Talk:Coffea/Archive 1

Cappucino name
Someone else wrote:

Capucin Monks discovered the stimulating effects.

I don't know if this is true, however the name for the cappuccino drink probably derives from the similarity between the drink's appearance and the Capucin Monks' habit.

(The above looks like an old wives tale to me. --hajhouse)

It is: "cappuccino" means little hat (from whence the name of the Friars, whose habit has a little part of cloth for the head), but this is related with the upper beige cream, which is a sort of little hat put over a coffee. Other less elegant jokes refer to condoms, recalled as different... hats, so be aware that in Italy this word has two meanings.

History
Could somebody check the bits of coffee history in Pedro Páez and Talk:Battle of Vienna?

Yield
16 tonnes per hectare seems very high compared to what I get on Google searches for "coffee tonnes hectare" or "coffee pounds acre". Most results are an order of magnitude lower. Maybe that figure refers to raw fruit and the usual way of quoting it is in tonnes of milled beans? --Michael Shields 18:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Drink vs plant
I'm confused by this page. Shouldn't it be talking about coffee as a drink, rather than a plant? And why doesn't it mention espresso, lattes, mocha, etc.? -Adrian.

IMHO this page ought to be named Coffee (plant) and there should also be a Coffee (drink) with Coffee being a disambig page. I promised my wife I wouldn't let Wikipedia be an infinite time sink at least until I get some other things out of the way, but maybe some day I can work on that. Cheers, ;Bear 17:22, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Not sure it needs a disambig page because they are sort of the same thing. This deals mostly with the plant, all it needs is a link to Coffee (drink) and some info adding there. Some links for me or whoever creates such a page: Instant_coffee café Espresso Coffeehouse Drink

Since Coffee (drink) now exists, I've moved over the relevant chunks. Markalexander100 20:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Espresso vs Expresso
Very interesting. Somebody put in an empty headline about "Espresso is the correct spelling, not expresso" and I was in the middle of commenting on that and then somebody else took it out. Here's my comment anyway:

I think "expresso" might be a good name for those little steam toys; my wife has one and insists on calling it her expresso machine, and since it's not a REAL espresso machine with a pump, I've thus far refrained from disabusing her of that pronunciation. ;Bear 21:24, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

export
I added a few words, correcting the part that was telling that coffee is produced on tropical countries for temperate countries. Thats not true. People in tropical countries also drink coffee. Actually Brazil is one of the biggest consummers of it. Dionisiofranca 10:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to Bother
Would anyone be at all able to tell me how long coffee has been available in cup form? It's a long story. -- Nobody Important, Dec 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.125.21 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2004 (UTC)

Move
I moved this page from "Coffee (plant)" to "Coffea" for several reasons. I believe this article was at the original page due to the "common name" rule. There are several problems: I do not believe "coffee plant" is more common than "Coffea". Secondly, common rule is adhered to to make a page easy to find - but this was disambiguated anyway! Thus, I moved it to a more common name that did not need disambiguation. --Oldak Quill 23:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barako coffee
Can someone take a look at Barako coffee and make sure we're not being hoaxed by this "Phillipine liberica"? -- nae'blis 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Second or third?
Coffee page says: "Coffee is the second most commonly traded commodity in the world, trailing only petroleum." Coffea page says: "In fact, coffee ranks third only to cocoa and oil in terms of legally-traded products worldwide." Seems like contradiction. Anyone able to support facts and to clear that? Ruziklan 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was confused about this as well. However, a look at some FAO documentation, and, shows that in 1998-2000 there were 2.9 million tons of cocoa produced, compared with 6.7 million tons of coffee produced. This doesn't prove whether or not coffee is the second most traded commodity, but it seems certain that it doesn't trail after cocoa. The cocoa article appears to use the same figures. I'll change this article to conform to the coffee article's ranking, although it's unfortunate that there isn't a citation for that. &mdash; Asbestos |  Talk   (RFC)  16:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I'm jumping in a little late here, but I just found this. It's neither, and this has been discussed before in a few places . Coffee's perceived rank among world commodities is a fondly-held myth. The fact is, it changes every year, and to date no one has been able to provide a reliable source less than 20 years old. I'll (seriously) send a box of chocolates to anyone who finds a continually updated, non-OR secondary reliable source ranking the world's commodities.--Margareta 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

One important thing to remember about these type of statistics: often they do not say what their base unit is. What does that mean? Let me explain... If someone makes a statement like "coffee is the 3rd most traded commodity" that may or may not be true. In order for the comment to be meaningful it would require a base unit of measure. Example, are we talking about the total volume of trade in units of money ($US Dollars, Euro, Yen)? Or are we talking about the total volume of trade in units of weight (kilos, pounds. metric tons, etc.). Or are we talking about the total volume of trade in units of volume (cubic meters, bushels, barrels, etc.). So this means that one commodity might be more valuable than another. Still a third commodity might have higher density than another. So we can easily see how one commodity might have a larger total number of tons traded, but the total dollar figure might be greater for the other (Bananas versus Diamonds for example). I think the point here, is that the original person that makes a comment like this, simply means to say "it's a large amount". Beyond that, further data would be needed. 64.65.160.84 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the original comment used the words "most commonly traded". So really they might not be referring to total dollars, nor tons, nor bushels. They might be referring to to the total number of trade-transactions. i.e. every time someone purchases a cup of coffee anywhere in the world, it could potentially count as "trade". That would mean that, indeed, the number of coffee transactions... "it's a large amount". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.160.84 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry section
The section reads like someone's chemistry paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.43.198 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry section: Chemistry green coffee bean
it is a paper on the chemistry of green coffee; that is what the head line says and what we want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.8.105 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry section: tone and language
I am the author of this section with the background of patents regarding coffea. There are more than 1800 patents world wide regarding coffea. To my opinion it is important to present that specific, 3rd grade literature, hidden in specific database, to the reader. To make it clear, the article doese not cite primary sources. If an english native speaker with scientific background can get it better I appreciate it. But please do not evaporate the intellectual property of our friends from the coffea growing countries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.25.82 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry of green coffee beans section
I noticed that this section did not seem to have been written by a native speaker of English, producing possible confusion for many readers. So, i normalized the English useage in the section, without changing the meaning of anything (at least i hope not!!). I think this change alters the "tone" of this section enough to bring it into line with the normal requirements for Wikipedia articles. There is still some work to do on this section, but at least i have made a good start of it, i think! MayFlowerNorth (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fruit type
The type of fruit is given as a Drupe. it cannot be a drupe. Even by Wikipedia's definition. AS drupe has the seed inside a separate endocarp, (normally formed from the Ovary wall) with an auxilliary fruit formed around it.

The coffee fruit is surely a berry. Although some refer to 'coffee cherries' they are not a cherry - which is a drupe from the rose family. Multiple seeds in a fleshy coat formed from the wall of the ovary - sounds like a berry to me. Brunnian (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Health benefits
The section on health benefits does not explain why any of the facts presented are a health benefit. For example stimulating macrophages would probably *worsen* inflammable (sic) bowel disease, while irritable colon (sic) does not have an immune basis whatsoever. The whole content is therefore questionable. 81.129.148.195 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?
According to Paraxanthine: Paraxanthine is not produced by plants and is only observed in nature as a metabolite of caffeine in animals. In the "Non-volatile alkaloids" section here though, Paraxanthine is mentioned as a minor alkaloid of Coffea. Which is correct?--Eloil (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the Purple Fruit of the Coffee Plant Edible?
I am curious if the purple fruit of the coffee plant are edible. Roland 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is quite common when coffee growing is demonstrated for the fruit to be offered to taste. They are sweet. I don't know how safe it is to eat a lot of them, though. The documentation that I can find only discusses making cosmetic or medicinal extracts from this byproduct of coffee making. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Coffea: Pollination biology
How are the flowers of coffee pollinated? The article says that many coffee plant varieties are self-fertile, but that does not mean that they produce fruits asexually.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

List of species with broken links?
Is it really necessary to have all those red links? Are pages planned for all of them? Seems like the ones that are notable enough to have their own pages should have links and the rest is just clutter.

C arc (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)C Arc
 * See WP:REDLINK. Red links aren't "broken". Yes, ultimately all known species should have an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Arabica & robusta production?
This article gives worldwide production as about 75-80% arabica & 20% robusta, cited to the Coffee Research Institute website (2012 or earlier), which seems respectable. But our Coffea arabica article says arabica accounts for 60% of world prdxn, cited to "Coffee:World Markets and Trade" at USDA (2017). It's a more authoritative source. HOWEVER, I can't find the 60% figure in the USDA report! So I'll post this over there, too. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Coffee "cherry"?
It is incorrect to call the fruit of the genus Coffea a "cherry”. Cherries taste and look totally different, and are of an entirely genus. Is it not an exclusively informal term? SaltySemanticSchmuck (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a formal term in botany, but it does seem to be a term used by coffee growers and merchants, so I guess it's a technical term of the coffee trade. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)