Talk:Collard (plant)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spring greens

hello I removed the statement that these are also called spring greens because I couldn't find any evidence of it, although I could have tried harder. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Spring greens are a type of cabbage; not sure they're the same as these or not, I've never heard of "collared greens" before, though they do sound broadly similar to spring greens. But spring greens should certainly have a page. - MPF 20:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We are definitely talking about "collard" greens, not "collared" greens. These are not greens with collars on them. A common misspelling. They are primarily eaten (to my knowledge) in the Southern US (where I live), stereotypically by poor families, so it is no surprise that someone from elsewhere would not have heard of them before. --Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 01:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Checking up, spring greens are more like kale, perhaps intermediate between the two - MPF 20:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The references I found to "spring greens" use it as a generic name for young greens of any plant available in the spring. I could not find a reference that used the phrase for a variety of cabbage. We should be careful to disambiguate. --Pekinensis 21:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My references specifically state that spring greens are part of the Brassica oleracea Acephala Group, and that agrees with what is sold in shops. It isn't a generic term. - MPF 22:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Spring greens" is perceived of as a generic-type name in the public even if it's truly not; I doubt that one would be prosecuted under the food laws of most states if one sold kale, collards, or anything similar as "spring greens". Southern U.S. residents think of collards as a spring green because in most of the region they can be planted in later winter, yield until late spring, and then bolt to seed seemingly suddenly when the weather warms. -- Rlquall
"States"? What states? - MPF 23:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that we will be lost in a definitional maze, so I will try to clarify some points we can agree on. Forgive me my pedantry.

First, there clearly exists at least one generic sense of the term "spring greens", because there are greens, and there is a spring; If I put sugar on a potato (and I promise I won't), it will be a sweet potato, regardless of the fact that it is not a sweet potato. As evidence that this sense is in use, I note that Google gave me 847 hits for "mixed spring greens", and present a few web pages that appear to use the generic sense:

Second, I believe that there is also at least one specific sense of the term "spring greens" as a variety of Brassica oleracea Acephala Group, because an older version of this article claimed it was a synonym of collards, and because MPF has references and personal experience which support this.

We can imagine that this sense would have arisen because in many places, including some of the places where MPF shops, this particular variety is traditionally used for spring greens in the generic sense, so much so that the two became synonymous.

I am hoping that the above points should be uncontroversial, and I merely state them for clarity. Please let me know if I am wrong.

In my ignorance, it is still unclear to me whether the specific sense might refer to kale, to collards, or to a third, perhaps intermediate, variety (or to different things in different places). I believe that MPF is working on rooting this out.

As my contribution to the search, I note that these people sell under the name spring greens what looks to me like collards in a plastic bag:

My main concern is that we take care, given Brassica oleracea's incredible plasticity (and long time of cultivation), and the general geographic variability of vegetable names.

Pekinensis 00:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my pedantry and striving to be explicit, I may have seemed imply that the specific sense of "spring greens" is restricted and minor. I don't believe that it is. It may or may not be as widespread as the generic usage, but I have since found enough attestations to confirm that it is not a minor usage.

Pekinensis 00:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Benn thinking a bit about this - botanically speaking, kale, spring greens and collared greens are all just different names for the same Cultivar Group Brassica oleracea Acephala Group. This group subdivides into dozens (probably hundreds) of individual cultivars, some of which could be called kales, some spring greens and some collared greens; many of the cultivars might be called by one of names in one area but a different one in another area. Therefore, my suggestion would be to merge all the three into one page for the whole Cultivar Group; this could be at a new page title Acephala Group cabbage or Brassica oleracea Acephala Group, but those titles are rather clumsy; otherwise, I suspect they are best combined at kale as that name has the widest usage of the three. - MPF 12:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I see your argument, because the dividing lines really are unclear, and some of the material in the current articles could be shared. On the other hand, the typical kale and the typical collard are quite distinct vegetables, with distinct geographical and cultural associations, and most of the material in the current articles would not be shared. Pekinensis 21:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is "typical collard"? I'd never heard of the stuff at all before reading about it here. I suspect it is a very localised regional thing, it certainly doesn't exist here. Which to me makes it the more sensible to include them as a minor regional variant under kale. From your lack of personal experience of spring greens, I'm suspecting the same applies to them too. Kale itself is of course highly variable, which doesn't help; there's curly kale (a very distinct cultivar with filligree leaves), but also lots of other cultivars which look more like normal loose outer cabbage leaves (pretty much like wild cabbage, in fact). - MPF 22:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd never heard dark, leafy greens referred to as "spring greens" before. A quick trip to google satisfies me that it is correct, and that it is likely the older usage, but the usage I was familiar with: spring greens = baby lettuce (like this recipe for example) does have currency as well. Just for reference. VermillionBird 21:25, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Living in the Southern US, I've never heard of kale before. So as far as I can tell, it would make more sense to include kale as a minor regional variant under collard greens! Could you explain why you think that kale is a more valid or more general term than collard greens or even spring greens? Are you sure that you do not perceive kale to be the most valid and general term simply because of your own regional bias? -- Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I now officially regret having removed the statement of synonymy between "spring greens" and "collard greens". Is it too late to replace it? Probably, because we have uncovered further complexity.

I believe we are making progress, however. There is more regional variation than we had thought. I hadn't understood that "collard" is not used where you shop (you did say so, but I'm slow), and I hadn't understood that you could use the word "kale" for flat varieties.

I believe that this page neatly sums up the US usage.

Let me try state some things I believe we can agree on:

  • Words aside, there are at least three things we are talking about: Brassica oleracea Acephala Group, its curly-leafed varieties, and its flat-leafed varieties.
  • "Spring greens", when not used generically, means the third.
  • The article kale was likely written partly by people who thought they were writing about the first, and partly by people who thought they were writing about the second.
  • There was once an article called curly kale which was about the second, but was merged into kale because the two were perceived to be synonyms.

Do we agree on these points?

Pekinensis 23:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Besides the questions of differing usage for the apparently ambiguous terms "kale" and "spring greens", I believe it is important to retain an independent article for collards or collard greens, which have important historical and cultural associations of their own, under that name.

Pekinensis 00:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will think about it tomorrow morning, long past bedtime here! - MPF 00:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think I'd agree with much, though perhaps not all of the above. Consequent on this though, if spring greens = collard greens (which I am as yet far from convinced), the article will need a major re-write including a change of title to reflect international NPOV, rather than its current strong US POV (which is OK if it is an entirely US crop); to have it titled with a parochial US name virtually unheard of outside the US would not be suitable. I suspect however that the same would apply in reverse if given the UK (/?international English) name spring greens, leading to something of an impasse.
However, from reading the Collard greens article, there appear to me some differences in growing methods etc, which I would ascribe to usage of different cultivars adapted to the very different climates of Britain and the US (western WA excepted), so while they may be similar in appearance and usage, they are distinct from each other within the Acephala Group. Given the taxonomic complexities of Brassica oleracea, this could easily mean that e.g. flat-leaved kales grown in Britain as spring greens are genetically closer to curly kale cultivars selected in Britain, and conversely, collard greens selected for US climates being genetically closer to curly kales selected for US climates (i.e. that climatic adaptation reflects genetics better than leaf shape).
Overall, my preference would still be for a merge to a single page for all the Acephala Group (all the other cabbage cultivar groups are single pages, unless I've missed seeing some), probably with Kale as the senior (title) name, that page then containing a number of paragraphs for the various different forms of kale, including curly kale, collard greens, spring greens, ornamental cabbages, etc. I think this would also help clarify the position of curly-leaf and other kales. If you think kale isn't a suitable title, then perhaps one based on the scientific name could be used. - MPF 14:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was me who added "spring greens" and "borekale" as a synonyms of "collards", with a note that they were UK names. As I recall, I got that info from some webpage, which I have unfortunately forgotten. However, from what is said above, it seems that indeed "spring greens" should be retained, perhaps with a note that it is ALSO a generic name for all Acephala cultivars. Jorge Stolfi 02:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Article name

I spent some time making changing references in other articles from collards to collard greens, until I decided that was backwards. The Google test favors collards by a significant margin, and to my ear it sounds better, especially when talking about the plant, rather than the food.

Should the name of this article be Collard, Collards, or Collard greens?

Pekinensis 20:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Collard greens. I find the other two colloquial. VermillionBird 21:17, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Agreed. Collard greens. Also, where I am (Middle Tennessee) the term refers to larger, flat-leafed varieties that are essentially a non-heading cabbage; kale has smaller leaves and I feel the curly to be predominant in this area. They are sold here as quite separate items, but are often adjacent in the produce sections of the markets that carry them. Stores in predominantly black and/or working class and poor areas are far more likely to stock them than stores in more affluent areas. Rlquall 02:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Collards. That is the way I always see them sold, as the vegetable or seed. I agree, however, that they are the non-curly varieties grown in more southerly areas. I do think an argument could be made for an inclusive article Collards and Kale. -- WormRunner | Talk 19:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think an "x and y" title would be very good; if kale isn't suitable, then I think it should be based on the scientific Cultivar Group name - MPF 00:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would say that Collards is more appropriate as a name for the whole plant, while Collard greens is a more culinary-oriented term for the stuff that you buy at the grocer and cook --- namely, the leaves. As for merging with Kale, I am afraid that it won't do: the culinary sections seem very specific for (flat-leaved) collards, at least for Brazil and Portugal. Jorge Stolfi 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Raw

This sentence seems a bit innacurate:

The leaves are poorly digestible when raw and cannot be used in salads;

Who says they can't be used in salads! They sell pre-packaged green medleys with it, and they are quite good raw. The only thing is that you end up getting more nutrition when they are cooked.

This website compares the raw vs. cooked nutritional content:

Nutrition
Collards are a dieter's delight with their low calorie, low fat, and low sodium content. Across the nutrition scale, cooked collard greens offer more vitamins and minerals than raw. Though raw collards are still considered nutritious, cooking them breaks down their cell walls and releases higher levels of vitamins and minerals.
One cup of freshly cooked collards contains 49 calories; raw they contain 11 calories. The protein content of one cup of cooked collards offers 4 grams while the raw provides 1 gram.
Fiber in cooked collards lists 5 grams and only 1 gram for raw. The fat content, while extremely low, is 0.7 grams for cooked and 0.2 for raw. Vitamin C is higher in cooked collards with 34.6 mg over the raw with 12.7 mg.
The vitamin A content of collards is impressive in both the cooked and raw states, with cooked providing 5945 I.U. and raw containing1377 I.U. Again, in their cooked state collards are higher in the B vitamins than the raw. Folic acid content for that same one cup of cooked collards provides 177 mcg, while the raw offers 59.8.
In mineral content cooked collards shine brighter than raw. Calcium jumps well ahead in cooked collards with 226 mg over the raw that contains only 52.2 mg. While the cooked greens have .87 mg of iron in one cup, the raw provides only 0.07 mg.
Cooked collards burst ahead of raw with 494 mg of potassium over the raw that contains 81 mg. Even the trace mineral zinc comes out ahead in the cooked with 0.8 mg over the raw with less than 0.1 mg.

Also notice that according to them you get more vitamin C from the cooked version. The article says (parentheticaly) that the vitamin C "may be destroyed by cooking". That of course is strictly true (actually its true of all nutrients depending on how well you cook it), but it gives the wrong impression about the vitamin C content of raw vs. cooked collards. Brentt 10:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That website was written -- and your comment, evidently, as well -- by someone who knows literally nothing about collard greens and who applied no discernment whatsoever in reading the nutritional data. Collard greens, like other Brassica greens, cook down, which is to say they become denser with cooking. As a result, a cup of cooked collards contains five times as many collard greens as a cup of raw collards, which should be obvious when you consider the calorie count, and, um, the weight, which I assure you is not changed during cooking. The USDA nutritional database says that a cup of raw collards weighs 36 g whereas a cup of cooked collards weighs 190 g, so obviously the cooked greens have higher nutrient content, in the same way that a cup of beer contains more water than a cup of beer-foam. Even the slightest hint of electrical activity in the website-author's cerebrum should have alerted them to this. I am chagrained and bewildered. 71.204.96.167 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I eat them raw! And in Brazil they are traditionally eaten raw in salads (after being "Julienned"-- sliced very thin).

If you wait a while after slicing & chopping them they are delicious-- but if you eat immediately after slicing (or as a whole leaf), they can sometimes be very hot, depending on how freshly picked.

But it's not a peppery heat, it's sulphur complexes, which break down over time (the longer time after harvesting and cutting, the less 'hot' sulfur in the Collards). In fact-- it's possible for raw collards not to taste hot at all, if they have been sitting long enough (much like Onions).

(And they lose all their heat when cooked).

They are very delicious and I believe are one of the most nutritious vegetables known to man.

69.171.160.243 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pesticides

What is the pesticide level on collards? Apathy 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just up to the tip of the leaves. Could not resist, that. User:Pedant (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Southern Cooking

I feel like there should be mention of pepper vinegar (vinegar from jars or other dispensers of pickled chiles). Use of pepper vinegar on collards and other greens is ubiquitous in the south in both southern and soul cooking. Reference here, if you need it: http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_20733,00.html O0drogue0o 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unverified Etymology

This should be cited: It is also said that collard is a pidginized version of colored.

Who says this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.245.243 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nuts. The etymology is straightforward; look in any dictionary. Anyone who says it's "a pidginized version of colored" is simply wrong, and there's no need to mention incorrect etymologies here. Languagehat (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Folk Practice Citations

As a reader, it seems to me that someone adding text saying "In my part of the world, we always did this..." is both all that one needs as a reference and in some cases all someone might get, given that these practices are frequently dying out and may never have been referred to in any sort of official publication.

Nevertheless, if a citation really is needed for the statement that they're eaten at New Year's in the south with cornbread and black-eyed peas, would something like this work? http://www.farmersalmanac.com/recipes/a/collard_greens

I leave this for people who are wiser in the ways of wikipedia than I to decide what to do with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.41.58 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign names

Why is the paragraph of foreign names there? Isn't that what Wiktionary is for? Languagehat (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion in the body of the article of non-English-language names is questionable: the same information is available through the Interwiki and Wikimedia links already provided on the page, and that is the right way to deal with it. I would propose retaining only mention of the New Zealand name in the main text of this English-language Wikipedia page. -- Picapica (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Biennial/perennial appears wrong

I was reading this article and noticed that it stated "The plant is a biennial where winter frost occurs, perennial in even colder regions" which makes no sense to me at all. I would expect it to be an annual in colder areas. Besides, how much 'colder' are we talking about here? 216.58.61.100 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish

Interwiki is lacking with the Turkish Wikipedia. The article therein is "Kara lahana". Attention: The Tr WP "Kara lahana" has been wrongly associated with "Kale" here in En WP. (Although the "Kale" articles in both WPs bear the same infobox photo the interwiki is wrong. In Turkey we do not have "curly kale". I doubt we have one without curles either.) Please someone correct it here. --E4024 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a mention here. BTW, you can get "curly kale" in Turkey now (e.g., in Migros), but you're right, it's nothing like kara lahana! Pengliujian (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Mixed Greens

I moved a remark here from the middle of a reference to Mixed Greens - Recipe for Greens:

(I have lived in alabama for 72 years and we do not grow kale here.In fact, I dont think it will survive here because of all the insects we have.Collards are never mixed with any other type green and neither is spinach. Turnip greens and mustard greens are grown together sometimes and therefore are picked together and cooked together . They are not as prominently grown as they once were because people have more now . They used to be seen in the back yards even in southern cities everywhere , especially in neighborhoods with large southern black populations.To these few they could be considered a staple of sorts but to the main population of the south, they have hardly ever been used to the point of being considered a staple , except maybe during the depression days of the 1930's.This is coming to you from the experiences of Benny Hicks, a resident of a southern state, not from the united kingdom.)

He takes issue with these words from the subsection Culinary uses: Southern United States:

Collard greens are a staple vegetable of Southern U.S. cuisine. They are often prepared with other similar green leaf vegetables, such as kale, turnip greens, spinach, and mustard greens in "mixed greens".

From what I see in the article on kale, I have my doubts about the accuracy of his comments:

  • Kale and collard greens are not only the same species, Brassica oleracea, but the same cultivar group, Acephalia.
  • "In the Southern United States, kale is often served braised, either alone or mixed with other greens, such as collard, mustard, or turnip." See Kale: Culinary uses.

There are no references in that section but "[s]ome varieties of greens that grow well in southern Alabama include spinach, lettuce, kale, cabbage, broccoli and celery" in What Vegetables Should I Grow in the Winter in South Alabama? (emphasis added).

There is something to what he says, though. See, for example, "Kale may be popular now but when I was growing up in North Carolina, it was almost always collards, mustard or turnip greens in the pot," in Overwintered Greens, Southern-Style.

I browsed for information about mixing greens in the South, but came up empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.106.16 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Couve or Portuguese types should not be on this page

While similar in growth habit and leave size/shape, Couve or Portuguese cabbages are NOT Collard greens. As a rule, collard greens are fibrous and bitter with narrow, inedible stems whereas Couve/Portuguese cabbage is delicate and sweet with thick succulent stems. Collards are in the Acephala group (B. oleracea v. Acephala, with (some types of) kale whereas Couve/Portuguese cabbages are generally classified either in in their own group, B. oleracea var. tronchuda or lumped in with heading cabbages (B. oleracea var. capitata). Reference: Dias., J.S., A.A. Monteiro, and M.B. Lima. 1993. Numerical taxonomy of Portuguese Tronchuda cabbage and Galega kale landraces using morphological characters. Euphytica 69: 51-68.

To avoid confusion, discussion of Couve types should be removed from this article and either added to the cabbage page or developed into a new, separate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.35.208 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collard_(plant)/Archive_1&oldid=1008176848"