Talk:Raisin/Archive 1

Raisin Sugar Data

The nutrition table in the article shows a sugar content of 59g per 100g but the text indicates raisins are 90% sugar by weight (or 90g per 100g). If both are true, I think there should be an explanation. —Preceding comment entered by WH.

I have updated the sugar information with a number of 60%. The 90% number is most definitely out of the ball park. I also removed the claim of half fructose and half glucose and replaced it with "mostly glucose". According to raisins.org (since another source is not cited for this number) raisins are "70% glucose by weight." I am not sure if this is correct since it does not mesh with the USDA numbers of 60% sugar, but it is closer to a factual claim than half and half.

--Ahsile 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't explain why raisins have so much more sugar than the grapes you get the raisins from

It is my understanding that grapes have far less sugar than they would if you turn them into raisins. If so, where does the extra sugar come from? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're doing the comparison per 100g, it's because the raisins are dehydrated. The lack of water increases the yield of sugar per sample. While it's not scientific, I believe that if you rehydrated a raisin and did the comparison you would be close to the grape numbers. Ahsile (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the drying process concentrates all the sugars and thus results in a net weight reduction, it has the same amount of sugar as a regular grape it's size except it lost upto 60% of it's moisture. Markthemac (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

the same happens when u concentrate other fruits, remove the water and only the fiber and sugars are left. Markthemac (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion to grapes

The following quoted text was removed because it cites no verifiable references:

Raisins have been found to be able to revert back into grapes. Spanish scientists (Prof. Lopez et al. 2009), have found through reverse osmosis the rehydration of grapes can be achieved. Done by exploiting Aquaporins in the cells of the grapes and using a sugar with a higher osmotic potential (usually brown sugar) than that of the natural grape's sugars. This Spanish team have been able to revert the raisin back into an edible grape. This proves important in storage of the raisins through bad drought, to later on yield grapes when the vines have given no fruit.

--Gak (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

History

I find it hard to believe Mr. Eisen invented the raisin industry by accidentally drying some grapes given that, for example, the article on the game Snap-Dragon linked herein has quotations mentioning them back around 1810. Possibly he was the first large-scale industrial producer of them or somesuch, but that's not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.224.123 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I don't have time to write a proper history section, but I have removed the bogus history provided. A little research will show that raisins were known at least as far back as the Roman era, and even possibly to the Phoenicians and Egyptians. The stories we were told as children about being left out in the sun accidentally in California are purely marketing. Ahsile 14:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a lot of legend around the history of raisins, sometimes disseminated by industry marketers. One popular brand claims the raisin was invented in California in recent times when one vinter's crop failed and ended in raisins on the vine. Supposedly he marketed them as a "Peruvian delight" and "the rest is history". Vinters do refer to [accidentally] dried grapes on the vine as raisins. Also, a nice bit of history: rehydrated raisins have been used to make cheap wine in cases where fresh grapes were not available. This was a common practice in post-war Germany during the occupation by US soldiers. -chrishibbard7

Dude(ette)s, I came here because I wanted to know where raisins came from. Can't we sort this out? I was eating a few and wanted to know about the ORIGIN OF RAISINS. That should be under history. -Wool,Sheep Have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.155.185 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we dig up the true origin of raisins? Well, I want to not only because I need it for my project, but also because I'm curious. =) PrimroseEverdeen 11:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimroseEverdeen (talk • contribs)

sugar content again

"Raisins range from about 67% to 72% sugars by weight" and "59g per 100g" don't add up. Maybe "67% to 72%" is the total amount of sugar by dry weight?83.255.190.138 (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've just removed:

==Raisin in other languages== *In the [[French]] language, raisin refers to any kind of grape.

I might be wrong about this, in which case do replace it, but English is full of words that mean similar but slightly different things in other languages; that doesn't seem encyclopædic to me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) there is no such machinery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.168.29.69 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Why they don't go off

Does anybody have an idea why raisins don't "go bad" without any preservatives?

Yes, lots of sugar and very little water are self preservative qualities of grapes and other dried fruits. High sugar concentration is toxic for most micro organisms like bacteria so these babies won't easily rot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askewr (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They are also typically treated with sulphur dioxide and/or sulfites to prolong their shelf life.--Ericjs (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sultanas, raisins, currants.

Here in the UK, I can go to any supermarket's home-baking section and buy three generic types of dried grape: raisins, currants and sultanas. Clearly, these three are all distinct from a UK perspective. However, I've seen currants called sultanas, sultanas called raisins, raisins called currants and so on. A clear distinction needs to be made, and a systematic, unambigous listing of what people worldwide are referring to when they say "sultana", "currant" or "raisin" in reference to dried grapes. Some example sources:

• Kew Gardens (UK)
• Fruit reseller (New Zealand)

I don't think that this is due to cultural differences; it's more that they all are so similar to each other that there's not a consistent labelling for them worldwide. It's simply that in the UK there may be an emphasis on correct categorization. I mean, in the supermarkets in the UK there are something like 10 different varieties of sugar (muscovado light/dark, demerara light/dark, etc). In the US there are only 3: sugar, dark brown sugar, and light brown sugar. In Italy they don't differentiate between broccoli and cauliflower; they call both broccoli, which can lead to some confusion. I think the current categorization is fairly accurate, and I recommend against keeping the "worldview" notice. FunnyYetTasty 10:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

195.173.23.111 11:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind your edit, since it is particular to your region, and it is frankly not that important to me. But you are incorrect that a "raisin" is a red grape and "sultana" is a white or green grape. They are both raisins, just like the grapes used to produce both of them are grapes. (Currants are a bit different, but I digress...) Cheers.

The statement " In the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada the word "raisin" is reserved for the dried large dark grape[citation needed], " is incorrect. I've added a tag in case someone can find some source for this, but, in reality, Sultana Bran, for instance, is not filled with anything white. (Or edible, but I digress) 98.248.89.169 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you use American sultana bran as your authority. I've never eaten it, but a visit to any UK supermarket will confirm the claim that you dispute about the types of dried fruit. American usage differs from that in the UK. Please don't impose your usage on the rest of the world. I agree that the word "white" is misleading. UK sultanas used to be a light gold colour, but most now seem to be a light brown. Has Californian Thompson variety displaced the older and larger sultanas? Dbfirs 06:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Until only quite recently I never knew that there were those who use the term raisin to refer to sultanas and currents. So there's your Australian perspective. In Australian English the term raisin does not apply to sultanas and currents. If it is the same in the UK & NZ, then perhaps what we're looking at here is a North American English verses non-North American English. Jimp 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The page as it stands is clearly incorrect from a UK perspective, where currants are small, raisins are dark, and sultanas light and perhaps somewhat sweeter in taste. A picture of a dark raisin would be globally correct I believe. A picture of a light coloured sultana certainly is not. Djp (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that (29 months later) we still have the sultana picture. Can anyone find a picture of raisins (as so called in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and several other places) or should I take a picture myself and upload it to commons? Dbfirs 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This article contained the sentence: "They are called currants outside the USA." They are also often called currants within the USA. I've changed this sentence accordingly.--Ericjs (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. The point we are making is that currants and sultanas are not called raisins outside the USA. It seems ironic that the two pictures at the start of the article on raisins show dried fruit that would not be described as raisins outside the USA. Dbfirs 06:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a picture comparing raisins (as known outside America) with currants ("Zante" in America) to clarify. Dbfirs 11:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Category Raisin

I don't understand why User:NotWith‎ has been removing Category:Dried Fruit in lots of articles and replacing it with Category:Raisin. There might be some logical reason for this, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing something? Dbfirs 16:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The word for "raisin" in various cultures and /or languages

In the list of areas of the world where raisin are produced someone changed India to read "India(Kishmis)". It turns out that Kishmis is either the name for "raisin" in India or may be a style of raisin found there. It does bring up that different cultures may use a different term(s) for raisins (the "dried vine fruit discussion for example) and I'm wondering if that should be included in the article. I know some articles have a section where they have a language code, colon, and then the translation. Unfortunately, I don't know which of the Indian languages uses "Kishmis". Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object as long as it was sourced and had valid information. The last few edits of this sort have only added vague information which, IMO, doesn't add value to the article. Ahsile (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that "In the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia, the word "raisin" is reserved for the dark-coloured dried large grape". Isn't this the standard English language usage, rather than the exception?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Commercial edit..

I don't really feel experienced enough to intervene, but I think someone needs to do some damage control for the "AMAZIN' RAISINS" stuff which has to have been put there by a company person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.91.242 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

The "Nutrition and Health" section also reads like someone from a raising company wrote it. I don't know enough to dispute the health claims but words like "in a balanced diet" and "nutritious snack" are pretty obviously corporate buzzwords. There are also claims of raisins being high in "micronutrients" (what) and flat out false statements that they are rich in vitamins (they're not). I'm going to rewrite it slightly. 204.95.150.205 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)