Talk:Salvia hispanica

message: Why? Salvia hispanica L (Salba) is NOT the same as chia which is Salvia columbariae?? Now there is no page for the discussion and information about Salba.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.51.147 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Salba" is just a brand of Salvia hispanica, like many other brands ("Cheela," "Sachia," "Anutra," "Chia Sage,"  "Tresalbio," "Purisalv," and "Mila"). Read the article. First Light (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Eh, I'll just redirect it and its twin then. Redirects are cheap! Melchoir 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry for the confusion, I think we agree and I managed to restore your redirectIstvan 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right! Melchoir 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know anything about these plants, but a google search agrees with you. It looks like both S. columbariae and S. hispanica are called "Chia", and the uploader to commons got confused. Compare the current image  with this one  (S. colubariae) and with the one on  (S. hispanica). I will remove the image, and leave a note at its desciption page. Thank you for noticing this! Eugène van der Pijll 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Salvia hispanica L

message: Ive removed reference to S. rhyacophila b/c it's not chia.  Although often mis-referenced as "chia", it is not the species described by this article.  Salvia columbariae is correctly "golden chia", and there exist many misapplications of "chia" (perhaps because it's so easy to type?) among the Salvias - but the correct one is S. hispanica. (ref Ayerza, ITIS database) Istvan 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are likely right - there are many places where the different Salvia species are mislabeled - even the USDA's ITIS database gets them mixed up sometimes. Istvan 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overuse of the word "chia"

message: The definition for novel food given on its Wikipedia page gives the criteria that the considered species has not been used for food. Why, then, is salvia hispanica up for the nomination? Valerie (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: reference in article about novel food

message: Interesting observation. Evidence was from Wistar rats. Suggest we include that fact from the article in the interpretive sentence (i.e. ...was found to be bioavailable in Wistar rats), and then link to pages that discuss rat digestion and metabolism in contrast to humans, or don't mention it. Also, article does not contrast flax digestion, and no reference has been made to the superiority over flax.  Thus it reads like marketing. Sentences in question and reference moved here from the article page. Jethero 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Misleading Interpretations of Evidence

message: It looks like somewhere along the line the 'Chia pet' has mistakenly been assumed to be the cause of the name Chia and thus Salvia hispanica is the only species listed here under chia.  The pet was named after the seeds from ONE chia species. Hardyplants 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saliva hispanica is the original "chia", which comes from its Nahuatl name. S. columbariae is called "chia" because it was used in a similar fashion; "golden chia" is simply one way to disambiguate it.--Curtis Clark 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are a few diffrent species of Salvia called chia. 

message: Thank you to those people who promote more knowledge. It is sad that some people who admit "I don't know anything about these plants" state something "is a redundant stub and should be deleted." It reminds me of the ignoramus who deleted my Barefoot Deep Tissue Therapy (Massage) article. Maybe 15 years ago these people would have deleted flax seed articles?
By the way, conversely from most foods, white chia seeds are said to have higher nutrition than black ones.
Psnack 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learn before you Burn 

message: Sage (Salvia Officialis) is used as a spice. AFAIK the seeds are not used. Is the chia plant ever used as a spice in the same way?24.83.178.11 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chia And Sage (Salvia Officialis)

message: The text reads : After the arrival of the Spaniards, the plant became almost extinct because of cultural and religious reasons. . Does anyone have a references or further information about this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.201.197 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the plant became almost extinct

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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 careful 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) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: In thousands of Wikipedia articles, this is the first time I have seen the  template. I have included some "common" references, but they clearly need to be unified. Which way should we go: ref_label, cite or <ref>?dramatic (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: After the arrival of the Spaniards, like many other animal and plant crops, Chia became almost extinct because of cultural and religious significance due to persecution by the Colonial Catholic authorities in Mexicohttp://www.prevention.com/cda/article/3-reasons-to-eat-chia-seeds/9432323b0b803110VgnVCM20000012281eac____/health/health.experts/andrew.weil.md/.
To me, it is clear that the reference refers to suppression of cultivation. Because the plant also grows in the wild, it is original research to state that it almost became extinct. Likewise, no evidence is presented that "many other animal and plant crops" also became almost extinct.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Curtis, Just because it was not grown by people, does not mean that any indigenous or imported populations also went extinct. The source does not support most of the text we have and if it did - we would need a more authoritative reference for these kinds of dramatic statements. Hardyplants (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from article 

message: please take off the comment about chia and EU being labeled a novel food. What does it have to do with Chia besides being attempted to be copyrighted and wasting my intelligence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel Food 

message: If Chia provides ALA rather than EPA or DHA, it's not an "excellent source of omega 3 fatty acids" because ALA converts to useful forms in the human body very poorly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.241.245 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An excellent source of omega 3"? 

message: Moved from article. This is weakly referenced with original literature and remains unconvincing. It fails WP:ELBURDEN.--Zefr (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written that section exactly as the reliable sources stated it. There are numerous other academic journals that mention the same concepts. I've asked for neutral opinions from editors at WikiProject Plants and WikiProject Mesoamerica. First Light (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you are saying that it fails WP:ELBURDEN. Is it because you can't read the journal articles? That is not a requirement, though they can be provided if you are so skeptical. First Light (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: ELBURDEN applies to links in the "External links" section, and explicitly not to cited references. Secondary sources are preferred, but primary sources are not banned. The abstracts are freely available, and one begins "Salvia hispanica L. was an important staple Mesoamerican food and medicinal plant in pre-Columbian times". It seems that there's no real dispute about that, and I see no reason why this material should not be reinserted. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything wrong with those refs, they look solid to me and are enough to support the text being in the article. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I can't understand the objection to this material. It is perfectly clearly referenced with reliable literature. Whether Zefr or anyone else finds it "unconvincing" is not the issue. I have restored it as three independent editors now agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've improved the two citations; this makes it clearer that both are to journals (one was set up as a web source). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I found an online statement that chia has both omega-3 and omega-6, but I'd like a better reference.  Where do we find really good nutrition information as references?  RJFJR (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The USDA has published an incomplete analysis of chia omega fats from dried seeds, showing 4975 mg of alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3), 1640 mg of linoleic acid (omega-6) and 569 mg of oleic acid (omega-9) per oz. (Standard Reference 23)  (NutritionData.com, USDA SR21).--Zefr (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition 

message: Apparently a "see also" link to Chia pet is not allowed, despite it being how many people would come across Salvia hispanica--Rumping (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should be there - Chia Pet became a huge pop-cultural phenomena. It's obviously trivial compared to its historical usage, but certainly merits inclusion. I've added it backFirst Light (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

text: p.s. I think the photo was too much. First Light (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: The top picture of the Salvia sp. looks more like something in the Eurasian group, rather than the group endemic to the Americas that S. hispanica belongs to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.102.217 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong picture again?

message: Hi, I would like to contribute to this wiki-entry by adding information on the yield. I'm posting the information on the talk page in order to get helpfull feedback. Thank you for reading my addition and commenting.
Seed yield
Seed yield varies depending on different reasons e.g. the cultivars, growing conditions and mode of cultivation. Commercial fields in Argentina and Columbia show a yield range from 450 to 1250 kg/ha. A small scale study with 3 cultivars grown in the Inter-Andean valleys of Ecuador produced yields with up to 2300 kg/ha, an environment x selection interaction was suggested due to the high variation in yields.  The Genotype has a larger effect on yield than on protein content, oil content, fatty acid composition and phenolic compounds. High temperature reduces oil content and degree of unsaturation and raises protein content. 
Jessica H Mc (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yield 

message: Hi, I would like to contribute to this wiki-entry by adding information on the yield. I'm posting the information on the talk page in order to get helpfull feedback. Thank you for reading my addition and commenting.
Chia-Buckwheat Bread
Chia has a favourable fatty acid composition, a high protein and a high dietary fibre content. This can be used to enhance the nutritional value of many different food products. (E.g. tortillas , cake, drinks etc.). Common buckwheat has a high nutritional value due to phenolic compounds (e.g. rutin, quercetin etc.), its protein content (10.6g/100g of dry weight), dietary fibre, a balanced amino acid composition (high levels of Lysine (5.84g/100g protein) and leucine (6.92g/100g protein)). Neither Chia nor common buckwheat contain gluten, combining these two main ingredients (e.g. ration of 10%:90%) will result in a gluten-free bread with an improved nutritional value and healthy features. Common buckwheat bread has a very dense structure due to the lack of gluten which makes wheat bread rise. Adding 10% of chia has shown to reduce the dense structure somewhat, probably due to the mucilaginous matrix of chia seeds. Further research is needed regarding the sensory acceptability of this special bread.
unsigned comment added by Jessica H Mc (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jessica. Thanks for bringing this topic to the Talk section, as I believe it should be vetted first here. In my opinion for ref. 1, including chia seeds obviously would provide added nutrients not present in the same quantities as tortillas without chia seeds, so doesn't add new information beyond what is shown in the Article's nutrient section. I suggest this isn't needed under WP:OBVIOUS. For ref. 2, the same applies, and also doesn't have confirmation as commonly used in bread manufacturing, so is WP:PRIMARY and therefore not usable. --Zefr (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Jessica -- whereas it's clear you are trying to add useful information about new uses for chia, I find your proposed addition is not compliant with WP:NOTJOURNAL, is unduly detailed, and appears also not to have been put into practical uses or recognized publicly as an advance published under peer-review, so is WP:PRIMARY and accordingly is not usable. If it has been published, then please follow WP:PSTS. You may have personal involvement with authors Flores et al. in which case there is WP:COI. Please follow the guidelines under WP:RELY. --Zefr (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use for chia flour 

message: Dear contributors of the Salvia hispanica page. Here is my text suggestion covering different agronomic aspects of cultivation that could be added to this wiki page. Your suggestions or comments to this sections are highly appreciated. Many thanks in advanced. Baumanph (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Jessica and Baumanph. Your suggested content does seem appropriate to add to the article. In my opinion, however, it is more detailed in cultivation specifics and references than the article needs for the general encyclopedia user. Please review WP:NOTJOURNAL and accordingly provide more general statements and fewer (the most recent or comprehensive) references. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Baumanph, Lmeymann and Jessica: Although your motivations seem sincere to update the chia article with more, improved information, I advise that you not engage in writing articles as a team to publish your own research; see cautions and guidelines under WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTJOURNAL.--Zefr (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Your coursework is a good basis for making science-based, cited contributions to Wikipedia, so you should proceed with adding information on cultivation under the guidelines I have offered and WP:MOS. Each of you should register individually as a Wikipedian. Please don't use the Talk page as a message board for your collaboration. Thanks and good editing! --Zefr (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultivation

message: Essential oils in chia leaves possess repellant properties against insects. Therefore Chia is considered to be well-suited for organic production without the use of synthetic pesticides.
Lmeymann (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Baumanph, Lmeymann and Jessica: Although your motivations seem sincere to update the chia article with more, improved information, I advise that you not engage in writing articles as a team to publish your own research; see cautions and guidelines under WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTJOURNAL.--Zefr (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Your coursework is a good basis for making science-based, cited contributions to Wikipedia, so you should proceed with adding information on cultivation under the guidelines I have offered and WP:MOS. Each of you should register individually as a Wikipedian. Please don't use the Talk page as a message board for your collaboration. Thanks and good editing! --Zefr (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pesticide application 

message: I just ate some 'Mixed milled chia seeds' from Aldi. The package states "CAUTION: Daily intake of Chia (Salvia hispanica) seed should be no more than 15g. These versatile seeds are highly absorbent so always drink plenty of water". The article makes no statement about health concerns and Chia - why would a supermarket put a caution on its food packaging if there weren't concerns of some sort? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's because it's considered a 'novel food' in Europe, I'll add this to the article.Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue is that chia seeds in water form a gel which, in amounts higher than 15 g at one serving, may create a choking hazard. This isn't well-documented by secondary sources, example here, but anyone who's tried it knows, and it's a disclaimer for a manufacturer to have it on a label. --Zefr (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Health Issues 

message: Reveal statistics and treatises. Without extra comments. The actual data.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:8100:CD09:FF9C:DD61:825C (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostate cancer statistics