Talk:Rhubarb

untruths in the article

"In former days, a common and affordable sweet for children in parts of the United Kingdom and Sweden was a tender stick of rhubarb, dipped in sugar. It is still eaten this way in western Finland, Norway, Canada, Iceland and Sweden, and also some other parts of the world. In Chile, Chilean rhubarb, which is only very distantly related, is sold on the street with salt or dried chili pepper."

Rhubarb dipped in sugar is still a simple treat for British children its not something that only happened hundreds of years ago as the article suggests. Rhubarb is still incredibly popular in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Toxic?

I have heard that rhubarb becomes toxic when mixed with pineapple. Is anyone able to comment with authority??

I cannot comment with authority, but this sure sounds crazy. There are many recipies for deserts in which rhubarb is mixed with pineapple. Look online a bit for some kind of documented source for your rumor. If you can't find anything, and if there is an absence of any other evidence, my advice would be to utterly ignore that rumor.

Rhubarb is toxic by default. I have read about people dying after eating several kilograms of Rhubarb. Lapinmies 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The stems? Njál 17:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely unlikely. The leaves have the most toxin, and even so you'd need to eat about 10 to 11 pounds in a sitting to get a toxic dose. The stems have much less toxin so you'd need much more. Unless you are in a rhubarb eating contest I would not worry about it. I know I've eaten rhubarb pie many times in my life with no ill effects.

Note, the figures given are for a LD50 for someone 65kg. The LD50 is the median lethal dose. What this means (more or less) is that 50% of people will die on or before eating such a dose (without treatment anyway). It is misleading therefore to suggest you need to eat 10 to 11 pounds to get a 'toxic dose'. 8 pounds or less could very well be enough to be lethal. You're also likely to get very sick long before you eat a lethal dose. I'm not suggesting people should be worried and I'm not particularly sure anyone would even eat 500g of the leaves but I do think it's important that the LD50 isn't a 'toxic dose' Nil Einne 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this all rather academic. The effect of eating 8-10lb of rhubarb on the digestion would be so explosive that I doubt any normal diner would ever reach the point of toxicity. Incidentally, does rhubarb stop jellies setting, like fresh pineapple and kiwi fruit? Stephen

No.138.87.227.181 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"In former days, a common and affordable sweet for children in Yorkshire was a tender stick of rhubarb, dipped in copious amounts of sugar." In former days? I still eat it like that (and I'm not from Yorkshire). Njál 17:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I still eat it like this whenever it's available, even when it's become quite sour (but I like it like that), although my family were originally from Yorkshire. I noticed a few grammar things, I'll try to correct. Terri G 12:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "so the phloem will explode" from the toxic effects section, because it sounded like one would want the phloem to explode, which I can't imagine one would, especially if you were planning to eat it.

The toxic section needs a lot more, useful information. Some of us like to eat raw rhubarb! (I've never noticed any ill effects, though bystanders often shudder. I can't believe that some people have not been eating it, since forever.) We need to know if this is harmful in any way, short of being lethal. And presuming that cooking makes the rhubarb "safe", exactly how much does it have to be cooked, and how much oxalic acid remains? 69.87.201.38 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - you're on a website talking about rhubarb? Cool. -- SilvaStorm

In Iowa it is common to play croquet near the rhubarb patch, Not only is a citation needed, I can't imagine how it would be "common" to have both rhubarb AND croquet in Iowa, colocated.:)Mzmadmike 06:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of kids think the skin is poisonous, and consequentely, that rhubarb should always be peeled before eating.69.181.249.69 (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

( I moved a recent comment, not related to the above, signed by 173.147.103.133 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC), to bottom and titled it "Comment": new subjects are always added at bottom of a talk page.) --VanBurenen (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I like to eat raw rhubarb stalks every spring, and yet, I manage to still be alive. The stalks cannot be very poisonous.Wwm101 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Root ball

Does anyone have a photo of the (rather extraordinary) rhubarb root ball? It's something to see. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC) A root ball photo of a 3-year-old plant, together with photos of the plants at various stages of growth, is available at www.HighAltitudeRhubarb.com

Rhubarb triangle

Note that Wikipedia already has an article on this that names the poits of the triangle as Leeds, Wakefield and Pontefract. This seems much more likely. Morley is a South Western suburb of Leeds and does not give much of a triangle when plotted on the map, and moreover is entirely urban. Towards the east of Leeds and Wakefield is lower and generally more of a market gardening area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.0.230 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Piestengel

I have googled this term and only found matches on English speaking pages. Not a single German page. I personally - although German - have never heard this term. Could somebody proof that this is a German word? I not only looked for "Piestengel" but also "Piestängel" according to the new German grammer... Bernburgerin 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. I'm German, too, and I've never come across this word. This must be some kind of Urban Legend in the English-speaking world. The term 'pie' is seldomly used in German, and only as an English loan word in its original pronounciation, so it's very improbable that the compound noun 'Piestengel' has ever been in widespread use in the German-speaking world. I vote to remove the reference, it's misleading. The German word for rhubarb is 'Rhabarber'. 217.85.138.201 09:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And a third german is here (yes, me) and even he has never ever heard this word. I think this should be deleted. --85.177.211.139 03:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable?

"Rhubarb is actually a vegetable" Vegetable is a very vague word. That statement should be omitted. Just classify it botanically and include the history of how US Customs dealt with it. Otherwise its a great article! Lance May

"Knowledge is knowing that Rhubarb is a vegetable, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a salad." -Charlie

Yes, it is a Vegetable. I do not know why it is called a fruit on the page! Because it's related to another vegetable and is in a vegetable family, IT SHOULD BE A VEGETABLE, NOT A FRUIT. I learned this on the cobbler episode of "Good Eats". 130.13.99.152 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegetables are edible plants.

You editors are meant to have a bit of intelligence. Rhubarb is a 'culinary fruit' abut scientifically is a vegetable just as tomatoes are fruits but you never see them in a fruit salad chill and calm yourselves.

Fruits are vegetables with seeds - if not seeds, the fruiting body of the plant.

All fruits are vegetables, not all vegetables are fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jndrline (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 February 2008‎ (UTC)

What is a "vegetable family"? That sounds to me like saying an apple must be called a flower because it's in the rose family. — Smjg (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The source given for the alleged 1947 New York court decision points to a 1893 decision on tomatoes. I can't find any reference to this decision anywhere else. Sounds like it has been made up by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.96.17 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Question - green rhubarb

I have rhubarb in my garden. Much of it has green stalks instead of the usual red/pink. At one time these plants produced the red. Why is it now green and is it safe to eat?

Thanks! Amy12.109.74.231 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Answer: Have been growing rhubarb for years and as the plants get older they do not get as red. Start new shoots and they should get red also will be a lot slimmer for the first 2 or 3 years' Harry J Paad 69.77.218.120 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of green varieties of rhubarb, which are perfectly edible. It should be fine. Wwm101 03:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oxalic acid content

"In the petioles, the amount of oxalic acid is much lower" - this article says that the concentration (the concentrations can be calculated from table I) is roughly the same in April and May and that at the end of June and the beginning of August the concentration in the blades is roughly twice the concentration in the petioles (while the concentration in the petioles at the end of June is only slightly higher than in April and May). Unfortunately, I am currently not sure to get absolute numbers from this quite antique paper - but I assume one "milli-equivalent" is a milligram of KOH used in titration, and there should be 2 mol KOH for 1 mol oxalic acid - but then the maximal concentration in the blades would be only 0.035% instead of the 0.5% from the wikipedia article. Better sources are welcome. Icek 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have good news and bad news. The good news is that a google scholar search for "Rhubarb poisoning" shows a lot of seemingly relevant papers, including several case studies of patients who died (from the 1960s) (Ann Paediatr Fenn. (1964) 10:228-31. INGESTION OF RHUBARB LEAVES AS CAUSE OF OXALIC ACID POISONING.; Ann Paediatr Fenn. (1960) 6:144-7. Death of a child from oxalic acid poisoning due to eating rhubarb leaves.; Dtsch Med Wochenschr. (1964 Dec 11) 89:2379-81. ACUTE RENAL FAILURE AND JAUNDICE FOLLOWING RHUBARB LEAF POISONING). And also a paper which seems to cover the anthraquinones (Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1980 May 20;100(14):959-61 - in Norwegian). But as far as I could tell not even abstracts of these papers are online. Might require a trip to a medical library. Oh, and our figure for oxalic acid LD50 differs from the one in the Oxalic acid article (not that we should equate rhubarb leaf toxicity with oxalic acid toxicity, given the likely existence of another toxin, which I've added a source for in the article). Kingdon 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the oral LD50 in rats, from the first few Google results:

• 375 mg/kg: [1][2][3]
• 7.5 g/kg: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

This website contains further information about the composition of rhubarb, giving the oxalic acid content as 0.124 - 1.360 %. Icek 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is another article on the acids in rhubarb - I'm going to cite it as a reference for the 0.5%. Icek 02:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rhubarb in Portal Game

Should there be a popular culture section in this article? The new video game Portal identifies Rhubarb repeatedly in the ingredients for cake towards the end of the game, and I'm sure there are many other references to it in movies and books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.138.37 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so too, given that cake is the main "theme" of the game, and the amount of rubarb involved. --210.49.164.105 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No. 71.82.71.212 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be. But I suppose not, as it will make many people try out the recipe. And if they eat it, you know what'll happen then. Iwalkalone332 (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

History in the U.S.

This line in the entry bothers me: "Until the 1940s rhubarb was considered a vegetable. It became a fruit when US customs officials, baffled by the foreign food, decided it should be classified according to the way it was eaten."

This is an odd sentance. It gives the impression that rhubarb only came into the U.S. in the 1940s, and that's not the case. Every hundred year old farmhouse in Maine has a rhubarb patch. Our Maine Rebekahs Cookbook from 1939 has recipes for rhubarb, with no reference to it being new or foreign. I've found references in one of the webpages footnoted in this article to a Maine farmer growing it between 1790 and 1800. (I don't know if the url will be visible, but it's the Rhubarb Compendium page, http://www.rhubarbinfo.com/rhubarb-history.html#TOC11 .) The Customs Officials may have begun classifying things because of other new things that started coming in at that time, but rhubarb wasn't one of the new things coming in.

The thing that worries me is that the Wikipedia reference has duplicated that sentence, with all it's ambiguity, and people are going to start believing that rhubarb was new to us only such a short time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.254.76 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Timperley

Although its accepted that forced Rhunard is produced in the well described Rhubarb Triangle, the Manchester suburb of Timperley is well known for its Rhubarb, (Timperley Early being the best known). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.13.57 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rhubarb Trivia

How about adding in the Rhubarb Pie references around pop culture including, but not specific to, the Rhubarb Pie references in Praerie Home Companion? 69.112.29.153 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Petiole Vs. Stalk???

In this article, the stalks of the Rhubarb are called "Petioles", "Stems" and "Stalks".

While the article currently talks about the stalks as "Petioles", I'm not sure why this is: from the definition of Petioles, it sounds like we cook the stalks, not the petioles.

It would be great if this distinction could be explained clearly in the article cojoco (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Since they are the same thing - there is no distinction. The "stalk" is the leaf petiole. A petiole is the stalk that joins the leaf blade to the plant stem. Since the stem of rhubard plants is under grown, the parts of the plant that people pick is the leaf, which includes the blade(the large flat green colored part) and the petiole or stalk that joins the leaf blade to the underground stem. Hardyplants (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Growing tips?

Is there any information available on what kind of climate/soil type rhubarb prefers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.93.133 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhubarb is a very greedy plant and you are best advised to feed it well, ideally adding manure to the ground prior to planting a crown. You will see a massive difference between rhubarb in fresh soil/compost, and stuff which has been used for a few years.82.6.1.85 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Is it true that putting a galvanized bucket over the plant with airholes in it will 'force' the plant to grow faster?69.181.249.69 (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Using an opaque cover over the plant will force it to become etoilated, and stretched as it tries to extend far enough to reach the light. Undergound, or in thick undergrowth, this is an invaluable strategy. The leaves, however are much paler, even being yellow, and doing it for too long kills it.82.6.1.85 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

growing climates?

I have found several sources stating that rhubarb likes colder climates:

http://www.plantea.com/rhubarb.htm

http://www.rhubarbinfo.com/rhubarb-growing.html

Can anyone help me figure this out?


Also, I found a possible citation for the lethal dose part:
http://www.rhubarbinfo.com/rhubarb-poison.html under "13.3.1 - How toxic is rhubarb?" referring to these sources:

57. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED IN PHARMACOLOGY, http://med-amsa.bu.edu/Pharmacology/Programmed/glossary.html
58. MSDS for OXALIC ACID, gopher://atlas.chem.utah.edu/11/MSDS, University of Utah, Chemistry dept
...
60. USENET POSTING: andywlms@esslink.com (Andy Williams) posted to Newsgroup rec.food.cooking on 24 Jul 1996 18:47:47 GMT
61. USENET POSTING: lhom@nature.berkeley.edu (Louis Hom) posted to Newsgroup rec.food.cooking on 25 Jul 1996 00:26:12 GMT

Thanks, Ajl772 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I didn't read the whole talk page before adding the references... Sorry if it seems like I'm beating the dead horse. Ajl772 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit#2: I'm also trying to find out if I need to plant rhubarb away from other plants, or can it be planted next to other plants, as I would most any other plant? Thanks, Ajl772 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that rhubarb grows in pretty harsh conditions: My grandmother used to grow it in Hammerfest, Norway. It is also grown on the Faroe Islands, and I think it is the only "fruit" that grows there. They make a traditional "marmalade" of sorts of it which is intensely sweet and cooked for so long that it is caramelized.85.164.84.14 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Toxic effects section (slimming)

I've added {{Failed verification}} to the text, "These substances are [[cathartic]] and [[laxative]], which explains the sporadic use of rhubarb as a [[dieting|slimming]] agent most notably in the American Midwest.<ref> AJ Giannini, AE Slaby. The Eating Disorders, New York, Springer-Verlag,1993.</ref>". Although I don't have access to the referenced book, Google books allows a full text search, and a search for 'rhubarb' draws a blank.

Anon IP editor 66.251.199.141, under the circumstances, can you please (i) specify the page number referred to in the book, and (ii) supply the text in question here, so that it may be properly verified. If the reference cannot be verified, your edit may be reverted. Thank you.
--Yumegusa (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting the above-mentioned edit. Comments on editor's talk page suggest he has has been responsible for similar spoofing on other articles.
--Yumegusa (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

out of season

The article says, "Because rhubarb is a seasonal plant, obtaining fresh rhubarb out of season is difficult, especially in the UK."

What's with the "especially in the UK" part? Is that really the part of the world in which obtaining rhubarb out of season is the hardest? That seems implausible. Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections shortened

I've added a nutritional infobox. Also the section Cultivation and consumption was rather long so I have broken it up into Cultivation and Uses with appropriate subsections as per WP:HEAD and WP:LAYOUT. Anyone else want to help clean up these new sections? Lantrix (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhubarb in US

Rhubarb was grown in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the 1740s, long before the history presented in this article. Peter Collinson of London sent John Bartram in Philadelpiha seed of two or more species of rhubarb under the names "Rhaponticum" and "Siberian" along with a short receipe for rhubarb tarts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.218.42 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox added back - specific

I added back the taxonomy infobox, but made it more specific to the species that is eaten as Rhubarb. That way the Rheum (genus) page is the page about the Genus, and Rhubarb page is specific to the commonly eaten species. I also note that Rheum x hybridum and Rheum rhabarbarum are effectively the same thing. If you have a better image for the infobox, please use it - or use one of the existing Rhubarb images on wikimedia commons. Lantrix ::Talk::Contrib:: 04:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then we have problems that need to be fixed, since the article is nearly all about the crop rhubarb and has very little about the species. They are not the same thing of-coarse, one has been modified while under human cultivation. Hardyplants (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this source for why this will not work [11], I will give you time to research the issue before I remove the box, which belongs on taxons not on terms that cover different species. Hardyplants (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What you say makes sense - maybe there is an alternate infobox that can be used instead of taxobox? The article seems bare without it. Looking at other pages for crops, would you say the same with Lettuce vs Lactuca? I'll have a read of your link and respond here soon. Lantrix ::Talk::Contrib:: 01:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a read of the link you provided. In my mind it clearly shows that the common garden variety lines up with the information on the article, albeit maybe a bit too specific. You said the article is nearly all about the crop rhubarb and has very little about the species - but I dont see this as an issue. The crop is still of the garden variety species, Rheum rhabarbarum or Rheum x hybridum as mentioned in the page. I still believe it is valid to list either one or possibly the four (as per your link) Botanical names used for the garden variety. I also don't think you need to give me time to research until you remove the information, instead we should be coming to a consensus. Lantrix ::Talk::Contrib:: 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If your going to use a taxbox for "rhubarb" then it should be for Rheum rhaponticum. Rheum rhabarbarum and Rheum x hybridum are "garden rhubarb". Hardyplants (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On the link you supplied Rheum rhaponticum is listed under the same row as Rheum x hybridum, Rheum rhabarbarum and Rheum x cultorum, and that page classifies them all under Garden Rhubarb (among other names). If we keep the infobox why not list all four species that Rhubarb , the crop that is for human cultivation, is known as. If you have more information on this I'd be happy to digest it. I'm only somewhat new to growing Rhubarb. Can I point out again that Lettuce vs Lactuca does the same thing? Rhubarb should still have an infobox, and taxobox seems to be the best one to explain the origins. 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantrix (talk • contribs)

Taxoboxs belong on taxons, not subjects that include multiple taxons. There might be another box that could be used but I do not know what it would be. Hardyplants (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Lettuce vs Lactuca does the same thing?" They have taxoboxs because each is a taxon: one is a species and the other is a genus. Rhubarb is a number of species (taxons).Hardyplants (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a valid point, although the taxon page defines taxon as ... or group of populations of organisms which are usually inferred to be phylogenetically related and which have characters in common .... I still dont see a major problem with the taxobox being used in this case as the group of species referred to as rhubarb have characters in common! Either way, I'll look around for an alternate infobox to replace it with and see if it suits the article. Lantrix ::Talk::Contrib:: 05:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A taxon is the entire group of related organisms which have characters in common, if we use a taxon box, the page needs to be about one species (a taxon) or another taxon above that, which would be the genus Rhuem -includeing all the species within that genus. "Characters" is used in a technical sense, and the inclusion of those used as food and exclusion of those not used for food ,would not be a proper use of the term. Hardyplants (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And this is how it was before. There was Rheum - listing all the species in that genus. However I do agree that it is best separate like it is now (Rhubarb article vs. Rheum article). I'm still looking for another infobox, albeit slowly. If you remove the taxobox in the meantime, so be it. Lantrix ::Talk::Contrib:: 05:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding Sweet Cicely when cooking

It would be good to mention the use of Sweet Cicely herb used as an additive when making rhubarb pies etc as a means of reducing the amount of sugar needed.[12] [13] 89.240.2.15 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

according to the UC Davis website and a PDF by Wayne L. Schrader entitled "Rhubarb Production in California", people have indeed died trying to "use rhubarb leaves as a vegetable green"....

here is a link to the site:

http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/VegetableCropProductioninCalifornia/8020.aspx

here is the link to the PDF:

http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8020.pdf

......... --173.147.103.133 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Botanically classified as a vegetable?

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph starts "Rhubarb is botanically classified as a vegetable". I thought vegetable wasn't a botanical classification at all, but rather a culinary one. The page on vegetable says "the word is not scientific, and its meaning is largely based on culinary and cultural tradition." Worth changing? --99.21.163.89 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

tasteless rhubarb

If a wild plant in the US NorthEast looks like rhubarb but the stalks are tasteless like celery, what is it likely to be? -71.174.180.139 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it is burdock.Wwm101 03:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

origin locations?

The article mentions history of cultivation, but is overly vague about the location of the origins of these species. -71.174.180.139 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

raw rhubarb

The article is missing key basic info about rhubarb.

Raw rhubarb stalks have a very strong tart taste. Most people in the US do not eat raw stalks because the taste is too strong and unpleasant, and because of a general belief that it is hazardous. But some people do like this strong tart taste! Related to unsweetened cranberry juice. What percentage of the population likes this taste? Are there countries/cultures where it is more popular? Is there any danger eating raw stalks? How much of what kind of danger? -71.174.180.139 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A key fact that needs to get pinned down, with reputable sources, is whether cooking raw stalks makes them "safer", with real chemistry facts and figures. -71.174.180.139 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

unrelated to celery

Because celery is more common than rhubarb, and the stalks are so similar in texture stringiness etc it seems appropriate to mention this similarity in the article. But apparently the plants are very unrelated taxonomically -- maybe that should be mentioned too? It is interesting that the stalks of both plants seem to flare/flatten and join at the bottom in a similar way, but rhubarb stalks grow out individually in all directions; celery stalks in the market grow in bunches. These habits should be mentioned in each article. -71.174.180.139 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Raw stalks are thought to be hazardous *by whom*?

"raw stalks may not be hazardous, though they are generally thought to be in the US"

I thought this language was supposed to be unacceptable without a citation. My understanding is that they are "generally thought" to be safe for consumption, particularly in pies, cobblers, and preserves. Is there a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.119.174 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knowledgeable seems to agree that the leaves are potentially toxic. In the US, cooked stalks seem to be regarded as safe and palatable, after sweetening. Most people don't care about raw rhubarb; rhubarb is not terribly popular in any form. The raw stalk has such a strong taste that most people don't care if it is toxic. Since cooking it makes the taste milder, it is easy to suppose that it might also make it less toxic. The key fact question is, can anyone prove cooked stalks are less toxic than raw stalks, and can anyone prove how toxic raw stalks are, or are not? -96.237.69.64 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever heard about the stalks being "toxic". As a kid I used to sit down and eat raw rhubarb (with salt) until I couldn't take another bite. The effect on the stomach was no different than gorging on wild sour green apples or red sorrel. This is also the first I've heard about "most" people finding the taste of raw rhubarb "unpleasant". Says who? Since when do "most" people find tart/sour flavors to be "unpleasant"? Here in Maine as kids we were always looking for a rhubarb patch to raid in the summer. Not only was raw rhubarb not considered "unpleasant" by anyone I knew, it was highly sought after. – MaximRecoil (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This language is absurd and needs to be removed. Raw rhubarb stalks are absolutely perfectly edible and in New England are considered a refreshing summer delicacy. I can't count the number of times as a small child (also in Maine) I would gorge on raw rhubarb stalks, which i found delicious dipped in brown sugar or maple syrup. It was like eating sour patch kids with the crisp texture of celery! 67.142.172.29 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I love to eat raw rhubarb every spring, plain, and find it delicious. It cannot, therefore, be very toxic, or I would be dead. Also, my father, grandfather, and great-uncles all ate them growing up, too.Wwm101 03:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Rhubarb is very different tasting, some people think that it is sour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.58.73 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical cultivation

Under the Historical Cultivation section it says that 'The Divine Farmer's Herb-Root Classic' was compiled around 2700 BC and quotes a 1920's book as a source for this claim. The problem with that assertion is that writing in China is generally accepted as having been invented around the Shang dynasty period, about 1400 BC at the very earliest, in the form of the Oracle bone script. So, how could any medicinal book or scrolls have been written back in 2700 BC China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.31.119 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Cooking

This section doesn't belong here; it should be in Wikicookbooks. Madgenberyl (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

History

I'd like to thank the editors for having a human history for rhubarb. Many articles are missing this important section. Student7 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

toxicity oxalic acid

I find it strange that people are warned not to eat rhubarb leaves which are stated as having 0.5% oxalic acid and yet chives are listed as having 1.6% oxalic acid on the oxalic acid page. Why do we eat chives then? is the warning on the rhubarb page necessary? 198.103.184.76 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Dutch wikipedia says that you'd need to eat around 10kg of rhubarb to get a toxic amount of oxalic acid, so perhaps it's a little exaggerated. Foods that are toxic in normal amounts aren't usually sold in their toxic form in regular super markets in my country. For example, kidney beans are only sold canned and cooked.

Someone also made an interesting point that oxalic acid can be especially harmful to rheumatoid arthritis patients. Interesting trivia if we can find a source on it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Movie references

In a Batman movie, didn't the Joker quote something about Rhubarb? Like don't rub another man's Rhubarb. 172.251.199.47 (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Use as Food

Since this plant has been cultivated for thousands of years (https://www.lib.umn.edu/bell/tradeproducts/rhubarb), it seems unlikely that it was first thought be eaten in 17th century. Even the article cited makes a similar point. This discussion of its edible uses seems to be ethnocentric to British/European history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.73.50 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that the leaf stalks were eaten before they were in Europe. Perhaps because culinary rhubarb is a tetraploid and so somewhat larger. But the roots were used in Chinese medicine much earlier. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

63.145, your premise is wrong. Rhubarb was used for thousands of years, but it was only first cultivated in botanic gardens around 1600. Before then, it was an exotic dry root harvested from the wilderness and imported from far away places, and botanists at the time thought it was harvested from a type of daisy. Earliest unambiguous date I've seen so far for stalks being sold for food in Europe is 1820, even later than 17th century! But Peter you may also be wrong and it is not silly to think this article is eurocentric. The stalks of the different species Rheum ribes are harvested from the wild as food from Turkey to Pakistan, and I am almost certain that the idea of eating the stalks with sugar was likely stolen from the Turks or Arabs by the English farmers trying to earn something off of their old unsold roots, but cannot prove that as yet. There was a Syrian website detailing how the plant was called in classical Arabic, citing poems dating to the 13th century, but unfortunately offline. Using that, one could go through Ibn Sina or something. It is a shame there is no better access online to works such as the Ottoman/Baghdadi cookbooks or the Persian/Arabic works on plants. Lastly, the article cited is an unreferenced student essay. I have also seen mentions of the leaves (of the non-hybrid R. rhabarbarum &/or R. rhaponticum) being eaten as experiment in France and Italy before the stalks were popularised in England, but personally judge them to be of little import -one case was as a medical experiment, the other concerns an unsuccessful dish at Versailles. Regarding the USA, it does appear that the vegetable only became popular in the 1940s, likely with the rise of pie franchises, meaning all that nostalgic iconography about homemade rhubarb pie doesn't realise that 80 years ago this was a hip new foreign recipe every American housewife had to try; the cerviche of the time. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait. That 1940's stuff ref is not that solid, but still possibly correct. And Muhammad bin Hasan al-Baghdadi's Kitab al-Tabikh from 1226, Iraq, contains a recipe for ribasiyya, rhubarb stew with meat and sugar. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it clear that the Arab recipe uses the stalks? Certainly the Arabs had sugar in some quantity before Europeans, and some kind of sweetener is needed if the bulk of a dish is to be rhubarb, as opposed to using a small quantity for flavouring. There are indications that imported roots were added to dishes as flavouring in Europe, but again I'm not convinced of the soundness of the sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It would appear so -the leaves are called for in this particular stew, likely including petioles, you'd think. This recipe sounds quite similar to the original borscht with sour cow parsnip petioles. The recipe for ribasiyya is also given in Ibn Sayyār al-Warrāq's cookbook from the 10th century, so the Arabs were eating rhubarb much as the Europeans adopted, only 800 years earlier. Numerous other Arabic recipes existed, most seem to call for the 'juice', whatever they meant with that. There is one from 12th century Andalusia, from back when Spain was still Muslim, which uses the 'juice' with sugar to make some type of şerbet-like syrup base (haven't tracked down work). This ribes syrup was also exported to Europe, looking at the stock of a German apothecary in the 13th (?) century. Ibn Juljul from 10th century Spain calls ribas an "imported succulent leaf vegetable from the mountains with extremely sour roots" (paraphrasing) -Ibn Juljul apparently considers ribas to be one of the 30-odd drugs Dioscorides forgot to mention. The presence of rhubarb juice recipes in Spain is strange: are/were there wild rhubarbs there? Was it imported? The word 'stalks' is ambiguous too, in one picture from the Levant the 'stalks' actually look like immature inflorescences. But all this is about R. ribes, not the modern hybrid. Almonds and peaches are in the same genus too, but you wouldn't want a recipe for roasted almonds to make peach cobbler. Ibn Sina distinguishes between rivas, the sour wild plant of Bukhara and Persia, and revand, the imported dried medicinal roots.

Flavouring? As in a spice? I haven't come really across that unambiguously. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Phillip Miller in the The Gardener and Botanist's Dictionary, 1768 edition, mentions the "foot-stalks ... now frequently used for making tarts"... So Grieve's 1820 date too late, although she says it was then first brought to market.86.83.56.115 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusion over the meaning of "rhubarb"

The term "rhubarb" is used in the article in two different, albeit related senses.

1. The earliest use of rhubarb appears to be the application of the roots in medicine. These were imported, from China and Siberia, as "rha", and until the early 1600s, it seems that the plants that produced the roots were not known. Several species of Rheum may have been involved.
2. Later, Europeans started to eat the cooked leaf stalks of cultivated varieties, whose precise origin is not (yet) known but which appear to be hybrids of at least two species.

So "medical rhubarb" and "culinary rhubarb" are (products of) different Rheum species.

I've made a start on clarifying this. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this something that could be solved with a {{paraphyletic group}} box? --Nessie (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there are two interconnected issues: clarifying that the taxa used in medicine and the taxa used as food are not the same; deciding what infobox to use. It's not really a paraphyletic group, more a case of the English name having multiple applications – the culinary one is the main one now, I believe, so the taxobox should probably reflect that. It would also be possible to split the article, I suppose.

It seems to be to be a classic case of editors assuming that because there's an English name, it must correspond to a single topic and/or a single taxon. But cultivated plants are regularly tricky to handle, since the commonly used name(s) often don't match the underlying science, and there's often no ideal solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think splitting the articles may be a better solution. Keep this article entitled "Rhubarb" and then split the medical content off as "Rhubarb (medicine)" or something similar. That way this article stays more narrowly focused, and may allow easier fixing of the still foggy scientific name issue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, the medical use could be combined or added to the suspected parent plant articles, such as Rheum rhaponticum or Rheum rhabarbarum. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I second to splitting the article as Eek first outlines, having a Rhubarb (medicine) article. Different species were likely used for the root in different centuries as geographic sources shifted, but were considered the same from a medicinal perspective. I also think the precise species identity of the original rha of the writers pre-Alpini is unclear and can no longer be ascertained (I have seen 4-5 species being considered contenders). Furthermore, rhubarb root is also used in traditional Chinese medicines, and I thought I read somewhere the plants harvested from the wild appear to be a mix of species. Each now recognised species should have a separate article, if they were used for the root (or that use is now suspected) that can mentioned with a link to Rhubarb (medicine). The entire genus contains species not used medicinally, thus that article should not be used to house the very long history of the European concept of rhubarb. This article itself should be only about the modern culinary hybrid clones, which I think should be correctly classified as R. ×hybridum. All medicinal, history or references to rhubarb dating from before the hybrid was created, and the modern marketing of the petioles as a vegetable was invented, both in England in the 18th century, could then be moved to Rhubarb (medicine), with only a small paragraph on history detailing the historic use (and price), which explains why cultivation/domestication was attempted and then possibly hints at why the concept of marketing the leaf stalks to consumers as new vegetable product was successful at the time. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Leo: this makes sense to me. Note that there is an article at Rheum and there can be articles on every species in the genus. An article just on culinary rhubarb can use some kind of cultivar box, rather than an infobox that implies a distinct species. (Personally, I'm more interested in the genus and species articles at present.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Going through some of the references I almost changed my mind. For example reading Grieve it is clear that in her time, the 1890s about, the word rhubarb in the English language referred to the dry root. Also, it seems that English farmers were cultivating R. ×hybridum (which Grieve refers to as R. rhaponticum) primarily to be sold as medicinal root under the name 'English rhubarb' or 'bastard rhubarb'. I made a comment above on the use in the USA, the source on that looks good, so the shift in meaning to the new vegetable was not long ago. But we live in 2019 now and everyone thinks of the stalks now, so I still think the historic meaning of the word rhubarb should have a separate article with all the different species and sources used over time. Something bothering me about the taxonomy is why works in the UK and USA persisted so long in calling the hybrid R. rhaponticum, I saw some other European floras do it differently. Also, the source used for the history section, Monahan, is wonky, and needs careful reading. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a tradition dating back to Linnaeus and before of giving cultivated varieties of plants Latin names and then back applying them back to the wild species. (Bananas are a good example – Linnaeus named two "species" based on two cultivars.) Culinary rhubarb can be found under at least four names in the horticultural and botanical literature. R. × hybridum seems the best, although I suspect that a cultivar group name under the ICNCP would be better, i.e. something like Rheum Hybridum Group, but I haven't found a published name yet. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This paper doi:10.1080/14786419.2018.1560294 says that the roots and fresh shoots of R. rheum are consumed in Turkey, but the issue is whether any of the names attached to plants sold for medical or food use are actually correct. For example, doi:10.1.1.910.4604 reports that 3 of 13 samples of Rheum ribes roots sold in Lebanese markets were not this species when a DNA analysis was performed – still, 10 were.

The real key to the popularity of culinary rhubarb is surely the rise of blanching (as with other bitter shoot and leaf vegetables). I've searched but can't find any evidence that blanching was first used for rhubarb outside the UK. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm,

Linnaeus: Yeah, but he cites earlier authors which aren't talking about the hybrid for his names, so this not the case here.

Hybridum Group: Not sure about that. I always thought the garden hybrid was sterile, and I read somewhere that the genetic diversity between cultivars is very low (sometimes non-existent). Some backcrossing with autopolyploids might be possible, as well as numerous historical hybridisation events, but I don't see why the nothospecies designation wouldn't fit all cultivars.

Forcing: I agree, I think the first culinary products marketed were likely forced rhubarb in the Leeds region, but I tend to think it wasn't originally done on purpose, but more as a method to earn money off unsold stock lying in the sheds -with the practice of using dark heated sheds starting when farmers competed to be first to market. Hard to say now.

Ribes: Rhubarb was likely known by the Arabic name ribes in Europe in the Middle Ages, meaning until people decided the identity of classical rha barbarum was rhubarb (~16th century), (some) Europeans knew the plant rhubarb, they just didn't know it was rhubarb. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In the ICNCP, a Group (a.k.a. cultivar group) is just a group of cultivars, so a nothospecies can be described in this way (e.g. Schlumbergera × buckleyi (T.Moore) Tjaden = S. Buckleyi Group McMillan & Horobin). Tanhuanpää et al. (2019) doi:10.1007/s10722-018-0692-8 found enough genetic diversity to separate out cultivars; they write "we found very few plants from home gardens that were exactly of the same genotype" and "propagation by seed still occurs and leads to cultivars with different genotypes". Their cladogram shows at least three distinct clusters of cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I've been meaning to read Tanhuanpää. That's interesting. It's just I've never seen a wayward seedling in the allotments. Group, okay, but with Pelargonium or radishes it is useful because there are many cv. Groups, with mixed ancestry, but here? This is not important for me, though, we should go with the consensus, unless that is incorrect. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Leaves excellent as Spinach."

• Thomas Jefferson planted R. undulatum at Monticello in 1809 and 1811, observing that it was "Esculent rhubarb, the leaves excellent as Spinach.

Might it be wise to to put a note or link after this statement that the leaves are slightly toxic and shouldn't be eaten? While this is dealt with at other points in the article, a casual reader might read the above statement and get the message that it is ok to eat the leaves. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but doesn't spinach contain exactly the same toxins (oxalic acid) at an even higher rate? Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be right about that. After reading several sources related to the toxicty of rhubarb, I feel that the whole section on toxicity needs reworking. I feel that some of the medical sources relating to this topic appear contradictory partly because of the lack of consistency as to what is precisely meant by "rhubarb" in reports, esp from different parts of the world. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Looked it over. Not really my field but the substance looks good, just some of the initial wording is a bit alarmist. It mentions the LD50 rate which puts things in perspective, as does the last paragraph. I went through the sources, and all appear to be about garden rhubarb (under various names) except some general articles & ref. 49, which deals with all rhubarb species, so I don't think identity issues are a problem here. It might be pertinent to mention other vegetables can have a higher oxalic acid content. I'm getting rid of the word "corrosive" as that is silly, all acids are corrosive to some degree, including things like DNA or fatty acids. But go ahead and change more. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

To clairfy I was referring to several sources I was looking at rather than those that were already present in the article. As far as I can see, the toxicological profile of "rhubarb" described in sources from china may be talking about R. officinale, and this may be slightly different from those referring to "garden rhubarb". Also potentially relevant, reports might be talking about consuming different parts of the plant (leaves vs roots?).

It might be a sensible starting point to strip out any sources which are talking about oxalic acid toxicity rather than specifically rhubarb. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't notice last time that you were the one to add the last paragraph -it's good. I would certainly exclude those Chinese studies unless they make very clear they are talking about Rh. x. hybridum. Yes, which plant organs are being tested is relevant, that should be made clear. As to your last point, okay, but if the source makes a relevant point... you are referring to ref. 42 & 43? They do function to show one would need to eat a ridiculous amount before dying.

You know, I always figured this whole oxalic acid thing was more a problem for people with gallstones or damaged kidneys, and the only real point to this story was that you shouldn't eat vast amounts of raw leaves, but otherwise one shouldn't really worry about this. Is a story like this necessary with all the vegetables with a high oxalic acid content -or apparently people are especially interested in oxalic acid in regards to rhubarb...86.83.56.115 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

I agree there are issues with the current Etymology section, not least the source, but two different elements need to be explained:

• rha being the name of the plant
• barb coming from barbarum

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rubarb

Rhubarb 188.135.29.12 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there is a huge section missing about the fascinating history of rhubarb

We're missing the fascinating history of rhubarb. See for example https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/food-drink/article/3103436/history-rhubarb-medicinal-uses-recipes-and-why-owning-it So, I'm not gonna write this addition because I find wiki quite negatively reactive to new stuff compared to the early days. Whoever feels they own this page, please consider adding this fascinating history. Maybe rhubarb is a safe space compared to the previous pages I have suggested edits, and let me know, I'll do it, but hell, other topics are a nightmare Kungfukev (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)