Talk:Brazil nut

message: What are Brazil nuts called in Brazil? Kent Wang 21:28, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They are called "Castanha do Pará". Pará is a state in Northern Brazil. PMLF 21:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the title of article be changed? I'm from Pará and we consider it offensive to call them "Brazil" nuts. Its like Açai, which is not brazilian - its paraense. Most of the country doesn't feature it. - F. Augusto.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.239.65.146 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: In Brazil

message: Is there any reason why the second word of the title is capitalized? On wiki articles with multiple word titles, the first letter of the other words are left lower case (unless it is the title of a book, or movie, etc.) I was just curious if there was a specific reason, or if it should be changed. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, at least some of the biology WikiProjects have guidelines to treat names like this as proper nouns (it's not "nut, Brazilian" but a compound term "Brazil Nut"). Similar, Bottlenose Dolphin, there may be further pointers buried in its talk page. I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Femto 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with WP naming conventions, I'm pretty sure that it should be located at Brazil nut. DWaterson 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization?

message: I vaguely remember that it became illegal to buy / import Brazil nuts in a unshelled state in the UK for some health reason. Can anyone confirm this? Markb 12:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that UK shops were as full as usual of unshelled (ie complete with shell) Brazil nuts in December 2007. This looks like misinformation or a wrong vague memory. I've added a cite tag to the statement in the article. 78.149.131.106 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the following content. Please see the discussion above, WP:RS and WP:FN before returning it the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only shelled nuts available to buy? 

message: Is there any reason the main photo is captionned "butt Nut" or is that grafitti?
:Vandalism that wasn't caught previously.  Fixed. MrDarwin 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butt Nut? 

message: "Sapucaia" is not really an alternate name for Bertholletia excelsa. It's the name of related species Lecythis pisonis. See the entry in the Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Sapucaia. Sapucaia seeds are also edible, but different from Brazil nuts.  MCBastos (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sapucaia? 

message: I removed the sentence "Selenium has also been cited as strongly benefitting various other conditions, such as HIV, lung cancer, colon cancer, and dandruff, as well as boosting a healthy thyroid." for a number of reasons:
#the results of both epidemiological and toxicological research on the health implications of selenium intake are objectively inconclusive and currently ambiguous; 
#no large-scale systematic reviews are available on the associations between selenium intake and these health outcomes, only individual studies, the methods behind some of which are quite poor;
#the "boosting a healthy thyroid" comment simply does not make sense; and
#there are no citations provided.
Jimjamjak (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, selenium is not required by plants, therefore there is no selenium in plants which grow in soils which are selenium-deficient.  Such soils are common in rain-forest areas.  Claims which state that Brazil nuts "contain selenium" are therefore sometimes false. Brazil nuts can "sometimes contain selenium" is more correct. Landroo (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal unsubstantiated health claims 

message: Nutritionally, Brazil nuts are perhaps the richest source of selenium, containing as much as 1180% of the USRDV. Please include the weight for which this percentage has been given (per nut? per average dose? or per 100g maybe? ) 
Thanks, 79.181.16.227 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what does USDRV stand for?  I am assuming it means United States Daily Recommended Value.  The definition should be added to the article (see nutrition section).  Acronyms should always be spelled out in articles. 76.204.148.81 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: A 100 gram amount is the scientific standard for quantifying a measure per unit weight of a food, pesticides in soil, chemicals in plants, etc. The USDA nutrient database offers 100 gram, one kernel, one ounce (6 kernels), or US cup amounts when the user browses nutrient contents, such as here. I changed the article text to simply say "100 gram amount." --Zefr (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 1180% of the USRDV- for how much? 

message: 'After peanuts, Brazil nuts are the most common trigger of "nut-related" allergies in the UK.' 
from the following website: http://www.ifr.ac.uk/public/foodinfosheets/edpbrazil.html it goes on to talk about an interesting study about the allergens195.92.40.49 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil nut allergy

message: The reproduction section mentions orchids (as well as 'orchid bees').  "The Brazil nut tree's yellow flowers contain very sweet nectar and can only be pollinated by an insect strong enough to lift the coiled hood on the flower and with tongues long enough to negotiate the complex coiled flower. The orchids..."  Which orchids, there is no previous mention of orchids ?  This should be reworded and the relevant specie of orchid identified if possible.
24.17.110.63 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  orchids involved in reproduction ? 

message: Comment copied here from my edit summary so that "discuss" link will work:
:There may be radioactive isotopes of selenium (there are of virtually every element), but is "ordinary" selenium radioactive?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.243.208 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the content that was not supported by footnote and removed dubious tag. Please sign your comments on talk pages by ending them with "~~~~". Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: IceDragon64 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic of tree, please 

message: Currently, the article takes the view that the tree, too, is called Brazil nut.
This is illogical and seems highly dubious to me. More likely, this is
colloquial use to save time, as is the case with hazel nut instead of hazel nut
bush, and similar. Unless this use can be verified as the truly correct,
which seems unlikely, I suggest that the article is rephrased.94.220.243.230 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your thoughts. Unfortunately USDA PLANTS taxonomy is often badly out of date. Many of our articles are edited by experts who try to keep the information current. Consequently, the taxonomy on Wikipedia may not be consistent with USDA PLANTS. Instead, content should be based on WP:RS. That may include USDA PLANTS, but also other databases as well as the scholarly literature. In APGII, Lecythidaceae is placed in Ericales.  Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nut or tree? 

message: Lots of fats means probably that they should be kept in cold. How cold exactly? 85.76.35.76 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Storage conditions?

message: * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Bertholletia+excelsa%22+Carnitine&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--222.64.215.115 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bertholletia excelsa and carnitine content...... 

message: The Brazil nut tree is the only species in the monotypic type genus Bertholletia.
'''
Is not a monotypic genus one which has only one species?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tautology? 

message: 100 grams of brazil nuts contain 130 grams of fat? Something about that doesn't feel right... Could someone, who knows better, correct that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.52.199 (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information was per 200grammes. I followed the link provided in the article and found a list of nutritional info per 100g, and typed that in here Superomelette (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ftlom, why not make it 65 per 100? That sounds suspiciously high, but incredibly, it seems to be about right; I checked with a few sites, including USDA and the like. Got figures between 60% and 67%. Zap it, say I. Oh. Already done... JonRichfield (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition Table 

message: I agree with removal from where it appears, but suggest taht it should be linked in "See also". It was not my entry, but unless someone provides a sound objection, I'll put it in when I remember. JonRichfield (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I had considered doing that, but its relevance to the article seemed a bit remote except for the name of the effect. After double checking the MOS it appears my thinking was toward relevance for a Further Reading section as opposed to for a See Also section, so if you think that the article would benefit from its re-addition by all means add it back. HMman (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil nut effect

message: http://sistemasdeproducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/Castanha/CultivodaCastanhadoBrasilRO/index.htm
79.176.152.38 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  i read that this link speak about planting of trees (I can not add becuase i don't read that languege) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brazil nut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002070713/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR21/reports/sr21fg12.pdf to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR21/reports/sr21fg12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a useful link; will repair it in the article. --Zefr (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm surprised to see no comment in the Nomenclature section on whether it's "Brazil" or "brazil".  The article uses "Brazil" throughout.  Moreover, it doesn't seem to have been brought up here – the earlier section is only about "Nut" versus "nut".
Looking on Wiktionary, I've found:
* wikt:Brazil: no mention of the nut (whether it's a nut or not aside), only the country and a city in Indiana
* wikt:brazil: definition is simply "a brazil nut"
* wikt:Brazil nut: given as an alternative spelling of "brazil nut"
* wikt:brazil nut: the primary entry
None of these pages have usage notes.  But Wiktionary implies that "brazil nut" is the primary term, which somewhat contradicts what we have here.  Dictionaries are split on the matter; moreover, the OUP can't seem to make up its mind:
* Oxford Paperback (2001 edition) has it as "brazil nut", with no mention of any of the other 3 terms.
* The online Oxford Dictionary has it as "Brazil", with 3 definitions (the country, the nut and the wood), with no mention of any of the other 3 terms (though they all redirect to this entry)
Furthermore, I get the impression from various sources that the country is named after the tree, rather than vice versa, thereby supporting the suggestion that it should be "brazil".
I could try and do more research given the time.  But for now, what do people think?  Should the article be changed to use "brazil"?  In any case, there ought to be something in the article addressing the question, so if anybody feels able to write something then please feel free to do so. — Smjg (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation (Brazil vs brazil) 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Nigger toes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 21#Nigger toes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ―NK1406 02:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nigger toes" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "Brazil nuts are perhaps the richest dietary source of selenium, with a 28 g (1 oz) serving of six nuts supplying 774% DV. This is 10 times the adult U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance"  I moused over DV and R-D-V and got the same definition.  So, the way I read this is 774% = 10 times, whis si wrong.  Or am I missing some subtlety? Kdammers (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With this edit, I cleaned up the nutrition section, removed old references and off-topic discussion, and highlighted a selenium section. The DV for selenium is 55 micrograms, shown here. 100 grams of Brazil nuts (a large serving amount) provide 1917 micrograms, whereas a more typical 28 gram (one oz) serving provides 544 micrograms, shown in the USDA table, use pick list), or 544/55 = 10x DV. Zefr (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This would I imagine largely/entirely depend on the soils they were grown in, but may well be true for the typical sources of commercial nuts. Dietary figures tend to be very slack in recognising such factors. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Selenium says: "Dietary selenium comes from meat, nuts, cereals and mushrooms. Brazil nuts are the richest dietary source (though this is soil-dependent, since the Brazil nut does not require high levels of the element for its own needs). (includes a list of selenium-rich foods)"
Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  DV of Selenium