Talk:Rice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Rice has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
Rice is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Everydaylife. |
[edit] This article is probably a stub. OR what ?
This article is probably a stub. OR what ? According to the pictures (and the text) rice cultivation is a folkloric antique crop who deserves less attention than some TV entertainments . Nothing appears about mecanization , combines, pesticides, fertilizers...used in a lot of countries from Japan to India, Italy, USA...
Who can write a real full article ? I cannot !
Fertilizing.
IS that mentioned and if so how is it fertilized. Is there a history of Rice being fertilized by human sewage and have people got sick eating rice fertilized that way.
[edit] History
History of cultivation should cover the rest of the world in more detail--nixie 04:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] old
so how old is white rice? is it a modern invention, or did the buddha eat white rice as well as brown? (aryuvedic traditions prefer white)
[edit] Washing
This document (page 5, top of the second column) claims that rice is often fortified with micronutrients on the outside of each grain, of which 20 to 1 percent will be lost if the grain is washed.
Pekinensis 22:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That document's gone now.
- Anway on the subject of washing... I was told by someone, who was told by an indian curry chef... that you should always wash rice before cooking it. In fact you should swill the rice around in the pan in water, then poor away that water, re-fill and repeat about 7 or 8 times! Clearly this is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination, but does it help? is it a good idea? Maybe it depends on the type of rice. Whenever I tried it, I noticed that lots of slimey white powderiness (starch?) was being washed away each time, which I guess could be a good thing. Means it'll be less stodgy right? Maybe I'll do a more scientific comparison some time, but anyway I was surprised to see no mention of washing the rice in the 'cooking' section ('soaking' the rice, means leaving it to sit in the water for a time, so that is a different thing). Can anyone offer a more experienced rice chef expert outlook on this? -- Nojer2 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I can't add much more than what you've already said, but I learned to cook basmati rice from a friend of mine and he claimed it needed three washings before being soaked. We've grown to love the rice and eat it often, and I always follow the washing instructions. The friend mentioned his dad was 'religous' about washing the rice and I had assumed he meant 'religous' literally --looks like I was wrong and it was only about taste and texture. --Bad carpet 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Washing might help in removing some surface starch that is desireable in producing non-sticky rice dishes (such as Basmati). However, this is not desireable in ALL cases - for example, Japanese rice is enjoyed for it's slightly sticky texture and then there's glutinous (eg. sticky) rice and even risotto. In poorer countries, washing is/was a necessity due to food hygiene issues. The comment about washing being absolutely necessary is incorrect. Dyl 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Harvesting
How is rice harvested? This needs to be included in the article.
[edit] Weddings
The throwing of rice at weddings should be mentioned.
[edit] Brown or White Rice
Hey -- I'm new to wikipedia (well this part at least, not utilizing it), first off great respect goes out to your hard work. Very useful for freshing up on just about any topic. I think it would be good for this article to contain the benefits / comparision of brown rice versus white. Or maybe a link to an article that explains it. A general idea is represented here:
Brown or White Rice? Does it Really Matter? By Chris Tsugranes
Also, from what I've gathered it is common thought (at least in northeastern USA) that white rice has been "bleached", and although people know it has less nutritional value, it's believed that the "bleachings" cause this, hence what I see as an incomplete understanding of the term "whole grain".
Once again, thank you,
Josh Goodwin
josh@crache.org
[edit] Origin
Where exactly did rice first originate? (I'd like to know which continent)
[edit] cooking & GABA
When preparing brown rice, a nutritionally superior method of preparation known as GABA Rice or GBR[2] may be used. This involves soaking washed brown rice for 20 hours in warm water (38 °C or 100 °F) prior to cooking it. This process stimulates germination, which activates various enzymes in the rice. By this method, a result of the United Nations Year of Rice, it is possible to obtain a more complete amino acid profile, including GABA.
Needs minor rewrite. Keep rice soaking at 38 °C for all 20 hours? Or put rice in water that is 38 °C and leave it to soak for 20 hours? --geekyßroad. meow? 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Fertilizing was that mentioned and in some places is it fertilized with human feces. That can cause people to get sick.
[edit] Cleanup
I tried to clean it up a bit, but I simply could not move all the pictures or table and have them all still on the page. The picture of rice plants at Kev Gardens, london, while a good picture, seems to be the one i would get rid of. I would also move the brown rice pic down to the "cultivars" section, and try to get all the pictures aligned on the right side so it wouldn't look so cluttered. But I can't figure it out, so I did nothing. Good luck :) SECProto 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- adjusted images in cultivation section. moved cultivar section above the nutriments section. and couple more small adjustments..bingo for now the article looks fine. So removing cleanup tag --Vyzasatya 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seasons of cultivation
During what seasons is rice cultivated or harvested? My impression was that this varies from one food crop to another (I'm an ignorant American, I wouldn't know) but I couldn't find this in the article. -- 70.110.10.206 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see paddy for details of your query. In many parts of Northeast Asia, rice is planted in the mid-spring, tended through the summer, and is harvested from September to October. Mumun 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rice and malaria
I suggest including a section about "Rice and malaria" as wet rice-cultivation (so not dry rice-cultivation) helps the spread of malaria in regions with (or regions at risk of getting) malaria. This is due to the fact that the mosquito that transfers the malaria-parasite needs (salt-less) water for its life cycle.
Is everyone OK by that ? Please note so here. If approved we can add the section.
Note: I don't have any sources as of yet
KVDP 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1st plant with genome sequenced
In the article, rice is refered as the first plant to have its genome completely mapped (2002). Yet, in the article about Arabidopsis thaliana it is mentioned that this plant's genome was sequenced in 2000. There is also the reference in other languages that Arabidopsis thaliana represents the first plant with its genome mapped. This should be further researched in order to maintain consistency. JTiago 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LLRICE 610
Why is the collapse of American rice exports not appropriate to the rice page? (deleted without discussion) jimfbleak 12:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is suitable for wikinews, not this article. Everytime some food scandal happens people add unsourced news items that are irrelevant to the actual topic and have to be cleaned up and removed at a later point. --Peta 12:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misleading claim
This is a fine article but there is a shockingly misleading claim in here. This article seems to claim that a highly problematic and dubious 'one-off' archaeological find in Soro-ri, Korea may be the oldest rice in the world. Most trained archaeologists with field and academic experience doubt or reject the claims of the Soro-ri excavators. I would like to know if the person who has added the unfortunate bits about Soro-ri can answer these critical questions:
1) Does the BBC article that is presented as a 'reference' claim that the rice is associated with human occupation? ..No.
2) Does the Soro-ri Site excavation report (do you have it??) claim that the rice was found in association with features that indicate the humans were there?? For example, is this rice associated with a hearth, a house, stone tools, or anything like that? ...No, it is not. The answer is "no".
3) How do we know that the rice is 'the oldest in the world'? It seems to have been dated using absolute methods. Why haven't the excavators publicized the dates more effectively and widely so that we can see the error ranges and judge for ourselves? Additionally, we need to know more about the circumstances of the excavation because assessing archaeological site formation processes can be tricky. How do we know that this rice grain was not transported by water or something else from another layer at the Soro-ri site? Why do the excavators offer no associated explanation of the circumstances of the unearthing of this single (?) rice grain?
4) Who proclaimed that this grain of rice was burnt or charred? Charring is key to understanding its age. Did professional archaeobotanists carry out this part of the Soro-ri excavation analysis? Hmmmm....something tells me no....
We are talking about a SINGLE (?) rice grain -- a 'one-off' find which may not be directly associated with human activity (!). Furthermore, this find raises many more questions than it provides answers. Key information on this site appears in the site report only -- a document published in Korean. Furthermore, the data presented in the site report may not really support the lofty claims made by the excavators. Importantly, I find it unacceptable that one rice grain of dubious origins and antiquity can trump the careful, systematic work of professional Korean archaeologists. Korean archaeologists are hard-working professionals and don't deserve to be bothered by this unfortnate issue -- this has gone far enough, folks. It is important to present a clear and cogent prehistory of Korea, just as it is to present a cogent history of rice. Let us not draw disrepute upon our houses in this way. I think that the Soro-ri find is one of the issues of which Wikipedia wants to steer clear.
I apologize to draw any undue suspicion upon this fine article, as I realize how hard that the authors have worked. However, I find the Soro-ri stuff quite upsetting, worrying, and unacceptable. Soro-ri could be worked into this article in a different way, but I wonder why the authors would want to highlight such a contentious find when the main purpose of this article is to EDUCATE readers.
Mumun 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
so...we gonna actually do something about that sentence? Hanfresco 07:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
++Thanks for your response. I think it might be best to try and do something in compromise that suits everybody, including the excavators. The article is really informative and good the way it is, but it would be nice to mention that the Soro-ri finds are controversial because, other than the Science or Nature brief (forgot which one), critical details on the archaeological context are found only in the site report, of which only a small run were published in Korean. Yet, there is no published criticism of the Soro-ri find, and so I think the reasonable thing to do might be to simply add something to the effect of
"However, the media reports of the Soro-ri charred grains are brief and lack sufficient detail for us to properly evaluate the true meaning of this very unusual find".
How about that...? Does anyone have other ideas? ^^
Mumun 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oryza glaberrima vs Oryza sativa
Oryza glaberrima is African rice that has a fairly different history from Oryza sativa, I think there should be a seperate article for Oryza sativa --Aliwalla 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Use of Jared Diamond appropriate?
I realize that Professor Diamond is extremely popular and accessible. He has written on a wide variety of topics and seems to claim a very broad expertise. Many enjoy reading his popular accounts of anthropological topics in their spare time. However, I cringe every time I see Professor Jared Diamond being referenced in this article. Professor Diamond may have a few clever articles placed in accessible magazines, but I challenge his expertise on the topic of the origins of rice cultivation in China. This is not his life's work. He does other stuff well. I suggest that we replace the Professor Diamond citation(s) with an appropriate citation from an actual archaeologist-palaeoethnobotanist who reads Chinese and English fluently and has worked intensively on the topic. I'll get the appropriate citation and post it ASAP. Mumun 10:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
