Talk:Wheat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Plants (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Citizendium Porting    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
Former good article nominee Wheat was a Agriculture, food and drink good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Density of Wheat[edit]

Could we add the density of wheat 720-780kg/m3 average 750kg/m3? I have this in a textbook, how do I cite a paper textbook and where in the article can it be added? (105.229.121.156 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC))


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

Nutrient content of major staple foods[49][edit]

Soyabean data seems to be wrong e.g. FAT, Carbs and protien values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.119.230 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) This table is used in many other pages on Wiki. However this table has many drastic errors especially soyabean. Some one needs to check this table on this page and all other pages fro accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.119.230 (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Where is the source for this claim? "Globally, wheat is the leading source of vegetable protein in human food, having a higher protein content than either maize (corn) or rice, the other major cereals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebramonkey2125 (talkcontribs) 17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

wheat is the third most produced, BEHIND rice, according to the page on cereal and the page on corn. Anyway..i dont know how to cite that, and i dont know who to tell this to, i would just like it to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.8.60 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

also the rice page claims rice is the second largest produced......the cited data on this page is from 2003, thats old...

I don't understand the sentence "With rice, wheat is the world's most favored staple food." What does the 'with rice' mean? Does it mean that the two are combined together as a type of food? Or what? I think someone should add a citation so we can find more information about the claim that this sentence makes. Also, a simple statement that maize is also known as corn would help us Merkins. My yahoo email address is acmefixer. 208.127.16.41 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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 ?


I specified maize>wheat>rice ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugo (talkcontribs) 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a question, really - just kudos. This article is much improved over the last time I read it. Good job! DrKamaila (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Dr. K.

Can wheat be eaten raw? If not why must it be processed in order to be eaten? I think this might be something interesting to add to the article --Frog (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Here is another valid point. Why even use the qualifier of "ceral crop", when you could go as far as writing that wheat is the second largest crop on the planet. Ceral grains are the biggest type of food grown, so it goes without saying that wheat is the second biggest crop period. Its Corn, wheat, rice, barley, then potatoes. (192.197.71.189 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

I think the following discussion should not be in this but instead in health and diet or similar. This wiki is not about how it affects humans, it's about the wheat itself. 208.127.16.41 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why has so little been done ref the problems with wheat as a source of health problems, sensitivities and so on? As one of the worst offenders of problems to health its about time that an in depth study be done on wheats. It appears now that wheat intolerance may be a factor in diabetes, whereas buckwheat may be actually a medicament base for diabetes. As for replacing meat what do the millions of persons with wheat problems do!!!

 Different types of wheat should be marked by law in a product, not just "wheat". Also persons using wheat illegaly to "improve" a product should be held criminally responsible. (Certain wine manufacturers, Bourbon whisky distillers, Flour refiners to name a few.) 
 Sources of additives should be marked as well for example "dextrose from hard wheat" not just "dextrose".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.49.229.132 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 

Why is there nutritional information for wheat germ in the "As a Food" section? Also in the table below the article is comparing the same wheat germ data with whole grain data from other cereals. I would say that most people consume whole wheat or white flour in higher amounts than wheat germ and it would be less misleading to have the whole grain data on the page and in comparison with other grains. Do you agree? Pertinent nutritional data can be found on the USDA nutrient database at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.11.137 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I just ran into this misleading content and came onto discussion page to see if it was being discussed. Given this question and no responses, I've made a relevant change using the USDA figures referenced - hope it's okay. Denny de la Haye (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also relating to the table data, there was some bolding throughout it but the pattern wasn't clear and wasn't explained in the page text. Possibly someone was trying to highlight 'most nutritional' values or something, but it didn't seem consistent for that either. I've moved all bolding to the wheat column for ease of skim-reading, but please do change it back (and add a key/note maybe) if you know what the hell was going on with the original bolding scheme (and my apologies, if there was a consistent scheme that I broke). Denny de la Haye (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wheat diseases[edit]

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)


This is a question: Since it is not easily dissolved in water, what is KCal absorbed by a human body from wheat Bran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.220 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Standardising botanical names for wheat[edit]

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)

Incomprehensible text from 1881 encyclopedia[edit]

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)

statistics on main page[edit]

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)


Special Section For US ?[edit]

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)

Wheat Uses[edit]

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)

US-centric[edit]

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)

Arrival in New World[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

defining fruits and vegetables[edit]

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)
In 1893, the US Supreme Court ruled that even though the tomato is botanically a fruit, once it enters the chain of commerce it becomes, for tax and regulatory purposes, a vegetable. These things are not always determined by "science" (or a specific branch of science such as botany) when there are overriding considerations. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is cracked wheat?[edit]

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)

Wheat as a DECENT meat replacement[edit]

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).

Reference[edit]

[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)

Allergen[edit]

No mention of it as an allergen. Pretty important as it is one of the major ones in populations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wamatt (talkcontribs) 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

GA Review[edit]

Uncited sections are not a good thing.--Rmky87 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wheat as a symbol[edit]

Any info on wheat as a symbol, e.g. in artwork or on national coats of arms and other national insignia? --71.112.96.240 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

Footnote 2 has no link. Footnotes 19 and 20 link properly but are not written correctly. 19 is listed as a repeat of 1, but it is a repeat of 2, and 20 is listed as a repeat of 2, when I cannot find it in the footnotes. I think 20 should be "Wheat diseases in Missouri..." Abee60 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 2 now linked. Don't know how to get rid of surplus brackets. Help? Wugo 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe all footnotes are now correct. Please verify. Wugo 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Corn vs. Grain[edit]

Corn (from the Oxford English Dictionary): 3. a. collective sing. The seed of the cereal or farinaceous plants as a produce of agriculture; grain. As a general term the word includes all the cereals, wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, rice, etc., and, with qualification (as black corn, pulse corn), is extended to leguminous plants, as pease, beans, etc., cultivated for food. Locally, the word, when not otherwise qualified, is often understood to denote that kind of cereal which is the leading crop of the district; hence in the greater part of England ‘corn’ is = wheat, in North Britain and Ireland = oats; in the U.S. the word, as short for Indian corn, is restricted to maize (see 5). 5. a. orig. U.S. Maize or Indian corn, Zea Mays; applied both to the separated seeds, and to the growing or reaped crop. corn on the cob: green maize suitable for boiling or roasting; maize cooked and eaten on the cob. Wheat, rye, barley, oats, etc. are in U.S. called collectively grain. Corn- in combinations, in American usage, must therefore be understood to mean maize, whereas in English usage it may mean any cereal; e.g. a cornfield in England is a field of any cereal that is grown in the country, in U.S. one of maize.

In the U.S. cereals are "grain", in the British Isles they're "corn". Stateside, only maize is corn. If the distinction must be made in the article, it should be clearly stated, not limited to declaring " In England, wheat is corn." Wugo (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Omar[edit]

This is a type of wheat not very popular anymore, but can someone speak authoritatively on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

calories in 100grams of wheat & bushel/kg/lb per acre[edit]

"100 grams of hard red winter wheat contain about 12.6 grams of protein, 1.5 grams of total fat, 71 grams of carbohydrate (by difference), 12.2 grams of dietary fiber, and 3.2 mg of iron (17% of the daily requirement); the same weight of hard red spring wheat contains about 15.4 grams of protein, 1.9 grams of total fat, 68 grams of carbohydrate (by difference), 12.2 grams of dietary fiber, and 3.6 mg of iron (20% of the daily requirement).[26]

Gluten, a protein found in wheat (and other Triticeae), cannot be tolerated by people with celiac disease (an autoimmune disorder in ~1% of Indo-European populations)."

Calculations probably wouldn't be too difficult... Anyone know how many calories in 100 grams of hard red winter wheat?

Also, on average how many lb/bushel/kg per acre/unit area is averaged? Might be interesting...--Emesee (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't think the figure of energy (1419) is correct or even close. i looked at the referred source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quatso (talkcontribs) 12:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

if the link doesn't work, google to Full Report - Nutrient data for 20076, Wheat, durum; also check Statistics Report for durum wheat, on USDA's Nutrient Data Library for inter-sample variance and population data
Wiki guidelines on sources can be studied on WP:VNT. If you believe another source is more accurate and verifiable, you must identify your source and persuade other wiki contributors why that it is more reliable than stats posted by the United States Dept of Agriculture. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
While I was updating the nutritional value template, I was able to identify that the figures used in the Nutrient content of major staple foods table were those for Wheat, durum. I would have used those in the nutrition box, but I couldn't resolve the source for the figure of fiber 10.7 g. Where did that figure come from? Chango369w (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

you guys are right. i was confusing with calories. sorry. (if it's better to delete my comment please do)Quatso (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical production stats[edit]

The table sourced to fao.org in Wheat#Economics, gives data for all the years going back to 1961. Some more of that data/source could be usefully extracted here, as a table or graph perhaps. (Just a note.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

asdadssdasadsadas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.2.157 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the measure used for wheat when buying/selling on the markets and what is the current price of wheat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.213.92 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

what is the planting rate per acer ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.133.229 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ug99[edit]

Since there are an epedemic(africa,asia,middle east) with ug99 right now(09) that potentially can spread and treat the overall production - wouldnt it be a good thing to mention it? (i know deseases are moved to ther own artikel, but still) - maby just briefly (i dont know enough to write it) I know sceintists have made a new ug99-resistent weat, but I've heard there are old resistent types also, so maby they could be mentiont? - i would find that interesting - Luise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.173.177 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 wheat stats[edit]

There does not seem much point in having this table in the article as it already has 2007 stats. So I have moved it here.

Top Ten Wheat Exporters — 2004 (million metric ton)
 United States 31.6
 Australia 18.5
 Canada 15.1
 France 14.9
 Argentina 10.0
 Germany 3.9
 Russia 4.7
 United Kingdom 2.5
 Kazakhstan 2.4
 India 2.0
World Total 105.5
Source: UN Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO)[1]

Mark Nesbitt (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Thresh Free Wheat[edit]

This more primitive morphology consists of toughened glumes that tightly enclose the grains, and (in domesticated wheats) a semi-brittle rachis that breaks easily on threshing.

To my observation, what is so primitive about hiding the most precious part, it's treasure to mankind is thought of as uselessly outdated and protection against bacterial, virus, and other sorts of programmed defenses.....is being perceived with the agenda of modern technological prowess. To step out from neutral observation and a bit uptight, but the entire section insinuates modern wheat as superior, whereas man's health has deteriorated at or faster than the pace of domestication. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I think primitive is being used here in the evolutionary sense, as the hulled form is that present in the wild ancestor. Will see if this can be made clearer in the text. Mark Nesbitt (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why no Marquis Wheat?[edit]

Considering the importance that the innovation of Marquis wheat brings, why is there no article or other mention of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.8.20 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic Price Rise - Commercial Use[edit]

A paragraph in the section on Commercial Use identifies the dramatic price rise of 2007 and lists all the usual suspects for reasons. The article "The Food Bubble" in the July 2010 issue of Harpers Magazine suggests the root cause may have actually been an inadvertent effect of "investing" in a new financial instrument, and that although the usual suspect reasons made the situation even worse they did not originally cause it. While certainly not mainstream nor proven (and perhaps even bordering on bizarre), it seems to me this alternative should at least be mentioned, and hopefully investigated thoroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.182.194 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading something about the increased use of corn (maize) for ethanol. The price of corn went up, so agribusiness (farmers) planted more corn and less wheat, thus causing the supply of wheat to diminish. 208.127.16.41 (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

the photo of 1943 wheat says baled and stacked wheat. Should it not be-sheaved and stooked?216.123.177.82 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done(Moved to bottom).Thank you for the correction. --Banana (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shock and wheat as symbol[edit]

Nothing about shock of wheat? The symbolism of the shock and so on... --194.144.0.162 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit to intro paragraph[edit]

Before my edit, the information in the intro was organized as follows:

  1. "Wheat" refers to species of the genus Triticum.
  2. Wheat is a grass.
  3. Wheat originated in the Fertile Crescent region.
  4. Wheat is cultivated worldwide (for unknown reasons).
  5. 607 million tons of wheat were produced in 2007 (again for unknown reasons).
  6. Wheat is the third-most produced cereal grain in the world.
  7. Etc.

This is not a logical order for the information. If I didn't know anything about wheat before reading this article, I would have to read to the end of the second sentence before I grasp the most important meaning of wheat: as a cereal grain. Several points from the first two sentences do not make sense unless you know that wheat is cultivated as a grain. Therefore, I have modified the introduction to present the information as follows:

  1. "Wheat" refers to species of the genus Triticum.
  2. Wheat is a cereal grain (and hence a type of grass).
  3. Wheat originated in the Fertile Crescent region.
  4. Wheat is cultivated worldwide (the implication is that is cultivated for use as a grain).
  5. 607 million tons of wheat were produced in 2007.
  6. Wheat is the third-most produced cereal grain in the world.
  7. Etc.

I think this version offers more clarity to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Augurar (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of wheat to other major staple foods[edit]

This table includes a wheat germ column, but wheat germ is not a staple food. This same table, or parts of it, has been copied into several articles (see my contribs for some others I tagged). I suggest that all the data be verified and then make the table into a separate page which can be transcluded into this and the other articles. Sparkie82 (tc) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

processing[edit]

I came to this page looking for how the chaf, bran, germ, semolina and whatever else are separated in an industrial process, and also historically. I didn't find it. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Spp.[edit]

In the lead, we see "Wheat (Triticum spp.)[1] is a cereal grain, originally from the Levant region of the Near East and Ethiopian Highlands, but now cultivated worldwide." Most readers will not recognize "spp.", which has its own article. I plan to wikilink "spp." to its article (actually, the Species article, to which Spp. redirects) unless there are objections. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cultivation Cycles[edit]

I don't see in the article any substantial explanation of the planting/harvesting cycles for wheat generally, nor any comparison of the cycles for spring and winter wheats. A few questions readily come to mind. Can the same plot of land grow two crops per year? When are the two kinds planted and harvested? If there is crop rotation, does that mean rotation over years or rotation within a year? It would seem that these and similar basic questions should get some serious treatment in the Agronomy section.CountMacula (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Better model of a wheat grain[edit]

Weizenkorn.png

you should translate the file and replace the photo in the article--92.193.85.235 (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And more detail on what parts are used for what. That's what I came here for and I still don't know.--203.178.91.70 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Style, copyright, and (possibly) dubious source?[edit]

There is a section that currently states:

"However, the ever growing world population will certainly make it necessary to increase wheat production, especially if meat consumption grows in the developing countries, too. The reason for the latter is that to produce more meat more fodder is needed, and as a consequence wheat self-sufficiency level of the countries will go under changes. If the human society once reaches such a high level of civilization that ensuring the well-being of few people does not endanger the life of others, then intensification of wheat production and hence establishing food security become an utmost important issue for everybody. And even if the current level of consumption is theoretically sustainable, there is another serious problem that we have to face: today people are dying of hunger in the world even apart from this problem. If we go beyond looking at the average consumption level on the global scale, we will face immense differences among the level of consumption in the different regions of the globe. There is a well known howling discrepancy between the developed and the developing world: namely, there is excess and at the same time wasting of food in the so-called modern societies, and on the other hand lack or undersupply of food in the poorer countries. People are suffering from overweight and its consequent illnesses in the developed world and on the other part of the world people are suffering from lack of food, from undernourishment and its consequent illnesses."[58]

The passage is taken verbatim from http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/6/3/2012/2012060367809689.pdf The style seems too argumentative to be appropriate, and I'm not sure we are supposed to directly quote such large passages. Additionally (and possibly more importantly), DavidPublishing seems to be a dubious source: http://collegemisery.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/scam-warning-from-chrryblstr.html https://plus.google.com/114239303202565211988/posts/7w26rxtAEDz#114239303202565211988/posts/7w26rxtAEDz (a colleague ws solicited by them, and I came to this page as a result of trying to investigate them). Iapetus (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that passage.CountMacula (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Black sea region[edit]

Kazakhstan is quite far from the Black Sea. Maybe Black and Caspian Sea region is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.89.41 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA[edit]

Fwiw, the usage of the page began with BP, but BCE was established by this edit and should kindly be maintained. — LlywelynII 14:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The last half of Health Concerns is entirely personal opinion[edit]

"Wheat is a root cause of obesity.[57] Gluten exorphins are opioid peptides which bind to opiate receptors in the brain causing pleasure and acting as an appetite stimulant and withdrawal symptoms.[58] Combined with a high glycemic index wheat promotes obesity and some diseases. Also, the United States government subsidizes wheat production making it unnaturally inexpensive thus more available. Also, gluten is an inflammatory agent and inflammation is a "cornerstone"[58] of brain disorders."

A Huffington Post article and a private book on dieting are not appropriate sources for such a broad claim. It needs to be either separated from personal opinion by directly citing the opinions' sources rather than the opinion itself. If that cannot be done, this assertion needs to be removed. 68.126.251.195 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Jenkins

I agree and thank you for bringing this up. I was about to say the same thing when I read that. I doubt a Huffington Post blog is a reliable enough to be authoritative enough to say an unbelievably strong statement that wheat is the root cause of obesity. Gizza (t)(c) 03:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I think we can fix this by removing the opinion from the facts.
It is true that "[Wheat has] a high glycemic index, which promotes obesity and some diseases. " As does any other food with a high glycemic index. That shouldn't need any citing. Wheat has a higher index than sugar. Diabetics know that very well.
As for the comment relating to the studies showing a link between Wheat and brain disorders, if you google-around there are many studies to see. You'll also find facts about how doctors successfully treat patients with brain disorders such as ADHD, Schizophrenia, Autism, Epilepsy, etc. by prescribing not drugs but Wheat and Glutein free diets. Studies show that a high glutin & glycemic diet harms mental ability of people. They tested people's mental acuity on different diets. Note, these patients in the studies didn't have Celiac Disease.
Here are some links to the studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8598704 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787912 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2000.tb00087.x/pdf http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/5/1013.full http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/74/9/1221.full
So we can edit it to something like this. What do you think?
"Wheat has a high glycemic index which promotes obesity and some diseases such as Diabetes. Also, gluten has been found by multiple studies[99] to be negatively related to certain brain disorders."
Mattdruid (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What does this percent number mean?[edit]

http://bayimg.com/haoPMAAFf

3.985 mg = 190%
29 mg = 3%

How is that possible?

84.234.60.182 (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The footnote on the table says the percentages refer to Dietary Reference Intake. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a word about the man who discover the wild emmer...[edit]

109.64.141.206 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

wtf[edit]

There are a few missing parts to this story. One is the fortification of flour with various chemicals including folic acid. Two is the mixing of the flour with preservatives. Three is the separation of the three basic parts of wheat, starch, fiber and wheat germ during grinding. Four is the bleaching of the flour to make it white. While the wheat germ is responsible for much of the nutritional value of wheat it also goes bad with time and causes the flour to become rancid. The result is that little of the wheat germ is present in the finished product. Most of what is sold as commercial flour ( or commercial white flour) is starch. Whole wheat flour has some added fiber and (presumably) is back to the constituency of the original flour.

Recently there has been a increasing number of of people who wish to avoid the added chemicals and preservatives and do not want to loose the beneficial effects of wheat germ. Their approach is to buy wheat berries and grind them as needed and bake with fresh ground flour with no chemicals. The resulting bread is ( they say) far superior to commercial bread. Arydberg (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Key Statistics of Food and Agriculture External Trade - Exports: Countries By Commodity, Wheat