Talk:Wheat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Wheat as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French or Spanish language Wikipedias.
Wheat is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Questions

Shouldn't the cultivars come after history? Somehow it looks really bad this way especially when the very first thing you read is a link with no title. M

OK, I'll ask the obvious question: if wheat is "the second-largest cereal crop, tied with maize", which is the largest ? If the article really means that wheat ties with maize as the largest cereal crop, shouldn't it say that ? Or if there's another crop ( rye ? barley ? ), wouldn't it be helpful to say what it is ? And if there is another crop, wouldn't that put rice into fourth place, not third ?

[edit] Wheat diseases

I've moved this quite long list of disease-causing organisms to a new page, Wheat diseases. It thus forms part of a group of pages that currently includes Wheat taxonomy and could later include Wheat evolution and Wheat breeding. All these are quite technical subjects that take space to expound. I guess we'd like the Wheat page to be more an overview, and to concentrate more on production and use, two aspects that need more work (and will take more space). The remaining stub on disease in Wheat needs lengthening to make a paragraph.Mark Nesbitt 13:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardising botanical names for wheat

The Triticum problem Does anyone have any thoughts on how we can tidy up the botanical (Latin) names used for species in this article? There are several different schemes for wheat taxonomy (see [1]) and the key requirement is that any one account should stick to one scheme. The existing wheat page starts with a species list from ITIS which follows the traditional naming scheme, as used widely in trade and by grass taxonomists: T. aestivum, T. aethiopicum, T. araraticum, T. boeoticum, T. carthlicum, T. compactum, T. dicoccon, T. durum, T. ispahanicum, T. karamyschevii, T. militinae, T. monococcum, T. polonicum, T. spelta, T. timopheevii, T. trunciale, T. turanicum, T. turgidum, T. urartu, T. vavilovii, T. zhukovskyi. The ITIS list is not complete (omits T. dicoccoides, for example), but is basically sound and could be fixed.

The wheat page in part uses these ITIS names, but also uses Triticum turgidum dicoccoides (= T. dicoccoides in ITIS scheme) and T. turgidum dicoccum (= T. dicoccum in ITIS). Both these names appear to be derived from something like van Slageren's 1994 classification[2], but with epiphet ranks (e.g. subspecies) omitted and authors incorrectly cited. To consistently follow a van Slageren-type classification, the wheat article would need to be changed so that names such as T. monococcum are converted to T. monococcum ssp. monococcum, T. spelta to T. aestivum ssp. spelta, etc.

The Aegilops problem Another problem is that the closely related goat-grasses (Aegilops genus) are subsumed within Triticum in the article: Triticum speltoides (= Ae. speltoides) Triticum tripsacoides (= Ae. mutica) Triticum searsii (= Ae. searsii) Triticum tauschii (= Ae. tauschii)

Both ITIS and Wikipedia recognise Aegilops as a separate genus to Triticum. Virtually all botanists, and the most recent monograph on Aegilops by van Slageren, agree. Looking on Google, "Triticum tauschii" scores 11300 hits, "Aegilops tauschii" scores 17,700 hits.

Solutions? In the case of Aegilops, I suggest general practice which is to refer these species to Aegilops rather than Triticum. The Triticum synonyms could be given in parantheses.

In the case of Triticum, the situation is more complicated as use of different schemes is more widespread. Geneticists tend to "lump" traditional wheat species together and then distinguish them at subspecies level. Taxonomists and field botanists favour the traditional species concept.

I'd suggest adding a new section on wheat taxonomy that explainsthis background, and a table comparing the traditional scheme to one of the better genetic-based schemes, e.g. van Slageren's. It would be made clear that either scheme is equally valid and that each has advantages/disadvantages. Then throughout the article, standardising in favour of the ITIS scheme (which is more compact, e.g. T. monococcum rather than T. monococcum subsp. monococcum) and makes the distinction between wild and domesticated wheats clearer.

Mark --Mark Nesbitt 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Have added a page on wheat taxonomy and have updated the taxobox and various wheat pages so the taxonomy is all consistent. Mark Nesbitt 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomprehensible text from 1881 encyclopedia

Can anyone understand the text from the 188 encyclopedia? If so, please revise it into plain english. I was trying to add metric equivalents to the acre values but I cannot understand the meaning of:

  • instances were not wanting to show, that an acre of them, with respect to value, exceeded an acre of thick-chaffed wheat, quantity and quality considered, not less than fifty per cent.

Bobblewik  (talk) 14:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Translation:

  • There were plenty of examples showing that an acre of thin-chaffed wheat exceeded the value of an acre of thick-chaffed wheat by at least 50% (taking into account both quantity and quality).

WormRunner | Talk 17:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] statistics on main page

Someone placed a merge tag on International wheat production statistics suggesting it be merged into Wheat. I was the original creator of the stats page so I'll give my reasoning for making it another page. The stats page is a place that can be added to over time as each year passes. It is a place to keep historical data but not something most people would want to read on the main page. The old stats would clutter it up.

By the way, does anyone know where the anonymous poster found the 2004 stats currently listed? [3] Liblamb 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that stats such as these are best on separate pages. Hopefully the data can be extended to prior years.

Seems time to remove the Merge tag so I have done so. Mark Nesbitt 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Special Section For US ?

Why is there a special section on "wheat in US" in the article. US is neither the biggest producer not biggest consumer pf wheat. Start a new page on "wheat in US".

Maybe best on this page until it is more than a stub, then can spin off as new page.Mark Nesbitt 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
There is no Wiki policy for "Issue" in "Coutnry"? Should each Country has a separate Article? Or all countries are sections in one Article? --Connection 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It's there because somebody took the time to write it. If we end up with signficant discussion of the situation in other geographic areas, we can deal with size problems when necessary. What's so difficult about that? Gene Nygaard 15:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I surely think that this section does not belong here. Otherwise there could also be reason for a section "Wheat in Great Britain", "Wheat in Ireland" .. all the way to "Wheat in Trinidad & Tobango"... :-) --Sascha.leib 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'd prefer to note an inaccuracy here rather than just go ahead and edit the article content. If the regular contributors agree with my statements then I'd be happy to make the changes to the article text. The text in question is "Hard wheats are harder to process and red wheats may need bleaching. Therefore, soft and white wheats usually command higher prices than hard and red wheats on the commodities market." The second sentence is not entirely correct. Soft white wheat does command a high price but soft red wheat does not, under normal circumstances, command a higher price than hard red winter or hard red spring. Its all about the protein levels. Just removing the and between soft and white in the second sentence would be a good start. As for the difficulty of processing hard versus soft wheat, I'm not certain if this is true but I will look into it. --S. O'Toole 13:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheat Uses

Wheat consumption takes many forms. See for example Parched grain; the French Article "consommé cru puis grillé ou cuit sous forme de bouillie puis de galettes sèches..."; or “Wheat berries (unprocessed seed) are also grown to make wheat grass juice.” found at [[4]]. Shouldn't all this be reflected in this Article? This important (ie, relevant) on two grounds. 1. It reflects on ethnobotany; 2. It reflects on Trade of Wheat. --Connection 01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn't anything "missing" from this article. If you can show some real encyclopedic value, put it in. I seriously doubt it has any significant impact on trade of wheat—maybe you'd like to try to extract some juice from the ripe berries, the only grain that will keep well enough to be involved in international trade, and tell us how well that works. Gene Nygaard 15:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US-centric

Why a special section on US wheat? This is makes the article very US-centric.

A brief overview of the different kinds of wheat used around the world would be a great addition (I actually came to this page to find out about French wheat and why it is different to Canadian/US wheat), but anything more than that needs to be in a separate article. I suggest an article on North American wheat would be more appropriate than one on US wheat because Canadian wheat growing isn't so very different (as far as I know). Ireneshusband 00:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though the article gives facts of many countries, there is already too mutch written about the US. The most popular wheats in the US is listed, but not of China or another country. Shouldn't there rather be a special article and photos of wheat production in China, since it's the world's biggest producer. The should also be reasons given for the decreace in China's wheat production in recent years. User:Piet Retief 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrival in New World

I believe it is appropriate to add in the approximate time when wheat arrived in the New World. This could be easily added to the "History" section in the sentence starting with "By 5,000 years ago..." In another Wikipedia article, wheat is said to have arrived with the Spanish in the 16th century. If there are no objections, I will edit this article to include something along those lines with the appropriate citation and source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BZanetti (talk • contribs) 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] defining fruits and vegetables

Could we get a bit more scientific with encyclodic definitions of fruits and vegetables. Tomatoe is technically a fruit even though in popular (US) culture it is referred to as a vegetable. And so what of wheat? One person in the log mentioned it is closer to a fruit then a vegetable and since corn/maize is related to wheat this would clearly place corn/maize into the fruit category and not the vegetable of popular culture. This is not a "drunken" person's post or whatever. I cannot vouch for the other users with one liners. I thought there was "no such thing as a dumb question". One should not assume. Perhaps the people in charge of streamlining the talk section for wheat are not teachers. (not that I expected them to be) Personally I'm looking for clearer definitions without delving straight into the genome and wikipedia/users so far have been unable to help in this area. User:Shink 15:14, 18 DEC 2006 (UTC)

Things are categorized for different purposes. For one purpose a thing will go in one category while for another purpose it will go in a different category. The distinguishing of fruit from vegetable is one made for the purpose of quickly determining if one is eating properly so the nutritional qualities are used to assign categories: vegetables like celery versus fruits like tomatoes and apples versus grains like wheat and maize versus dairy like cheese versus meats like pork and beef. Because nuts are nutritionally like meat they are for eating pruposes placed in the meat category while for biology purposes they are obviously not meat like at all. Wheat is in the grain category food-wise. The part of wheat that we eat is the seed of a grass, biologically, and is indeed vegetation. WAS 4.250 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is cracked wheat?

What is cracked wheat?

The main article has a picture captioned "Cracked wheat", but the article has no mention of cracked wheat, let alone a definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.188.24 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I added a "as a food" section to help. Cracked wheat is crushed de-branned uncooked wheat seeds. To a cook it is different from bulgur (cooked cracked wheat) but to the person who eats it they are largely the same since by the time you eat it it is cooked. Sort of the taste difference between precooked and freshly cooked, but even then with modern flash freezing and taste enhancers it can be hard to tell the difference. WAS 4.250 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheat as a DECENT meat replacement

Well, we all know (hopefully those who keep a log which is ofcource much better then any dial-a-result study.) what castrating effects soy has ,

Anyway I just read in local news , that somewhere in Dimona , the 2500 men (some say the healthiest ni the world) community of Ethiopian jews who are all vegan , eat a something called seitan סייטן which is basically textured wheat.. I think I might even go there myself to find out , but if it's true then all the vegans could rejoice that they have a meat replacement that doesn't load their body with estrogens with potency well over a handful of birth control pills.

heres the article: http://food.walla.co.il/?w=/906/1075179 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.22.47 (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reference

[5] may be a starting point for further research to add at least a few sentences to the article. The US section can be moved to a seperate article if this is getting too long Nil Einne 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/e/Talk%7EWheat_6186.html"