Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I eat the invasive's because they are what we should be eating most of all.
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I am talking about gourmet quality food.
I was too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
With a forest full of garlic mustard,
The reason the forest is full of it is because it's invasive - toxic to native plants and wildlife. It takes over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I have removed thousands of garlic mustard plants by eating them. I am what you would call one of the few native pests that eats it.
And that is your choice, your prerogative. You should eat whatever you want. We make our own choices. My choice would be to remove and replace with natives.
By harvesting thousands of them you may have inadvertently propagated thousands more. Look at Wisconsin's problem with garlic mustard.
The seeds are sticky and readily attach themselves to animal fur, shoes, auto tires, etc. The plant is rapidly spread by human activity, as well as by animals. Within a few years, garlic mustard can become dominant on the forest floor, shading out all native plants.
Even worse, garlic mustard forms lots of seeds, and these seeds can remain alive in the soil for as much as five years.Thus, killing or removing the living garlic mustard plants does not stop the infestation. More plants will arise next year from the plentiful "seed bank."
Garlic mustard control is a multi-year project. Don't forget the seed bank. Just because this year's crop has been removed does not mean that your work is finished. Be prepared to come back next year, and the next, and the next, until "finally" the area is under control.
If a heavy infestation is being dealt with, it is important to reseed the area with native plants after eradication.
The issue was over the oft misconception that wild food lacks palatability.
Well, that was not the issue for me. I have no misconceptions. Some things I like and some I don't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
You have zero control now. Surely you are aware of blight?
Yeah, I've heard of it but I've never seen it and I've been growing food since I was a kid. But I take nothing for granted. Hail, tornadoes, floods, drought, early/late frosts, wind storms, etc., destroy more crops than blight does. All one can do is to minimize as many risks as possible so I avoided areas where those things commonly occur; and I have 2 growing seasons. That doesn't mean disaster could never happen here - it's why we self-sufficient types have back-up. Blight is a fungus that results from too wet, too humid conditions. It isn't extremely wet and humid in my location. I live far enough from any large bodies of surface water that I don't get the high humidity, but too much rain and warm temps could certainly provide conditions for blight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
You need to source contemporary wild food authors or know how to adapt them.
Why would I need food authors when I can develop my own recipes? I think you misunderstood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
So in short rather than believe your own initial impressions,
What initial impressions do you think I have and believe and of what exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
or even argue with me,
Wait, you addressed me - the post I addressed to the OP. So now there is no room for debate? Regardless of how you continue to misrepresent (or misunderstand?) what I stated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
I'd suggest you look into people who actually utilize wild plants. It will fit differently with different people. Some are survivalists, others are herbalists more or less in pharmacology as opposed edibles.
I utilize wild plants. Not sure how you missed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
As for me I don't really view native or non native for the sake of purity.
Neither do I. It's invasive plants that are threats vs. plants which are not threats. Many non-natives are not threats.
Don't let the government catch wind of that... they'll be out at your place with either government trappers or clever geneticists who can disguise water hemlock as garlic mustard.
As long as a large segment of our population believes that food originates at the supermarket, and believes that any edible plant is a benign life form (How can sow thistle be a threat to food crops in Minnesota? It's a freakin PLANT!) --- then Nanny Gov might take steps to protect those people from their own ignorance and stupidity.
By harvesting thousands of them you may have inadvertently propagated thousands more. Look at Wisconsin's problem with garlic mustard.
The seeds are sticky and readily attach themselves to animal fur, shoes, auto tires, etc. The plant is rapidly spread by human activity, as well as by animals. Within a few years, garlic mustard can become dominant on the forest floor, shading out all native plants.
Even worse, garlic mustard forms lots of seeds, and these seeds can remain alive in the soil for as much as five years.Thus, killing or removing the living garlic mustard plants does not stop the infestation. More plants will arise next year from the plentiful "seed bank."
Garlic mustard control is a multi-year project. Don't forget the seed bank. Just because this year's crop has been removed does not mean that your work is finished. Be prepared to come back next year, and the next, and the next, until "finally" the area is under control.
If a heavy infestation is being dealt with, it is important to reseed the area with native plants after eradication.
I think I have largely lost interest in the rest of the debate since we diverted oddly from palatability to an ecological perspective. Dandelion was an arbitrary example and you changed its context.
However I need to address this because again I see a flawed approach to the discussion of wild plants. You did not inquire into what is harvested or method of preparation. You began discussing a plant that you clearly don;t really know about in detail. You either didn't bother to research the plant and its reproductive cycle, or you have no well rounded experience with biannual plants. Unless you are harvesting seeds, there are few plants of this type I know of that would be harvested at this stage as if it were harvested like cilantro, caraway or cumin . In particular I know little of any account where garlic mustard is harvested for its seeds. It is typical of biannual that the ideal harvest is late fall or early spring. Now if you harvest the immature flower stalks and consume them, there is no seed being distributed even then. However when its flowering and going to seed, it has little food value. In the late fall and early spring there are no seeds and the plant is entirely harvested.
The reason they warn of this is because in the typical eradication method they are pulled when flowering where there is little food value. However it also has enough energy in the root to go to seed. So once again, I am the one that isn't the problem. I am no where near the seed stage.
You need to know the plants you are speaking about and it appears you don't. I am on Wisconsin's doorstep, and I know exactly what is going on first hand.
Don't toss out out of context disinformation. I do the things I speak about. This bull thistle in its first year, basal rosette stage is nowhere near going to seed. That is exactly when one would get the best garlic mustard and in much the same fashion. Let the silver maple leaf tell you what time of year it is. And here is what ya do with it. See any seeds? Meanwhile the mid spring flowering garlic mustard pulls must be bagged...
So no I am not as careless as you are with your accusations and assumptions..
I think I have largely lost interest in the rest of the debate since we diverted oddly from palatability to an ecological perspective. Dandelion was an arbitrary example and you changed its context.
However I need to address this because again I see a flawed approach to the discussion of wild plants. You did not inquire into what is harvested or method of preparation. You began discussing a plant that you clearly don;t really know about in detail. You either didn't bother to research the plant and its reproductive cycle, or you have no well rounded experience with biannual plants. Unless you are harvesting seeds, there are few plants of this type I know of that would be harvested at this stage as if it were harvested like cilantro, caraway or cumin . In particular I know little of any account where garlic mustard is harvested for its seeds. It is typical of biannual that the ideal harvest is late fall or early spring. Now if you harvest the immature flower stalks and consume them, there is no seed being distributed even then. However when its flowering and going to seed, it has little food value. In the late fall and early spring there are no seeds and the plant is entirely harvested.
The reason they warn of this is because in the typical eradication method they are pulled when flowering where there is little food value. However it also has enough energy in the root to go to seed. So once again, I am the one that isn't the problem. I am no where near the seed stage.
You need to know the plants you are speaking about and it appears you don't. I am on Wisconsin's doorstep, and I know exactly what is going on first hand.
Don't toss out out of context disinformation. I do the things I speak about. This bull thistle in its first year, basal rosette stage is nowhere near going to seed. That is exactly when one would get the best garlic mustard and in much the same fashion. Let the silver maple leaf tell you what time of year it is. And here is what ya do with it. See any seeds? Meanwhile the mid spring flowering garlic mustard pulls must be bagged...
So no I am not as careless as you are with your accusations and assumptions..
Wow....
I didn't make accusations and assumptions about you specifically - I went back and checked. I would have been justified though if I had since you made so many about me. You are really wearing out this "you don't know" argument.
I didn't bring up garlic mustard. You did. It grows here, by the way. I am well aware that anyone who knows what they're doing would not be harvesting it to eat when it's gone to seed. Rather, they would leave it there and look for something else, might inadvertently carry seeds off, leave it for wildlife to carry off to other people's property, or leave them to drop on the ground where they can live for 5 years.
If you believe that harvesting it early is all it takes, then you have been misled. If only it were that simple. And unless you are getting every last bit of it out of that forest, what's left WILL go to seed. That doesn't even take into account humans and wildlife inadvertently bringing seeds BACK in from adjacent or other properties.
You stated that dinner is answered by what is at hand. Nothing wrong with that. I've stated you should eat whatever you want. If I am to eat invasive plants (as you say we all should), what would be my incentive to eradicate my free supplemental food supply, particularly when it will be a long time before anything else of significant quantity or quality would grow there? Is my goal to eradicate it or to just curb it so that my free food supply is not interrupted -- at least not until USDA bans it in whatever state I'm in and kills it ruining everything else courtesy of Monsanto or Dow? Given enough time, garlic mustard is just about all that would grow in that forest anyway. Garlic mustard creates starvation forests for wildlife, which ultimately affects humans. Invasives reduce food diversity; I like choices. Getting my free garlic mustard or whatever is at hand is just not worth ecological disaster to me.
Eating invasive species is nothing new. Eating invasive animal species is a much more feasible eradication/control method than eating plant species. Either one can have unintended consequences. Advocating eating invasive species and people deciding they like them and/or touting them as gourmet food creates demand. Demand creates an economic resource and nobody wants to end an economic resource. Instead of less, you have more. In some places, advocating eating an invasive with the goal of eradicating it resulted in it becoming part of the local culture. Oops. Further, some invasive plant and animal species have such rapid recovery rates that even overharvesting/overfishing has been futile. Disturbing the ground (e.g.,foraging) around some invasive plants actually encourages faster growth. We can eat them, but the problem is not so simple that we can eat our way out of it.
OK, the problem is multifaceted. There are wild plants and domesticated plants. There are introduced plants and native plants. There are invasive plants and non-invasive plants. In any given environment ANY plant can become invasive - whether is wild, domestic, introduced or native. And any domesticated plant that is off doing its own thing outside of the cultivated area is essentially "wild" and potentially invasive (um, MINT & BAMBOO anyone?!). Not all introduced plants are automatically invasive, and not all native plants are automatically non-invasive. And not all invasives are automatically noxious (harmful to that ecosystem).
Foraging wild plants is a great way to supplement your cultivated plants (whether they are domesticated or sequestered "wild" varieties) -- but long term, transplanting them to a cultivated space will help protect against accidental depletion and damage to the wildlife while foraging.
If you like eating noxious invasives, that's great... as long as you don't PLANT them and are careful not to inadvertently distribute their seeds (or sprouting roots) when you're foraging. If you plant an non-noxious invasive, then make sure it's contained to reduce spreading and destroy it entirely if you no longer want to cultivate it.
If you forage a noxious biennial during it's first year of tender growth, then you do effectively curb it's growth as long as you collect all it's reproductive means (i.e. the root or tubers as well if the plant regrows from a dormant root). If you want to eliminate a noxious altogether (or as much as possible) you have to remove every scrap of it from the environment whether you're going to eat some of it or not. You just can't eat your way into eradicating a noxious invasive (unless you have a herd of livestock denude the area!).
But, for Self-Sufficiency & Preparedness purposes, being able to identify every edible plant in your area -- regardless of type or origin -- and knowing which portions are edible, when they should be harvested and how they should be prepared is a key survival skill.
I didn't make accusations and assumptions about you specifically - I went back and checked. I would have been justified though if I had since you made so many about me. You are really wearing out this "you don't know" argument.
Preposterous double speak:
"By harvesting thousands of them you may have inadvertently propagated thousands more."
One does not use "you" in this context. In form it was argumentative. You could have chosen.
"One could spread the seeds if they are not careful".
Is that not more or less a comment that does not cause provocation?
Quote:
I didn't bring up garlic mustard. You did. It grows here, by the way. I am well aware that anyone who knows what they're doing would not be harvesting it to eat when it's gone to seed. Rather, they would leave it there and look for something else, might inadvertently carry seeds off, leave it for wildlife to carry off to other people's property, or leave them to drop on the ground where they can live for 5 years.
You brought up garlic mustard in your own context specifically for your own platform. Further more anyone walking by it would do the same. The only difference is one is removing it during the stage its not spreading seeds.
Quote:
If you believe that harvesting it early is all it takes, then you have been misled. If only it were that simple. And unless you are getting every last bit of it out of that forest, what's left WILL go to seed. That doesn't even take into account humans and wildlife inadvertently bringing seeds BACK in from adjacent or other properties.
If one were to mention they will be going white water rafting, I would suppose you would take note they did not go into any detail about taking a life preserver.
"If you do that without a life preserver you will drown!"
"Err, In that context the usual precautions should be implied as I do use a life preserver" , replies the anonymous thrill seeker.
Scarlet replies, "If you think its that simple and you don't need a helmet then you are being misled.."
"Again, I do where a helmet"
" Doesn't matter, If you take a class 5 white water rapid without experience you WILL drown."
I would never waste a pleasent afternoon with such bellicose and overwrought discourse.
And never could one more skillfully use the phrase : Perfect is the enemy of the good.
My goal is not to correct the mistakes of the rest of my society. My goal is to make lemonade and to not only help myself, but also reverse some small measure of the rest. You can keep trying that over the top soap box method and I will keep the one person at a time grass roots method. If a certain fraction of people see what a healthy environment can do for them, I believe they will seek to maintain it. Nature as a museum is a failure.
Quote:
You stated that dinner is answered by what is at hand. Nothing wrong with that. I've stated you should eat whatever you want. If I am to eat invasive plants (as you say we all should), what would be my incentive to eradicate my free supplemental food supply, particularly when it will be a long time before anything else of significant quantity or quality would grow there?
I have never known anything that is short in supply to be in a state of abundance. However if eradication is your goal, like when you are weeding, why not eat it? I have eradicated several plants in a native prairie a local botanist was trying to maintain. I spoke with with him a couple of times as we went through the plants he was trying to maintain. He was happy to seem me take out an L serriola. I sense an elitism as if the majority of those who are interested in such things are looking for mere freebies. It will never be perfect but for every potential abuser there will be more people who are aware.
The problem now is people who are so out of touch they have no idea. Now we are seeing dame's rocket(Hesperis matronalis) follow the familiar invasive pattern . I think if they thought they had a stake in it beyond their own yard, perceptions would change.
Quote:
Is my goal to eradicate it or to just curb it so that my free food supply is not interrupted -- at least not until USDA bans it in whatever state I'm in and kills it ruining everything else courtesy of Monsanto or Dow? Given enough time, garlic mustard is just about all that would grow in that forest anyway. Garlic mustard creates starvation forests for wildlife, which ultimately affects humans. Invasives reduce food diversity; I like choices. Getting my free garlic mustard or whatever is at hand is just not worth ecological disaster to me.
This is beyond comprehension. Who is eradicating it now? Not you. How many plants did you say you removed? If not those like me, who? Where are they? The volunteers with nothing but their ideals to drive them? Predators have non of those ideals and they keep the population in check.
Quote:
Eating invasive species is nothing new. Eating invasive animal species is a much more feasible eradication/control method than eating plant species. Either one can have unintended consequences. Advocating eating invasive species and people deciding they like them and/or touting them as gourmet food creates demand. Demand creates an economic resource and nobody wants to end an economic resource. Instead of less, you have more. In some places, advocating eating an invasive with the goal of eradicating it resulted in it becoming part of the local culture. Oops. Further, some invasive plant and animal species have such rapid recovery rates that even overharvesting/overfishing has been futile. Disturbing the ground (e.g.,foraging) around some invasive plants actually encourages faster growth. We can eat them, but the problem is not so simple that we can eat our way out of it.
Who said it was and how the hell did we get here anyway? This should be moved to the "green" forum where one may argue all they like about these things. Self sufficiency....
You go ahead and napalm it, and I'll go ahead and just eat it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
