Talk:Ultra-high-temperature processing

Is it me or is this inaccurate?

Is it me or is this inaccurate? UHT says that it may destroy less nutrients, but I was under the impression is damaged nutrients worse. Google search "The Effect of Heat Treatment on the Nutritional Value of Milk" for a reference. Kaddar 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The URL for the above article is http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/hsingh2/NTRS 519 topics/Heat Treatment on the Nutritional Value of Milk by Erin Gillis.pdf It primarily discusses the effects of pasteurization on "micro-nutrients", like folic acid. More research is needed to determine the effect of UHT alone while accounting for variations in feed, season, etc. Interestingly, the article says UHT is 4-15 seconds, while the current wp article says 1-2 seconds. Which is correct? Note this article http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/uht.html says 2-5 seconds. Yoshm 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the definition says that UHT processing partially sterilizes the milk. this is not scientific. something is either sterile or not, like being pregnant.Dhmuch 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, sterility is a quality, represented by log based factors. Something can be somewhat sterile, 99.9% sterile, and still not fully sterile. Sterile is killing bacteria, partially sterile things have lower concentrations. A person cannot be half pregnant, but a crop can be half-dead Kaddar 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

can i know more abt U.H.T. processing

Does anyone know the negative effects of UHT processing on food products, especially milk? (does it "destroy" nutritional elements like vitamins and calcium?)

I don't know how vitamins respond to UHT, but calcium couldn't care less. You can't destroy an element without nuclear reactions. --Smack (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know more about U.H.T processing. I'v "heard" that the fatcells explodes so the fat in them is so "small" that the body can't handle them. It realy sounds rediculus, and that is what I told my friends. Anyone know about this? /Lars

- @Lars: "I'v "heard" that the fatcells explodes so the fat in them is so "small" that the body can't handle them." - This sounds more like a reference to homogenization (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_(chemistry)), which is a process of "breaking up" fat particles in order to avoid a distinct layer of cream or creamy parts forming in milk. In my home country (Denmark) most "ordinary" milk is homogenized, while organic milk is not. From personal experience I would guess the article's figures for Northern Europe to be accurate, as you really have to search stores for UHT milk, and the only time I've actually been served it was on a summer camp where refrigeration wasn't possible. And yes, the taste is VERY different; personally I find UHT quite unsavoury and would actually prefer powdered milk if fresh milk is not an option.Mojowiha (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I lived in France nearly all of my life (ie. 20 years) and have always drunk UHT milk, and I'm doing fine! It's great to be able to store milk unrefrigerated. Now that I live in Canada I have to buy non-UHT milk, and I'm not so fond of it. Anyway, if 70% of Europeans (I'm pretty sure 100% of the French, as I never saw non-UHT milk there) drink it, it can't be bad. IronChris | (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

- "I'v "heard" that the fatcells explodes so the fat in them is so "small" that the body can't handle them." - Goat's milk is frequently touted as being more digestible because its fat particles are smaller. Goat#Milk_and_cheese -- 201.50.126.220 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Austria here. There is UHT milk in the shelves, but almost everyone drinks non-UHT milk, because it just tastes better (there is a marked difference in taste). People going to France on student exchanges tend to complain that everyone drinks UHT milk and fresh milk is hard to find. It would be interesting to know what countries the study was done in, if any countries were left out, and whether there are any countries where both products co-exist. 85.124.205.38 09:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I definitely prefer the taste of UHT milk. Maybe that's because I was brought up drinking it. IronChris | (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

i prefer UHT also!! I'm lactose intolerant, and for years, the only lactose free milk available here (Australia) has been UHT. They've now brought out a normal (non UHT) lactose free, and it makes me feel sick... Lactobacillus, sounds a bit like lactose... is there any link? Or am I just used to UHT now?!?Ronnieland 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The only link is the root word "lacto", which means milk. I, too, am a little lactose intolerant and find that both UHT milk and milk with added lactase enzyme do not cause me any stomach upset. I cannot add this to the article because it is WP:OR, but if UHT milk doesn't contain much lactose, this deserves to be better publicized. David Spector 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In North-America

Is UHT milk available anywhere in North-America? IronChris | (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously much time has elapsed since this thread was active, but yes, UHT is now widely available at most grocery stores in the form of nearly all organic milks sold at chain supermarkets. --24.5.197.145 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I could never find it when I was in Québec, but it seems Grand Pré sells UHT milk there. I don't know for the other parts of North America. → SeeSchloß 11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you can get it at any fast-food place in the US. It tastes terrible. --Jnelson09 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Netgrocer.com has it, I just got curious today, it's hard to find... but they seem to sell it by the individual container. this place sells it by the pallet. stephan.com 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The dairy industry, i'm sure, doesn't like it. You know why? because it makes their milk last longer, and thus less goes to waste, and they get less money. -dairysceptic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.14.187 (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"UHT milk is also used on airplanes" This statement should be removed. It is meaningless.If the implication is that all airlines serve UHT milk, that is not true. UHT milk may be used on some airplanes or flight segments but it is certainly not a rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.22.9 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At least in the Northeast section, USA, Parmalat is available in virtually all supermarkets. I have a good sense of taste and cannot distinguish cold Parmalat from cold milk of equal rated fat content. The issue of destruction of nutrients needs to be decided on the basis of chemical analysis. If this has been done, the results should be added to the article. David Spector 21:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it funny that you can't taste the difference between UHT and fresh milk. I first tried it as an adult and I can't stand it, it stinks and tastes awful to a palate trained on fresh milk for 35 years. I can only drink it in coffee, and even then I find it spoils the coffee a little. My kids can drink it, I assume that this is because they don't know any better... I can't even linger too long over an open carton without mild disgust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.235.26 (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

UHT is not found in the grocery stores, or Wal-Mart stores, here in Kansas. The US Army is a huge purchaser of the milk, and I've been a regular consumer of it since it first showed up in the early 1990s. It does taste different than non-UHT milk, but the chocolate and strawberry flavors are pretty good. Overseas in Germany, France, Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Kosovo it was commonly used. I find that the taste of it in Machiato (espresso with steamed milk) taste much better with UHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.145.229 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• The correct expression is 'latte macchiato' ('stained milk' - stained with coffee, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.230.212 (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While dated a discussion item, I feel that the information above is inaccurate. I've bought UHT milk in supermarkets from Pennsylvania through Virginia and in Louisiana. Placement in supermarkets can be confusing though, as I've found it anywhere from baking aisles through the non-carbonated drinks aisles.Wzrd1 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pasteurization, UHT, and lactobacillus

"once contaminated, UHT milk spoils much more rapidly than pasteurized milk because all the lactobacillus in milk has been killed by the high temperature heat treatment" - This doesn't sound right to me. Pasteurization should kill lactobacillus along with other bacteria. I.e., I think that both pasteurized and UHT milk would have zero lactobacillus. Any cites one way or the other? -- 201.50.126.220 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

UHT and dairy allergy

I'm mildly allergic to uncooked dairy products (getting stomach upsets and worse) yet UHT milk causes me no problem at all. Does anybody know what is destroyed in the UHT process that isn't destroyed in other processes?Retay44 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe/Britain

I've separated out a "popularity" section and been slightly more precise with the figures. The "seven out of ten" Europe-wide figure is correct but also misleading: as I've mentioned, in France it's even more popular, whereas in the UK fresh milk is vastly more common. I'm British, and don't like the taste of UHT: people who actually prefer it to fresh milk (and there are some) might be considered slightly strange here. Loganberry (Talk) 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

...and "inefficient cool cabinets" in Spain, you are kidding right? and what for Belgium and France ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.81.26 (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"UHT milk is sold on American military bases in Puerto Rico and Korea due to limited availability of milk supplies and refrigeration." The cited newspaper article (in itself not an encyclopedic reference), this line is completely out of context, referring to a single BRAND. The source seems to indicate that limitations exist in Korea, because it sure isn't applicable to PR (where I live). VaughnSC (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Actually UHT milk was first introduced to the United States in 1982 by Dairymen Inc. in a plant outside of Savannah, Ga.(11 Artley Road.) The Dairy co-op subsequently sold the plant to Hershey's USA. I worked there...I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.58.124.94 (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

UHT and Yogurt Making

One advantage to UHT milk is that it can be used to make yogurt without the need to scald the milk first. It can be used right out of the carton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanatoe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How do they do it?

Perhaps not entirely relevant to the article, but I'd be interested to learn how they raise the temperature of a liquid which boils around 212f to 270f . I'd also be interested to learn how they do it so quickly. Is it pressurized and run through a narrow tube? Or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.197.145 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Ultra-high-temperature processing → UHT milk – Every single sentence of this article is about UHT milk. McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support the proposal or "ultra-pasteurized milk" per nom. The title should reflect the content of the article. Since expanding beyond stub size around 10 years ago, it has always been almost exclusively about milk. —  AjaxSmack  01:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my view, it is the article's content that is lacking, not the title. I would really expect much more detail about technology, biochemistry and history of the process unrelated to the substance being treated. By re-titling it, we really kill the chance that someone will come up one day and fill those gaps. No such user (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree but the article has been around for over a decade and no one has added said information yet. Best to have the title reflect what the article actually is and has been for years. A move does not preclude a new article being created for UHT in general. —  AjaxSmack  22:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "UHT milk" is meaningless buzzword jargon to someone not already familiar enough with the topic that they may not even need to read the article, and it's against the MOS:ABBR principles, and against our general naming norms (see ECG and EKG redirecting to Electrocardiograph, GMO redirecting to Genetically-modified organism, MRI redirecting to magnetic resonance imaging, etc., etc., etc.) It also doesn't make any sense in this case; the milk itself is not ultra-high-temperature. Finally, the fact that the present content is all about milk processed this way simply means that the article needs to be expanded to a proper coverage level, this this sort of pasteurization isn't used only for milk.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Mike Cline: I support the above move request per the nomination and also WP:ACRONYMTITLE. UHT milk is a noteworthy subject in its own right (and it is rarely, if ever, called "ultra-high-temperature milk") and it is clearly the subject of this article,. No other UHT product is discussed, except in the opening sentence. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lead leaves the door open for expansion or should be removed. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: I agree but the article has been around for over a decade and no one has added said information yet. There you go. I practice what I preach. Sometimes, at least. ;) No such user (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I might of been guilty of WP:EXTORTION but the results are worthy. —  AjaxSmack  22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This discussion has been going on for almost a month, relisted twice, little participation and no support from anyone other than the nominator. If anyone wants to move this page to another title, they may do so by opening another RM. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

---

---

Ultra-high-temperature processing → Ultra-pasteurization – Common name by a wide margin, per Google Ngrams. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral: It's closer when you combine ([ultra-high temperature processing] [ultra-high-temperature processing] [ultra high temperature processing]) and ([ultra-pasteurization] [ultra pasteurization]), though the latter is still higher by about 9:7. On the other hand, ultra-high temperature processing has been rapidly trending upward, whereas ultra-pasteurization is trending downward. Moreover, it's often mentioned as variations of UHT, which would refer to either ultra-high temperature or ultra-heat treatment. So ultra-pasteurization may already not really be the common name. See also the sources in the article. SilverLocust 💬 22:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Food and drink has been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @SafariScribe: I missed the RM here, but I don't agree with the move of this article. There were no support !votes other than the nominator, and the nom kind of misses the point. While the specific term "Ultra-high-temperature processing" may not be found that highly used in sources, it's derived acronym, UHT (which incidentally also points to this page) is massively widely used and overwhelmingly the common name. See an ngram, showing that variants of UHT dominate the much more obscure "ultra-pasteurization" title. I could support some variant that included UHT rather than the fully spelled out title, but the move as it's been made here should certainly be reverted. Please could you relist or reclose as not moved?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the fact that Wikipedia works with WP:Consensus; even if we should consider head !vote, this should be a minimal participation where there is a support !vote (nominator) and a neutral !vote. However, I am willing to reopen the discussion and relist. Courtesy pinging @Amakuru as I have reopened the discussion. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Closing a discussion as unopposed usually works better when there isn't evidence of previous discussions that objected to a change in the article title. Here, there was another recentprevious discussion. Dekimasuよ! 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. The acyronym "UHT", which stands for "ultra-high-temperature" is overwhelmingly the common name for this concept per ngrams. I would certainl be happy to support a move to UHT processing or even just UHT, but the name should not be moved from the current spelled out version of that to the more obscure "ultra-pasteurization".  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.