Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energy wrong[edit]

The box claims that 100 grams of almonds have 2418 kcal of energy - this is biologically impossible. I tried editing it, and found in the source that 100 grams have 2418 kJ of energy; now that is correct. Something is wrong in the routine that populates the box. (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

botanical classification[edit]

The article states that the almond is related to the walnut, which is just absurd. What were they trying to say? Obviously it is related to other members of the genus Prunus - is there anything else we ought to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MauriceJFox3 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the subject of classification, there is currently a line that says "botanically it is not a nut, it is a fruit", which is ridiculous to the reader, because when you click on the Wikipedia article "nut" it says essentially "a nut is a fruit". Are we nuts?! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the botanical name be corrected to the accepted Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A.Webb, so that Prunus amygdalus (L.) Batsch correctly becomes the synonym? Ref: [1]__Aakerro (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


edible seed[edit]

the article mentions that wild forms of almonds arent edible. why is this categorized as an edible seed? Fdskjs (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because we eat domesticated almonds, which are edible. --Bentonia School (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

image problems[edit]

I can't seem to fix the pic of the almond in the description section; it's overlapping the text. Woland37 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text originally came from a Very Old Unnameable Source whose copyright has expired. I've attempted to update it; I've also eliminated much of the biblical discussion as it didn't seem particularly relevant. But if you'd rather have it there, go ahead.  :-) --KQ

Most of what I've seen places almonds in the genus Prunus, rather than in a separate-yet-related genus. But I don't know enough botany to know which we should do.

This is a question for Josh Grosse, I think, as he seems knowledgeable in these areas. --KQ

No, not really, I've been making the classification as I sort through the materials on hand and try and figure things out, so I'd have had to do some reading. Thanks very much to Lee Daniel Crocker for saving us the trouble! --JG


From the article: 'The sweet almond itself contains practically no starch and may therefore be made into flour for cakes and biscuits'.

I sit here with a bag of almonds. Serving size 1/4 cup. Total carbohydrates 6 gram, fiber 4 gram, sugars 1 gram. This does not look like 'practically no [carbohydrates] [starch??]. Should this be amended??

Starch is a carbohaydrate, but just because something is a carb doesn't mean it is a starch. - UtherSRG (talk)
And yet, for diabetic use, it is carbs not starch that is a problem, so that almond, with carbs, probably ought not to be utilized for flour that is especially useful for diabetics.--Dumarest 13:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dietary fiber is relatively indigestible, therefore is not a problem for diabetics. --Fett0001 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The carbs in almonds are due to the fiber with in them. So it is a healthy carb, or a complex carbohydrate. Which means that it takes longer to digest. In other words, carbs from almonds are healthy, but because almonds are high in fat, they should be eaten in moderation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfilibert (talkcontribs) 17:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Almond article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Almond}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have read that almonds once contained enough cyanide to be poisonous to humans, but through selective breeding it was reduced to the point where they became edible. If this is true, it should be added, but I don't know whether it is.

I think that probably refers to the distinction between "sweet" and "bitter" almonds. --Iustinus 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to , almonds are California's largest food export, not the seventh largest as stated in this article. Which is it?

The Almond Board of California also claims almonds are California's #1 export, but only the sixth leading agricultural product overall. Perhaps that contributed to the original confusion. I re-wrote the sentences and added a link to the Board "fact sheet" as a reference. --Michaelfavor 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article currently says:

In parts of Northern California, where almonds are a main crop, the word is often pronounced with a unique regional accent. Rather than the usual American pronunciation of "Ahl-mond", with the soft A and L, it is pronounced with a hard A and nearly silent H, as in "Aah-men". This method of pronunciation is particularly prevalent near the city of Chico in Butte County, but it is also heard in nearby Glenn, Colusa, and Tehama Counties.

OK, well the more linguistic training you have, the less meaningful descriptions like this become. What do "hard" and "soft" A refer to? Is there any actual /h/ in "Aah-men", or is that just a convention to indicate the quality of the a?

Is there any chance that someone in the know could get this transcribed into IPA? Thanks. --Iustinus 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know IPA, but as resident of the area, I can try to answer the question. I don't think there is an actual "h" sound in the pronunciation. The "Aah" sound described above should be like the "a" in "cat". I would write it phonetically as "a'-men". (putting a strong emphasis on the "a"). This pronunciation is only common among almond-farming families and orchard workers who use word "almond" hundreds or thousand of times per year. It's an informal, abreviated form of the word, dropping the "L" and the "d" sounds, and changing the initial vowel sound from the "o" in "odd-ball", to "a" as in "apple". Curiously, this pronunciation only seems to apply to almonds until they are harvested and processed. In the context of food, an "almond joy" candy-bar for example, even an almond farmer would be more likely to use the common (non-regional) pronunciation. --Michaelfavor 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of an 'h' in a pronunciation guide means a voiced 'h', i.e., aspiration (here, as in e.g. the Arabic name Ahmed). Does this really apply to the Calif. pronunciation? - MPF 01:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the above paragraph from the article as (a) the pronunciation statements aren't cited, and I think are unusual enough to need citation, (b) it isn't in IPA, and the manual of style deprecates non-IPA pronunciation guides, and (c) is it really encyclopaedic?

I'm not very good at writing IPA, but based on the above spellings it is something like /æhlmɑnd/ for the 'usual American pronunciation', and /ɑhmɛn/ for the California local - MPF 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know IPA, but the California pronounciation is like 'amp' or 'Amanda'. You should be able to copy the IPA notation for the 'Am' sound from those words. The local joke is that it's pronounced that way because you have to knock the (hel)L out of the tree to get the nuts to fall. Toiyabe 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it would seem that Americans pronounce the word competely differently from us in the Commonwealth? I pronounce it arr-mond, which is the pronunciation given by the OED: ['ɑːmənd] FiggyBee 09:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I (a native and lifelong resident of the Chicago area) pronounce "almond" something like [ˈɑʟ.mṇd] or occasionally [ˈɑl.mənd] I have heard other Americans using [ˈæ.mən], which may well be the Californian way. Toiyabe, I don't know how Californians pronounce "amp" or "Amanda" to make a comparison. I've also heard a (maybe Ohio/Michigan) variant that is closer to the OED version, something like [ˈɔː.mənd], which if I had to spell it, would be "awmin'd". FWIW, FiggyBee, I would pronounce arr-mond as [ɑɹ.ˈmʌnd] and I would spell ['ɑːmənd] as "ommin'd". Thank heaven for IPA. For fun, have a look at: Phonological history of English low back vowels --Theodore Kloba 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a native of the UK, I can say without any doubt or fear of contradiction that the UK pronunceation in the article "ar-mond" is not in common usage. I've never heard a single british person use it and would be falbbergasted if I heard one use it now. We all say "Aah-mond" "Aah-mund" (or infrequently "aal-mund"). The OED probably has something different but then they frequently give pronunceations which are for the South East of England only, are decades out of date or just shockingly wrong (a good example of this is their pronunceation of "fart") 09:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I'm contradicting you. Half the country actually pronounces the 'l' and in some regions of the north it is pronounced 'olmond'. 'Pronunciation', by the way, has no 'e' in it. (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"California produces 80% of the world's almonds" - I'd like to see this figure verified from an independent source. The source cited seems pretty biased to me. I suspect it may mean "80% of almonds in international trade", i.e., excluding almonds produced and consumed locally within Portugal, Spain, etc., which don't figure in trade statistics. - MPF 01:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checked FAO figures [1]; US production is about 45% of world production. So the claim of 80% is a gross exaggeration - MPF 10:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Using your same source, Almond production in the United States is shown to be 88 percent of total production among the nations tracked by the FAO. Having been raised on a California almond farm, I hear this statistic quite a bit, and have never questioned it's validity. Please correct me if I am reading this wrong. Additionally, this source is 3 years old at this time, and a lot has changed in the industry since then. Thanks, Brad -- (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2006 Production figures from the FAO

Country/Quantity/Percentage of world production (1.74 million tonnes)

USA/715623/41 Spain/220000/13 Syria/119648/7 Italy/112796/6 Iran/108677/6 Morocco/83000/5 Algeria/53673/3 Tunisia/50000/3 Greece/47088/3 Turkey/43285/2 Lebanon/28300/2 China/28000/2 Libya/24345/1 Uzbekistan/23545/1 Pakistan/23344/1 Australia/11755/1 Israel/11242/1 Portugal/11166/1 Chile/10153/1 +24 other countries each <1% Mark Nesbitt (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The USDA uses different figures. I think that there is more to the story. Here is one source that I found: link (second page) (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) database contains data on shelled, sweet almonds for the United States, Greece, India, Italy, Spain, and Turkey" - hence highly selective figures, and not as useful as the FAO figures for this article.Mark Nesbitt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am working for a supplier for almond processing equipment. I know that the latest harvest for almonds in California is expected to be around 900.000 t this year. I also heard from an Australian customer that Australia has produced between 160.000 t and 180.000 t of almonds this year. That would probably bring them to no. 3 of producers. I am surprised that they are shown here so low.

The FAO gives the 2009 production quantity in tonnes for Australia as 18,957. Do you suspect that they have an order-of-magnitude error? Nadiatalent (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese Almond Dessert[edit]

First off, isn't it served chilled, so that it is is like jello? Secondly, what is the name in English? It's called "Hun Yun Dow Fu Fa" in cantonese. That translates to Almond Tofu Dessert. 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is usually called "almond ding" on pudding mix packages in grocery stores. --Una Smith (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vitamin C[edit]

I've heard that if you soak fresh almonds in water overnight, the Vitamin C content increases termendously. Is this true?

I doubt it. I don't see how it would work. (that doesn't guarantee it isn't true). Gzuckier 17:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Interesting Fact & What about pareil and non-pareil almonds?[edit]

I didn't see anything about this, they are the two main types of almonds grown in California.

Also the saying goes that when it's on the tree you call it an "ALMOND" but when it's on the ground it's called an "AMOND" since you have to knock the "L" out of it. This is an almond joke that growers tell referring to the knocking of the trees with mallets in order to shake the almonds from the tree. (today it's done with tree shakers)

    • The "Non-Pareil" variety is a soft shell variety and seems to make up the vast majority of almonds here in central California. I am surprised the article does not mention or illustrate soft shell varieties. It leads poople to believe most are hard as the ones they see in-shell at the market are all hard shell. The NonPareil (if I have the spelling right) apparently means without equal and is the name of a specific variety that has been very sucessful. There is no "Pareil" version. There are dozens of other varieties, most of them minor, I have seen them and recorded their names as a huller operator decades ago. The soft shell shell is flimsy, more like paper or light cardboard, sometimes suseptical to soil and mold and can be easily opened by an adult hand. The hardshell are more perfect looking, hard, and uniform in light color. I can confirm that the old locals and local farmers here pronounce it "æ.mund", but those raised on TV or who grew up in more advanced parts of the state are more likely to pronounce it more like the Almond Joy commercials do. WonderWheeler (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Modesto, CaliforniaReply[reply]


Is it worth mentioning that almond wood is commonly used as an excellent firewood? Don't have a reference for that, besides the stack of it on my porch... --Leperflesh 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WLU removed link[edit]

Hey WLU I can appreciate the comments on the article being short and unreferenced. Next time I submit I anything I will make sure the article is comprehensive and referenced well. However, I didn't appreciate the spam comment and "promote spas". The site as a whole is about everything related to spas and massage, including skin care. There is no spa promotion on the article page. The site is completely non profit, not even a hint of adsense or anything else. It costs me money, and it is a project created out of learning how build my own database driven web sites (custom cms from the ground up). So please instead of labeling any outbound link as spam, make sure you understand what you mean. Again I appreciate the other comments, and if that's all that was said I wouldn't be writing this. Also, you may want to check other links on the page before yanking the new one. The cooking link is, short, unreferenced, promotes a book and has adsense on it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Comments like this are more appropriately placed on my talk page. Also if you are in any way related to the site you wished inserted, you may be in violation of WP:COI. Finally, if the other links on the page do not merit based on WP:EL, feel free to remove them. WLU 19:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bitter almonds/apricot kernels[edit]

I am slightly confused about whether bitter almonds and apricot kernels are the same thing or something different. Bitter almond currently redirects to the almond page, where there is a short section on the bitter variety of this nut. Should it really redirect to apricot kernel? (I added the same comment to the apricot kernel page) Jimjamjak 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, they are from different plants, but given that apricot kernels are cheaper than bitter almonds, and they taste almost the same (well, I know from direct experience that apricot kernels also come in bitter and sweet varieties), they are used as a culinary substitute of bitter almonds (in amaretti cookies, for instance). (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was also confused about the difference between the bitter and sweet almond. I would guess that everyone buys and eats the sweet almond, but the page doesn't really say. Can the bitter almond also be eaten with tasty results? I like a lot of bitter foods, so there's a possibility, right? Icculusioso 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My wife gets very, very sick, with a painful pit in her stomach, when eating a fistful of almonds. Less than a fistful doesn't bother her. I'm wondering if there is any cyanide in commercial almonds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Krepotkin (talkcontribs) 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are bitter because there are fatal amounts of cyanide in wild almonds and apricot kernels. Domesticated almonds are one of the less likely facts of history, presumably based on the fact that just a few genes control cyanide accumulation, and a tree without these genes was discovered. If your wife gets very, very sick from almonds, it's likely because of a nut allergy (which can be very nasty and are becoming distressingly common) rather than cyanide hypersensitivity.

Image request: Fruit before processing[edit]

I'd really like an image here of a ripe almond fruit before the exocarp ("fleshy" part) is removed, for comparison with other fruits of this genus. Also the mesocarp, as in holiday nuts, but not polished. --Una Smith (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bitter almonds still sold as food in European supermarkets[edit]

Bitter almonds are still sold in supermarkets and used for flavouring cakes here in N Europe, they are not as deadly as the article would suggest... See for example the Swedish Wikipedia entry: (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, in Germany too. (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

problem with health benefits section[edit]

The article notes "immunity boosting" properties of almonds were found in "recent studies," and cites some Ayurvedic book that's almost definitely NOT a scientific text. And "immunity boosting" isn't a meaningful medical term to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The page on sprouts indicates that almonds sprouts may be and are eaten. If so, this should be included. If this is not correct, that page should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The food and its carnitine content....[edit]

-- (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split the entry to connect with different language editions[edit]

As their is a German and a Swedish Wikipedia entry I think I could make sense to split the passage from this article about bitter almonds to make it a new entry so the languages could be connected.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector Bosch (talkcontribs) 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good to me, but there should be three articles, one about the plant, harvesting, etc., and one each for the sweet and bitter types and their uses. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every tree produces a few bitter almonds[edit]

This statement (which appears to be disputed) may or may not be true, but the two references which were UNECE documents do not support it so I have removed them. They give standards for the proportion of bitter almonds in almonds sold as sweet, but this says nothing about where the bitter ones come from. It might be from the same tree, but equally it might be from a mix of cultivars in an orchard. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting interpretation. Still it seems to me just a bit unusual that a farmer plants in his orchard 99 plant of Prunus dulcis and than one of Prunus dulcis var. amara.
This inexplicable behaviour should be than widespread enough for the UNECE to set standards to avoid having farmer planting three bitter trees every 100 plants. Without any sources that confirm that the farmers would have some advantage in planting the amara variety or the impossibility to recognize the amara variety until the plant is mature enough to produce fruits, it seems to me a far fetched interpretation. --Dia^ (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I just find a reference from University of Graz. It should clear the issue. Here the text and I'm going to add the reference in the article.
Sweet almonds are, by centuries of cultivation and breeding, very low in amygdalin and, thus, harmless; however, even sweet almond trees sometimes yield single bitter almonds (up to 1% of total crop), and some sweet almond cultivars still contain traces of bitter almond aroma. --Dia^ (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me be clear that I have no view at all on the truth or otherwise of the statement in question. It seems quite likely that it's true, given all the information around the web, and so I wouldn't remove it from the article. What concerns me is whether there is a reliable source which supports it. I don't think the reference you've found meets this criterion, as it's just a statement on an individual's personal web page. His home page says that he long since ceased to work for the University of Graz. His research publications have nothing to do with botany or agriculture. So where did he get the information from? Is there, for example, a published, referred journal article which supports this statement?
Why we have to be careful is that there are statements all over the web which are just copied from one another, and when you do very careful research, they turn out not to be true or to be a bit distorted. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could one of you familiar with genetics perhaps help me understand why the bitter --> sweet mutation (long ago & supported by breeding) could not possibly be similar to the mutation of variegation; e.g. where a variegated maple leaf will revert for one branch only back to plain green quite often. Why can seeds on one branch not possilby carry a similar type of mutation/reversion that leaves do?
Here is an interesting quote from the book The Field Guide to Herbs & Spices, by Aliza Green: "However, even sweet almond trees sometimes yield bitter almonds (up to 1 percent)". --- Tom Hulse (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's quite plausible that such reversion occurs. Other possibilities occur to me. An almond is a seed, the bulk of which is formed by endosperm (I guess triploid in Prunus but I'm not sure). Endosperm is formed by double fertilization in which two male gametes fuse with female gamete. Thus, genetically, endosperm is very influenced by the male parent (although which genes get expressed is another matter). Thus bitterness could be due to fertilization by pollen from bitter almond cultivars, or perhaps wild plants in the right area. The point is that we can all think up possible mechanisms; what we really need is to find something in a refereed research journal or reliable botanical textbook.
The philosopher Wittgenstein once wrote (in a different context!) about the futility of trying to verify something by reading more copies of the same newspaper. Unfortunately, I think this is often what happens when researching a topic on the web: you find what look like independent multiple sources of information, but actually are just copied from one another. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be reasonably confident that if a sweet almond tree was grafted onto bitter almond root stock, foliage could grow below the graft and would thus produce bitter almonds from that part of the tree. That's normal for grafted trees I believe. This would make the claim plausible, but it would be good to know if there were other ways too. I have a particular interest in this topic because I ate one lone bitter almond from a bag of raw sweet almonds one time (I spat it out, but it was enough to make my mouth numb, and it was *extremely* bitter). --Trince (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of interesting references; first hybridizing experiments from back in 1923 establishing the bitter/sweet trait as a genetic switch, where bitter is recessive, and occurring in an average of 1/4 of the hybrids: [2]
Second, a recent study verifying that the bitter/sweet trait comes from a single recessive gene, and also introducing intermediate "slightly bitter" genotypes: [3] The article explains both the bitter and sweet varieties as homozygous and consistent in their bitterness or lack therof; but the slightly-bitter genotypes as heterozygous, and highly variable in their bitterness. I assume that meant variable from one cultivar to another, but even if they meant variable on one tree, I think the article basically refutes the idea that ALL sweet almond trees occasionally throw some bitter fruit. It's a little over my head, so do you guys read it the same way? --Tom Hulse (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All almonds of a given tree produce only bitter, slightly bitter or sweet kernels. There is only one gene controlling the production of amygdalin in kernels, although there are almost certainly many more controlling amygdalin production in the rest of the plant, including the roots and leaves. I have sources for this, I'll just have to track them down. Buttonwillowite (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good discussion! I've taken the plunge and replaced the dubious statement with a different one, please edit as you see fit. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almond, nut, raw Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)[edit]

other similar articles contein fat and carb information, while this one does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That information is in the text of the article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

100g is NOT a "serving size" of almonds. A serving size might be 28g. It is actually difficult to eat 100g of almonds in a single serving, and I challenge the author to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 100 g amount is a scientific standard to allow comparison of nutrient contents among various foods in the same amount. Several serving amounts are provided in the USDA nutrient table here. --Zefr (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct name[edit]

According to The Plant List, the correct scientific name of almond should be Prunus amygdalus. Prunus dulcis is a synonym.MKwek (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well spotted. According to IPNI, TPL is wrong about the author. Batsch made the combination before Stokes, so Stokes' name is illegitimate. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rationale for rising prices[edit]

I suggest a revision to this line in the "Production" section: "In 2013 and 2014, environmental problems in California affected the almond supply, contributing to higher almond prices worldwide." Several sources contradict this, noting that increased demand is the primary factor behind higher prices. This article in the Boston Globe states, "Enthusiastic almond adopters [...] are pushing demand for almond milk — and the nut itself — to historic heights. Add in an insatiable almond appetite in China and you have a recipe for both skyrocketing demand and rising prices [...]." And this article on almonds and walnuts in The Produce News includes this paragraph: "So why are the prices of some nut varieties so high? 'It’s world demand,' DeFranco said. Demand is so strong from foreign countries that almond and walnut processors 'could ship everything export and I don’t think it would be a hindrance on their business.'" Therefore, I propose that the line in the article be changed to something like this: "Since 2013, rising demand for almonds has contributed to higher prices worldwide."

I'm making the suggestion here without editing the page myself as I am not NPOV on almonds. I work for an agency that supports the Almond Board of California's communications team. I would be very grateful if someone else would be willing to consider this edit, and then make the update on my behalf. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have changed the edit back to the original. Note that while I don't dispute the suggestion that demand for almonds have been rising, this trend (as I understand) has been in place for over a decade. That sentence in the article is specifically referring to the almond price spike over the past couple of years, which has been mostly due to fears of supply problems in California (and unfortunately, as it turned out, these fears were not unfounded as can be seen in this recent article here )
It should also be noted that that sentence is under the sub heading 'production': This section of the article is about supply, and so it is probably not the best place to mention the rising demand for almonds (though perhaps this point should be mentioned elsewhere in the article). Inchiquin (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A major problem with these edits has been the use of a citation that talks about the increased area of almond orchards using up the available water, but citing it for a statement that there has been a drought, which is never stated in the cited source. The source does make the link between rising demand and rising production, however. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Production of shelled almonds[edit]

The production section includes tonnes of almonds, with shell, produced annually. But I want to know total production without the shells. (I'm just curious what share of the almonds I personally am eating.) If anyone can find a good source for how the mass of the shell typically compares to the mass of the almond that would help estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Almond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture comment[edit]

Top middle picture comment is wrong way round, It should read "Shelled (left) and unshelled (right) almonds"

Edited. --Zefr (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Almond/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Forgive me, I was not clear on the procedure and I made the previous entry inadvertently. My point was that I wonder if there is any residual cyanide in commercial almonds. Professor Krepotkin 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last edited at 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Almond. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oil discussion and reference to the USDA full report edited; the bot use of the search function in the USDA database isn't needed. --Zefr (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please consider adding cultural requirements for almond cultivation to the Cultivation section. I was surprised that there was no information about chill hours, soil preferences, water requirements, temperature range tolerances, or other such information. Kibi78704 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Be bold. You are welcome to add material, as long as it doesn't come across as a "how to" guide. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Series of French articles on "Amande" and "Amandier" have become separated[edit]

Looking for an English version of the French article "Amande" (= almond), I found that there wasn't one, which surprised me. But there is one on "Almond", only it refers to the French article "Amandier" (= almond tree) and not to "Amande" (almond). So the two series of articles have become separated. I've also reported this on the French "talk" page for "Amandier". (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a consequence of two factors.
  1. Connections between articles in different wikis are now managed through Wikidata.
  2. Wikidata refuses to allow anything but 1:1 relationships between Wikipedia articles.
So if we have one article and the French Wikipedia has two, only one of theirs can be linked. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]