Jump to content

Talk:Sugarcane/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title and merge?

I've never seen this spelt as a single word before, always as 'sugar cane'; is this a U.S./U.K. thing, or something else? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No-one has responded to my question, and I note that the discussion above uses the form 'sugar cane'. Unless anyone objects, I'll move the article to Sugar cane, and edit the text accordingly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You need to get out more, Mel. Pay attention to the world around you.
  • Google sugarcane 809,000 hits, many of them in professional journals and industry websites.
  • Google "sugar cane" 707,000 hits
Both are correct; the trend is increasingly towards one word. I don't care which is used for the title. Just put sugar cane or sugarcane in the opening paragraph, and help out everyone who might be searching for information about this. Gene Nygaard 23:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you think that Google is the world around us, I think that it's you who should get out more...

Anyway, I don't want to change anything that has two standard uses, even though I've never come across one of them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would just check in the dictionary... I think I need to get out more. @@ i want to know how sugarcane be harvested with help of Self propelled harvestor? pls let me know details of it

Header suggests merging this page with Saccharum officinarum - I think best to keep this (human/commercial/historical issues) separate from the species (biology). Roy Bateman (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE. This article is about multiple different species of the Saccharum genus. The Saccharum officinarum article is just about that specific species. Merging them would mix up genus and species. Genus and species need separate articles. This is the one about the genus. Also, maybe we should take down the template suggesting a merge. It's obvious that an article about a genus and an article about a species should be separate articles and if people understand that I don't think keeping the articles separate could be controversial. --Yetisyny (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Energy Conversion Efficiency

Now to some substantive discussion.

The article states, under "Cultivation" -

"Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual moisture. It is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2 percent of incident solar energy into biomass[citation needed]".

How is the above "2% of incident solar energy" calculated -- and precisely what does it mean ? How does this figure compare with, say, corn (maize) or Photovoltaic Converters (PVs or Solar Cells).

Stop to think : It is the ANNUAL AVERAGE conversion which counts. The bulk of the energy conversion in sugar cane or corn occurs during a relatively short "growing season", while PVs are continuously active for the entire year, and to a high and steady degree in the tropics. 208.63.239.166 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Environmental aspects

I was wondering if we should perhaps add something to the article about the environmental effects of sugarcane production. I was recently in Hawaii, and was surprised by the methods that they used to harvest the sugarcane. The fire not only burns the sugarcane and venomous snakes, but also the plastic used to line the field (to prevent weeds). I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thanks, Shmooshkums (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that right?

I noticed that in the opening paragraph below the table of contents, it says that 200 countries produce sugarcane. Now there aren't 200 countries so to speak, and many are too far north or south to produce sugar cane. Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.68.30 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there is only 195 countries in the world. Since sugarcane is a tropical plant need hot climate, more than 10 countries can be taken from the list. --60.53.49.39 (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Top 10 producers of Sugarcane

Um, I note in this article that is says that Sugarcane is extensively grown in the Caribbean, so then why is the U.S. listed as a top ten producer and places like China. Since when does China grow sugarcane, and why isn't there at least on country in the West Indies listed, after all they do grow most of the worlds sugarcane. This is wrong, it must be updated.Cakechild (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)CakechildCakechild (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nutrients/vitamins?

Does the fresh sugarcane juice have nutrients and vitamins (such as riboflavin)? The article should mention this. Badagnani (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

nutritional value of sugar cane

Id like to make a fresh grass humans can eat with higher nutrient density than the sugar cane 2000 calories per 5Kg Are there varieties with much higher nutrient content as well as a mouth friendly diameter that human beings like

are there actual grass sized sugar canes or sucrose storing grasses —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

All grass contain sugar, have u ever eaten Bamboo shoots? u just don't want to eat sugar cane. bamboo is far healthier to eat. Markthemac (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

When (in the year) is it harvested?

The article states "Sugar cane is cultivated in almost all the world only for some months of the year." Which "some months"? When (seasonally) is sugar cane planted and when is it harvested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.89 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

usually seasonal mid-summer, once every 12 to 24 months depending on the type of plant. Markthemac (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sugar cane juice and its Nutritional content

I'd like to know the languages/countries associated with each variant name. Please correct or add to what I now have. Ganne ka rass and ganna sharbat --> India. Aseer asab --> Egypt. Guarapa, caldo de cana --> Brazil. Guarapo, papelón, caldo de cana --> Spanish-speaking countries. Mosto ==> Italy. Perhaps in the sugarcane article, one should just mention alternative names, and in Sugarcane juice, there can be more linguistic detail.--NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an omission in the yearly production rankings. Guyana (South America) had a production of 273,317 tonnes in 2000 (statistic from the Guyana Sugar Production Corporation (GuySuCo.comn).

I would prefer to have another person verify my information before it is edited into the article - I wouldn't want to edit in incorrect information. Ahspringer (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nutrition Facts on the page has the serving size marked as 28.3 grams, which is an ounce. Is this a really useful serving size to list? Also, it has the sugar content as nearly then entirety of the liquid (which seems plausible, but is that accurate?). - Verstand

22.4%?

"In 2009, an estimated 1,683 million metric tons[3] were produced worldwide which amounts to 22.4% of the total world agricultural production by weight." I doubt it. How did you arrive at that number with that link?98.165.16.149 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Sugar cane exhibit at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum IMG 3352.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sugar cane exhibit at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum IMG 3352.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

biogasse?

Is the word "biogasse" used on purpose in the section about use of bagasse or is it a typo? In the first case, it should be explained, in the second, corrected. 129.247.247.239 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a typo, it's supposed to be bagasse. I fixed it.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sugar is not bleached..........

Get we get a reputable source that says otherwise? Or remove that nonsense please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/white-sugar-vs-raw-sugar.html

"Mill white sugar is the result of sulphur dioxide being introduced to the cane juice before evaporation. It effectively bleaches the mixture." And http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463432/plantation-white-sugar

Kortoso (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally, sugarcane purification requires two stages. Mills extract raw sugar from freshly harvested cane, which is then transported to large refineries for further purification into white sugar in. Mill-white” sugar is sometimes produced immediately after the first stage at sugar-extraction mills, intended for local consumption. Sugar crystals appear naturally in white color during the crystallization process. Sulfur dioxide is added to inhibit the formation of color-inducing molecules as well as to stabilize the sugar juices during evaporation.

This edit is proposed because the current writing misrepresents the purification process of sugar. The term “bleach” implies the use of bleach, which is calcium hypochlorite or hydrogen peroxide, to chemically alter molecular structures that produce color (i.e.chromophores). Sugar does not undergo such bleaching process during extraction. Sugar crystals are naturally white and the addition of sulfur dioxide during evaporation is to prevent the formation of colored compounds. As a matter of fact, sulfur dioxide is the only permitted additive in sugars other than anti-caking agents (CODEX Standards for Sugars).

<ref>Steindl, Roderick (2005) Syrup Clarification for Plantation White Sugar to meet New Quality Standards. In Hogarth, DM, Eds. Proceedings of the XXV Congress of International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, pages pp. 106-116, Guatemala, Guatemala City. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4888/1/4888_1.pdf

Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, CODEX Committee on Food and Additives and Contaiminants. 33rd Session, February 2001. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/meetings/CCFAC/CCFAC33/fa01_07e.pdf

CODEX Standard for Sugars. http://www.codexalimentarius.org/download/standards/338/CXS_212e_u.pdf </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodscience'r'us (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Textbook

There's a section that appears to have been copied verbatim (with citation) from a textbook. Can someone verify whether the book's licensing permits this? Tabatha Dora (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We usually don't allow that. Which section? Thanks for pointing this out. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Second half of #Cane ethanol. Tabatha Dora (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Blackstrap inedible? Not!

Under "Milling" is a claim that blackstrap molasses is inedible. This is patently untrue, because the product is readily available as a food or food supplement - as mentioned in the Blackstrap molasses article. My edit also removes the reference to its use in yeast manufacture (I've only found a statement that most kinds of refined sugars are not generally used to make yeast).Twistlethrop (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Which species of Saccharum make sugar?

Canebrakes

The article states that canebrakes were composed of sugarcane. As I understand it, that's not true; they were composed of species of bamboo in the genus Arundinaria, and sugarcane isn't native to North America. If canebrakes were composed of sugarcane, they must have been planted stands, not naturally occurring. It seems like we need to remove this statement, or clarify it, but I don't know for sure which. — Eru·tuon 00:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

History of sugar cultivation - something's missing

I'd like to know why a discussion of sugarcane cultivation and spread across the Indian subcontinent and the East Indies is given hardly any space in this wikipedia entry compared to the Persians, Greeks, and Arabs "discovering" it and spreading the practice. The origins of sugarcane cultivation in its native lands are not discussed in the History section, either. Yes, it may have been cultivated in New Guinea in 6000 BCE, but sugarcane is also mentioned in the Rig Veda! South and Southeast Asia comprise immense territories -- over which the practice spread -- by people of the region -- and to commence a short summary of cultivation in the initial section with who "discovered" sugarcane cultivation resembles that imperialist/colonialist bias regarding who was responsible for settling the Americas (hint: not white Europeans).

This link does a much better job: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sugar#Early_use_of_sugarcane_in_India

71.233.210.178 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)W. Dust

Why? Because nobody's taken it on themselves to do a better job. Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sugarcane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Useful link. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sugarcane plantation in Mauritius.jpg vs File:Sugarcane plantation in Mauritius (reduced colour saturation).jpg

I uploaded the modified version of the above to Commons and placed it on this page because the colour saturation on the original upload had- quite simply- been increased to blatantly unnatural levels.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion whether this is aesthetically pleasing or not- whether it's "evocative" or whether one thinks it's taken things too far into "lurid" territory (er... that'd be my opinion! :-) )

What I don't think anyone can realistically dispute is that the saturation is way, *way* beyond anything that's plausibly anything like how it appeared in real life or even in-camera.

I'm sure the reduced saturation version might look dull next to the original, but almost anything would- the point is that even if it isn't perfect, it's probably more representative.

Ubcule (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be the provider of both images and can attest to which is representative and which flawed. However, there was no explanation, no easy way to equate you with the uploader account at Commons, nor did "reduced colour saturation" imply that the previous image was overly enhanced, rather than the second unnecessarily reduced (although at higher res the tonal garishness of the first is a bit more evident). Dhtwiki (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I had nothing to do with the original image, which was uploaded by Kingroyos to Commons and credited to Flickr user "Asadbabil". I simply took that image, reduced the saturation and uploaded *that* version under the new filename.
I can't "attest" to anything regarding the source beyond its immediate appearance, but I *can* say without doubt that the saturation of the original upload was so incredibly bright that it was exceptionally unlikely that even the original photo- let alone the actual scene- looked like that. Even the clouds are starting to look overtly green and yellow (i.e. what I'm assuming was a minor colour cast in the original has been massively increased by the process).
The reduced saturation version- well, of course, I can't guarantee it's an exact match to the real thing- but it's certainly far more likely to be representative of it.
Anyway, I didn't mean to make a big deal of it here, I was simply trying to explain why I felt the reduced saturation version was more appropriate, regardless of personal preference.
Ubcule (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sugarcane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Talk:Sugarcane/Comments I am giving this a generous B-Class rating mosting due to this article's very broad scope and well written pros. However, it needs many more references. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 20:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the following claim in the Sugarcane#History section:
"It is theorized that sugarcane was first domesticated as a crop in New Guinea around 6000 BC.[9] New Guinean farmers and other early cultivators of sugarcane chewed the plant for its sweet juice. Early farmers in Southeast Asia, and elsewhere, may have also boiled the cane juice down to a viscous mass to facilitate transportation, but the earliest known production of crystalline sugar began in northern India."

and have retained only the following verifiable reference-based text from the above statement:
"The earliest known production of crystalline sugar began in northern India."

Rationale:

  1. This is very speculative claim, with words like "has been theorised" (based on which source?), "farmers in Southeast Asia started to cultivate" (no source provided, no date of commencement of cultivation provided to indicate hat it was part of the early history).
  2. There was only one reference supporting these speculative claims. That reference is a deadline, i.e. the claim is completely unsubstantiated.
  3. Assuming someone finds another link to the above-mentioned source in the previous point, this is a low quality non-scholarly source, not good enough to warrant inclusion of any claims based on this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E61E:452:3975:8AA8:CB3:F650 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that the wording was problematic, but I wouldn't call it a low-quality source. Here's an archive of the cited page: [1]. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sugarcane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Medicinal usage as defined in Ayurveda

Hello. My contribution is dismissed as "pseudoscience", "minor content" and "unreliable content" and it looks like this happens because the author from the reference is an Indian. It concerns the following rerefence:

In āyurveda, the Indian system of medicine, the sugarcane is most commonly known in Sanskrit as Ikṣu, having characteristics such as improving strength and acting as an aphrodisiac. It has the following synonyms: Dīrghachada, Bhūrirasa, Guḍamūla, Asipatra, Madhutṛṇa. These synonyms, along with its main varieties and characteristics are described in nighaṇṭus such as the Bhāvaprakāśa (1.6.23, group of sugarcanes). The juice of the sugarcane is known as Phāṇita.
Reference: Murthy, K. R. Srikantha (2016). Bhāvaprakāśa of Bhāvamiśra, Vol. I. Krishnadas Ayurveda Series 45 (reprint 2016 ed.). Chowkhamba Krishnadas Academy, Varanasi. pp. 490–494. ISBN 9788121800006.

Can someone explain to me why a learned scholar is dismissed as fraudulent? Can someone explain why ancient knowledge related to the sugar cane (including medicinal properties, usage and trial and error) is "minor content"?

This smells like ignorant discrimination to me. To quote the reliability of the author: “Prof. K.R. Srikantha Murthy (b, 1929) an alumnus of the Govt. Ayurveda College, Mysore (1948) and Post-graduate Centre in Ayurveda, Jamnagar (1958), served as Professor and Principal at all the three Govt. College of Ayurveda in Karnataka and retired in 1984. As ordained by his Preceptor and mentor, Prof. C. Dwarakanath, he has been pursuing literary research activities since last thirty five years and has so far published many scientific papers and books.”

Irrelevant. Please review WP:MEDRS -- that is the standard for choosing sources on medical topics for the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant? Not WP:MEDRS? Again, total nonsense. He and his book definitely are classified under MEDRS. Have you even taken the time to look up the book or the author?
Can someone beside Zefr please look this dispute and the content I want to add? What's the use of having an international wikipedia if you dismiss other countries' recognized scientific universities and recognized scholars as "unreliable" and "irrelevant"? Looks like discrimination or even racism to me.

Organization of article

I went to this article in order to read about the biology of sugarcane, the plant itself.

But instead, most of the first sections, and the emphasis of this article, are about its cultivation and processing.

Nothing wrong with the subjects of its cultivation and processing! But the title of this article, Sugarcane, is the name of the plant. So this article ought to emphasize the plant itself before it talks extensively about its cultivation.

Of course, there could be an entire article about sugarcane cultivation and processing, if that is warranted — and a shorter section about those topics towards the later part of this article.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this plant will rearrange this article in that way.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:859B:1E09:E80:C7E7 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Health Impact

confirmed relation to Diabetes not mentioned. there's an english documentary about why this plant acts in digestive systems the way it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:480:A4C0:4ECC:6AFF:FE8E:47D (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sugarcane/Archive_1&oldid=1186212856"