Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

edible trees

Expand Messages
  • michael hollihn
    check out the chinese toon tree toona sinensis ... -- Michael Hollihn, www.michaelhollihn.wordpress.com (bioregional timber frames)
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      check out the chinese toon tree 'toona sinensis'

      On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:50 AM, <fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      > Fukuoka Farming
      >
      > Messages In This Digest (7 Messages)
      >
      > 1a. Re: Kansas legume type tree From: The Dark Damsel 1b. Re: Kansas legume
      > type tree From: Jeff 1c. Re: Kansas legume type tree From: mcavincheyfrank
      > 1d. Re: Kansas legume type tree From: jhereg9333 1e. Re: useful trees From:
      > Linda Shewan 2a. Re: Wood chips as mulch: Re forest soils and more soil
      > science From: Jeff 2b. Re: Wood chips as mulch: Re forest soils and more
      > soil science From: Linda Shewan
      > View All Topics | Create New Topic
      >
      > Messages
      >
      > 1a.
      >
      > Re: Kansas legume type tree
      >
      > Posted by: "The Dark Damsel" sillydog@...   sillydog2112
      >
      > Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:02 am (PST)
      >
      > There are many used for spice, (curry tree, kaffir lime, bay), many
      > are useful for the production of medicinal oils (tea tree, eucalyptus,
      > myrtle, etc.) and some are used for food preparation (banana). There
      > are herbacious biennial/perennial crops that we eat parts the leaf or
      > stems (such as cardoon, filleheads or celery).
      >
      > Since the leaves of woody perennials are kept for at least one entire
      > season (and as many as seven or more), they are a bit tough, with a
      > relatively thick, waxy epidermis that defies human digestion.
      > Generally, they are best consumed through the filter of a ruminant as
      > milk or meat. Of course, they are also really good at feeding the
      > ground, with or without the help of goats, who really do, eat just
      > about anything. They're used in Oregon to remove invasive non-native
      > species such as Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Gorse (Ulex
      > europeans).
      >
      > -Marie in Cascadia
      >
      > --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "mcavincheyfrank"
      > <fmcavin@...> wrote:
      >
      >> I am wondering whether anyone knows of any trees that produce tasty,
      > nutritious leaves? I find it odd that I've never heard of ANY trees
      >> that are used for the production of leaves for food. Seems like there
      >> must be something out there that could be at least developed into a
      >> good leaf crop.
      >>
      >> Frank
      >>
      >
      > Back to top
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > Messages in this topic (11)
      > 1b.
      >
      > Re: Kansas legume type tree
      >
      > Posted by: "Jeff" shultonus@...   shultonus
      >
      > Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:37 pm (PST)
      >
      > --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "The Dark Damsel"
      > <sillydog@...> wrote:
      >>
      > for spice, (curry tree, kaffir lime, bay),
      > of medicinal oils (tea tree, eucalyptus, myrtle, etc.) and some are
      > food preparation (banana).
      >
      > In the temperate climate the European Linden is used when young and
      > mucilginous.... (In Britain they call this lime- for reasons unknown
      > to me)
      >
      > the American lindens (basswood and little leaf can be used but aren't
      > as tasty...
      > Slippery Elm is used similarly when just past the bud stage...
      >
      > Spruce needles make a palatable but not great tea
      >
      > Listed as edible leaves in Edible Forest Gardening by Jacke and Toensmeir
      >
      > Red Bud (a nitrogen fixing tree from eastern US has leaves that are
      > edible.
      > Both european and american beech
      > rose of sharon is listed as fair- I think this is a bush?
      >
      > Xanthoceras sorbifolium -yellow horn is listed as edible
      >
      > Zanthoxylum spp. -prickly ash can be used as medicinal
      >
      > There
      >> are herbacious biennial/perennial crops that we eat parts the leaf or
      >> stems (such as cardoon, filleheads or celery).
      >>
      >> Since the leaves of woody perennials are kept for at least one entire
      >> season (and as many as seven or more), they are a bit tough, with a
      >> relatively thick, waxy epidermis that defies human digestion.
      >> Generally, they are best consumed through the filter of a ruminant as
      >> milk or meat. Of course, they are also really good at feeding the
      >> ground, with or without the help of goats, who really do, eat just
      >> about anything. They're used in Oregon to remove invasive non-native
      >> species such as Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Gorse (Ulex
      >> europeans).
      >>
      >> -Marie in Cascadia
      >>
      >>
      >> --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "mcavincheyfrank"
      >> <fmcavin@> wrote:
      >>
      >> > I am wondering whether anyone knows of any trees that produce tasty,
      >> nutritious leaves? I find it odd that I've never heard of ANY trees
      >> > that are used for the production of leaves for food. Seems like
      > there
      >> > must be something out there that could be at least developed into a
      >> > good leaf crop.
      >> >
      >> > Frank
      >> >
      >>
      >
      > Back to top
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > Messages in this topic (11)
      > 1c.
      >
      > Re: Kansas legume type tree
      >
      > Posted by: "mcavincheyfrank" fmcavin@...   mcavincheyfrank
      >
      > Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:34 pm (PST)
      >
      > Well, yes. I am aware of all those useful trees. My desire is to
      > find out whether somewhere in the temperate part of the world there
      > are trees that produce tasty leaves. Seems like there HAS to be
      > something like that somewhere.
      >
      > Frank
      >
      > --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "The Dark Damsel"
      > <sillydog@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> There are many used for spice, (curry tree, kaffir lime, bay), many
      >> are useful for the production of medicinal oils (tea tree,
      > eucalyptus,
      >> myrtle, etc.) and some are used for food preparation (banana).
      > There
      >> are herbacious biennial/perennial crops that we eat parts the leaf
      > or
      >> stems (such as cardoon, filleheads or celery).
      >>
      >> Since the leaves of woody perennials are kept for at least one
      > entire
      >> season (and as many as seven or more), they are a bit tough, with a
      >> relatively thick, waxy epidermis that defies human digestion.
      >> Generally, they are best consumed through the filter of a ruminant
      > as
      >> milk or meat. Of course, they are also really good at feeding the
      >> ground, with or without the help of goats, who really do, eat just
      >> about anything. They're used in Oregon to remove invasive non-
      > native
      >> species such as Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Gorse
      > (Ulex
      >> europeans).
      >>
      >> -Marie in Cascadia
      >>
      >>
      >> --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "mcavincheyfrank"
      >> <fmcavin@> wrote:
      >>
      >> > I am wondering whether anyone knows of any trees that produce
      > tasty,
      >> nutritious leaves? I find it odd that I've never heard of ANY trees
      >> > that are used for the production of leaves for food. Seems like
      > there
      >> > must be something out there that could be at least developed into
      > a
      >> > good leaf crop.
      >> >
      >> > Frank
      >> >
      >>
      >
      > Back to top
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > Messages in this topic (11)
      > 1d.
      >
      > Re: Kansas legume type tree
      >
      > Posted by: "jhereg9333" jhereg9333@...   jhereg9333
      >
      > Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:34 pm (PST)
      >
      > In addition to the trees/shrubs already mentioned, I'd like to add
      > young "Rose of Sharon" leaves (sorry, scientific name eludes me atm)
      > as well as young maple leaves (Acer spp.). I'm particularly fond of
      > the red leaved varieties, they have a deep, rich flavor with some
      > slight bitterness.
      >
      > Jeremy
      > --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "mcavincheyfrank"
      > <fmcavin@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, Sara Mandal-Joy <smjlist@>
      >> wrote:
      >> >
      >> > Thanks for the many good ideas. I'm learning so much about
      > trees -
      >> and
      >> > bushes - and, well, life :-) .
      >> > Sara
      >> >
      >> I am wondering whether anyone knows of any trees that produce
      > tasty, nutritious leaves? I find it odd that I've never heard of ANY
      > trees
      >> that are used for the production of leaves for food. Seems like
      > there
      >> must be something out there that could be at least developed into a
      >> good leaf crop.
      >>
      >> Frank
      >>
      >
      > Back to top
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > Messages in this topic (11)
      > 1e.
      >
      > Re: useful trees
      >
      > Posted by: "Linda Shewan" linda_shewan@...   linda_shewan
      >
      > Sun Mar 1, 2009 2:34 am (PST)
      >
      > A number of acacia trees have edible seeds like A. victoriae, A.longifolia
      > (also called A.sophorae), A.notabilis, A.retinodes, A.pycnantha and
      > A.fimbriata. Mostly, commercial products are prepared by lightly baking the
      > seed, then grinding it to a powder. The most popular commercial products
      > containing wattle seed are breads, biscuits, cakes, and ice cream - Wattle
      > seed is gluten-free and so is suitable for particular diets, but in
      > bread-making the absence of gluten affects the texture, and so wattle seed
      > flour is combined with a higher proportion of ordinary wheaten flour. Wattle
      > seed could be a useful ingredient in diabetic diets, as the carbohydrates
      > are absorbed quite slowly, so providing energy over a long period.
      > Mongongo trees - Why should we garden, when there are so many mongongo
      > trees in the world? - !Kung tribesman. See
      > http://permaculture.org.au/2008/11/19/desert-ways/#more-882
      >
      >
      > TROPICAL/SUB-TROPICAL ONLY
      > Moringa Oleifera - you can use all parts of it! Check this out...
      > http://enviro.org.au/article_moringaTree.asp it is truly amazing. I have
      > tried to grow some here but it is too cold - Victoria, Australia. I have one
      > tree that survived last winter - well it died back to roots and then came
      > back in spring - but it is still only 20cm tall whereas it grows really fast
      > in sub-tropical/tropical environments. I want a greenhouse (or at least a
      > house with north facing windows) sometimes!
      >
      > Also the tamarind tree (Tamarindus indica) - it is one of the most useful of
      > tropical trees - for shelter, shade, food firebreaks, fuel wood, forage,
      > fodder, bee food and mulch. Leaves, flowers and immature pods are eaten as
      > vegetables, while these items plus the bark and roots have medicinal
      > properties.
      >
      > I recommend the books Edible Forest Gardens but Dave Jacke and Eric
      > Toensmeier . Book 2 has an amazing appendix cover vast numbers of temperate
      > climate edible plants including trees, shrubs, herbs, ground covers and root
      > crops. Also http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/D_search.html is a fantastic
      > resource. This search
      > http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/find_use?ED_USE=Leaves
      > <http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/find_use?ED_USE=Leaves&CAN=EDIB>
      > &CAN=EDIB lists all the plants with edible leaves, including trees. You can
      > click on a tree to get more detailed information. I use this resource
      > regularly.
      >
      > Hope this helps, or is interesting at least.
      >
      > Cheers, Linda
      >
      >
      >
      > From: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jhereg9333
      > Sent: Sunday, 1 March 2009 2:04 PM
      > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [fukuoka_farming] Re: Kansas legume type tree
      >
      > In addition to the trees/shrubs already mentioned, I'd like to add
      > young "Rose of Sharon" leaves (sorry, scientific name eludes me atm)
      > as well as young maple leaves (Acer spp.). I'm particularly fond of
      > the red leaved varieties, they have a deep, rich flavor with some
      > slight bitterness.
      >
      > Jeremy
      > --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:fukuoka_farming%40yahoogroups.com> , "mcavincheyfrank"
      > <fmcavin@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:fukuoka_farming%40yahoogroups.com> , Sara Mandal-Joy <smjlist@>
      >> wrote:
      >> >
      >> > Thanks for the many good ideas. I'm learning so much about
      > trees -
      >> and
      >> > bushes - and, well, life :-) .
      >> > Sara
      >> >
      >> I am wondering whether anyone knows of any trees that produce
      > tasty, nutritious leaves? I find it odd that I've never heard of ANY
      > trees
      >> that are used for the production of leaves for food. Seems like
      > there
      >> must be something out there that could be at least developed into a
      >> good leaf crop.
      >>
      >> Frank
      >>
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > Back to top
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > Messages in this topic (11)
      > 2a.
      >
      > Re: Wood chips as mulch: Re forest soils and more soil science
      >
      > Posted by: "Jeff" shultonus@...   shultonus
      >
      > Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:16 pm (PST)
      >
      > This email is an attempt to clear up the misunderstanding that have
      > arrisen as of late about wood mulch
      > -and of course how this relates to forest soils and
      > how separately it relates to natural farming
      >
      > I will start with the sciency part,., then get more common speak as
      > the post goes on
      >
      >> It would seem to me that the fact that many forests have super
      > fertile top soils that are many feet deep could possibly be that
      > multitudes of > leaves, sticks, branches, trunks, etc., have fallen
      > undisturbed over > millenia.
      >
      > when you say fertile soil you must have a basis of comparison..
      > ok so old prairie soils have deep dark A horizons.. the rotting roots
      > of the grasses are responsible for this .. this is the theory behind
      > 'rhizodeposition' that Bob Monie toughts..
      > this works because of several factors..
      > a) grass roots go deep instead of spread out like forests
      > b) grass roots are upto 75% of the primary production as opposed to
      > around 18% for trees (mostly goes into 'wood')
      > c) roots actually are somewhat resistant to decomposition due to
      > content of anti-microbles and higher percentages of lignin
      > so the result is somewhat decayed organic matter with high nutrient
      > value mixed deeply in the soils lll this is for prairie soils
      >
      > in forest soils the majority of the organic matter is above the soil...
      > the leaf and stick litter is called the o-horizon...
      > in frigid climates like boreal forests this can over eons become
      > several feet thick, also in bog/peat situations this can likewise
      > become thick- this is due to slow decomposition because of cold or water..
      >
      > in temperate climates it is at most inches thick...
      > in tropical climates it is even less (usually less than 1")
      >
      > immediately below the O-horizon is an E horizon... this is where all
      > the acids from the leaf litter remove the nutrients and send them
      > packing.. ending up in the stream or deeper in the soil profile...
      >
      > the nutrients then are bound mostly in the living matter and the
      > O-horizons..... (recently dead stuff)
      >
      > but the soils are often 'deep' because the acids do break down bedrock
      > and roots crack it to increase weathering of the soil...
      > so the actual soil profile might be deep but the nutrients are still
      > mostly shallow...
      >
      > I fail to see how adding wood chips to soils could possibly
      >> decrease the fertility of soils, unless one has been adding chemical
      >> fertilizers for quite some time, resulting in dead soils. Perhaps
      > I'm mistaken?
      >>
      > It doesn't decrease the fertility... it temporarily sequesters
      > them.... this has to do with the natural balance of the carbon to
      > nitrogen ratio.... this topic has been covered several times in the
      > archievs....
      > basically bacteria have a low carbon to nitrogen ration relative to
      > the wood chips this means the bacteria suck up all the nitrogen so
      > they can break down the wood chips... the bacteria being tiny and
      > numerous are much better at getting the nitrogen then the plants are.
      > so for 1-3 years you have low 'available' nitrogen until the bateria
      > catch up with the wood chips...
      >
      > the nitrogen fertility of forest soils is usually built up during the
      > early successional phase of the forest.. that is in the meadow and
      > shrub stage.. there are many meadow and shrubs that fix nitrogen and
      > very few trees that do so.. typically the nitrogen is maxed as a young
      > forest and slowly declines as some is washed out...
      > it is the bacteria and fungi's ability to hold onto the nitrogen so
      > well that enables the forest to be so productive without fertilize..
      > when you cut down a forest you do away with their food supply and the
      > bateria and fungi die, and the nutrients get leached.
      >
      >> > Dear Jeremy,
      >> >
      >> > I think woody material contains high amount of cellulose. It
      >> decomposes very> > slowly and after decomposition that releases
      > toxic acids that can be problematic to the plants.. I dont know the
      > specific names of these acids.
      >
      > this is only true of certain trees .. not all trees have these
      > compounds..... trees that are noted for their resinous oils (Eucalpyt,
      > leaurals) and conifers (pines, spruces etc) are likely to result in
      > these acids..
      > there are many many specific ones, and plant biologist and soil
      > scientist have different terms for them.. the
      > term I'm familiar with is phenolitic...
      > pheno- refering to the benzene right structure of these acids...
      > and litic refering to lysis.. or the breakdown of the orginal organic
      > matter
      > There may be other compounds that contribute to this but they are less
      > known.. and don't occur in large families like the previously
      > mentioned plants
      >
      > this is one of the reasons conifers are not highly recommended as
      > mulch for gardening.....and braodleaved trees are prefered...
      > I would think a moderate amount of conifers once or twice would have a
      > minimal effect...
      > generally when these things are measure and disscuessed it is in the
      > terms of geologic time development of soils...
      >
      > I would think that after once or twice adding the conifers, and
      > regular mulching of other organic matter, you would no longer need the
      > conifer mulch to effectively garden and restore fertility
      >
      >> > > If I recall correctly, woody material has such a high carbon
      >> content that it ties up nitrogen unless broken down by fungi. As
      > already mentioned, you can bury the material to help it decompose. You
      > could also spread the chips out and innoculate with fungi spores. You
      > may want to try Stropharia rugoso-annulata or Pleurotus species.
      >> > >
      >>
      >
      > this is exactly correct...
      > interestingly enough research pointed to by Stamets in Mycellium
      > Running indicated increased yeild for certain vegetables when grown in
      > combination with the above mentioned fungi...
      > and even more interesting was that fact that the best yeild increases
      > were for the brasicas ... which don't form VAM or AM mycorhizal
      > assocaions like most other plants.
      >
      > ugh..
      > just say so you have any questions or need anything clarified..
      > I'm fighting a cold and might have skipped over something important
      > jeff
      >
      > Back to top
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > Messages in this topic (15)
      > 2b.
      >
      > Re: Wood chips as mulch: Re forest soils and more soil science
      >
      > Posted by: "Linda Shewan" linda_shewan@...   linda_shewan
      >
      > Sun Mar 1, 2009 3:00 am (PST)
      >
      > I could argue with this but I am not as scientifically based as Jeff so I
      > would certainly say things wrong BUT my understanding is that the wood chips
      > lock up nitrogen ONLY if they are dug into the soil. Left on top they do not
      > 'pull' nitrogen out of the soil. I believe there are studies supporting and
      > dissenting this view but a couple of supporting sites are below:
      >
      > A 2004-2006 Washington study showed that applying a 5-foot wide, 6-inch
      > thick layer of wood chips provided the best weed control in all three years,
      > although it needed reapplication in year three. This treatment also produced
      > the greatest tree growth and fruit size.
      > In a related trial, a Gala apple block was used to compare a 4-inch wood
      > chip mulch in the tree row with a herbicide strip. In the first year,
      > mulched plots consistently had 15 percent to 20 percent higher soil moisture
      > at the end of each irrigation cycle than the bare ground plots. In the
      > second year, the two treatments were watered independently according to
      > need, and mulching reduced cumulative irrigation application by 20 percent
      > to 30 percent.
      > -----
      >
      > Concern: Wood chip mulches will tie up nitrogen and cause deficiencies in
      > plants.
      > Evidence: Actually, many studies have demonstrated that woody mulch
      > materials increase nutrient levels in soils and/or associated plant foliage.
      > My hypothesis is that a zone of nitrogen deficiency exists at the mulch/soil
      > interface, inhibiting weed seed germination while having no influence upon
      > established plant roots below the soil surface. For this reason, it is
      > inadvisable to use high C:N mulches in annual beds or vegetable gardens
      > where the plants of interest do not have deep, extensive root systems.
      > From: http://www.sustainable-gardening.com/WoodChips.php and an interesting
      > discussion on
      > http://www.gardenrant.com/my_weblog/2008/09/the-hort-guru-a.html
      >
      >
      > Cheers, Linda
      >
      >
      > From: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
      > Sent: Sunday, 1 March 2009 1:17 PM
      > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [fukuoka_farming] Re: Wood chips as mulch: Re forest soils and more
      > soil science
      >
      > This email is an attempt to clear up the misunderstanding that have
      > arrisen as of late about wood mulch
      > -and of course how this relates to forest soils and
      > how separately it relates to natural farming
      >
      > I will start with the sciency part,., then get more common speak as
      > the post goes on
      >
      >> It would seem to me that the fact that many forests have super
      > fertile top soils that are many feet deep could possibly be that
      > multitudes of > leaves, sticks, branches, trunks, etc., have fallen
      > undisturbed over > millenia.
      >
      > when you say fertile soil you must have a basis of comparison..
      > ok so old prairie soils have deep dark A horizons.. the rotting roots
      > of the grasses are responsible for this .. this is the theory behind
      > 'rhizodeposition' that Bob Monie toughts..
      > this works because of several factors..
      > a) grass roots go deep instead of spread out like forests
      > b) grass roots are upto 75% of the primary production as opposed to
      > around 18% for trees (mostly goes into 'wood')
      > c) roots actually are somewhat resistant to decomposition due to
      > content of anti-microbles and higher percentages of lignin
      > so the result is somewhat decayed organic matter with high nutrient
      > value mixed deeply in the soils lll this is for prairie soils
      >
      > in forest soils the majority of the organic matter is above the soil...
      > the leaf and stick litter is called the o-horizon...
      > in frigid climates like boreal forests this can over eons become
      > several feet thick, also in bog/peat situations this can likewise
      > become thick- this is due to slow decomposition because of cold or water..
      >
      > in temperate climates it is at most inches thick...
      > in tropical climates it is even less (usually less than 1")
      >
      > immediately below the O-horizon is an E horizon... this is where all
      > the acids from the leaf litter remove the nutrients and send them
      > packing.. ending up in the stream or deeper in the soil profile...
      >
      > the nutrients then are bound mostly in the living matter and the
      > O-horizons..... (recently dead stuff)
      >
      > but the soils are often 'deep' because the acids do break down bedrock
      > and roots crack it to increase weathering of the soil...
      > so the actual soil profile might be deep but the nutrients are still
      > mostly shallow...
      >
      > I fail to see how adding wood chips to soils could possibly
      >> decrease the fertility of soils, unless one has been adding chemical
      >> fertilizers for quite some time, resulting in dead soils. Perhaps
      > I'm mistaken?
      >>
      > It doesn't decrease the fertility... it temporarily sequesters
      > them.... this has to do with the natural balance of the carbon to
      > nitrogen ratio.... this topic has been covered several times in the
      > archievs....
      > basically bacteria have a low carbon to nitrogen ration relative to
      > the wood chips this means the bacteria suck up all the nitrogen so
      > they can break down the wood chips... the bacteria being tiny and
      > numerous are much better at getting the nitrogen then the plants are.
      > so for 1-3 years you have low 'available' nitrogen until the bateria
      > catch up with the wood chips...
      >
      > the nitrogen fertility of forest soils is usually built up during the
      > early successional phase of the forest.. that is in the meadow and
      > shrub stage.. there are many meadow and shrubs that fix nitrogen and
      > very few trees that do so.. typically the nitrogen is maxed as a young
      > forest and slowly declines as some is washed out...
      > it is the bacteria and fungi's ability to hold onto the nitrogen so
      > well that enables the forest to be so productive without fertilize..
      > when you cut down a forest you do away with their food supply and the
      > bateria and fungi die, and the nutrients get leached.
      >
      >> > Dear Jeremy,
      >> >
      >> > I think woody material contains high amount of cellulose. It
      >> decomposes very> > slowly and after decomposition that releases
      > toxic acids that can be problematic to the plants.. I dont know the
      > specific names of these acids.
      >
      > this is only true of certain trees .. not all trees have these
      > compounds..... trees that are noted for their resinous oils (Eucalpyt,
      > leaurals) and conifers (pines, spruces etc) are likely to result in
      > these acids..
      > there are many many specific ones, and plant biologist and soil
      > scientist have different terms for them.. the
      > term I'm familiar with is phenolitic...
      > pheno- refering to the benzene right structure of these acids...
      > and litic refering to lysis.. or the breakdown of the orginal organic
      > matter
      > There may be other compounds that contribute to this but they are less
      > known.. and don't occur in large families like the previously
      > mentioned plants
      >
      > this is one of the reasons conifers are not highly recommended as
      > mulch for gardening.....and braodleaved trees are prefered...
      > I would think a moderate amount of conifers once or twice would have a
      > minimal effect...
      > generally when these things are measure and disscuessed it is in the
      > terms of geologic time development of soils...
      >
      > I would think that after once or twice adding the conifers, and
      > regular mulching of other organic matter, you would no longer need the
      > conifer mulch to effectively garden and restore fertility
      >
      >> > > If I recall correctly, woody material has such a high carbon
      >> content that it ties up nitrogen unless broken down by fungi. As
      > already mentioned, you can bury the material to help it decompose. You
      > could also spread the chips out and innoculate with fungi spores. You
      > may want to try Stropharia rugoso-annulata or Pleurotus species.
      >> > >
      >>
      >
      > this is exactly correct...
      > interestingly enough research pointed to by Stamets in Mycellium
      > Running indicated increased yeild for certain vegetables when grown in
      > combination with the above mentioned fungi...
      > and even more interesting was that fact that the best yeild increases
      > were for the brasicas ... which don't form VAM or AM mycorhizal
      > assocaions like most other plants.
      >
      > ugh..
      > just say so you have any questions or need anything clarified..
      > I'm fighting a cold and might have skipped over something important
      > jeff
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > Back to top
      > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      > Messages in this topic (15)
      > Recent Activity
      >
      >  14
      > New Members
      >  2
      > New Photos
      >  2
      > New Links
      >
      > Visit Your Group
      > Biz Resources
      >
      > Y! Small Business
      >
      > Articles, tools,
      >
      > forms, and more.
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups
      >
      > Join people over 40
      >
      > who are finding ways
      >
      > to stay in shape.
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups
      >
      > Cat Zone
      >
      > Connect w/ others
      >
      > who love cats.
      >
      > Need to Reply?
      >
      > Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily
      > Digest.
      >
      > Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
      > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
      > MARKETPLACE
      > ________________________________
      > From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
      > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
      > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to
      > Traditional
      > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe



      --
      Michael Hollihn,
      www.michaelhollihn.wordpress.com (bioregional timber frames)
      www.kettleriverfood.ning.com (building food security in the Kettle
      river watershed)
      'Be the change that you want to see' Ghandi
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.