Talk:Quinoa/Archive 1

Protein

It says "quinoa is a rich source of protein," but 4% protein is a lot less than bread flour which is typically 10-15g protein so the word rich might not be appropriate here.--79.74.0.82 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to other comments (some by me) further down this page that refer to the protein content of quinoa. Its protein content is equivalent to oats, and is a "complete protein" (a definition of which, by the way, I've struggled to find a reliable source for) - one that contains all the necessary proteins for human sustenance in sufficient quantities. Wheat flour lacks at least one, unless you eat far more wheat than a human is capable of eating in a sufficiently short time frame. Hires an editor (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't clear on discussing protein content, although the sources are available to help clarify the protein issue. Relevant points: 1) uncooked quinoa contains 14.4 g per 100 g sample (USDA nutrient table shown here) so by this respected source, quinoa is a rich source where rich is defined by FDA labeling guidelines as more than 20% of the Daily Value (DV); 14.4 g is 29% DV for protein intake recommended as 50 g per day, as shown here. But in the article, we don't present this clearly, and the user is drawn only to the table and protein content for cooked quinoa which is far less for protein content at 4.4 g per 100 g (9% DV which is low and mis-stated in the article as "moderate" content defined as 10-19% DV by the FDA). 2) I suggest we produce a USDA nutrient table for uncooked quinoa and discuss this more clearly and separately in its own paragraph as nutrient contents in raw quinoa. I assume this wasn't done for the article because quinoa is commonly cooked, so is more relevant to typical encyclopedia users. 3) the concept of being a "complete protein source" is really a non-issue that would be relevant only if quinoa was the sole food being eaten in a diet. Since a diet for most consumers typically contains many food sources with variable protein content, having enough protein consumption from different food sources will supply all the amino acids needed, an underlying reason why low protein consumption is not a health issue in the modern world. --Zefr (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This is great information, and you make great points! I'll see what I can do to make these adjustments and use the sources you mention here @Zefr. One question, though, I couldn't find a citation for "rich source of" that you mention. Can you post where you saw that? Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

FDA food labeling guide; see under Other nutrient content claims. --Zefr (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Mineral content

"Germination activates its natural enzymes and multiplies its vitamin and mineral content." - I am prepared to believe that it is possible to increase its vitamin content but the mineral content? Surely this defies science, since minerals are essential elemental? Perhaps the writer means absorbable mineral content?

---

The source referred to is book written without reliable references. I think it is fair to remove this quote as unreliable. A review on the book may be found here http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-down-reviews/deep-nutrition-by-catherine-shanahan-md-and-luke-shanahan 91.142.128.153 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What is a grain?

I removed this text from the preparation section:

(note: quinoa is not technically a grain, but the seed of a leafy plant related to spinach)

Personally, I find it unnecessary pedantry to insist that "grain" be interpreted to include only grasses here, but in any case, if this is to be emphasized, it should be near the top of the article rather than halfway through the last section.

Pekinensis 13:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Confusing directions

I noticed the following two sentences in the article that do not make any sense to me:

"Most North Americans prepare one cup dry quinoa in four cups of water and two of stock for accentuation of natural flavours. Once drained with a sieve, this method will yield three cups cooked grain."

Could somebody elaborate on this or explain it better? I have no idea what the author was trying to say by this. Are you supposed to soak the seeds and drain the soaked seeds in a seive and then cook them somehow?

Metaphorman 04:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that if anything, this recipe above will produce a disgusting mush. Metaphorman 01:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About cooking quinoa

I never cook quinoa as itself, but use it in combination with other vegetables. It's very good for example

1. to replace partially or completely meat in a tomato sauce eaten with pasta
2. I cook it with brocoli and some curry, then put it in the blender and use it as sauce on orecchiette, but any other kind of pasta can be used.

EstebanLux~

Thank you. The article needs more about cooking with quinoa. Bod (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Why does it need more about cooking with quinoa? What kind of content are you seeking? Hires an editor (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Poisoning?

I've removed the bit which reads

There have been at least a couple documented cases of persons who have ingested quinoa that have had violent allergic reactions. The exact cause is unknown

as this is unreferenced. There was no mention of any specific cases at the Plants for a Future database page on Quinoa, although it did say

The leaves and seeds of all members of this genus are more or less edible. However, many of the species in this genus contain saponins, though usually in quantities too small to do any harm. Although toxic, saponins are poorly absorbed by the body and most pass straight through without any problem. They are also broken down to a large extent in the cooking process. Saponins are found in many foods, such as some beans. Saponins are much more toxic to some creatures, such as fish, and hunting tribes have traditionally put large quantities of them in streams, lakes etc in order to stupefy or kill the fish[K]. The plants also contain some oxalic acid, which in large quantities can lock up some of the nutrients in the food. However, even considering this, they are very nutritious vegetables in reasonable quantities. Cooking the plants will reduce their content of oxalic acid. People with a tendency to rheumatism, arthritis, gout, kidney stones or hyperacidity should take especial caution if including this plant in their diet since it can aggravate their condition[238]., so maybe I'll amend the article to refelct this instead? If someone can provide a ref for the poisoning cases I'd be happy for that text to be re-instated. quercus robur 17:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

April 2, 2019. NEW COMMENT: I am someone who has a quinoa sensitivity, even to properly processed quinoa. It causes nausea and vomiting. Once one becomes sensitized, it does not go away.

Pronunciation

I added the alternate (and preferred in many dictionaries) pronunciation keen-O-a.

See dictionary.com for reference. (unsigned comment by User:66.15.204.123.

If the Spanish word were quinoa, then the pronunciation would be /ki'noa/, which can be anglicised quite faithfully as /kɪ'nəʊə/. If the Spanish word were quínoa (with the accent marked as being on the first syllable), then the pronunciation would be /'kinoa/, which could be anglicised quite faithfully as /'ki:nwɑ:/ or /'ki:nwə/.

So, which is the correct Spanish word? Well, dictionary.com says it is quínoa with the accent [1]. Thefreedictionary.com agrees [2]. ChambersHarrap.co.uk seems not to know the word [3]. AskOxford.com doesn't have it either [4]. Even Diccionarios.com seems ignorant.

What about Google? Well, most of the sites mentioning it seem to be in English or French. The few sites in Spanish seem undecided on the question of the accent. Hmmm, what do our colleagues on the Spanish Wikipedia think? Interesting, they have decided to give the article a name in scientific Latin: es:Chenopodium quinoa. They then go on to give the Spanish name as "quinua o[r] quínoa". Armed with this info, we can look up "quinua" in Google. That does indeed appear to be what it is called in Spanish. According to Spanish spelling rules, the -ua ending puts the stress on the first syllable.

So, the answer is that the stress should be on the first syllable. I've been saying it wrong all this time! Perhaps we should note in the article that although "quinoa" is normal in English, it is in fact from the Spanish quinua, in turn from the Quechua kinua. — Gulliver ✉ 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast!! My fiancée is a native Argentine (una porteña). She says it's pronounced "quinoa" with the accent (of course) on the second syllable ("o"). As further proof, google "quinoa" for the .ar domain. You won't see it spelled with an accent over the "i". Spanish is her native language, and she ate plenty of quinoa growing up, so I'd say at best usage is divided in Latin America, assuming that the other sources are correct. The pronounciation section needs to be corrected and further researched. 68.203.200.225 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "Not so fast!!" comment above. My wife is Ecuadorian & I've lived there for 7 years. The pronunciation is Kin-o-a. Furthermore it doesn't really matter where the accent is: all the vowels are pronounced, including the "o".

This is an established English word, so the Spanish pronunciation is irrelevant. The OED has both /kwɪˈnoʊə/ and /ˈkiːnoʊə/. If you want the Spanish, just click on Spanish Wikipedia: they have three pronunciations, "quinua, quínoa, o quinoa". kwami (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to why people are so adamant about sticking to the Spanish pronunciation. The word is not even originally Spanish (or French, for people who seem to believe that). The word came to English via Spanish, true, but it came to Spanish most likely from Quechua, where the word is spelled kinwa (with other variations possible), pronounced (in IPA) [kinwa], or what could be approximated in English as "keen-wah". That's also the only way I've heard it pronounced by English speakers (at least here in California). But if there are other accepted pronunciations in English, that's cool too... --SameerKhan (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening of the article correctly states that:

"Quinoa originated in the Andean region of South America, where it has been an important food for 6,000 years. Its name is the Spanish spelling of the Quechua name."

Quechua was spoken by Inca. Inca capital was located in modern day Peru (Cusco). Quinoa is a vital everyday foodsource in countless Andean recipes. The descendents of the Inca who live in this region today still pronounce it Kee-NO-ah as they have for thousands of years. Why do all these annoying restaurant owners in the USA correct my wife (una Peruana) on her pronounciation of this word? Where in the world does this strange pronounciation (KEEN-WAH) come from!?!?! It doesn't look like the spanish spelling and no one in any country where Quinoa is INDIGENOUS would understand you if you said KEEN-WAH!

If there is some logical reason why anyone should pronounce it KEEN-WAH I would really like to hear it. Otherwise I think we should respect and honor the culture and heritage that brought us this wonderful crop rather than try to assert some ignorant meaningless version of it!

KEEN-WAH is simply an Anglicisation of the word. It's like so many other words in English that sound nothing like they do in their original language. If I was speaking Quechua I would probably pronounce it differently. If the pronunciation guide made is clear that the way it's pronounced in Quechua is different than in English, then okay...but English speakers say KEEN-WAH, though at least one person I know says KWIN-O-AH...Besides, languages and pronunciation are not always logical, so a logical explanation may not be enough. Hires an editor (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. As far as I can tell both pronunciations are valid; the original Quechua would sound, to an English speaker, as being somewhere in the middle due to the "w" or "o" being a semivowel (somewhere in between both the w sound and the o sound) --86.135.125.235 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as a curiosity, your wife (la peruana), is she from Cusco? Because otherwise, I'd say about the origin of the word in quechua she would have little to say. My father and his grandparents were born in Cusco (and are bilingual, speaking Spanish and Quechua) and in fact, my grandparents cultivated quinua (yes, with U) in their farm.

You have to keep in mind that in Quechua U and O are interchangeable and there is not really a distinction of these vowels (as there isn't between E and I). As a result, you will hear some people pronounce it quinoa ['kinoa] and others quinua ['kinua], but NEVER [ki'nua] or [ki'noa]. My preference is for quinua, since that is what my family calls it, but I do know that due to the characteristics of the language, some people would call it quinoa. Here in Australia (at least in Melbourne)the preference is for [ki'noa] and I'm fine with that, but I would still call it quinua. Since this is close enough to ['ki:nwɑ:], I disagree that a native Quechua or Spanish speaker (at least from Peru) would not understand it, it may sound awful to them, but understandable.

At the end, the Spanish or Quechua pronunciations are irrelevant once the word becomes part of the English language. They may be used as reference, but are certainly not authority. Eporcel (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)eporcel (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So what I don't understand is why we have this horrible mismatch in spelling and pronunciation. If "keenwah" is the proper pronunciation, then why don't we just spell it that way? Masterblooregard (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For kids ?

Does anybody knows how old a baby has to be to eat quinoa ?

EstebanLux

According to this article it is 8-10 months. 31jetjet (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)31jetjet

Omega 3?

The article says:

Quinoa also contains omega-3 fatty acids, which provide benefit to the heart.

On the other hand, according to the USDA database, quinoa contains 2.214% omega-6 (18:2) and only 0.133% omega-3 (18:3) - that is, a 16:1 omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, which means this is as bad or even worse than most cooking oils. Mentioning quina as a source for omega-3 is plain wrong.

     Sela

Preparation (sprouting)

Is anyone able to add any content in the Preparation section about sprouting quinoa?

Protein & Amino Acids

1 ounce (28g) cooked

Protein 1.2g Tryptophan 14.6mg Threonine 36.7mg Isoleucine 44.0mg Leucine 73.1mg Lysine 66.9mg Methionine 26.9mg Cystine 17.6mg Phenylalanine 51.8mg Tyrosine 23.2mg Valine 51.8mg Arginine 95.2mg Histidine 35.6mg Alanine 51.2mg Aspartic acid 98.8mg Glutamic acid 162mg Glycine 60.5mg Proline 67.2mg Serine 49.3mg

References

Future section

I'm moving the enclosed from the article to here:

==Future==

Quinoa could be cultivated in parts of the world where no grains grow because summers are not hot enough; and then reducing imports of cereals in certain countries and increasing food production in the world; those areas are the same where the potato was introduced: central and north Scandinavia, Siberia, North Canada, Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, Kuril Islands, even Greenland perhaps deserves crop trials, it would be very interesting to establish quinoa crops in Iceland; a country where no grain crops are possible.

Something along these lines might be appropriate but only if WP:ATT and encylopedic tone can be improved. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Original research in several articles for more discussion. Kingdon 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

quinoa ? available india bangalore

hii any one can tell me this seed is available in bangalore can i know wat we call in indian language quinoa ? mail me manu_handsome2001@yahoo.co.in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.96.40.68 (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Nutrition info

I did a Google search, found this on netnutritionist.com (http://www.netnutritionist.com/qa13.htm), got the permission of the author (per an email:

I'd like to cite your web page for the nutritional content of Quinoa, or would like it if you could point me to the source of this information that you have posted. Specifically, I'd like to copy the nutrition information to a Wikipedia article about Quinoa. Thanks!

her response:

Sure, I am not sure where I got it. But if I quoted it was from a reputable source so go ahead. Sincerely, Gay Riley, MS, RD, CCN www.netnutritionist.com

Quinoa/1/2 cup dry
Calories	318
Total fat (g)	4.9
Saturated fat (g)	0.5
Monounsaturated fat (g)	1.3
Polyunsaturated fat (g)	2
Dietary fiber (g)	5
Protein (g)	11
Carbohydrate (g)	59
Cholesterol (mg)	0
Sodium (mg)	18
Riboflavin (mg)	0.3
Vitamin E (mg)	4.1
Copper (mg)	0.7
Iron (mg)	7.9
Magnesium (mg)	179
Manganese (mg)	1.9
Phosphorus (mg)	349
Potassium (mg)	629
Zinc (mg)	2.8

Also, from the same page, but this information should maybe go somewhere else. I'm posting here for reference purposes.

Amaranth<o:p> </o:p>

Amaranth is a broad-leafed plant which produces multi-headed flowerets containing grain-like seed of extremely high nutritional value. The tiny seeds are a creamy tan in color and are about 1/32" in diameter. Each plant produces 40,000-60,000 seeds. The amaranth seeds are used in their whole grain form, milled into flour or puffed into miniature kernels. <o:p> </o:p>

Amaranth,

                                   although used as a grain, is more aptly termed 
                                   a pseudo-grain. It is used as a grain in cereals, 
                                   pastas, baked goods and other foods. It is in 
                                   a genetic classification of its own (genus Amaranthus, 

family Amaranthacae).<o:p> </o:p>

Compare the nutritional value of amaranth to other grains based on 100 grams:

	Amaranth	Wheat	Corn	Rice	Oats
Protein	19g	12.8g	9.4g	5.6g	15.8g
Fiber (crude)	5.6g	2.3g	3g	.3g	3g
Fat (crude)	6g	1.7g	4.7g	.6g	6.9g
Carbohydrates	6g	71g	74g	79.4g	66g
Calcium	250mg	29.4mg	7mg	9mg	54mg
Iron	15mg	4mg	2.7mg	4.4mg	5mg
Calories	414	334	365	360	389

Hires an editor 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The carbohydrate content listed in the table for Amaranth appears to be incorrect. If 1/2 cup contains 318 calories and 59g carbohyrdate, 100gms at 414 calories cannot contain 6g carbohydrate ... unless I am misunderstanding what is being compared? But I suspect this is just a typo. UofCMissouriJones (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Shelf Life

Does any one know the average shelf life of Quinoa in its different storage forms? It would be very helpful to have in the article. -Kain Nihil 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheat and Rice vs Quinoa Protein

"Unlike wheat or rice (which are low in lysine), quinoa contains a balanced set of essential amino acids for humans, making it an unusually complete food. This means it takes less quinoa protein to meet one's needs than wheat protein." This doesn't sound right to me. From what I understand, wheat and rice completely lack several essential amino acids for humans and so it doesn't matter how much of it you eat, rice and wheat won't ever be able to completely meet one's needs. --Saritamackita (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely lacking is not the case. The amounts are nutritionally insignificant. Not sure of the exact figures, but you'd have to eat an impossible amount of wheat or rice to get the appropriate amount of daily protein, whereas with quinoa you'd have to eat about 10 servings or so a day to get an adequate amount of protein per day. It's still more servings per day than some other high protein vegetable products, but high (in terms of protein) for a cereal (or pseudo-cereal). See the charts above for more information. Hires an editor (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nutritional value section

In the section on nutritional value, there's a sentence that ends with: ". . .making it a healthy choice for vegetarians and vegans (12%–18%)." I'm not disputing this, but what does the percentage refer to? – SJL 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which grocery Isle do you think I would find Quinoa. With the cereals or rice or where ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.58.55 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The article states "Unlike wheat or rice (which are low in lysine), and like oats, ..." implying that oats offers all essential amino acids, but the Concise Encyclopedia of Foods and Nutrition on p. 780 [5] calls oats "deficient in the essential amino acid lysine." Apparently oats do contain some lysine [6], but not enough to put it on anyone's list of complete proteins, including wikipedia's own Complete protein. Finally, if oats were a complete protein, that notable trait should be on wikipedia's oats page, but is not. I suggest we remove "and like oats," from this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.247.78 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In this section is the following quote "its nutrient contents are collectively and substantially reduced" in relation to cooked from raw. The source quoted for the full sentence does not appear to make this assertion. I believe this was said from a comparison of the raw vs. cooked tables and is not due to losses of nutrient in cooking. It is the change in composition per 100 grams that leads to this error; cooked contains a much much higher proportion of water than uncooked. Therefore the statement is inappropriate and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4530:2:704:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FF78 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

History

Hi, I would really like if someone hade a good source on the statements in the text saying that europeans prohibited quinoa cultivation within the former Inca empire. This is interesting because my history teacher at my university claimed that the Incas suffered from undernourishment due to a low-protein diet, mostly consisting of maize. If quinoa was cultivated on a broad scale by the Incas, they, would've had a good source of protein available to most people. This information could be used as a complementary arguement in understanding how the Inca empire could be so successful. An empire built by undernourished people is harder to understand.

// The Dime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.23.201 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Their empire was built long before the arrival of the conquistadores, and it was the conquistadores who caused their malnourishment via restrictions, introduction of disease, forceful adaptation of Spanish lifestyle, war, etc. If you are under the impression they were undernourished upon the arrival of the conquistadores, you have been woefully misinformed. The Inca Empire was the strongest and largest empire in the Americas at the time of the "colonization", or genocide, as I prefer to say.Brakoholic (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Calcium content:

The Calcium Wiki page references Quinoa as a good source. It should also be mentioned in the Quinoa article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.37.239 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Create new section: Agriculture

The following in the summary section is too vague and not sourced:

In eastern North America, it is susceptible to a leaf miner that may reduce crop success; this leaf miner also affects the common weed and close relative Chenopodium album, but C. album is much more resistant.

Suggest deletion or moving to new section under Agriculture which would include common pests and parasites, along with regions it is cultivated. Quinoa has several more pests that inflict the crop both in North and South America. The following section: World Quinoa Production - 2005 (thousand metric ton) would be moved to this section. NxxL (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

partial deletion and cleanup: Saponin

I have deleted the following section, due to a lack of evidence and citation. If it can be proved this occurred with a credible citation, it will be added back in.

However, when new varieties were developed by agronomists, native growers in the high plateau rejected the new varieties despite their high projected yields; because the seeds no longer had a bitter coating, birds had consumed the entire crop after just one season.[citation needed]NxxL (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The following have been deleted until reference is provided:

Reports of numbness of the lips and tongue have been reported after eating cooked but unwashed quinoa.NxxL (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Name

Is this section necessary? Any relevant data could be added to the main portion of the article. The original name, the Spanish name, and its variants are already listed under the main title. I will hold off deleting this until I hear a response.NxxL (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Very High" Protein Content

Before I deleted this line I wanted to ask here to see if I might have missed something first. "In contemporary times, this crop has become highly appreciated for its nutritional value, as its protein content is very high (12%–18%)." Saying this is "very high" protein content seems to be misleading being that both wheat and oats have more protein than quinoa. It looks like an embellished POV statement. RaggTopp (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "very high" in that it's a complete protein, compared to wheat, but maybe not to oats. Compared to oats, which is also a complete protein, quinoa is about equal to oats. So yeah, I'd say "very high" is a bit of puffery. Hires an editor (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring and creation of two new section: Biology and Agronomy

Overview
History and Culture
Natural distribution
Biology
Quinoa is a dicotelydoneous plant usually about 1-2 m high. It has broad, generally pubescent, powdery, smooth( rarely) to lobed leafs normally arranged alternate. The woody central stem is either branched or unbranched depending of the variety and may be green, red or purple. The panicles arise either from the top of the plant or from axils on the stem. The panicles have a central axis from which a secondary axis emerges either with flowers ( amaranthiform), or bearing a tertiary axis carrying the flowers (glomeruliform).[ citation: Lost Crops of the Inca]. The flowers have no petals and are generally bisexual and self-fertilizing.
Cultivation requirements
Climate requirements
Quinoa is highly variable due to a high complexity of different subspecies, varieties and landraces. In general however, it is undemanding and altitude-hardy. It is grown from coastal regions (Chile) to over 4000 m (13,120 ft) in the Andes near the equator. However, most of the cultivars are grown between 2500 m and 4000 m. Depending on the variety, quinoa's optimal growing conditions are in cool climates with temperatures that range from 25°F/-3°C, during the night, to below 95°F/35°C, during the day. Light frosts normally don’t affect the plants at any stage of development except during flowering. Mid-summer frosts often occurring in the Andes during flowering lead to sterilization of the pollen. Some cultivars can also withstand lower temperatures without damage. Rainfall conditions are highly variable between the different cultivars, ranging from 300 to 1000 mm during growing season. Optimal for Quinoa growth is well-distributed rainfall during early growth and development and dry conditions during seed maturation and harvesting.
Soil requirements
Quinoa does best in sandy, well-drained soils with a low nutrient content, moderate salinity and a soil condition of 6 pH (high acidity) to 8.5 pH (alkaline).
Agronomy
Sowing
The seedbed must be well prepared and well drained to avoid waterlogging. Normally in the Andes, Quinoa seeds are broadcasted over land and raked into the soil. Sometimes it is sown in narrow, shallow soils.
Cultivation management
Yields are maximised when 150 to 180 lbs N/acre are available. The addition of phosphorus does not improve yield. In eastern North America, it is susceptible to a leaf miner that may reduce crop success; this leaf miner also affects the common weed and close relative Chenopodium album, but C. album is much more resistant.
Harvesting and Handling
Harvesting is usually up to the present mainly done by hand and only rarely by machine, because of the extremely variable periods of maturity of native quinoas which increases difficulty of mechanization. So, an exact timing of harvest is important otherwise a high loss of grains due to shatter is the case. However the exact harvesting time is difficult to determine because panicles of the same plant mature at different times. The grain yield reaches comparable dimensions ( often around 3 t/ha up to 5 t/ha) to wheat yields in the andean areas. Handling involves threshing the seedheads and winnowing the seed to remove the husk. Before storage, the seeds need to be dried in order to avoid germination.
(Cajema meyer (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Cleanup of external links

I deleted the links to the papers which cannot be viewed by all wiki users! Instead, I added some links to articles of The New York Times! Cajema Meyer (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sweet!Brakoholic (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about nutritional data

I would like to know why it is that the nutritional data is listed for uncooked quinoa. Does anyone actually eat it raw or does it just not lose much of its nutritional value when it's cooked? Rubberpuphfx (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Bias?

"Recent studies have shown that, contrary to popular belief, quinoa is not a complete protein.[citation needed] This misconception arises from the fact that in some stages quinoa may contain all the essential amino acids, but their production stops in later stages. Furthermore, these amino acids exist in such small amounts that they have little or no effect on the body.[citation needed]".

I have deleted this. Not only is it contrary to the information I have read in multiple sources (which state that the amino acid profile and content of protein in quinoa is similar to that of cow's milk), but no references are provided to support it. This section also contradicts the sentence immediately before it, which states that quinoa is a complete protein as it contains the full profile of amino acids, in abundance. This previous statement is backed up by two references.

I wonder whether the deleted section was an example of author bias, or possibly original research? I'd feel more comfortable seeing supporting documents for these two statements before they are re-introduced into the article. I searched for supporting articles to back up the section, and couldn't find any.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by catherinespark (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And these two footnotes (formerly 27 & 28), given as claiming that quinona has provides "complete protein" do not in fact claim that. "

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6359?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=&sort=&qlookup=&offset=&format=Stats&new= http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/10352/2

To be clear, in an encyclopedic article you need to provide evidence to substantiate a claim. You need provide no evidence to note that a claim is unsubstantiated.

Popular magazines and studies funded by marketing associations are frail forms of proof. The USDA quote would have been good ONLY IF it subtantiated the claim that quinoa provided "complete protein". In fact only animal sources provide complete protein.

50.71.210.133 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To be labelled a "complete protein" you need to meet the criterion set down here regarding proportions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein

Apply that to this:

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6359?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=&sort=&qlookup=&offset=&format=Stats&new=

Therefore, according to the above references quinoa does not provide complete protein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.210.133 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia article fails its own verifiability test of what is "complete" - the link it points to for reference is dead. (I'm sure I'll be fixing it...) The USDA website you point to doesn't say that it's complete or not, just that it has protein. But for it to list protein means it's a complete protein according to its own definition. If it isn't complete, it doesn't get listed, or only the amount of protein that makes it complete is listed, so 5g would just mean 5g (of 100g of whatever food, for example) is complete, even if there was some greater amount of one of the 7 essential amino acids, or even most of them.

In all of my research, I've only seen one very biased source say that only animal products provide for a complete protein, and even that claim was dubious by their own admission - it was a Canadian Beef blogger, and the claim was that it was only a small proportion, not non-existent.

Finally, I added 2 different references that explain that this is, in fact, a complete protein, and corrected one that improperly was entered into the page (by updating the formatting only - not the text nor the reference itself), but that also states "completeness". This should end the debate and question about whether this is complete or not. Hires an editor (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted preparation section

Sorry guys: doesn't belong. Saved for posterity.

Quinoa has a light, fluffy texture when cooked, and its mild, slightly nutty flavor makes it an alternative to white rice or couscous.

Most boxed/packaged quinoa has already been rinsed for convenience, and cooking instructions therefore suggest only a brief rinse before cooking, if at all. If quinoa has not been rinsed, the first step is to remove the saponins, a process that requires rinsing the quinoa in ample running water for several minutes in either a fine strainer or a cheesecloth. Removal of the saponin helps with digestion; the soapy nature of the compound makes it act as a laxative.

One cooking method is to treat quinoa much like rice, bringing two cups (or less) of water to a boil with one cup of seed, covering at a low simmer and cooking for 10–15 minutes or until the germ separates from the seed. The cooked germ looks like a tiny curl and should have a slight bite to it (like al dente pasta). As an alternative, one can use a rice cooker to prepare quinoa, treating it just like white rice (for both cooking cycle and water amounts).

Vegetables and seasonings can also be added to make a wide range of dishes. Chicken or vegetable stock can be substituted for water during cooking, adding flavor. It is also suited to vegetable pilafs, complementing bitter greens like kale.

Quinoa can serve as a high-protein breakfast food when mixed with, for example, honey, almonds, or berries; it is also sold as a dry product, much like corn flakes. Quinoa flour can be used in wheat-free and gluten-free baking.

Fluous (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Removed usage section

Wikipedia not being a dictionary and all:

This crop is known as quinoa in English and, according to the American Merriam-Webster dictionary, the primary pronunciation is disyllabic with the accent on the first syllable (/ˈkiːnwɑː/ KEEN-wah). It may also be pronounced with three syllables, with the stress on either the first syllable (/ˈkiːnoʊ.ə/ KEE-noh-ə) or on the second (/kwɪˈnoʊ.ə/ kwi-NOH-ə). In Spanish, the spelling and pronunciation vary by region. The accent may be on the first syllable, in which case it is usually spelled quinua [ˈkinwa], with quínoa [ˈkinoa] being a variant; or on the second syllable, in which case it is spelled quinoa [kiˈnoa]. The name derives from the Quechua kinwa, pronounced in the standard dialect [ˈkinwa]. There are multiple other native names in South America:

• Quechua: ayara, kiuna, kuchikinwa, achita, kinua, kinoa, chisaya mama
• Aymara: supha, jopa, jupha, juira, ära, qallapi, vocali
• Chibchan: Suba, pasca
• Mapudungun: dawe, sawe

Fluous (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Multiplying vitamins??

This passage, " Germination activates its natural enzymes and multiplies its vitamin content.[24]" doesn't sound very scientific. I'd like to know how enzymes multiply vitamins. I think this should be removed. The citation is not available online and the title alone doesn't seem based in science. --209.203.125.162 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, germination is a chemical process, so the seed sprouting and being exposed to sunlight and doing all that it does, may actually do that. You're correct that it could be worded better, though. At some point I will find a source to back this up. Hires an editor (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

related species

Chenopodium album (fat-hen) is listed in the overview section as being a related species that was grown and domesticated in North America. However, the wiki article seems to indicate that this species is actualy native to the Old World. Can anyone with more knowledge verify the species that the Native Americans used? --VikÞor | Talk 13:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ancient DNA from samples of domesticated Chenopodium seeds grouped along with Chenopodium berlandieri, based on molecular evidence . However, there are a wide range of Chenopodium species in North America, so some of them might have also been used by Native Americans, but were not domesticated (or they were, and we lack evidence of it). Redtitan (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Distribution map

The natural distribution map has some major issues and I'd recommend its removal. From what I can interpret from the original German, it places the center of origin too far north (it's generally accepted to be around Lake Titicaca . Quinoa's range of distribution in South America ranges from Colombia all the way to 42˚S in southern Chile . To visualize this, take a cursory glance at the google map of the USDA accessions of quinoa: https://sun.ars-grin.gov:8082/npgs_public/prodweb.gmapsp?in_acid=1062773).

That link seems to be dead. Try: http://archive.is/q6seW agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.63 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Outside of South America, it's grown commercially so far in the Canadian Prairies (http://www.quinoa.com/), France (http://www.quinoadanjou.fr/), Colorado (www.whitemountainfarm.com/), and Tasmania (http://www.kindredorganics.com.au/).

References: National Research Council (U.S.). 1989. Quinoa. p. 149–161. In Lost Crops of the Incas: little-known plants of the Andes with promise for worldwide cultivation. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Once I have time, I'd be happy to make an updated map as well as touch up some parts of this article and add references. Redtitan (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• The map and text indicate different distributions of cultivation. 76.126.195.34 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Cultivation in other (new) parts of the world

So [article] informs us that cultivation seems to be successful in some parts of Asia. I'm not sure how to lead a new section that uses information from this one source. Are there others? Looking for input here... Hires an editor (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gluten-free or not?

Under the Nutritional value section, quinoa is mentioned as having "low gluten content", later on in the same section, it's mentioned as being gluten-free.

Which is it? Gluten-free or low gluten? It cannot be both. 98.203.247.11 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good source

Has some good history:

• http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-quinoa-20160511-story.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong pronunciation

Why is /ˈkiːnwɑː/ listed as the pronunciation? Surely it's normally (and correctly) pronounced /kɪ'noʊə/ or similar. I've certainly not ever heard it pronounced /ˈkiːnwɑː/, and would be surprised to hear it that way. I'm assuming it must be an American pronunciation - I've kept it but added the more usual version as an alternative. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

We do indeed say it like that over here. KEEN-wah. Bod (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That would explain it. Yet another case of "separated by a common language". Grutness...wha? 18:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's KEEN-wah in the UK too, in my experience. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Vitamins

Seeing the table 2, page 12, I wonder if just saying that quinua contains vitamin B in rich amounts is the most appropriate. Maybe we should add other vitamins, such as vitamin E. Let's see your opinions.

[7] By the way, it does contain vitamin C (ascorbic acid): see table 2, page 12

Also, I have recovered valuable information about its essential amino acids content and biological value, adjusting to the source. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

FDA has labeling guidance on nutrient contents that are "rich" or "high", as discussed here, where high content means 20% of more of the Daily Value per 100 g, as shown in the USDA nutrition table for quinoa. By this guide, vitamin E (moderate content) and vitamin C (basically zero content) are not high enough in content to mention. Further, FDA and nutrition experts do not discuss amino acid content as being "complete" or included in most nutrition tables because such a term is irrelevant when protein content is the nutrition measure that determines amino acid contribution from food. The promotional-sounding sentence, "Quinoa is the only food of vegetable origin that provides all the essential amino acids, equating its protein quality to that of milk", should be modified because "only" is debatable (and unproven) and "provides all..." is less important than the overall protein content. Oats have higher protein content, and milk much lower, whereas cheese is higher (see links to nutrition tables). I reworded the following sentence because it seems promotional and debatable, depending on the particular nutrient focus: "Its biological value and nutritional quality surpass those of cereals, such as wheat, corn, rice and oats." --Zefr (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the way Zefr worded it worked better. The sentence "Quinoa is the only food of vegetable origin..." does sound very promotional, and the claim that it's the only such food is contestable (and the source used provides no evidence to back up that assertion). I'm not actually convinced that it's a good source to be using on this page - it is itself promotional in nature. It's not a scholarly work on the nutritional content of quinoa, it's more of a puff piece - written by the world's largest exporter of Quinoa, submitted in support of the 'national year of quinoa'. It's probably a reasonable source for basic data about nutritional content (although I'm sure better sources could be found), but using it to support claims comparing quinoa to other foodstuffs is probably dubious, given its promotional nature.Girth Summit (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Girth Summit I do not know if I'm understanding why you say "the source used provides no evidence to back up that assertion" See Preface "Quinoa is the only plant food that contains all the essential amino acids" and Chapter 2, page 7: "Due to the high content of essential amino acids in its protein, quinoa is considered the only plant food that provides all essential amino acids, which are extremely close to human nutrition standards established by the FAO. In this regard Risi (1993) notes that the balance of essential amino acids in quinoa protein is superior to wheat, barley and soybeans, comparing favorably with milk protein."

The data on the content of essential amino acids is very important Protein nutritional quality is determined by the proportions of essential amino acids, as these cannot be synthesized by animals and hence must be provided in the diet. If only one essential amino acid is limiting, the others will be broken down and excreted resulting in restricted growth in humans and loss of nitrogen present in the diet. Ten amino acids are strictly essential: lysine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, tyrosine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, histidine, and methionine. However, cysteine is often also included as it can only be synthesized from methionine, with combined proportions of cysteine and methionine often being presented. The requirements for essential amino acids are lower for adults where amino acids are required only for maintenance, than for children where they are also required for growth.

When a food does not provide all the essential amino acids, it must be supplemented to avoid these negative effects, as is the case with cereals [8]. It is a concern especially in areas of the world where diets often rely almost exclusively on cereal, which results in malnutrition [9].

In fact, the methods to evaluate the biological value and the protein quality take into account the essential amino acids content Protein_quality#PDCAAS_versus_DIAAS

I agree to choose another less "promotional" wording, but I think we should keep information on the content of essential amino acids and biological value.

This review is a good source to add: PMID 19998864 "Quinoa is grown as a crop primarily for its edible seed. It is a pseudo-cereal rather than a true cereal, as it is not a grass. Its leaves are also eaten as a vegetable. Quinoa originates from South America and is still mainly grown there [210]. Quinoa has a balanced content of essential amino acids and thus a high protein quality [211]. It is also a source of vitamin E, thiamine, iron, zinc, and magnesium [212, 213]. Quinoa has a coating of bitter-tasting saponins, which can be removed by soaking [214]." --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I recognise that the source asserts that quinoa is the only vegetable foodstuff that provides all the essential amino acids; what I am saying is that the source does not back up that assertion. How do they know it is the only food from a vegetable source that does this? Given that the claim is contestable, and that the source is promotional in nature, we should treat the claim carefully, and not repeat it in Wikipedia's voice. The other source you suggested looks like it would be useful (although I can only get at the abstract at the moment); I note however that the passage you quoted would not support the 'only' claim.Girth Summit (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia where we're presenting general information supported by WP:MEDRS sources, it's odd to make the case that quinoa should be seen in isolation as a food as if it were the only protein source in a diet. There's no source indicating such isolation, so the argument that quinoa is unique in providing all or "balanced" essential amino acids is moot for people having several foods containing mixed protein sources in their diet. I disagree with the use of the term "biological value" -- who teaches this concept, and what nutritional or national regulatory authority uses the term in public education or food labeling? It's obsolete and quite useless in an encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with the promotional language being a problem. This most recent edit looks ok to me given the above discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering. I also agree with this recent edit.

I have added this short sentence, which has a neutral wording: "It is a source of complete protein for humans".<ref name='"FAOquinoaancientcrop"' />. I hope you agree. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have also added this review PMID 19878856 [10]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick question about that sentence - can something be a source of complete protein? The article on Complete protein defines a complete protein as "a source of protein that contains...", and it uses the phrase directly to describe foodstuffs themselves - it says that quinoa is a complete protein, not that it is a source of complete protein. We should do likewise - propose changing it to 'quinoa is a complete protein for humans', or 'quinoa can act as a complete protein for humans'.Girth Summit (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer the sentence, "It is a source of complete protein for humans", be removed. In a mixed diet, it is totally, nutritionally meaningless, and invites POV-pushing edits that this food or another is more complete than some other one. There's no value to that sentence, and we do not discuss it in the nutrition section, so it should not be in the lede. Taking it out. --Zefr (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The "invites POV-pushing edits" statement is not a reason to trimm referenced and objective information and is not based in any Wikipedia policy (all Wikipedia articles virtually invite POV-pushing, but we do not delete them for this reason). There is no problem, we patrol the pages.

In addition, many articles have comparative tables on nutritional characteristics among different foods.

We must remember that Wikipedia is consulted in all parts of the world and not in all of them there is the possibility of following a mixed / varied diet. Precisely, to take a balanced diet requires information.

Instead of deleting information from the lede, the correct thing is to expand it in the body of the article. In fact, that I had planned to do, but I have not had time. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Shifting the 'International Year of Quinoa' image has knackered the layout of the Botany section

Pinging Alarichall - I can see why you moved the 'International Year of Quinoa 2013' up into the History and Culture section, but inserting the image there seems to have had a negative effect on the layout of the Botany section - there's now a massive gap between two of the sections (at least on my browser). I don't want to revert, as the move is sensible, but do you know a way to fix the formatting? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)