|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cereal article.|
|Cereal has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Title
- 2 Production
- 3 First word of article
- 4 chandler?
- 5 Order of Cereals
- 6 Linseed
- 7 Problems with Grains
- 8 Cerealicious
- 9 Cerealicious on See also
- 10 Cereal (Canada)
- 11 Amaranth
- 12 Proposal--Grain Crops
- 13 Dramatic Production Increases
- 14 Water Shortages
- 15 Vandalism
- 16 Nutritional facts
- 17 Requested move
- 18 History
- 19 Perennial grains
- 20 File:Various grains.jpg to appear as POTD
"Grain" is what grows on plants. "Cereal" is what gets poured into breakfast bowls.
(I am expecting AV, proponent of "'correct' is 'what people actually use'", to leap to my defense here. :-) )
- Well I too speak American English, but I chose to make cereal the name of the entry based on an informal survey of written usage (academic and statistical), where "cereal" seems to predominate. Also this is established usage on Wikipedia: the CIA World Factbook stat sheets that have been copied by the dozens into country entries all refer to "cereals" not "grain".
- For what it's worth, my US English dictionary gives grassy seed crops as the primary definition of "cereal" and defines "grain" as small seeds, not necessarily of grasses.
- Of course there is room for debate here ;-).
- I've revised the article to include some definitions and breakfast cereal. Hopefully that makes the situation clear.
- -- hajhouse
I think that the title should be CEREALS (plural) as it is a collective noun. This would also solve the breakfast debate to some extent.
- This makes sense, +1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Also the entry about millet needs revision as it is still the staple food of millions of people in Africa and Asia and grown on millions of hectares. In the USA the use is mainly for animal feed.
Moving this comment here from the article page:
- (FIXME: FAO productions statictics to back this is would be nice. Anyone know if these may be had on the web and what theit copyright terms are?......Data is not copyrightable BTW. See copyright) -- Zoe
- Here's some data from FAO for the year 2004:
|crop||world production (metric tons)|
|green corn (maize)||8,826,666|
- Source: FAOSTAT database, which provides stats based on metric tonnage.
FAO's FACTOIDS section also provides some brief stats based on energy.
I'm afraid I'm a little too lazy to decide what to do about the grains for which FAO doesn't provide data, so I'll leave it to whomever else to reorder the list in the article. --22.214.171.124 03:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Source: FAOSTAT database, which provides stats based on metric tonnage.
- The comments in the table probably need to be clarified: If maize has the largest production amount and is grown in both temperate and tropical lands, how can wheat be "The primary cereal of temperate regions" and rice be "The primary cereal of tropical regions"?
I'm not sure my last note got through so forgive the potential duplication>
I was trying to explain grain to my African friend: she knew sweetcorn, wheat and rice, but not barley, rye, millet, or some of the others. Photos attached to your desctiptions (as with corn) would be very beneficial!! judomom
ERROR IN PRODUCTION TABLE UNITS
The headings at the top of the table showed the units of measure for the three production years (2006, 2005 and 1961) to be "Mt". That is an error so I have changed them to their proper abbreviation, "t". The abbreviation "Mt" stands for Megatonne, and NOT for "metric tonne", as must have been originally suppossed . In other words, when viewing the data in the table, the 2006 world Maize production is currently shown as 695 million metric tonnes, not the 695 million-million metric tonnes, the table previously showed . For confirmation regarding the proper abbreviations to use, click on the link for "metric tonne" at the top of the "2006" column. Boot (talk)
The value given for barley production in 1961 (7277) seems to be far too high, by perhaps a factor of 100, relative to the other data and the trends over time.
First word of article
The article begins "Wheat crops are". shouldn't that be "Cereal crops are"?
And a merchant of corn was in Britain called a chandler
Was this common usage? I checked the Oxford English Dictionary and there was no mention of it. The primary usage was a candle maker, the second an officer responsible for the supply of candles, the third was a retailer of supplies for a particular purpose. I have heard of a fishing business wholesale supplier being called a chandler. -- WormRunner | Talk 17:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Partially answering my own question: It seems that chandler is used in combination as "corn chandler" "tallow chandler" "ship's chandler" but I do not find chandler used alone as a corn merchant. Also, the use of chandler being a specialized merchant is american as well as british, as is the candle-maker usage. In other words, the statement in the whole is misleading. -- WormRunner | Talk 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Cereal crops are mostly grasses cultivated for their edible seeds (actually a fruit called a caryopsis). Cereal grains are grown in greater quantities worldwide than any other type of crop and provides more food energy to the human race than any other crop. In some developing nations, cereal grains constitute practically the entire diet of common folk. In developed nations, cereal consumption is more moderate but still substantial. The word cereal has its origin in the Roman goddess of grain, Ceres. Staple food grains are traditionally called corn in Britain, though that word became specified for maize in the United States. And a merchant of corn was in Britain called a chandler, which in the United States is an obsolete word for someone who sells candles.
Oats, barley, and some products made from them.
Order of Cereals
Why does the order given in "approximate order of greatest annual production" seem to be contradicted by the Rice, Wheat and Maize articles? Or am I confused by a linguistic thing?
126.96.36.199 21:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous editor asked: Is Linseed plant a cereal ?
Problems with Grains
Shouldn't there be a section that discusses the problems with grains as a food? For instance, brain disorders such as autism are the result of having a damaged digestive system, which is caused by certain properties of grains. I'm currently on a diet that restricts any grain or sugar or starch due to my having a rather disorganized brain. Can't there be a section here that discusses these things? Scorpionman 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC) oke
- There's no solid proof that personality syndromes are cause by environmental factors, and much of the evidence we do have points towards hereditary causes in most cases. This is a controversial topic, and isn't particular to just grains themselves. It's best listed under its own article or as a subsection of another article relating to mental disorders. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seems that way to me, too. Waitak 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to agree and remove the link, and add a little detail to the link in the "See Also" section. 184.108.40.206 01:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing it from the dablink. My bad. Berserkerz Crit 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Cerealicious on See also
Please do not remove the link because it is a legitimate article properly placed there by the editors above because of its relevance. Discuss here if and why you would remove it (addressed to Waitak). Berserkerz Crit 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- The reason why Cerealicious keeps getting removed is that it has nothing to do with the subject of the article! This article isn't about breakfast cereal. It's about parts of certain plants that share certain characteristics. I don't question that Cerealicious is a legitimate article, and it'd make a fine addition to Breakfast cereal, but unless you can show what the relationship is between that article and the subject of this one, it doesn't belong here, sorry. Tell us what you believe the relevance to be, if you disagree! Waitak 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Took you long enough to reply hehe. Yeah yeah I got it after you removed it for the 2nd time, seeing the logic of the removal myself. Continue editing good. =) Berserkerz Crit 11:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm searching for the Canadian town Cereal. Maybe it's smart to make another page with disambugations.
On certain wikipedia pages, amaranth is listed as a cereal grain (e.g. "people around the world value amaranths as leaf vegetables, cereals and ornamentals." taken from: Amaranth, see also: Grain amaranth), but on other pages (Pseudocereal) it says that amaranth is not a true cereal because it is not a grass. This inconsistency should be corrected. I'm no botanist, but amaranth certainly doesn't look like a grass, and other webpages (chetday.com and waltonfeed.com) also list it as an herb or pseudocereal.--Knobula (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to editing and talk pages, so please forgive any breaches of etiquette or process... I am a botanist and I work with grain crops. To bring this topic closer to the conventions used in agronomy, I suggest the following:
1. Rename the page Cereal and Pseudocereal Crops. This addresses the concerns raised above about cereal vs cereals and cereal grains vs. breakfast cereals.
2. Create a new page called Grain Crops. There are many grains that are not cereals...but all cereals are grains. Major subcategories of grains include Cereal& Pseudocereal Crops (grown mainly for starch), Oilseed Crops (grown mainly for oil), Pulse Crops (grown mainly for protein). Each of these should have its own page.
3. A minor thing: it sounds unnatural, but in the list of major cereals, "oats" should be "oat." "Millets" is correct because there are several kinds. Only one kind of oat is being listed here and grammatically, oat is the correct singular form of the word.
Dramatic Production Increases
Under Cereals, Plant Hybrids, and Wheat there is little discussion of the importance of the near tripling of worldwide corn, wheat, and rice production and the near doubling of barley--how was this accomplished in the last forty years? Related to this absence is the dearth of referrals to agricultural colleges/universities that are front and center relating to not only production increases, but to the greatest efficiencies in water use and soil conservation. Also, some mention of the movement toward to perennial hybrids in grain production is an important element for inclusion (dramatic reductions in motor fuel use and in soil erosion). Homebuilding (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Do the two paragraphs talking about water shortages really add anything to a page about cereals?
The article mentions that water shortages are one cause of global grain problems -- ok, but what are some of the others? What do family planning and desalination have to do with the rest of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The whole section is only peripherally relevant to cereal; it's about the Food price crisis, and should be in that article instead. This is a formal proposal of the merger. Tevildo (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like someone decided to vandalize a page on... cereal:
- "Teff, popular in Ethiopia steve etcell is also a pube head in ethiopia helping collect little black kids for the harvest of scarcley owned products but scarcely known elsewhere."
Many people are under the mistaken impression that all grains are so completely deficient in lysine that they cannot sustain life as the only source of protein. This is not true. In particular, wheat, oats, barley, quinoa, among others, all contain enough lysine to sustain life. So you can live on wheat alone as a source of protein (you'd need something else for vitamin C, as well as some of the other vitamins and minerals). If you eat nothing but wheat as a source of protein, then some of the other amino acids, which are abundant relative to lysine, will be converted to glucose by the liver and burned for energy. Similarly, some legumes (soybeans) contain enough of all the amino acids that it is possible to sustain life eating nothing but those legumes.
This is an important point, because the notion of food balancing makes vegetarianism seem much more complicated and dangerous than it really is.
For reference, go read any of the pages on cereals. I examined the page on oats, for example, and it currently says oat protein is nearly equivalent to soy protein and that soy protein is nearly equivalent to animal protein. In other words, the existing Wikipedia article on oats confirms that you can meet all your protein requirements eating nothing but oats. There is no problem of lysine deficiency. Most of my diet consists of oats, I might add.
The new section on history could really use a write-up of Nikolai Vavilov's theories and subsequent work, if anyone is able to write such a section. An overview can be found here. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Since a few decades, there has also been increasing intrest in perennial wheat, rice, ... plants. This, due to advantages in regards to erosion control, reduced need in fertiliser, ... Since then, the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas has been able to create a few cultivars that still manage to produce a fairly good cropyield.
File:Various grains.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Various grains.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 6, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
|Picture of the day|
A cereal is a grass cultivated for the edible components of its grain, composed of the endosperm, germ, and bran. In their natural form (as in whole grain), they are a rich source of vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and protein, but when refined the remaining endosperm is mostly carbohydrate.