Talk:Cocoa bean

hello

hello guys i had a question about the cocoa bean. it's for a school project. does man have a piece for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.238.107.170 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Studies

Buijsse B, Feskens EJ, Kok FJ, Kromhout D (February 2006). "Cocoa intake, blood pressure, and cardiovascular mortality: the Zutphen Elderly Study". Archives of Internal Medicine. 166 (4): 411–7. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.4.411. PMID 16505260. Results: One third of the men did not use cocoa at baseline. The median cocoa intake among users was 2.11 g/d. After adjustment, the mean systolic blood pressure in the highest tertile of cocoa intake was 3.7 mm Hg lower (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.1 to −0.3 mm Hg; P = .03 for trend) and the mean diastolic blood pressure was 2.1 mm Hg lower (95% CI, −4.0 to −0.2 mm Hg; P = .03 for trend) compared with the lowest tertile. During follow-up, 314 men died, 152 of cardiovascular diseases. Compared with the lowest tertile of cocoa intake, the adjusted relative risk for men in the highest tertile was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.32-0.78; P = .004 for trend) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72; P < .001) for all-cause mortality.

Because the study was removed from the article, want to preserve it here. Bod (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Bod, thank you for doing so :). By chance, are you able to make sense of it? Because I sure as hell can't..a brief summary in layman's terms of its conclusions left here along with it in the record would be a good thing to have, I think. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:E188:AB34:F849:5200 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You're replying to a three-and-one-half-year-old post, by an editor who has been blocked almost that long. I wouldn't expect any further response from Bod. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is the content about child/slave labour being deleted?

I had added fully-cited content from Fortune (magazine) about the fact that harvesting of cocoa in West Africa is being done by child/slave labour.

That has been deleted without any reason being given.

I cannot do another Revert because that would be edit warring. But I do object to the tactic being used and hope that other editors will agree that the content is valid. See below:

A major study of the issue in 2016, published in Fortune magazine in the U.S., concluded that approximately 2.1 million children in West Africa "still do the dangerous and physically taxing work of harvesting cocoa". The report was doubtful as to whether the situation can be improved.

"According to the 2015 edition of the Cocoa Barometer, a biennial report examining the economics of cocoa that’s published by a consortium of nonprofits, the average farmer in Ghana in the 2013–14 growing season made just 84¢ per day, and farmers in Ivory Coast a mere 50¢. That puts them well below the World Bank’s new $1.90 per day standard for extreme poverty, even if you factor in the 13% rise in the price of cocoa last year.

And in that context the challenge of eradicating child labor feels immense, and the chocolate companies’ newfound commitment to expanding the investments in cocoa communities not quite sufficient. ... 'Best-case scenario, we’re only doing 10% of what’s needed.' Getting that other 90% won’t be easy. 'It’s such a colossal issue,' says Sona Ebai, who grew up farming cocoa in Cameroon and is the former secretary general of the Alliance of Cocoa Producing Countries. 'I think child labor cannot be just the responsibility of industry to solve. I think it’s the proverbial all-hands-on-deck: government, civil society, the private sector.'He pauses, taking in his own thought for a moment. 'And there, you really need leadership.'"

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

References

With unformatted text and source template, you are making a mess of the section and the reference format; Please slow down and see this edit from the Chocolate article, and go from there. --Zefr (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, Zefr; as per your suggestion, I have added a short version of the text, with correct formatting of the citation.(Child Slavery - Attempt at Reform section). Hopefully, this will resolve the issue.

Approximately 2.1 million children in West Africa were involved in harvesting cocoa, as of 2015. A 2016 report offered this comment about the issue: "I think child labor cannot be just the responsibility of industry to solve. I think it’s the proverbial all-hands-on-deck: government, civil society, the private sector. And there, you really need leadership", according to Sona Ebai, the former secretary general of the Alliance of Cocoa Producing Countries.

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Criollo

Hello @Bawanio: Are these [1] really two different cultivars? Invasive Spices (talk) 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cacao Fino de Aroma

The research article Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazonian Chocolate Tree (Theobroma cacao L) by Juan C. Motamayor, published 2008 October 1, defines ten genetic clusters of cacao. That number has since been expanded to eleven.

Below is a complete list of all eleven genetic clusters of cacao, according to the USDA-ARS and Motamayor classification system.

• Nacional
• Criollo
• Amelonado
• Boliviano
• Contamana aka Ucayali/Scavina
• Curaray
• Guiana
• Iquitos aka Iquitos Mixed Calabacillo (IMC)
• Marañon aka Parinari
• Nanay
• Purús

As discussed in a 2020 December 16 Uncommon Cacao blog, "Forastero" was originally used to refer to non-Criollo beans and "Trinitario" referred to a Criollo and forastero hybrid.

As indicated in the following quotes from South American chocolate producers, in the region where Criollo and Nacional cacao is produced, it is often referred to as Fino de Aroma (or Fine Aroma in English translation).

"The two most coveted cacao varieties in the world are Nacional and Criollo. Nacional hails from Ecuador, while Criollo is primarily found in Venezuela. Nacional and Criollo are prized among chocolate makers throughout the world for two important reasons: they are extremely rare and their flavor profiles are considered the most desirable. But Nacional and Criollo are just as different from each other as Nebbiolo and Merlot in terms of their history, growing conditions, and especially their flavor profiles."

"The Fino de Aroma denomination is an International Cocoa Organization (ICCO)* classification, which describes an exquisite aroma and flavour." "Only around 8% of the cocoa produced in the entire world is Cacao Fino de Aroma. 76% of Cacao Fino de Aroma produced in the world is grown in Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru."

"There are 3 main cultivar groups of Cacao beans grown today: Forastero, Trinitario, and Nacional. Nacional is a Criollo Cacao grown from ancient heirloom beans, and is the rarest of the three because the trees are especially difficult to grow. Chocolate made from Criollo Nacional Fino de Aroma Cacao beans has a delicate, complex array of flavors. The “King of Cacao", Criollo Nacional Fino de Aroma is highly prized and is used in Cacao Ceremony, and by the world's finest Bean-to-Bar micro chocolate makers." Penelope Gordon (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

The Motamayor et al., 2008 URL is incorrect and, by itself, doesn't look important. "Why are we suddenly talking about one person and his research in this article?" I suggest using this instead:

The research study ''Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazonian Chocolate Tree (''Theobroma cacao'' L)'' by Juan C. Motamayor ''et al.'', 2008<ref name="Clement-et-al-2010">{{cite journal | last=Clement | first=Charles | last2=De Cristo-Araújo | first2=Michelly | last3=Coppens D’Eeckenbrugge | first3=Geo | last4=Alves Pereira | first4=Alessandro | last5=Picanço-Rodrigues | first5=Doriane | title=Origin and Domestication of Native Amazonian Crops | journal=[[Diversity (journal)|Diversity]] | publisher=[[MDPI]] | volume=2 | issue=1 | date=2010-01-06 | issn=1424-2818 | doi=10.3390/d2010072 | pages=72–106 | s2cid=13527911}} <!--- Published by MDPI but very well regarded by other sources. ---></ref><ref name="Kane-et-al-2012">{{cite journal | last1=Kane | first1=Nolan | last2=Sveinsson | first2=Saemundur | last3=Dempewolf | first3=Hannes | last4=Yang | first4=Ji Yong | last5=Zhang | first5=Dapeng | last6=Engels | first6=Johannes M. M. | last7=Cronk | first7=Quentin | title=Ultra-barcoding in cacao (''Theobroma'' spp.; Malvaceae) using whole chloroplast genomes and nuclear ribosomal DNA | journal=[[American Journal of Botany]] | publisher=[[Botanical Society of America]] ([[Wiley (publisher)|Wiley]]) | volume=99 | issue=2 | year=2012 | issn=0002-9122 | doi=10.3732/ajb.1100570 | pages=320–329 | s2cid=3933483 | pmid=22301895}}</ref><ref name="Motamayor-et-al-2008">{{cite journal | last1=Motamayor | first1=Juan C. | last2=Lachenaud | first2=Philippe | last3=da Silva e Mota | first3=Jay Wallace | last4=Loor | first4=Rey | last5=Kuhn | first5=David N. | last6=Brown | first6=J. Steven | last7=Schnell | first7=Raymond J. | editor-last=Borevitz | editor-first=Justin O. | title=Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazonian Chocolate Tree (''Theobroma cacao'' L) | journal=[[PLoS ONE]] | publisher=[[Public Library of Science]] | volume=3 | issue=10 | date=2008-10-01 | issn=1932-6203 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0003311 | page=e3311 | s2cid=15160979}}</ref> defines ten genetic clusters of cacao.

Invasive Spices (talk) 12 April 2022 (UTC)

pyrenoids? Or pyrethrum or pyrethroids?

In the section on "Cocoa trading", there is mention of pyrenoids, presumably as insecticides. This appears to be a typo and needs to be corrected. I do know what the original writer had in mind, but I propose either pyrethrum, which is mentioned in the reference by Finkelman et al. at the end of the same sentence or pyrethroids which sounds more similar to pyrenoids. kupirijo (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2024

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. There is a clear consensus that Cocoa bean is currently (more or less) about the cocoa bean, and the cocoa bean is not the primary topic of "cocoa". Since the first move is not done, the second is unnecessary per WP:DABNAME. If a broad-concept article is created at Cocoa, then the DAB page can be moved as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

• Cocoa bean → Cocoa
• Cocoa → Cocoa (disambiguation)

– Cocoa is a broader concept than cocoa bean. The former refers to cacao re; production while the latter refers narrowly to a segment of production. I.e. chocolate liquor is cocoa, but is no longer cocoa beans. There is conceptual slippage on this page and Wikipedia more generally: this page discusses Cocoa trading which is more expansive than cocoa beans and includes, for instance, cocoa butter. Our articles on production all reference cocoa rather than cocoa beans, i.e. Cocoa production in Ivory Coast due to this narrowness/broadness. It also just better reflects the literature and the most recent book on cocoa/cocoa beans as a commodity is called Cocoa (book). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose 1st, Support 2nd The parts of cocoa we use are called beans. Kolano123 (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Kolano123 Hi Kolano, the parts of cacao we use are called seeds. Cocoa beans are seeds that have been processed (dried, often fermented). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Cocoa" is ambiguous. No objection to moving Cocoa bean to a different name, but it's not the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 162 etc.. I'm not sure whether it's the primary topic, and in light of that, moving it to Cocoa (commodity), Cocoa (processed cacao) or some alternative may be better.

The issue here is that cocoa, covering cocoa bean, cocoa powder, cocoa liquor etc is the broad-concept article. It's very ambiguous where cocoa beans as a concept starts and ends, and they cover much of the same topics so the concept of cocoa beans almost certainly should be written under the broad-concept. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Cocoa (commodity), Cocoa (processed cacao) alternative names. Current title is WP:CONCISE. Theparties (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "cocoa" commonly refers to 'hot chocolate' and 'chocolate drink mix power' -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Food and drink and WikiProject Plants have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support 2nd. Cocoa should redirect here but the article should be moved to cacao, per Ngrams. Theparties (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Theparties, may I ask why you didn't use this Ngram? Furthermore, cacao has very specific connotations in this context, see this article by professors Katie Sampeck and Carla Martin. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Because the move to cocoa has no way of passing. Cacao is just the better alternative despite its connotations. Theparties (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Theparties I wasn't sure if I could enter cocoa (commodity) or cocoa (processed cacao) after some users had commented, in the same way of not changing RfCs midway. Can I? Or would I have to do another RM after this with those new options? Either way, I hope you could comment on those options. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• You could suggest a midway shift in the move as a Comment but you must let this RM play itself out. I suggest opening a new RM once this is over but immediate repeated RMs is frowned upon. Theparties (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Alternative proposed moves per WP:PRECISE:

• Cocoa bean → Cocoa (commodity)
• Cocoa bean → Cocoa (processed cacao)
• Cocoa bean → Cocoa (other disambiguator?)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of WP:PRECISE I'd support moving this article to cacao, which is where I think ti should be. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about the cocoa bean, so why change it? Cocoa is ambiguous, as the disambiguation page at Cocoa makes very clear. Cocoa bean unambiguously and precisely describes what the article is about using a commonly used name.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Jts1882 Thankyou for the comment; I strongly disagree but it seems the best option based on this discussion would be to write a separate page on cocoa (processed cacao). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    I think this is the right answer. There's plenty to write about "cocoa" itself. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all. This looks like a solution in search of a problem to me. The present title of the article is perfectly adequate but also not the primary topic for cocoa more generally.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Amakuru I think I skipped a step by proposing this here, I'm not sure if I can snow close or withdraw. The issues with the article in some places pertaining more to the broad concept than the cocoa bean can be seen in sections on chocolate making, phytochemicals, economic effects etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Cocoa already a disambiguation page? The title for that one should probably reflect that. Cocoa bean is about cocoa beans though and is fine as is. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

From WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.