Talk:Jatropha

message: Treekids said:  "the 10k figure was aparently from india- it's been recanted. see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_15_7/ai_107215410)"
Personally, I also tend to be suspicious of the 10,000 kg/ha figure.  But numbers like it are still being widely used by NGOs and development agencies, and the director of ICRISAT did feel the need to use it in the scidev.net article (which is dated several years later than the one Treekids mentioned).  It's probably too early in the game to narrow the Wikipedia yield range so much.  --Belgrano (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More on seed yield

message: When I updated the information about jatropha seed and oil yields to better reflect the current scientific situation, I also deleted the statement that jatropha "yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean; more than ten times that of corn."  The 1892 l ha-1 biodiesel yield reported in the cited MIT article is three or four times larger than 500 to 600 l ha-1 soybean biodiesel yields.  However, it is substantially smaller than the 3000 to 4000 l ha-1 of ethanol obtainable from corn grain production (or roughly equal, if the higher energy content of biodiesel is considered).  I would have an easy time believing that jatropha biodiesel has a net energy balance ten times that of corn, but that's a different matter.  --Belgrano (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seed, oil, and fuel yields

message: Would somebody with necessary information include a taxonomy box to this article? Expanding in general is welcome as well. --Chino 06:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy box

message: === Merge ===
The merge request for Jatropha incentives in India has been there for over a month now. I think the merge is a good idea for the moment. The main articles short enough to have a section on recient incentives which would also add to the significance of the plant. --Salix alba (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: The merge request for Jatropha incentives in India has been there for over a month now. I think the merge is a good idea for the moment. The main articles short enough to have a section on recient incentives which would also add to the significance of the plant. --Salix alba (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This article is about India's effort as a country to become energy independent. It happens that one of the strategies is encouraging the growing of Jatropha, but the article itself is not about Jatropha. It is about how the Government of India and the governments of various states in India are trying to encourage the growing Jatropha for several reasons -- to reduce unemployment, to use wasted land, and to encourage renewable sources of energy. The photo used in the article comes from an Indian government promotional site, so it would be inappropriate to use it in a general Jatropha article. Perhaps the name of the article needs changing. Would that help? Also, the articles it links to are not interested in the plant but in problems of energy production. India is one of the biggest users of electricity in the world. The country has been trying in many ways to address this issue.  Sincerely, Mattisse 00:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against merge 

message: The two articles have nothing in common. If you want to beef up the jatropha article, please don't do it at the expense of India's energy policy. Please at least read the article first, before proposing such a harmful change and the wiping out of an important article in our attempt to do a series on India's energy solutions. Please, do that as a curtesy, even if India has no "pull" here. Sincerely, Mattisse 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pleae remove the merge 

message: Jatropha is a plant and this article can be expanded separately. This article may further be developed by expanding its characteristics, cultivation techniques, research and extension needed to increase its production, its other utilizations etc. It should not be merged with Jatropha incentives in India, which can be be a part of article Energy policy of India.  burdak 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not merge

message: I have removed this paragraph which appeared in the article:
:Per the CIA FactbookCIA Factbook, the United States consumes 20.73 million barrels of oil per day ( 7.566 billion barrels a year annualized), has a total land area of 9,161,923 sq km ( 2,263,960,477 acres), and 18.1% of that land is considered arable.  If we assume that Jatropha yields 6.5 barrels of oil per acre annually , energy equivalence between Jatropha oil and crude oil, and an equivalent ERoEI ratio ( energy returned over energy invested), then the U.S. would need 1,164,000,000 acres of land to completely offload its current energy requirements onto Jatropha based biofuels.  This would require devoting 51.4% of the total U.S. land mass to Jatropha cultivation for energy independence.  
This para is original research and analysis.  It is synthesising data to advance a position, yet WP:OR says:
*Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. 
*Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. 
*Content should not be synthesized to advance a position. 
As far as I can see, the "CIA Factbook" does not even mention Jatropha.  -- Johnfos 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the "assuming" and all the other number choices that make this OR. The paragraph is arguing for a conclusion based on putting together a bunch of data and analyzing it, which is about as pure a case of OR as one can get. Mangoe 22:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the removed paragraph falls under original research policy and does not belong in this article. Burlywood 12:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA Factbook doesn't mention Jatropha, but it does provide the numbers.  Who needs to do the math before it becomes unoriginal research?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.193.26 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source known for their fact checking and accuracy Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Jatropha is normally intercropped anyway, so if I've understood correctly the 51.4% wouldn't need to be used for just that single crop.WolfKeeper 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether you're right (it depends whether the MIT source considered Jatropha being intercropped or the sole crop when they derived then 6.5 barrels/acre figure) but your point highlights why OR is a bad idea. What seems 'simple math' is actually complicated since we have to make sure we're understanding the sources properly Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing original research

message: Jatropha is currently being planted with the intention of producing biodiesel from it. Nobody is crushing it at the moment. I don't have an external link to back this up as it is something I know from my professional work, but there is nothing in the articles linked to that says anything more than that planting is being done and that a few cars/lorries/trains have been run on small amounts on a test basis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.115.125 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronicity

message: I've added www.plantjatropha.com link in the main page not for advertisement but to share our experiences economics for executing large scal projects for jatropha plantation. Biomass aspect is often missed and that has been our focus to make the plantation economically viable. I get several questions on these topics through the link that was posted on this site. I would request the administrator to please add the link again.
[] 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jatropha plantation link 

message: I'm removing the reference to anti-tumor activity, because there is no source cited. A quick google scholar search came up with about as many articles suggesting that extracts had tumor promoting substances as anti-tumor. Whatever the facts are, a claim of this nature needs to be backed up with credible sources. Ac1201 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-tumor activity reference

message: I would like to know if Jatropha is nitrogen fixing. I have read conflicting information about this on the internet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Cziko (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Jatropha nitrogen fixing?

message: Jathropha is resistent to drought, but does not grow much or produce any oil on dry lands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.161.130 (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  drought resistent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jatropha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528114938/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl?6189 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl?6189
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified