Talk:Sugar Cane/Archive 1

Naming
Bamboo or Papyrus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus We have to decide what it is... --Nunuru 16:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets call it papyrussy bamboo,It looks bamboo enough but the paper is made outta it so yeah a hybrid between papyrus and bamboo(BTW papyrus would be more correct as the appearance doesnt matter,uses does)--Vibhor 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's obviously papyrus, it's just that it's hard to make the plant actually look like papyrus in such a low resolution. Bamboo does not make practical paper. --Coldonthecob 17:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They are Reeds. It grows near water for one and can be made into paper. Onemanhorde 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which type of reed would they be?Or you could just link the wiki page since from what I saw the wiki didnt had the words reed and paper along eachother--Vibhor 17:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia []:  * Paper reed or papyrus (Cyperus papyrus), the source of the Ancient Egyptian writing material, also used for making boats –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.217.115.73 (Talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * So you're agreeing it's papyrus then? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.25.239.209 (Talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * It papyrus. How is this even possible to question? Onemanhorde 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I humbly suggest calling it "cane". That covers bamboo, papyrus, and the bagpipe reed out of which I make atlatl darts and tea ceremony spoons. Also, it's just four letters long. --Talzhemir 11:00, 28 November 2010


 * There's no more deciding of the name, this is what Notch calls it, so that's what it stays as. Unless you want to suggest it to him to call it that. – ultradude25 ( T at 06:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So yeah, bamboo
Honestly, if you people can give me a logical, understandable reason why this isn't bamboo, I'd be surprised. It grows hella tall, its got rings, and it doesn't look like papyrus. Notch is a good enough pixel artist that if he wanted to make papyrus, he'd make something more along the lines of the wheat, and I doubt it would end up growing 3 squares up either, which is more of a bamboo thing than a papyrus thing. Plus the damn stuff grows like wildfire if you get it at a good spot

I'm voting it should stay on Bamboo for the simple reason that you'd be blind to mistake those graphics for anything else Mecheon 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuff of this stupedity,I mean come on.Bamboo doesnt require water near it to grow and bamboo doesnt even grows near water usually,Bamboo doesnt make paper and papyrus can also grow 3-5 meters so it doesnt matter how it looks.Its just like redstone.I vote for papyrussy bamboo –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Vibhor (Talk&#124;Contribs) 07:05, 24 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * I vote you use your bloody date sign thing. And yeah, bamboo does need water. Its a plant, they kinda need water, y'know? And I reiterate my point about Notch knowing what he's doing. If he wanted papyrus, he would have made papyrus. But he clearly made bamboo because that's what it looks like and grows upwards like. The only "stupidity" is that you've apparently gone blind and cannot recognise common plants based on one simply function it accomplishes Mecheon 08:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He was likely referring to the fact that bamboo does not grow next to lake/river beds, but much farther away.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wheat often grows more than 4 meters from a body of water, so I fail to see the relevance of water location here. Bamboo can be used to make paper and the in-game graphic looks as much like bamboo as any graphic of that resolution can. The only point in favor of the papyrus crowd is that they got here first. -74.131.49.101 08:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the strawman of failing to address my point. My comment is about wheat, not bamboo, so kindly do not bring up wheat when my comment is about bamboo(redundancy aside).  Given how this plant grows in minecraft, and how it grows in real life, it is highly relevant.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't misuse the term "straw man argument," you're embarrassing yourself and misleading others. What I was saying was that Minecraft wheat refuses to grow if it is more than 4 meters (I think) from a body of water. Real world wheat does not behave like this, but it doesn't stop us from identifying the grain grown in-game as wheat. From this it is clear that plant growth with regard to water isn't a useful way of identifying Minecraft plants. If there is anything else you would like spelled out in minute detail, please don't hesitate to ask. -74.131.49.101 09:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, you were drawing attention away from the issue at hand, which is in that case, a straw-man argument. I didn't make you post a vague argument that didn't explain things, as you have above(which makes much more sense, by the way).  If you are going to discuss, at least specify; vague waves or statements don't help much, especially when you use the resulting confusion as a means to snipe at other editors such as myself.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 09:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And really, there is no need for incivility. It isn't much to ask, to act like an adult(or, from what I've learned on wikipedia), the 'model' of an adult(re, I've encountered 'adults' who behave like children).— Dæ dαlus Contribs 09:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I seemed uncivil there. While I was checking your edits to see if I was talking with a bona fide editor, I noticed you making a different mistaken accusation of strawmanning. That's one of my pet peeves, but I should have kept it on a shorter leash. -74.131.49.101 09:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I'm sorry that I jumped to that conclusion. As to whether I'm an editor..  I'm rather 'new' 'here', but I've been editing wikipedia from 2006/07, and have close to 17k contribs there.(full disclaimer: my edits come from vandal and sock fighting.  I only edit or watch an article if there has been sock activity there.(unfortunately, this gave me a watchlist of 1800 pages.))  So.. take that as you will.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 09:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, take a look at this link and stop being silly about calling it Papyrus, bamboo makes hella fine paper, easier than papyrus, and is the direct predecessor to modern paper. Please pull your heads out of your ass and do some research. See http://www.aldokkan.com/art/papyrus.htm –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.1.176 (Talk) 08:47, 24 July 2010. Please sign your posts with

So both papyrus and bamboo are used to make paper and the above point about wheat implies that plant location relative to water isn't a reliable identifier. With those shared characteristics out of the way, here are the reasons I think the Minecraft plant is certainly bamboo:

- rings around the stalk at regular intervals, which papyrus lacks.

- straight vertical growth along its entire height, while papyrus stalks are less rigid and almost always bend or lean. Notch has shown with trees that he can produce non-orthogonal plant geometry if that is what he intends.

- a thin spread of leaves along the length of the stalk, as opposed to the bushy spread of leaves at the top of a papyrus plant.

It looks like bamboo. It doesn't look like papyrus. Either one can make paper. What else is there? -74.131.49.101 09:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, mysterious benefactor. I could only find stuff on the bamboo slips with my search. So, with all that, and the fact it grows incredibly fast, a well-known bamboo trait, we all good to call it a day on this one? Mecheon 09:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm for a change regarding the findings in this thread, however I request we wait for more than you two to comment here, as well as the 24 IP, to ensure everyone's participation. I'm going to make a link to this thread from the papyrus page after this post.— Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 09:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote we call it "Green Stuff" - makes about as much sense as red stuff did. (Not really voting for this, just pointing out how ridiculous it was to call it red stuff when we had perfectly logical names including "cuprite" (not trying to resurrect that name, just using it as an example)) In actuality, I think Bamboo seems most logical, given appearance and use. -Phoenyx 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah another naming controversy with people on wiki calling each other "ass dumper" or "straw man" Yep its a wiki for sure.Just to oil the heat,The page mentioned water AND mulberry leaves with the bamboo,nao where is that?I said we should rename it papyrussy bamboo but no "we need something more logical and some more flame in the discussion"--Vibhor 11:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And making bread needs flower, but that's not in the game either. But it's still referred to as bread because it looks like bread. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.1.176 (Talk) 11:34, 24 July 2010. Please sign your posts with

Notch really needs to make a popup box that tells us what the thing is or he better think of the names already. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Vibhor (Talk&#124;Contribs) 12:59, 24 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * I didn't call anyone 'straw man'. A straw man is a type of argument where one side, for whatever reason, tries to distract away from the issue at hand by saying something off topic or the like, so the subject that was previously being addressed is 'skipped over' or not answered.  It is a method common in political debate.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 21:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why did you link to WP:STRAW, which about concensus-testing polls, and not the article on strawmen? I suggest you read that article, because your definition is still incorrect. A straw man argument is *not* distracting people from a topic. It is essentially a fallacy in which you respond to an argument which your opponent didn't actually make, as if they had. That is, rather than responding to what they have to say, you imagine a similar-sounding argument which you can actually defeat and respond to that instead. The article explains it very well, please educate thyself. 110.175.14.130 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I didn't check the link beforehand. On wikipedia, this is the general interpretation.  I am aware of the specifics of it's origin, so please stop acting like a jackass.  I was simply explaining my own use of the words, I wasn't talking down to them as you are to me as if I was better than they are, so kindly act like an adult or get out.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 08:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm talking down to you because you insist on misusing term which has a strict definition, and even arrogantly attempted to "educate" someone on a concept you don't understand--using a link to a wikipedia article that has nothing to do with the term, even though you've clearly never read the real article! If you're going to be an arrogant idiot on the internet, expect to be called out like the annoying sperg you are. 110.175.14.130 05:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * cool down anon. we don't want bans here. I'm sure it didn't cross their minds that there was a more suitable page to get a page to support an argument. that doesn't warrant personal insults. --Kizzycocoa 07:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're talking down to me because you're arrogant yourself, so high up that you can't even act your age.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 00:03, 26 August 2010 (PDT)

Renaming with Slashes?
Well what about renaming stuff with slashes in between till the controversy is over?Everyone would be happy with that wouldn't they?--Vibhor 14:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. it's a good compromise for both pages. --Kizzycocoa 14:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But which name should come first? jk. Actually, here's a really good idea (in my opinion) that I hope Notch hears of somehow (anyone on the #minecraft should let him know): he should add a voting mechanism on his site that allows for one vote from each paid user.  That way, we get a valid majority of all people whom this would affect.  Also, there should be a write-in option in case he leaves out a major possibility, and if he notices a common write-in, he could add it later. -Phoenyx 18:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave it be
For now, the page will be called Bamboo, considering the way it looks. Papyrus has no rings at all and some sort of bushy clump on top, whilst Bamboo looks exactly like in Minecraft. Both plants are suitable for paper, so that argument is rather invalid or something. Lets just be friends and keep it this way, okay?--Quatroking - Garble Garble! 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hell, if people still need to fight over this all the time, we might as well call it Papyboo. And to be honest, who the hell wants that?--Quatroking - Garble Garble! 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the controversy section, because I don't think the history of Papyrus is related to Minecraft. It could be either Papyrus or Bamboo, but since most people are more familiar with Bamboo, I changed all the names to "Bamboo" until Notch gives it an official name. It looks a lot nicer than "Bamboo/Papyrus" being repeated every sentence. FlotsamX 23:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

More than 4 high?
Just found a 4 high one while wandering around a new world.

Here –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.156.229.79 (Talk) 23:48, 24 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * yep. that is possible.
 * but, only when randomly generated. --Kizzycocoa 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reeds
Notch refers to it simply as "Reeds." Furthermore, arundo donax (also known as giant reed) seems like a pretty good candidate for what we're seeing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundo_donax TerminalSaint 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * hmm. we need an overall majoratory vote I think. we don't want another aspergite. :S --Kizzycocoa 21:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but it is quickly turning into another aspergite. Since Notch does use the term "Reed," I think that's what we should use, even if this thing is a cross between bamboo and papyrus. Also- I think we should be able to combine 4 of the pieces and get a block to build stuff out of! But I digress --J0z 01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Call it Bambyrus already and be done with it. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.217.117.39 (Talk) 18:15, 27 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * If Notch called it a reed, then it's a reed. PurpleKiwi 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Winter maps
Does this stuff even spawn on winter maps at all? Ive been searching for ages and havent found any.Toadbert –The preceding undated comment was added on 18:37, 27 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * Do plants normally grow in the winter? Use your brain please. --Katnipz 23:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cactuses grow in winter maps. Saplings grow in winter maps. Flowers live in winter maps. Play the game before making a comment like that. Toadbert –The preceding undated comment was added on 23:14, 29 July 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * Any confirmation on this either way? Haven't found any yet in wintermaps, even made a small reed farm with water and torches, nada so far. I know it's rare but jeez. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by SirTapTap (Talk&#124;Contribs) 05:17, 22 September 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * I dont think it exists in winter maps. Its usually not too hard to find it in summer maps, maybe a few minutes of searching. Maybe its cause theres no water, just ice?(reeds require water to be on the map) Toadbert –The preceding undated comment was added on 05:18, 22 September 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * It probably isn't common, but I'm playing my first game ever (happened to get a winter map) and found a lone 3 high reed by absolute chance (it was by a 1 square pool of water that was ice maybe 3 or 4 squares in from the edge), farming works fine from that point on.Furutta


 * I think it's randomly generated in winter maps, but it disappears really quickly since the water is frozen. PurpleKiwi 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Planting Locations?
When planting reeds, they appear to not allow you to place them side by side in water, but they can be diagonal. That doesn't seem to be listed anywhere. Is it worth making a separate section about planting? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcheshire (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:51, 12 October 2010. Please sign your posts with


 * You can plant reeds side-by-side. You just have to get them next to water (not diagonal). PurpleKiwi 22:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I meant *in* water. It looks like you can't even really grown them in water. They'll plant until either a grass appears in the square causing the reed to disintegrate, or place another reed adjacent which also causes it to disintegrate, or possible until the reed is about to gain a level of height.  Find a one-level-deep water, plant the reed and see what I mean. Jcheshire 07:41, 17 October 2010 (CDT)

Sugar cane?
Why is it called sugar cane? In the game it is now clearly named reed, so it should be too here? Or is this a well done vandalism by changing the name at various places? –The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerGraph (Talk 14:25, 11 January 2011. Please sign your posts with   !


 * Notch recently said on his twitter that he is going to retcon reed to sugar cane in a future update to accommodate for the fact that, if added, the new cake object will require sugar to make. This can be found here as also linked on the article. --Gnu32 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks not seen that change.DerGraph 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Acts like a sponge"

 * When planted underwater, sugar cane functions similar to sponge, creating an air pocket. However, it will be only 1x1x1 instead of 5x5x5.

Does it? I haven't tested this myself, but if it is referring to the fact that two block types can't exist within the same cell we'll need to include a blurb like this on at least eight other articles. That type of behavior is not creating an "air pocket" of any kind, it is simply not modeled to include water - i.e., you cannot breath from it. MBC.Daniel 12:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you can walk through sugar canes and breath in it they make something like an air pocket. But you are right that it comes from the fact that they do not allow water on the same place. DerGraph 13:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So, I just tested, and the answer is : Yes, it does provide an air pocket. However, as putting a Cane on another destroys the already planted one, you can't really create instant, permanent air pocket. However, as it lasts around 0.5 seconds before collapsing, you can create "instant survy air pocket", since it will let you take your breath. Really interesting for exploring submarine caves. -- Linkyu 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen mentioned a few times that you can't build sugar cane more than one high or put two adjacent to each other when underwater, and I haven't seen an answer either, so here's my take on it:


 * Whenever plant sugarcane underwater, the game is tricked into thinking it's viable because at the moment of planting there is water adjacent to the block you plant on (in the space you're planting in.) However, once you have planted one sugar cane, the block it's on no longer has any water adjacent to it, and so if the sugar cane is put in a situation where it would check itself for growth or updates (like when you put another one on top of it or next to it) it will break, because the block it's on no longer fills the conditions for it to exist (being planted on a block ajacent to water.)


 * The fix for it is easy; just dig one down next to the square you're planting on, and it will stay exposed to water by that side. This will allow to pile up reed normally to make a permanent "air pocket" without problems of any sort. I often use this to make entrances to my underwater dwellings. Tinox 20:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now the question is : Can sugar cane actually GROW underwater ? -- Linkyu 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So....it has been one in-game day now, and it didn't grow. Now I'm trying to figure out how to make it grow. -- Linkyu 14:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Eventually found out everything that needed to be. I'm writing all that on a subpage on my profile : User:Linkyu/SugarCane_Planting -- Linkyu 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tried growing it underwater with a light source just in case myself, didn't yield any growth as far as I could tell. (It may have grown and fallen off and I didn't see the piece on the ground decay.)-<font color="#ff9500">St. Fenix (User•Talk) 00:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it can't grow naturally underwater. I'm explaining mostly why and how here : Sugar Cane planting. -- Linkyu 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sugar Cane on sand
Can sugar cane really be found growing on sand? Normally it can only be placed on dirt, and I've never seen them spawning on sand before. Confirmation on this would be nice. LTK 70 13:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, this is unlikely to happen. I may be wrong, but I'm almost sure it can't 'normally' spawn on sand. And if it does, then it would collapse as soon as it grow. -- Linkyu 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been able to place it on sand (underwater; didn't manage it on land), but it collapses whenever it would perform a growth check, regardless of the water presence condition I mentioned above. Tinox 23:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

All right, then I'm removing the bit about spawning on sand. Planting things in water blocks is a special case, though, similar to planting things in fire blocks. LTK 70 16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Found this while walking around my first world after the 1.8 patch: Sugar cane on sandNot sure if it is a glitch or not. Reval 04:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found four or five instances of sugar cane in 1.8. I haven't tried to plant any on it, but it will definitely spawn that way. --71.58.69.111 04:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The most common place I see sugar cane spawn is on sand as well as I use sand to farm it so it definitely works and does spawn on sand. 121.98.150.45 08:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Underground canes
Today i was exploring the dark underground of my map, and i encountered a lake. To my surprize, there was a dirt block next to the pool, and iit had a SUGAR CANE on it! Completely natural, no hoax. --Melzardust 08:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, considering I sometimes find flowers next to the lava sea. I added it to the trivia section. LTK 70 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This isnt very rare because all sugar cane needs to grow is a dirt block that is touching water(dosnt matter if it is a spring or not) and there will be a chance it can grow even if it is at the bedrock level, –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Njpa (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:04, 25 April 2011. Please sign your posts with


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEizuPOsQeo&feature=player_detailpage#t=1565s SoniEx2 01:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Optimal Growing Conditions?
Has it been found out from the game code what are the optimal conditions required to make sugar canes grow best? The article doesn't say if they don't grow in the dark, or what level is required to grow them at (though it says they grow better in more light). Does the arrangement pattern of sugar cane make any difference to the growing like it does with wheat? Didz 03:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement that sugar canes grow better in higher-light conditions is false


 * It grows at the same rate no matter what you do. By the way, the time for a reed to grow is about 5 minutes --Tobba 03:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't find any sugar canes
Where ever I go, i can't find sugar canes. P.S.: Sugar Canes look like bamboo. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazy4music (Talk&#124;Contribs) 14:34, 1 April 2011. Please sign your posts with


 * They're sort of rare, and you won't find any on deserts. Note that they're bright. You may make a dirt tower that you dig after. Calinou 22:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to make it so sugarcane has a better chance to grow you can manualy recreate the conditions in which it is naturaly created(by putting blocks of dirt next to water in a way that gives you rows of dirt and this will increase the chance of it spawning(this usualy is thought to be impossiable but i have tested it multiple times and have confirmed it) -Njpa- –The preceding undated comment was added on 22:10, 25 April 2011. Please sign your posts with

Sugar Cane and Weather??
I would like to know if sugar cane grows faster with weather such as rain, I want to know if i should put a roof(glass of course) or not on my sugar cane greenhouse??

please edit your awnser right here please

edit into here:____ –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Njpa (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:01, 25 April 2011. Please sign your posts with


 * In my experiences with farming i have noticed that sugar can doesn't grow faster or slower in rainy weather. However, their growth can come to a complete stop when struck by lightning, it'll just burn down. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.13.50 (Talk) 20:14, 19 February 2012. Please sign your posts with


 * re edit:

Sugarcane does not burn, therefore lightning has no affect on sugarcane –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.153.232 (Talk) 00:23, 9 April 2012. Please sign your posts with

Underwater Canes Changed?
I don't know if underwater canes have changed or not. However, I have been observing different results underwater than what the wiki states. I am seeing that you can stack canes and place them next to one another, but they can only replace water source blocks, not flowing blocks. Can anyone else confirm this? CertainlyNot 14:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Has nobody noticed the swastika?
Because of the nature of sugar cane growing only in areas adjacent to water, the most optimal growing pattern is repeating yet alternating swastikas that have a wide center. There is a picture of what I'm talking about in the farming section of this page.

Does nobody find this problematic? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.213.91 (Talk) 09:53, 25 October 2011. Please sign your posts with


 * What's wrong with a swastika? It's a logo, it was invented and used way before hitler used it. Next you'll be telling me we can't have moustaches or wear shoes because hitler did as well. >.> – ultradude25 ( T &#124; C ) at 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The one in the page rotates counter-clockwise. Hitler's rotates clockwise, so it's not a problem. People always bring up that the counter-clockwise one means something like luck in some other cultures. Congrats, your farm is not only NOT full of nazi sugar, but it's lucky too! Also, I'm Jewish, so I am allowed to give you permission to use this pattern. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.204.82 (Talk) 06:27, 4 December 2011. Please sign your posts with

Better Sugarcane Farming Blueprint
I was reading the Sugar Cane farming methods, and when I was comparing them to other farming methods, noticed those farming methods had this kind of chart:

(PS The wheat icon is just a placeholder until I can get a Sugar Cane icon to work)

I think we should change/add this grid to our farming page. Your opinion is appreciated. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Kajoman (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:32, 30 October 2011. Please sign your posts with

Response
Are you serious? can't you see there's a couple of places where you can't place sugar canes cause it is a corner?... –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.67.67.210 (Talk) 09:10, 15 November 2011. Please sign your posts with

Re-Response
The pattern he posted is quite good. It does have four locations that remain empty if you only implement the pattern one time as shown. If however, you continue implementing the pattern to the left and right, those locations are utilized. There is no pattern with perfect edges and 100% utilization. This is pretty good and is infinitely repeatable. If you do wish to implement the pattern only once, water can be placed just outside the pattern in those four locations, in order to utilize them. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.245.6.84 (Talk) 02:57, 8 February 2012. Please sign your posts with

80% efficiency, 5x5 pattern
This is my first post here, so I'm trying to learn the etiquette. I was messing around with farming patterns, and I noticed a pattern that got almost 80% efficiency (slightly less because it's only 60% at the edges, but it scales well with size). I haven't done the math, but most farms would probably benefit more from this 5x5 ~80% pattern than the 4x4 75% pattern. Has this already been discussed?--Killian –The preceding undated comment was added on 07:03, 1 November 2011. Please sign your posts with


 * if you can find a place to put it on the page then put it on. Also you should sign your comments on talk pages with four rifles or by clicking the button left of the dash and right of the crossed out w to sign your post. In response to there use the colon for how much indentation you want.--BTH 07:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So I did some work on graphing paper and found out that a 16x16 farm using the 5x5 pattern gets 75% efficiency. A 17x17 farm would get 75.4% efficiency. Farms that big would grow so quickly that they could hardly be called efficient, so I'll just leave it off the main page.--Killian 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are probably right. But I did make relatively non-efficient automatic farm using pistons, but only half of the drops made it to the collection point.--BTH 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsure if there is a post and I have yet to find it, but here is one I came up with that may be similar. In 5x5 it's not at 80%, the more it grows though the closer it gets to 80%. I believe @ 20x20 it was upwards of 76%, but all of this was from last night so it may not be accurate.

Hope this can be of use, feel free to put this build wherever you like or put it on the actual page.--67.165.96.33 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Tehmedic


 * Yes, that is the best possible efficiency. Some of the sugar cane is not supported without extra water sources on the edges but otherwise it is the maximum 80% efficiency. 94.237.64.32 20:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Natural underwater sugarcane
On the full release of minecraft I noticed some reeds that were growing on the bottom of the ocean. Now I havent played the prereleases so i dont know if this is new, but i did not notice it mentioned anywhere. I cant upload screen shots right now, but the place i noticed them was at coords x= -264, z = 85 on the seed 2577570269079268183 (sorry for the long random seed). If someone would please double check this and add it to the page. Zephyriphoenix 06:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it growing slower after 1.8?
Is it growing slower? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.113.88.86 (Talk) 09:00, 22 January 2012. Please sign your posts with

____________________________________________________________________

It seems to be. I tested it out and it seems that the section about growth is wrong, and I don't think it makes too much sense either.

I did some experiments by growing 50 sugarcane and then checking on them every 5 minutes. Checking and planting took 20 seconds, so it should be relatively accurate.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqXNpALRcpv9dDBDeHpBazlVdU1UbGZkZkFfOFNjOWc#gid=0

The Chance of Growth chart shows the probability that any given sugarcane has grown from 1 high to 2 high at any point. The curve seems to match the curve of the last stage of wheat shown in this spreadsheet

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AipV2b8UWK3pdC01LW1sU0g5MXROY1dWUUhHQ0RfVnc#gid=4

Which supports the idea that sugarcane is grown in the phases, and once it has been through a certain amount of phases, it grows one block. Because wheat does that too, only visibly. I think?

According to the wiki, sugarcane grows after 16 'phases' which last an average of 20 seconds. I know nothing that lasts an average of 20 seconds to do with ticks, but block updates happen roughly ever 47 seconds. This doesn't make much sense, but I also read about a chance in growth rate after 1.8, only on the sugarcane farming page and not on the sugarcane page. So i tweaked the numbers a bit.

After 15 minutes, 36% had grown and after 20 minutes, 72% had grown. 17.5 minutes is an inflection point, so we can be reasonably sure that at 17.5 minutes, 50% are grown. 17.5 minutes is 1050 seconds, or an average of 22.34 block ticks. It is possible that sugarcane goes through 21 block ticks, and on the 22nd, it grows. (Or maybe similar numbers because 50 might have been too low a sample size)

The Percent that Grew Chart shows how many of the remaining sugarcane grew. For example, after 15 minutes, the percent that grew is 47%. This means that 47% of the remaining sugarcane that had not grown at 10 minutes are now grown. There is a strange curve in this chart, but i'm not sure if it's supposed to be there, or maybe I just made a mistake somewhere.

Muddykippy 10:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The growth in 16 stages, incremented every block update (assuming it can grow) is confirmed from source code. Data on how long it takes to actually grow are interesting, though. Statistics is often non-intuitive; I don't recall how to do the calculation efficiently, but the average time needed for 16 block updates isn't 16 times the average time for one block update. -- Orthotope 11:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________

No thats not the reason. 16 block updates is 16 times the average of one block update.

I did find a reason for the large discrepancy, however. A block tick happens on average once every 68 seconds

48 blocks picked per tick out of 16*16*256 = 65536 total blocks in a chunk

1365.3333... ticks to pick 65536 blocks

so on average, a block is picked every 1 1365.333../20= 86.2666.... seconds

(20 ticks / sec)

Multiply that by 16 times and you get 1092.2666... seconds, which is to within 5% of my result (1/2 sugar cane grew in 1050 seconds, which means that is the average)

Which suggests that the block update article is wrong. Muddykippy 19:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Best possible farm layout at 88.88% Efficiency?
I don't know, but I can think of a way to get 88.88% efficiency. A 9X9 grid pattern repeated over and over.

–Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.67.240 (Talk) 00:31, 31 March 2012. Please sign your posts with


 * Sugar cane has to be directly adjacent to water, not diagonally. -- Orthotope 01:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

100% effieciency?
Can you plant sugarcane on dirt with water source blocks below the dirt like so? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.236.201.50 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:24, 8 May 2012‎. Please sign your posts with
 * top
 * sugarcane
 * dirt
 * water source
 * bottom


 * It would have been faster to test it yourself than to wait for an answer on the wiki. And no, it doesn't work. -- Orthotope 05:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Actual Page problem
Am I the only one that sees some German/Swedish paragraph in place of the entire sugar cane page?173.69.23.64 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm getting it too. I put it into Google Translate and it says: The database is no content found for page "Sugar Cane" that it should be.

This can occur if an outdated reference to the difference between two versions of a page follows or retrieving a version that was removed.

If this is not the case, you may have a bug in the software. Make this report to an administrator Minecraft Wiki and include the URL of this page. Bell345 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No More Sugar Cane
I collected all the blocks of sugar cane, and then I died. The plant is no longer there. How do I get any more sugar? Is it even possible?

173.0.242.100 00:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything in Minecraft can keep spawning in different chunks(except for animals and strongholds) just explore a while and you are bound to find some (it would take you about 80 years to clear world legitly)Russell4 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm playing Minecraft PE. What about that?  173.0.242.100 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Growing faster on sand myth
There was this rumor saying that sugar cane grows faster on sand but some say it was dismissed. Now my question and suggestion is to provide evidence like a video or tests ran by several users to clear this for once and all or is this not really important?187.193.214.123 20:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The block update function only checks for an air block above and no more than two sugar cane blocks below. It does not care about what kind of block it is planted on, light level, weather, or anything else. -- Orthotope 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Also fancy video proof done by generikb: https:// www. youtube.com/watch?v=pvBH3OQtG9Q (no clickable link because the damn "select the cats" thing is not working at all. someone fix the link for me please) 88.73.42.84 13:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit the article to say sugarcane doesnt grow faster on sand.
Since it has been completely proven that sugarcane grows at the same rate on sand and dirt should the article be edited to say so? It causes lots of confusion and some people still think it groes faster on sand.Mmmfrieddough