apr. 



would Dot give my past two years' experience for 

 whole volumes of such arguments. What would 

 you think of the man who would set to work to pro- 

 duce 500 gallons of syrup per day, with an evapo- 

 rating capacity of only 250 gallons per day? Some- 

 what ridiculous, is it not? Yet this is about the 

 condition of affairs when put to the actual test. 

 Liverpool, 111., Feb. 12, 1889. S. A. Shuck. 



FUNCTION OF SALIVA. 



PROF. COOK REPLIES. 



T HAVE found no time before this to reply to the 

 fl[ kind criticism of Mr. S. Corneil, in Gleanings, 

 ^li 1888, p. 931. I did say, in my first criticism of 

 ■*• Cheshire's first volume, that the author's state- 

 ment, that the " principal function of our sali- 

 va is to change starch into 6ugar, is a strange er- 

 ror." I am still of that opinion. I do not believe 

 that any real experimental physiologist will disa- 

 gree with me. I regret if my assertion in com- 

 menting upon Mr. Stachelhausen, that "we secrete 

 saliva almost wholly to moisten our food," makes 

 me appear morbidly sensitive. I really am not so. 

 I am sensitive regarding what I deem erroneous. 

 I have no feeling whatever in this matter, nor 

 do I believe Mr. Corneil has, other than that the 

 truth should prevail. If I said that Mr. Cheshire 

 stated that the sole use of saliva was to digest, I 

 certainly quoted from memory. He says its princi- 

 pal function is to chemically change some parts of 

 our food, and notably starch. Again, I say, " Most 

 English authors, and Foster with the rest, argue that 

 saliva may do a great part of the work." Mr. Cor- 

 neil adds. "What Foster does say is this: 'Its char- 

 acteristic property is that of changing starch into 

 sugar'— no arguing that it may do in this state- 

 ment." Now let me quote Foster, page 184: "The 

 chief purpose served by the saliva in digestion is to 

 moisten the food, and to assist in mastication and 

 deglutition." This is its chief purpose. That its 

 characteristic property is to convert starch into 

 sugar, is true. There is scarcely a better test for 

 saliva. That is why I said, "That saliva will change 

 hydrated or cooked starch into sugar, no one 

 doubts." Now, Mr. Editor, let me briefly add what 

 I believe to be just the truth in the case — what I 

 have taught my students for years, not because I 

 have read it in books, but because I have actually 

 proved it. as do my students, and as Mr. Corneil can 

 with no very great trouble or pains. Saliva of 

 man, the pig, rabbit, guinea-pig, and the rat, is 

 amylolytic; that is, it will digest starch, though far 

 less actively, than does pancreatic juice. The same 

 thing is very feebly true of the saliva of the cat, or 

 horse, and sheep, while that of the dog is not so at 

 all. But this is true of no saliva, except in an alkaline 

 liquid. Thus, if we take cooked starch— only cook- 

 ed or hydrated starch is acted on by any saliva— and 

 simply put it into the mouth for a moment, a trace 

 of sugar will appear. If, then, starch should re- 

 main in the mouth, and be mixed for some time 

 with saliva, it would largely, perhaps wholly, 

 change to sugar; but it stops only to be moistened, 

 and is rushed forward to the stomach, where it is 

 mixed with the acid gastric juice, and then the sali- 

 va is entirely powerless to digest the starch further. 

 It did commence, but stopped before it had more 

 than just begun. But when the starch reaches the 



small intestine, and is mixed with the far more 

 amylolytic pancreatic juice, it is speedily changed 

 to sugar, or. in other words, digested. Now for the 

 proofs : 



First, only cooked starch is ever digested by sali- 

 va. The tropical man, then, who eats his starch 

 raw, must depend wholly on other ferments for 

 this digestion. 



Second, feed a rabbit cooked starch. While we 

 find a trace of sugar in the mouth, as we do in our 

 own case, we find no more, only a mere trace, in 

 the stomach. We see that, while the saliva has this 

 property, it does not have this function. It can do 

 it in an alkaline liquid— it can't in an acid one, like 

 the juices of the stomach. 



Third, while our saliva in the mouth will digest 

 starch, and does very slightly, it will not do this if 

 in a test-tube we add hydrochloric acid -the acid 

 that makes the juices of the stomach acid; so we 

 know that this change is at once cut short as the 

 food enters the stomach. 



Fourth, one element of the pancreatic juice does 

 this work much more energetically than does the 

 saliva, even in the mouth, and so there is no call 

 for such action from the saliva, which is simply to 

 moisten or soften the food, as Bernard's classic ex- 

 periments showed years ago. 



Fifth, the horse and cow eat much starch, and 

 their saliva can't do this work. If the pancreatic 

 juice does this for them, it wonld be logical to sup- 

 pose that it does the same for all animals, especial- 

 ly as direct experiment proves that it can and does. 



Sixth, the salivary glands and the saliva are as 

 marked in dogs, cattle, horses, etc., as in man; but 

 in these animals we know it does not digest starch. 

 This, then, shows that the saliva has a separate 

 function, which we know to be to soften the food. 



I have made many experiments in this field, and 

 have no doubt of the correctness of this position. 

 I have suggested how others may prove the truth 

 of it, as Fehling's test for sugar is simple, and easi- 

 ly applied. 



We see that this matter in physiology is of practi- 

 cal importance. We must eat slowly, that the sali- 

 va may be thoroughly mixed with the food, and the 

 food well cut up, else it will be impossible to digest 

 the food properly when it arrives in the stomach 

 and intestines. Bolting our food is not hygienic. 



Agricultural College, Mich. A. J. Cook. 



HBART'8-EASE HONEY. 



HOW IT GRADES WITH OTHER HONEY IN THE 

 MARKET. 



« SUBSCRIBER of Gleanings writes me as 

 follows: "Please tell through Gleanings 

 how heart's-ease honey grades in Chicago, as 

 compared with white clover, linden, etc. It 

 is considered A 1 here among farmers. . . . 

 Do you think I could do as well with the extractor? 

 Do you think extracted as profitable as comb? Also, 

 what do commission men generally charge per 

 pound? Three short crops can be secured here in 

 one season — first, white clover; second, basswood 

 (by moving bees 3^2 miles); third, heart's-ease." 



The honey gathered from heart's-ease is not as 

 light-colored as that from white clover or linden, 

 and has a somewhat stronger flavor. A well-ripen- 

 ed article, though, when granulated, looks almost 

 as white as clover. It granulates in very fine crys- 



