Talk:Blueberry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Perhaps other blueberries native to the Americas such as Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), Vaccinium constablaei, Darrow's Evergreen Blueberry, Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), Rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei), Lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) should be mentioned? The article mentions US blueberries, but doesn't specify the species. // Liftarn

Contents 1 Growth 2 No blueberries in Europe? 3 what is the chemical formula of blueberries? 4 anti cancer berries 5 why was my link removed 6 Collaboration 7 Query 8 21 g of Vitamin C? 9 Not a "false berry" 10 Some baked products incorporate artificial blueberries, which contain no actual blueberry. 11 Nutritional Chart 12 Blueberry's Blue Colour 13 Blueberry Calcium/Boron Supplement 14 Most Delicious Blueberry

[edit] Growth

Where do blueberries grow? Temperate zones? Subarctic? When is blueberrry season?

Different species from subarctic to warm temperate North America - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about the european blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus)?

That's called Bilberry - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added some info on species (and probably will do some more later). I am unfamiliar with Darrow's. Somebody else will have to do European blueberries.... Pollinator 13:27, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No European species are called "blueberry" - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aren't blueberry and Vaccinium the same articles? Especially the swedish link may be wrong! 82.82.127.8 23:04, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia would standardize on using the scientific names of plant species, with redirects from the common names. But it seems that a lot, probaby the majority, use the common names as the main page, so it's a hodgepodge right now. What Swedish link? Pollinator 19:07, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The swedish link is on blueberry. No, Vaccinium and blueberry are not the same. Vaccinium includes many species which would never be called blueberry (such as the cranberry). Certainly settling on scientific names would be good, although redirects would not solve all the problems either. A combination of redirects and slightly enlarged disambiguation pages would probably do it. WormRunner 18:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm thick here, but I still don't "get" the "swedish connection." The info is mostly about North America. I wish there were more info on Wikipedia on this and other crops from elsewhere in the world. Pollinator 19:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:82.82.127.8 seems to have been talking about the "Other languages: Svenska" link to Vaccinium myrtilus, but as far as I can see, that seems to be a decent link for blueberry and not for Vaccinium. I agree about the non-american crops! WormRunner 19:46, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have done a fair bit of editing on blueberry, cranberry and cowberry - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the best book to purchase that explains how to grow 1/2 acre of bluberries?

[edit] No blueberries in Europe?

So we don't have blueberries in Europe? What should we call them then? They sure are blue. Brutulf 15:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

you can grow blueberries in many parts of Europe, but the native species of blue berries are bilberries so far as I know. seglea 21:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

an anon has again added Scandinavia to the list of places where blueberries are native. In view of the discussion above (in the Growth section) I have deleted this but I don't have authoritative sources. The article seems to have settled down to considering one section of the genus and it should be reasonably clear whether any members of this section are found in Europe - can anyone sort it out? seglea 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct that no species of Vaccinium sect. Cyanococcus are native to Europe. The species with 'blueberry' in their English names all (fortuitously!) happen to be classified in this section. The European native species of Vaccinium are in other sections of the genus. The problem lies in that European native Vaccinium myrtillus (Bilberry in English; in Vaccinium sect. Myrtillus) happens to have the common name "Blåbär" (translates as 'blueberry') in Swedish, which leads to confusion between the two sections - MPF 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MPF. I hadn't seen the more extended discussion below. I suspect this error will keep repeating itself. I'll try to add something to the page to head it off, though I doubt whether it will work 100%. seglea 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The photo on this page labelled Wild blueberries collected in Norway actually depicts bilberries rather than blueberries. If you look at another picture by the same photographer, you can see that these berries were growing singly on a stem rather than clustered like American blueberries. The Norwegian name Blåbær causes the same confusion as the Swedish name.

[edit] what is the chemical formula of blueberries?

Martian blueberries are made of hematite, chemical formula Fe₂O₃ technopilgrim 01:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any plant or animal is composed of thousands (or millions) of different chemicals, and we can't possibly give the formula for all of them here. The formula is often not sufficient, either. For exampe fructose (the sugar in blueberries and many other fruits) has the same chemical formula as glucose (C6H12O6), but the atoms are arranged slightly differently. StuRat 14:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti cancer berries

i have read that blueberries are good at detoxifying people, and i have read tat they are good anti carcenegens. can anyone confirm this? Khulhy 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The only confirmed benefit I know of is the anti-oxidants, which prevent the cellular damage associated with aging. As far as other benefits, they may well be by "replacement". That is, you will be less likely to get sick if you eat lots of blueberries instead of chili-cheese fries, not because the blueberries cure disease, but because the chili-cheese fries cause disease. StuRat 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why was my link removed

Just wanted to know why the link that I placed on this page to Stone Hill Blueberry Farm was removed. This site is an informational site about a Blueberry Farm in New York and has no shopping cart.

Thanks

I removed it because it is a page promoting a specific blueberry farm. The whole front page promotes the farm as a business and a lot of the links do too. If a link to this page is allowed then we will end up with links to every blueberry farm with a page or two providing blueberry information. --Beirne 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats fair enough I can except that. I have to question why a link to the Michigan Blueberry Growers Association is allowed to stay though. It's home page includes a link in its main navigation to the blueberry store .com which is an online store. Both sites happen to be owned by the same company according to whosis. Seems like that is promoting an online store.

Thanks for letting me know why it was pulled off.

Well, any web site will eventually lead to an ad somewhere. I suppose the standard used here is that the page itself can't be an ad, but any links leading to an add can be permitted, as long as the page itself has useful info. StuRat 13:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the standard from the "What should not be linked to" section of the Wikipedia:External links page: Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above. --Beirne 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the Michigan page. I removed its link, too. --Beirne 16:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link to the external linking rules--I had not seen that although I did look at the policies I guess I did not did deep enough. Just want to bring up a couple points.

1. I cringe when I see where I wrote except instead of accept. 2. Although I can certainly see where others would look at the site I posted as "just and ad" I don't look at it that way. This is a site that I have worked on for over 4 years, I have never made a penny on it, and don't plan to in the future. It truly was designed as a favor to the owners. The only way the owners can ever make a penny off this site is if someone sees it and decides to come pick berries. The chances of that happening are pretty slim. Which brings me to.... 3. Now I see how wrong this link was. Links on here need to be something that is of use to anyone who visits, not just people in a certain area. I have learned from my mistake. 4. Finally, I want you to know that I posted in good faith--it was not an attempt to mess up Wikipedia. I thought the site was a good addition to the page--I was wrong. Thank you for your time.

[edit] Collaboration

Myself and User:Hollow Wilerding have recently come to the conclusion of editing the blueberry article and promoting it to featured article status. The talk page has been cleaned for the upcoming collaboration, which will begin within the next month. If you would like to contribute to the collaboration, feel free to edit the article. --DrippingInk 01:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Two signatures have been endorsed. The collaboration will begin shortly. —Hollow Wilerding 02:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do blueberries grow in Europe? According to one source, they have to be taken to the continent from a different part of the world. I feel rather skeptical about this, though I could be wrong. --DrippingInk 00:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain myself, DrippingInk. We'll debate more on this topic when the collaboration begins in a few weeks. —Hollow Wilerding 21:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Species of Vaccinium are native in Europe (and Asia), but the name 'blueberry' is not used for them in UK English, they are given other names like Bilberry and Whortleberry. A classic example of common names being a complete mess (and at risk of generating difficult POV-disputes). Related names are used in some other European languages, e.g. Scots Blaeberry and Swedish Blåbär both translate directly as blueberry, and are applied to the European species Vaccinium myrtillus. I think this is going to make any realistic raising of 'Blueberry' to a featured article very difficult if not impossible; the name is too loosely applied, not being a single species, nor being applied consistently in different countries. My own preference would be to deal with most of the botanical and cultivation information (where it applies to all species in the genus) at the genus page Vaccinium, and any remaining botanical info unique to particular species at individual species pages titled by their scientific names. Then the Blueberry page would be restricted to a page of culinary and social information (traditions, etc). - MPF 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not greatly optimistic about getting blueberry featured either, but I think there's some hope of detangling the blueberry mess in the blueberry page. Trying to lump common botanical and (especially) cultivation info into Vaccinium seems to fall on its face when you consider how different cranberry harvesting is from most of the other more blueberry-like species. I think we go ahead and include Vaccinium myrtillus in this article; everyhing I've seen seems to indicate it is similar enough in appearance and use, no? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The botanical info at Vaccinium certainly needs a lot of work (which I'll get down to soon), but it can (and should, unless the genus gets split up) all be on that page. Cultivation - that for cranberries is already on that page; for blueberries, that too differs from species to species (e.g. highbush and lowbush species differ in requirements), so that too should perhaps devolve to individual species pages. If Vaccinium myrtillus were included, it would introduce a US-POV out of keeping with wiki NPOV policy, as it isn't called a blueberry, so that would not work well. - MPF 12:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

... and if Vaccinium myrtillus isn't handled it introduces a US-POV for ignoring Europe's "blueberry". A cunning trap set for us indeed. Perhaps this article could focus more on the culinary properties of those species commonly called "blueberries" and thereby avoid some of the cultivation and botanical issues? I know, I know, then it won't be comprehensive. Hmph. (Postscript: wait, I see that's what you already pretty much suggested, MPF. I guess I'm in agreement.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've got the Vaccinium page sorted a bit from the USDA genetics resources page, tho' haven't been able to find any info on how the different sections are related to each other. But all the species called 'blueberry' do cluster in one section (sect. Cyanococcus, which, BTW, is Greek for guess what!), which does give better options on making 'blueberry' a valid botanical grouping as well as a cultural etc page. It does make the options for getting the page to featured quality a lot better - MPF 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Got the botanical side here sorted in more detail now. - MPF 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We're working hard, I see. So will it be impossible to upgrade blueberry to the featured article level? If the task is too difficult, I could move the collaboration to something within a simpler range. (Although I'm a bit skeptical on the fact that blueberry can't become featured.) —Hollow Wilerding 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Due to the large percentage of Wikipedians who believe that blueberry is too specific of a topic to edit, the collaboartion will be moving to garlic. Thank you for understanding. —Hollow Wilerding 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query

If I am wanting the best book available on the market that teaches the basics of Blueberry growing techniques in Texas what book should I buy? Also since I have 2 acres to dedicate to growing them should I find a buyer first? Your help is greatly appreciated. (I have a green thumb and have several years to kill so I think I will tincker with blueberries; please send your un biased thoughts) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.206.181.127 (talk • contribs).

Contact your state agricultural extension service, they should be able to advise. It will only be successful if you have acidic soil. - MPF 14:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21 g of Vitamin C?

140 grams of fresh blueberries contain 3 g of fibre and 21 g of Vitamin C.[1]

I simply cannot believe it. -- Toytoy 14:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This nutritiondata web page supports the high vitamin C concentration - MPF 10:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's how much of the %DV daily value you're looking at you silly. :P It says right on that page 14.4mg per 148grams. I mean honestly 21grams of Vitamin C... please.

[edit] Not a "false berry"

As part of a project I've been doing now for a few hours, I am changing "false berry" to "true berry". I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "false berry", botanically. But if there is, the blueberry isn't one of them: see pa4h.cas.psu.edu/Projects/HortJudging/ILFruitsNuts.pdf , which I consider reliable since it's from Penn State University. More authoritative sources were hard to find, but this should be more authoritative than the resources & external links currently listed on this article. Bvbacon 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some baked products incorporate artificial blueberries, which contain no actual blueberry.

That's pretty much the definition of artificial, god dammit!

I changed it to "Some baked products incorporate artificial blueberries."

You shouldn't use such language although I totally understand your frustration! ;) Anyways, I was wondering what is or what is in an artificial blueberry. Is it like a gummy candy or is it just blue food coloring and artificial flavor?24.83.178.11 11:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

[edit] Nutritional Chart

I can't find a nutritional chart any where on the web about blueberries not even on this </http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/> website. I think every page on a certain food should have a nutritional chart like the wolfberry page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.60.59.249 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Blueberry's Blue Colour

I worked with a cook that told me that the blueberry is the only "true" "blue" food out there. That is any other fruit or vegetable that looks blue is in fact purple or a dark colour that looks like blue. Anyone know if this is true? 24.83.178.11 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

[edit] Blueberry Calcium/Boron Supplement

I read a couple of health magazines (the free ones whose articles are basically advertisements for the products they advertise) that state that the most absorbable form of calcium is the form extracted from blueberries. It is called calcium fructoborate. The magazines showed the monograms that "proved" that calcium fructoborate is more absorbable than all other forms in the supplemnt market. Since they had monograms, there must be a scientific study somewhere behind the monograms (hopefully). Is this worth mentioning in the article?24.83.178.11 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

[edit] Most Delicious Blueberry

I have read on a website that Vaccinium deliciosum (Cascade Bilberry) is the most delicious of bilberries because it is the only bilberry/blueberry to have ten flavor components. Apperently there is a research paper to back this up (the ten flavor component claim). Are there any objections to mentioning this in the article?

Since I have never ate them, I cannot attest to this claim. Maybe I can write "most flavorful" or "most complex/sophisticated flavor" as opposed to "most delicious".24.83.178.11 12:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

There is nothing at all wrong with reporting what some reliable source has written. If the research paper can be considered reliable, you can report whatever conclusions it came to. If there's any way to mention the authority of the paper -- if you can say whether or not it was written by someone particularly authoritative in the field or appeared in an authoritative publication, that's even better, but if it looks essentially reliable to you, please contribute the information, and if there's a problem with it, some editor will no doubt bring it up. And you don't have to tone down what that source says, so long as that source appears to be reliable. Please contribute it! Noroton 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)