User:Gccolman/sandbox

Amaranth Grain:

Nutrition -

As the following table shows, raw grain amaranth has many nutrients.[3][4]

Raw amaranth grain is inedible to humans and cannot be digested because it blocks the absorption of nutrients in our digestive system.[5] Thus it has to be prepared and cooked like other grains. Another table below suggests cooked amaranth is a promising source of nutrition comparable to wheat bread—higher in some nutrients and lower in others.

The protein contained in amaranth is of an unusually high quality, according to Educational Concerns For Hunger Organization (ECHO).[1] The actual nutritional value of amaranth as human food is less than would be expected from raw amaranth grain data. According to ECHO,[1] this is due to anti-nutritional factors in raw amaranth grain. Examples of anti-nutritional factors present in amaranth include oxalates, nitrates, saponins and phenolic compounds. Excessive quantities of oxalic acid can reduce the amount of certain minerals in the body, most notably calcium. It has also been hypothesized that nitrates found in the leaves of amaranth can become chemically changed in the digestive tract into poisonous/carcinogenic nitrosamines, however there is no evidence to support this claim. Cooking methods such as boiling amaranth in water and then discarding the water may reduce the grain's toxic effects.

Amaranth grain is particularly high in protein and lysine, an amino acid found in low quantities in other grains.[6][7] Amaranth grain is deficient in essential amino acids such as leucine and threonine[8][9] – both of which are present in wheat germ.[10][11] Amaranth grain is free of gluten, which makes it a viable grain for people with a gluten intolerance to consume.

Cultivation -

There are about 75 different species that fall into the Amaranthus genus.[20] Many species of amaranth grain are hardy plants, showing resistance to changes in pH, salt content, environment, temperature, and drought.[20] Some examples are Amaranthus albus, Amaranthus blitoides, Amaranthus hybridus, Amaranthus palmeri, Amaranthus powellii, Amaranthus retroflexus,  Amaranthus spinosus, Amaranthus tuberculatus, and Amaranthus viridis.[20] Amaranthus retroflexus, "pigweed," is a wild amaranth species native to the United States and is considered a weed in the Northeast, Nebraska and Great Plains, South, and West.[21] The name derives from the plant's tendency to sprout where hogs are pasture-fed. Although both its leaves and its seeds are edible, pigweed amaranth has not been cultivated as a food crop.

Amaranth’s leaves are edible and full of vitamins. Combining corn, beans, and amaranth seeds, which can be ground into a flour-like substance, provides a complete source of protein. This means it provides the body with all of the amino acids it can’t make for itself. This combination is nutritionally equivalent to meat.[22]

Culture-

In the Aztec culture, amaranth had religious significance. It was a favorite food of Huitzilopochtli, the hummingbird-visaged God of War. Every year during Huitzilopochtli’s sacred month Aztec families would build little statues of the god in their homes out of puffed amaranth and honey. At the end of the month, the statues were eaten by the families to "take the god into them". To arriving Spanish priests, the practice looked like paganism. The conquistadors tried to eradicate the worship of the old gods, and because the amaranth practice seemed like a demon mass—and because the Spanish god preferred wheat—the priests did everything possible to end the cultivation and consumption of amaranth. The religious purge of amaranth succeeded, but the priests who eradicated amaranth also wrecked the rural Mexican diet. Without amaranth, it was no longer possible for poor families to get all the protein they needed to survive from their crops alone. A diet that was once corn, beans, and amaranth became a diet of only corn and beans, which is not nutritionally sufficient.[22]

Wikipedia Evaluation

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
  • In the Botany article, all facts and unoriginal content seems to be properly cited, but in the Cyanobacteria and Pinophyta articles I came across a lot of [citation needed] or paragraphs that mentioned scientific terms or numbers with no citation or [citation needed] written after the paragraph
• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • Nothing distracted me and the articles followed a natural flow from one topic to another.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • I did not notice any claims or bias, the articles seemed neutral
• Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • When I tried to open the links for the references/bibliography I received an error message saying the page couldn't be found. Based on the citations, the sources seem to be from academic journals and/or published papers by respected experts on the subjects. However, since I was unable to view these sources I am unable to speak to the presence of bias.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • Although there were a few references that were over 100 years old, most of the sources are from the last decade. I expected to see some older references, because the science of botany has been around since the 1800's.
• Check the talk page. What kinds of discussion is going on in the Wikipedia community about how to represent this topic? 
  • Where the Botany and Pinophyta Talk pages mostly had only updates on the status that Wikipedia has made it or references to correct links the Cyanobacteria page has a good thread going with a PhD student who is answering questions and testing the accuracy of some of the facts mentioned in the article to serve as a real-time fact authenticator.