 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ygplusplus. Peer reviewers: Jingw99.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
120%
editOn the Coffea arabica page it is mentioned that «Coffea arabica accounts for 75-80 percent of the world's coffee production.» However, on the Robusta coffee page it states that «Approximately 40% of the coffee produced in the world is robusta.», which adds up to 115-120% and probably means that some figures are wrong - someone should look into that. - Flonk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.154.214.98 (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Arabica coffee is indigenous to . . .
editI have once again removed the reference to arabica coffee being indigenous to Yemen. I have no problem with this statement existing in this article if there is a reference backing it up. However, all references I know of refer to arabica initially coming from Ethiopia. Perhaps it really is indigenous to Yemen, or maybe it was initially cultivated as a domestic crop in Yemen; but in any case, there needs to be a source for this information. ScottW 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Indigenous to Ethiopia, possibly regions in Kenya and Uganda, but not Yemen
editCorrect: biologists have stated this already 400 years ago, and reconfirmed in every research ever since. Coffea Arabica was brought to Yemen by humans, uncertain when. The myth says 500 AD, but no traces in archeaology nor historically written sources confirm this until mentions in the late Middle Ages. The Legend of Kaldi and the goats is not known until much later. Check your sources, folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.118.168.201 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Flowering two times in a row
editMy coffee tree flowered, then two weeks later flowered a second time. Perhaps mention such a phenomenon. Jidanni (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
coffee a drupe or berry?
editthe article for coffea and coffea arabica differ on whether the fruit of the coffee plant is a berry or drupe. 76.26.142.108 (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Arabica production percentage?
editThis article gives worldwide production of arabica as about 60% of world prdxn, cited to "Coffee:World Markets and Trade" at USDA (2017). An authoritative source. HOWEVER, I can't find the 60% figure in the USDA report! What gives? Did I just miss it? (I looked pretty thoroly). Note that Coffea gives worldwide production as about 75-80% arabica & 20% robusta, cited to the Coffee Research Institute website (2012 or earlier. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Origin
edit"Indigenous to Yemen" in the Intro does conflict with "Endemic to the southwestern highlands of Ethiopia." at the "Distribution and habitat" section. The article currently has a citation (citation 2), "Coffea Arabica by Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, John McBrewster" that may suggest that Coffea Arabica is indigenous to Yemen. However, it appears that this might be a circular reference: the publisher has numerous books that are simply copies of Wikipedia pages. As such, this citation should be removed and the Origin should be changed to indicate that the origin is Ethiopia.
Bean vs seed terminology
edit@Plantsurfer: You recently reverted an edit I made, in which I basically said that coffee seeds weren't coffee beans until after being milled and roasted.
Maybe I was trying to do too much in a small amount of space and I certainly should have added a reference to my statement. My apologies.
Even in the coffee industry, the terms are often confused and misused. Typically, un-roasted coffee is referred to as green coffee, or green beans, sometimes parchment coffee, etc, to differentiate it from roasted coffee beans. Until the beans are roasted, they are a raw product.
"Following harvesting, green coffee is prepared from the cherries (or berries) of the coffee tree by a relatively complex series of process steps carried out entirely within the producing countries."[1]
In the same book, there is a chapter titled "Chemical and Physical Aspects of Green Coffee and Coffee Products." That chapter uses the term "green coffee" to differentiate the beans from roasted coffee beans.
In that chapter, the author states:
"Though infusions of green coffee, and fermented drinks made from the whole fruit, have been prepared at different times in history, only after roasting the green coffee beans is the beverage as we know it brewed and consumed today. The large-scale roasting of green coffee has been established for some considerable time, leading to the sale of roasted whole beans in suitable packages, in which form the product is reasonably stable."[1]
In the book titled Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Coffee, the authors discuss the chemical composition of coffee beans in Chapter 10. In order to discuss the different compositions depending on pre- versus post-roast, they call them "green beans" before the roasting process and they only call them coffee beans once they've been roasted.[2]
What I tried to achieve with my edit was to simplify all of the above, in order to get the reader from the coffee flower to the coffee bean while indicating that there are required processing steps involved (cultivating → milling → roasting). This is something I call the central dogma of coffee. I know, original research doesn't belong in mainspace and I didn't try to inject it. But I do think it is important for readers to understand that there are required steps that must proceed from plant to cup and the products produced by each step are very different and the process, much like the central dogma of molecular biology, is irreversible, and axiomatic.
Do you agree that is an important differentiation for the readers of an article about Coffea arabica or do you think it's too pedantic or "shop talk-ish?" And I'm curious about the 'unnecessary piping' comment (not bothered by it, just curious what the story is there).
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 09:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Clifford, M. N. (1985). Coffee : Botany, Biochemistry and Production of Beans and Beverage. K. C. Willson. Boston, MA: Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4615-6657-1. OCLC 840286138.
- ^ Achieving sustainable cultivation of coffee : breeding and quality traits. Philippe Lashermes. Philadelphia, PA. 2018. ISBN 978-1-78676-152-1. OCLC 969828311.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
- @Michael.C.Wright:I applaud your concern with accuracy and detail, but the distinctions you make are too trade-specific. Of course it is important to differentiate between the unroasted and roasted product, but I don't think the subtle distinctions you make have percolated down into general usage. Green coffee beans are widely sold and referred to as such in the marketplace and need to be differentiated from other green beans. So yes, I think it's too pedantic or "shop talk-ish?".
- re the piping, it is unnecessary to pipe plurals. The bots are perfectly capable of working out that beans is the plural of bean, and it gives them something to do, otherwise they become irritable. You don't have to write beans.Plantsurfer 10:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
So yes, I think it's too pedantic or "shop talk-ish?"
- Fair enough.
- And fair play on keeping the bots happy. That made me chuckle.
- Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Taxonomy
edit8° reference to be improved Graph8389 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)