Talk:Teff

Untitled
I dunno where to put this, but dunno either where to discuss edits. Please tell me where to contact editors or how to this more properly.

My question is the following: Dittaeva, why did you remove the gluten-free indication in the summary (the beginning) ? I think it is one of the main properties of teff and should be told in the beginning, don't you ? Even if it is repeated below in 'Nutrition'.

I'd rather ask you before beginning a game of putting and removing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by R U Bn (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 November 2004

two questions how can injera be so elastic when teff is gluten-free? how could cultivation of an ancient crop be patented? Aaronbrick 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the latter question, I remember news reports during the 1990s that a Texan company was going to patent rice (basmati rice, as I recall). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Patent on crops is not uncommon. Scrdcow (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the former question, gluten is not required for elasticity or thickness. 00:14 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegordon (talk • contribs)

sourness Q
I don't believe I have ever eaten teff outside of injera, which is sour due to fermentation of a yeast culture. Is teff sour by itself? -Mork the delayer 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. --Merhawie 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says otherwise, but it does not cite a source for its claim. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Article isn't consistent
In the beginning it says, "It has an attractive nutrition profile, being high in dietary fiber and iron and providing some protein and calcium." and later under, Cultivation and uses, it says "The grain has a high concentration of different nutrients, a very high calcium content" and "Teff is high in protein.". Which is more correct? How much is to be considered 'high'? Scrdcow (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked one of the external links, see pages 222, 223 and 224 for nutritional value. Someone more familiar with nutrition might be able to make better sense of it, but it's at least something we can cite throughout the text. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The teff flour from Bob's Red Mill includes a nutrition label that could be used as the basis for comparison to other seeds and grains. The data for cooked teff in NutritionData.com appears to be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.177.65 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent in referring to teff as both a seed and a grain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegordon (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Question
The article says "India and its colonies..." India does not have any colonies?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.45.187 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition
Teff certainly is nutritious! There are over 120 grams of nutrients in a 100 gram portion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjartmarr (talk • contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice trick, to pack 120 grams of nutrition into 100 grams of teff. How does it work? JeremyCherfas (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Lysine and down should all be changed from g to mg, and below that from mg to mcg. However, I don't know that for sure, and I'm not going to guess. Michael.Niemann (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The posted energy taken from this this source is wrong: 1452 kilojoules = 347 036.329 calories. But check out nutritiondata which says that per 100g cooked teff there are only 101 calories. I am taking down the nutrition data because the source for this data does not seem authoritative. I suggest taking the data from a more reputable site. I don't know how copyright and fair use rules work, so I'll leave it to someone else to complete. Sometimesthinking (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistics
It would be interesting to know how many square kilometers, kilos, or dollars worth of teff are cultivated every year. -- Beland (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Protein Quality
Based on the USDA database, teff has only a slightly better lysine profile than whole wheat -- 28.3 mg / g of protein vs. 27.6 -- and both are far short of being lysine-complete which is 58 mg / g. So I would say the statements to this effect should be removed, or qualified. Teff protein is nowhere near complete, in the way that qunioa is.

Spope3 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the USDA nutrition database, uncooked teff has 0.376g of lysine per 100gr of teff (NDB No: 20142; 13.30g of protein, 28.3mg/g protein); the Canadian Nutrient File lists it as 0.350 (Food Code: 6193; 9.60g of protein, or 36.5mg/g protein). Cooked teff has a value of 0.109 (NDB No: 20143). What's the source for 58 mg / g to be lysine-complete?  Mind  matrix  19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Persian and other cuisine
Teff is apparently used in Persian cuisine; today in a grocery store I found a bag that was labelled both "teff" and "khak shir." Khak shir already redirects to this article, but isn't actually mentioned in the article. There is no mention of Persian, or other cuisines, in which it is used, only Ethiopian/Eritrean. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As this isn't universally known as "teff," I think it might have been better to keep the scientific/botanical name as the name of the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it derives a lot of its popularity from its usage as Teff, Teff as a redirect should do fine for reasons u just mentioned. -- Car  Tick  00:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever 'khakshir' is exactly, it seems to be confused with 'teff'. Both here; on Wikipedia and -it appears- on commercial labels too...
 * Certainly, it couldn't be both 'london rocket seeds' and 'teff' at the same time.
 * The former being a weed of the mustard family scientifically known as 'Sisymbrium Irio' and native to Europe
 * ... while the latter is an annual grass/cereal closer to millet, scientifically known as 'Eragrostis Tef' and oginating from the Ethiopian highlands.
 * So is khakshir the seed of a grass or that of a weed?
 * I, for one, would love to have confirmation from someone who is familiar with the plant from which it comes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameleo (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Teff isn't politics
The page on teff (Eragrostis tef) has a header that reads:

''The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Eritrea and Ethiopia and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2010)''

But the page is just about the seed & its nutrient content & history. Does that really need a "worldwide view of the subject"? I believe the banner was placed by someone who was over-enthusiastic and I am considering removing it.

Jennifer Brooks (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it there – please see the previous section on this page (the part of the banner that says "discuss the issue on the talk page" links to that section). The point of the template is that the article only mentions teff's culinary usage in Eritrea and Ethiopia; no mention of other countries/cuisines. The grain is also used in Persian cuisine (as "khak shir"), but there is no mention of this in the article (nor anywhere else on the web, that I was able to find). Thus I flagged the article in hopes that it could incorporate this information. I assure you that there were no political motivations behind it. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

--90.192.154.106 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC) From what I have found out from friends who have lived in Ethiopia for the past few years, Teff is unique to Ethiopia


 * Over a year ago, editor Gyrofrog said there is no mention of the use of teff in Persian cuisine, but then admits he can find no references to this practice. My web pokes suggest it is used medicinally, mixed in a beverage. I think it is time for believers of teff use in Persia to either post their material in the article, or remove the banner. Pete unseth (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopia isn't one of the first places where plants and animals were domesticated.
Teff is one of the newer cereals if it was domesticated in 4000-1000 BC. That puts it in the class of oats, a cereal domesticated around the Bronze Age.

Article claims that people of the Ethiopian highlands were some of the first to domesticate animals in 8000 BC but that is false. The domestication of the earliest grains and animals was in Asia. Millet, barley, wheat are older than Teff. The domesticated animals of early North African civilizations were of Asian origin. The dietary staples of the Egyptian diet were Asian in origin.

Very few crops and domesticated animals are African and those claimed to be of African are somewhat new compared to Asian crops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.160.137 (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eragrostis tef
There is a draft that appears to be a copy of this article. Please review the draft and see if there is any information in the draft that is not in this article, and add the information to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: There exists a consensus to move the title. samee converse  13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Eragrostis tef → Teff – Common name. The article uses it throughout. Srnec (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  SITH   (talk)   11:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not split it like rice / Oryza sativa? Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Because it is shorter than Oryza sativa as is. (2) Since it is mainly just an Ethiopian thing, there isn't nearly as much to say about it as rice. (3) I am not sure, but I'd be surprised if it is as well studied as O. sativa and it is certainly not as widely grown, so presumably their is less to say from a botanist's perspective as well. (4) Rice also covers African rice, a different species. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd support the split, but if you're sure there isn't enough to say about the grain, then I oppose the move. The standard for plants is to use the scientific name. Guettarda (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tell that to common wheat and barley. —Srnec (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:FLORA says "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany." That seems to be the case here, so the oppose seems misguided. Dekimasu よ! 00:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This ngram suggests that it isn't even close. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.