Talk:Suaeda fruticosa

Possible to grow as fodder

This is what the book chapter says:

"The high salt content in the foliage is a serious constraint for consumption by animal." and "Thus, halophytic forages probably will be limited to be used as components in feed mixtures rather as sole sources of food." and "Thus, This species would create some difficulty in grazing by livestock with other ingredients."

This article, however, says, "In Tunisia it has been found possible to grow both Suaeda fruticosa and the cordgrass Spartina alterniflora as fodder crops using seawater to irrigate them and increase yields, but only when additional nitrogen and phosphorus are added.[9]"

That sentence implies that that the plant was grown as fodder, not that an experiment was conducted about growing it as fodder. It does not address "serious constraints" or its places "as components in feed mixtures" or "some difficulty in grazing" or the fact that the article is about an experiment, rather than the plant being grown as fodder.

The experiment in the article is an even further cry from the proposal for the front page:

"... that shrubby seablight can be grown as a fodder crop using seawater for irrigation?"

This implies that anyone can grow it as fodder and throw it in the pile for their goats and sheep and cows to chow down. Which again fails to address the strong limitations put forth by the researchers.

The language in the article is difficult, and it winds up internally inconsistent, with tentative comments suggesting it can be grown as fodder and tentative denials of its use as fodder. This paper is primary research, and that makes it difficult to use to cite a single fact in an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is. It also makes it less desirable to have that fact in such a prominent place and mirrored all over the web.

2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You make some valid points here and I have rephrased that bit of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check it out. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That is more aligned with the actual paper. Still, it is an obscure paper in a book that does not appear to be well cited. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:D0E0:3E67:D5AD:91EF (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Potash and Glass

I suspect the comment about potash and glass is a mistake, despite the citation. Common glass is soda glass, and the use of potash in glassmaking occurs (for example in ion-exchange tempering of soda glass), but is relatively uncommon. Being a halophyte Suaeda accumulates sodium, and would probably have been one of the several halophytic species in the Amaranthaceae that were collected commercially as barilla for the production of soda ash. Glasswort is one aptly-named example. Plantsurfer 18:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to potash is probably an error. I have found another source and rewritten that bit of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

The image used in the article is poor, does not give a good impression of the plant's appearance and habit, but the others on Commons are also poor, so it is almost Hobson's choice. Does anyone have a good picture of Suaeda fruticosa that they would be willing to contribute? Plantsurfer 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added the Photo requested template at the top, to hopefully speed this process up.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)