Talk:Nixtamalization/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nixtamalization

The process dates back nearly 10,000 years in ancient Mesoamerican cultures.

According to the Oxford Companion to Food the process' origins are unknown however, evidence of of this process has been found in southern Guatemala dating 1500-1200 BCE. Can a citation to support the 10,000 evidence be found?

Notes:

Nitamalization is the process whereby the outer hull, pericarp, of maize is removed by cooking the kernels in an alkaline solution then washing and soaking to become ‘’’nixtimal’’’ which is then ground to produce nixtamal dough or ‘’ masa’’. The process increases the nutritive value of the maize, reduces mycotoxins and enables varied consumption in the form of tortillas, atole, sopes, etc.

The Chemical Process

I think the way the process is described is a little confusing. In one place, it seems it occurs before the maize is dried, in another, both before and after. The diagram does not clear things up as it does not include the drying process at all.

I think the article on hominy could be merged with this article as a sub-topic, since nixtamalization seems to be used almost exclusively with maize.

Lmonteros 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)LMonteros

Please go ahead and provide modfications with sources so I can make changes to the diagram. --jadepearl 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What about sweet corn?

Nixtamalization isn't necessary for modern strains of corn like sweet corn, is it? It seems like we just pick those off the plant, boil them, and eat them. Are we missing out on nutrients or is nixtamalization only necessary for 'maza' corn?

Any kind of corn can be prepared that way.. The diference is that Sweet Corn has been breed for extra sugar (content), but it will still lack nutrients that would be availabe by nixtamalizacion. By the way. Corn alone did not supply the full quota of aminoacids requiered by the humans. But a mix of Corn and bean would complement each other, so no animal proteins are necesary. Nanahuatzin 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues that affects nutrition in Africa is the lack of nixtamilzation on corn strains including any sweet varieties. --jadepearl 10:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge from Hominy

There doesn't appear to be anything in the Hominy article that warrants a separate entry - Tiswas^(t) 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I suppose that in their present state there is a fair bit of redundancy between the two. However, that's not to say that each could not be differently expanded at some future point, and there'd be a difference of scope (one is a process, the other a substance). Not much harm being done at the moment having these separated.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I agree that hominy and nixtamalization should be kept separate at this point though the two share similar text points. Indeed, one is an actual item, hominy, and the other is a process. Both articles need an overhaul. --jadepearl 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no consensus for merger, I've removed the proposal tag to close. As noted, an overhaul of the two remains on the to-do list, if anyone wants to take that up.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pericarp removed?

So after it is separated from the grain, is the pericarp removed? It doesn't say so in the article. Thanks, Maikel 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, it is removed through the decanting and rinsing process. I will go ahead and add an explicit clarification. The text of the article needs some serious editing and revision. I would like to this article be the article of the day at some point. --jadepearl 17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of large science fact portions

If one looks at the version edit of Dlinder VERY LARGE sections of the science related material to the process have been removed. Unless people tell me otherwise I am re-entering them. I find it appalling that the science of the method was removed. It is a method and needs to be described in detail. Goto my talk page otherwise.

--jadepearl (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the delete so I can't speculate what the reason might be. Who made the change and when?Wikidemo (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the changes by Dlinder on Feb. 12. I appreciate the style changes however, I think in the pursuit of brevity the science and technique details of the process have been altered too much. --jadepearl (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say just go for it, but if I may ask, best to re-add and expand stuff selectively that you think should be in there rather than reverting everything...and with citations where possible. As per WP:CONSENSUS a method like WP:BRD of reverting changes you don't agree with, then talking about it here if someone disagrees, is perfectly appropriate. I also see one of the footnotes went missing with those edits. Wikidemo (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to discuss the changes that I made. To summarize the changes to the 'Production' section (the 'science' material I think you're talking about):

- parts were moved to History ('Contemporary Native Americans'), or Usage (the bit on tortilla labels).

- In the paragraph beginning 'Industrial production in Mexico', I removed information on aspects of the operation of industrial masa harina plants not related to nixtamalization (out of scope).

- The statement 'In contrast in Guatemala the lime concentration varies from 0.17-.058 by weight and cooked from 46-67 minutes at 94C.' was removed based on this reasoning: 1) it seems likely to be erroneous, since the range of values goes from high to low, rather than than low to high, and includes a improbable 17% lime concentration; 2) the values are so specific that it reflects only industrial production, perhaps only one producer, and thus is not likely valuable as an indicator of regional variation in production methods between Guatemala and elsewhere; 3) the information on cooking time and temp were better used to support the more general statements on cooking times and temperatures (first paragraph of section), on the justification that a summary of broad practices is more valuable than a specific datapoint that leaves out the general context; 4) I could not verify it from scanning the referenced sources.

- The process described in the paragraph on 'The U.S. version of hominy' is at odds with the diagram, and with the description of the process in the sources I reviewed (which generally agree with the diagram). I didn't find this variation documented, and its not clear enough from the old version exactly how it differs, so I went with the prevalent one in summarizing the process. Other facts (wood ash, alkalis used, hominy) are redundant with info elsewhere in the article.

- I read the patent on enzymatic nixtamalization (interesting), and revised the summary to more clearly reflect the process.

- The reference to Jack was removed because I read it, and it doesn't discuss nixtamalization (though it discusses ash as a leavener for bread products). d lindner (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation for the original entry of 1% CaO per cornweight is from p. 272, Corn: Origin, History and Technology while the Guatemala percentages comes from the UN report that is listed under references (first page on lime processing chapter).

I believe that the summation is appropriate in most cases however, I think that for this process details with citation of the precise measurements should be re-included.

The US hominy section is troublesome, I agree. I have not had enough time to verify the differences between the US version of maize processing to do a full contrast.

The diagram would probably be more helpfully labeled. If you wish, new diagrams can be generated, send me your suggestions.

The reason that industrial production was mentioned in the case of Mexican tortillerias is that nixtamalization is very much industrialized and has a huge impact on populations. We cover the early history with smaller scale production and present day production should be listed with concrete example from the present.

--jadepearl (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers to references. My bad for not being thorough enough in finding them. Looking through these more carefully, I have some new thoughts on the specific numbers.

I see the reference to 1% CaO in Smith et al, but its inclusion perhaps warrants explanation or disclaimer, since it is the only source I've seen that cites use of CaO. Other sources go to lengths to explain that both CaO and Ca(OH)2 are called "lime", but only the latter ("slaked lime", ie, CaO plus water) should be used for food. This is a safety concern only; both will produce usable alkaline solutions, but CaO is much less stable and more reactive. It is clear from the context in the original (but not in the article) that Smith describes industrial production (where safety presumably can be managed in a manner appropriate for use of CaO).

The numbers from the UN report were mistranscribed, and edited in a confusing manner: the original reads "lime concentration varies from 0.17 to 0.58 percent based on the weight of maize", not ".17-.058 by weight" (the decimal place, the percent mark, and the 'of maize' qualifier are all important; each omission changes the meaning).

Then, by combining two facts--Smith's citation of 1% CaO solution in industrial production (no location given) with the UN's citation of ~1% lime solution in rural Mexican production--we get a new, not-quite-accurate statement: "Production in Mexico uses lime water (CaO 1% based on corn weight)." Presenting the Guatemala numbers as 'in contrast' to the Mexico numbers muddles everything a bit more.

The more I read about different versions of production, and the more I learn about the process, it becomes clear that the process is tolerant of great deal of latitude in many variables: amount of water; alkali used; pH; temperature; steep time; corn type. You can change all of these and still get edible, nutritious masa.

In rural/small scale/traditional practice, the variation seems to follow little logic and are probably artifacts of local conditions and traditions. The Guatemala numbers are notable because they are less specific than the article implies: they appear to be a survey of different rural producers, not a recipe (note that that alkali concentrations varied 4x; also, the 94C temperature is, I'd bet, simply the boiling point at altitude, and not a carefully-controlled variable).

From the more technical sources (the patent, Smith et al), I've learned that in industrial production, enough is understood about the process that these variables can be controlled to achieve a number of goals: utilize cheap and widely available chemicals (eg purified CaO); minimize water input; increase yield; and control hydration, starch gelatinization, and other variables that effect the mechanical properties of masa made from the resulting nixtamal (important for milling, sheeting, etc in later processing).

It is in these cases where exactitude would be instructive, but these are generally not the numbers included in the older version. I agree, though, that they would benefit the article!

This discussion has been v helpful; I'll try to find the time to address your other points soon.

d lindner (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

confusing euroasian history

I'm confused by the history section, i.e. the euroasian portion. It appears to be saying that if this process was used then both you'd get better nutrition and you wouldn't get a variety of afflictions that come with nutritional difficencies. If so that shouldn't be buried in the tail of the middle paragraph. But I suspect it's actually a mixture of the two. That this process makes the corn provide more calories; but that it wouldn't resolve the absence of some nutrients. Bhyde (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition

"Maize subjected to the nixtamalization process has several benefits over unprocessed grain for food preparation: it is more easily ground; its nutritional value is increased; flavor and aroma are improved; and mycotoxins are reduced."

The nutritional value may be increased statistically because the pericarp (hulls or skin) of the grains are removed and not figured into the total weight of assessed samples. And, the fiber content is also reduced, as is some of the "germ" portion. "Flavor and aroma are improved"? Parched corn grains and popped corn are made from whole grains, and the hulls would be calculated into the nutrition for these foods -- which have charming flavors and aromas of their own. Well, I don't find much info about the nutrition of 'parched' corn. It's something very few people eat, which might chagrin our American ancestors. 1-16-2010, 8:49 CST Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Intra-Wiki links for pericarp, grain -- improvements needed

In my edit of what's left after nixtamalization, I linked "pericarp" to fruit anatomy, and "grain" to whole grain because those were the only pages I could find that show and explain pericarp and the parts of a grain. However, both are confusing in this context. The whole grain page shows the outer shell or skin as the "bran" and doesn't mention pericarp. And the fruit anatomy page shows it as the meaty part of a fruit, which would seem at first glance to correspond roughly to the meaty part of the corn grain, which is called the endosperm in this context.
The latter (pericarp/endosperm) question is resolved somewhat by looking more closely at the fruit diagram, but there are two questions that it would be nice to have an answer to:
1. Why is the shell of the corn grain "pericarp" instead of "bran",
2. Why is the pericarp of corn just a thin skin, whereas on a fruit it's the bulk of the "food-for-growth" part? That's the same thing that the endosperm is on a grain, right?

There are just questions left after reading all this on Wikipedia, that I think make it necessary to improve not only this Nixtamalization description but the Intra-Wiki links as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlamagra (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Nixtamalization

Cyberbot II has detected links on Nixtamalization which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://74.6.238.252/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=nixtamalization+germ&fr=altavista&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=nixtamalization+germ&d=4892844087183950&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=f7949c99,15694ecd&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=Rl3KbkpqQ_QD4uM69aUYCg--

  Triggered by \bcc\.bingj\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Earliest evidence of nixtamalization

@DocTox: The article which cited Mexico as the origin of the process of nixtamalization was a generalist article, citing a study by non-specialists. The Guatemalan origin cited in the History section, is a specialist article published later. On that basis, the Guatemalan origin needs to remain and prevail. Tapered (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, thank youDocTox (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Recursive reference back to this page

https://www.onondaganation.org/blog/2011/cooking-with-ashes/ has a list of references, one of which is this page. Not sure what the protocol here is but that's clearly not appropriate to use as a source. Even if it didn't recursively reference this page, it's a questionable reference to begin with. --2601:204:D980:262B:0:0:0:9C98 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Using that blog post as a reference doesn't appear to satisfy basic requirements of WP:RS. I have removed it. Deli nk (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy of Claims and Safety Concerns

It seems that the claim that aflatoxin is inactivated is incomplete and inaccurate in a biological context. Rather, it is made to not react with a particular detection technology. Reacidification (as would happen in the digestive tract when eaten) reactivates the majority of the inactivated aflatoxin.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jsfa.1853 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.255.52 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)