Steve Farmer wrote:Your multicoloured cob is expressing the mixed genes from the parents of the plant the cob grew on, not the pollinator of that cob.
To see the results of the most recent cross pollination you would have to plant the seeds off that cob.
And here's where a little knowledge can be, well, maybe not dangerous but at least inadequate to provide accurate answers.
When I was in uni, we did an experiment growing out different coloured corn seeds and calulating the amount of cross pollination based on the colour ratios of the kernels on the resulting cobs. It does't work for most plants, but in corn the layer of cells responsible for the colour of the kernel is produced by cells of the seed itself, not cells of the maternal plant, so it does indeed express the mixed genes of the parents.
I'm sure Carol Deppe talked about this in her plant breeding book too.
On a slightly related note, I once attended a lecture by Steve Jones where he talked a little about his research work on the genetics of stripe patterns on the shells of the local snails. It turned out, if I remember correctly, that the patterns on the shells represented the genetics of the *grandparents* of the snails who carried the shells. Took him ages to figure it out. I still feel a little guilty about that day as it was only a few weeks after my son was born and I turned up at the lecture hall with him in my arms, only to discover that the only available seats were right at the top/back of the hall and the exits were at the front, so I'd have to race down past everyone if he started crying. Steve, who despite being an expert in human genetics had never had any kids of his own, took it all in his stride and every time he came up with lines about stretching our DNA out to the moon, he'd refer to 'our young friend at the back' and I'd have to hold him up to illustrate. He even came up for a chat later about the latest discoveries about the importance of telomeres, but he got distracted cooing at the baby part way through and I was forced to admit that I hadn't read all the article about it in the latest Scientific American magazine 'cos I kept getting distracted too. It's important to keep genetics practical, not just theoretical!
Dale Hodgins wrote:We weren't able to determine the length of the Firebox of The Walker Stove. At first, I started chopping things up at 16 in. long, but then went to about 1 foot long. If necessary, Alan will use the chop saw to further reduce the material as it is used. Chainsaws like wet wood but the chop saw likes dry wood.
Matt has just reported that the ideal size is up to about 16" in length, and under 6" thick.
Burra, did you get my message about the guy in central Portugal, who's offering to help you do the build?
Yes I did but I've only just got round to really chasing it up. I'll message him and see if he wants to pop round when things are starting to happen. I'm still a bit rushed off my feet but things are beginning to settle down enough for me see a plan beginning to emerge from the dust.
I want to say a huge, huge thankyou to Dale for turning up here and not only doing a ton of work but also being mega supportive to both myself and my son at an exceedingly difficult time in our lives, just two weeks after losing my husband having spending months caring for him round the clock while essential chores on the farm were simply left undone. I ended up with grass taller than me in some places, which is a mega fire risk, I had eucalyptus which I'd wanted cut down for years towering dangerously near to the exit gate of the farm risking blocking our escape if they catch fire, and so much mess to clear up from half-finished projects that I hardly knew how or where to begin. Dale rolled in, took some time to assess what most needed doing and where best to channel his expertise and energy, and took on the biggest, heaviest job, leaving me much safer and with several years' supply of firewood to boot.
I have a couple more friends due to arrive soonish, and other projects such as building one of Matt Walker's Tiny House Cook Stove and Heater are likely to be done as a bit of a team effort. I think I get to take photos, supervise and pay for the materials while the boys build, but I'm not complaining!
Mark Kissinger wrote:
Can you please provide a link to your illustration? I would like to use it as a reference. It may be very useful as a resource for use in establishing drought tolerant forage for paddock-managed livestock.
The blurb says - "Root Systems of Prairie Plants Poster This much loved illustration by Heidi Natura displays the deep root systems of our natural grasslands and all that implies about the importance of rainwater infiltration and soil organic production. CRI owns the copyright for this image."
In the case of plum and cherry trees (both are in the genus Prunus), the situation is more complex: again, most are self-sterile, but in general they need plants of the same species for pollination to occur, not just the same genus
Things are simpler with cherries: sweet cherries (Prunus avium) pollinate sweet cherries, sour cherries (P. cerasus) pollinate sour cherries, and just about any other cherry (and there are dozens of species!) will pollinate cherries of its own species, but not others.
We have a thread here for The Wildcrafting Brewer. I've been tied up doing other things for a few months but this one was next on my list of books to review. Perhaps you could write a review for us to tell us what you like about the book? If you can include the phrase "I give this book X out of 10 acorns" with your score in place of the X then it can be included in the book review grid. It might be a little while before I can devote the time to writing mine and it would be good to get this book some useful reviews as it really is an excellent one.
I haven't seen the Minimalist Gardener book and we don't seem to have a thread devoted to it yet. Maybe someone else can make one until I'm not quite so rushed off my feet?
Burra, the problem with your answer of 'never' is that 'never' force-feeding wouldn't produce foie gras.
At the right time of year, especially after acorn season, some of our muscovies have enlarged fatty livers.
They'll happily run after acorns you throw for them. My son used to spend ages playing with our old muscovy drake at acorn season.
Burra, are you saying that my edits to remove discussion of moderation and replace it with links to the "should-ing" and "publication standards" threads are the reason? Or, were you referring to the original version?
Those links and accompanying comment have no place in that thread. The links could be part of a signature, but not in that post. If the are removed the post can be reinstated. If not I shall delete it permanently. That is my last word on the subject as I have been totally disgusted at the level of control you have attempted to exert on the matter, and the amount of moderator time it's taken up, and the demands you are making of me personally. I have better things to do right now than argue with you. I do not consider that force feeding any animal is respectful in any way, and permies is not about raising animals in disrespectful ways.
I'm locking this thread now and wish to hear no more about this matter.
So, how long and how much should we force feed the ducks before their livers are ready to harvest?
I think in this case 'never' is a perfectly appropriate opinion to express as a response as it is certainly a wholly unnatural thing to do to any animal and I personally would consider it to be grossly disrespectful if not actually cruel and not the sort of thing I would ever want to encourage any of our members to do.
As for your own post, I think after the the last couple of lines are removed it will be fine to publish. As it is, it's too confrontational and controlling and off-topic.
Jim Fry wrote:. That for me is the problem with the "Burra" pictures above. The rocks look added, not organic to the site. And they aren't rooted to the land by being surrounded by trees. You wouldn't find something looking like that in nature (Unless possibly in the desert? -But where those pictures were taken is obviously not desert.). The "Burra" feature may have looked much better if they had dug a deep swale first, then placed the rocks. It might also help to add more twists and turns to the water flow.
There is a famous radio personality who often says that any good humor must contain at least a grain of truth in it. Its somewhat the same with any architectural art. It must fit its placement, to really be good art. There has to be "truth" to it.
Those 'sculptures' were as much a model to illustrate their main water retention landscape design as they were art.
You might prefer photos of the real thing...
The system works rather well - as you say, in the original photos it certainly doesn't look very desertified any more!
Su Ba wrote:Another option would be to active enough to build up a good sweat each day. We excrete quite a bit of our salt via sweat.
Wouldn't reduce the amount in the soil if I did that - the grey water from the shower goes into the soil the same as the pee does...
I also suspect that a lot of the crystals that form are struvite, which contains a lot of the nitrogen and phosphorus that are the main reason urine is such a good fertiliser. In fact, a lot of places are deliberately encouraging struvite to form from urine specifically to use as a convenient fertiliser. I'll post some links later if I have time to hunt some down.
This thread seems to be about a battle of control rather than anything else.
I'd suggest getting a really good thread going about your product, no mind tricks, no passive aggressive manipulation, no crap or word games or control tactics or time-sucking games of any kind. A discussion thread that is open to suggestions rather than just a sales push.