Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New take on Amanita growth


  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

#141 shadowechos

shadowechos

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 113 posts

Posted 21 April 2007 - 12:19 PM

if someone manages to perfect a technique for mass producing amanita tissue in a lab well then that is what was supposed to happen, no point in lamentation.


I hope this means, philosophy maybe safely abandoned for awhile here
and now?...:lol:

...Would seem the next logical step would be to grow the mystery white stuff in a jar or jug of grape juice with dry Amanita floating on the surface (as in the pictures)...and then instead of consuming all...transfer some white stuff (mycelium or mold or whatever) to agar, then grain, then attempt fruiting in grain jar or continue to spawn step...indoors and or outdoors.
...This will answer questions more than speculation, or ingestion...as A. Shulgin is not around here to analyze the chemistry of the brew and ingestion is of course subjective.
...As the described procedure does not seem particularly sterile, (ie. the Amanitas outside surfaces) it is even possible that more than one organism is growing on the Amanita/grape juice.
...Fortunately scientific experimental technique, can take us where philosophy, religion, and morality, all fail to find any real traction.:amazed:

#142 Bobcat

Bobcat

    Selah!

  • Expired Member
  • 3,573 posts

Posted 21 April 2007 - 12:55 PM

Prolly shouldn't even post this, but it is interesting to me so I will. I'm not so sure I agree with the differentiation being made with cloning. Mushrooms are simple organisms and we clone them to make more simple organisms of a similar type (big, small, plentiful, early, late, etc.). The key word here is 'simple'.

We take whole tissue that regenerates into more whole tissue. This tissue is generally considered undifferentiated, yes? I mean, there isn't two kinds of mycelia- one to create the network and another to create knots. No, it just changes to do what it has to. As such we take a blob and move it. Done.

But in the end, it is a simple way to mass produce DNA for a specific purpose. An end result for our own benefit- an act nature itself employs on air, land and in the water.

Unless I'm missing something, the differences in cloning are being represented on purpose and complexity, basically, right? But when cloning actual DNA, or even just more differentiated tissue (=less likely to adapt to new conditions / change), like a human ear, for example- it necessarily entails more complicated procedures.

I get the distinction being made and even agreed with it at first. But then we would make similar distinctions about those who use LC, agar, cardboard, etc.

But the end results are still the same, more tissue created for a purpose. Our purpose. Or natures purpose. Differentiated tissue and DNA is simply harder to do. So how does it qualify as 'different'?

Ya know, until you clone a mushroom successfully a few times, it seems hard too. Cloning is cloning, imo.

#143 shadowechos

shadowechos

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 113 posts

Posted 21 April 2007 - 01:32 PM

clonning is "natural" in the sense that it happens without human intervention, all plants that are grown from cuttings are clones, and so are ones that root themselves like "spider Plants" etc.

then there is the case of twins...etc.

and salamanders can regrow an amputated limb, and that is differentiated tissue...and presumably with the same DNA...and fully functional !

I don't think nature cares about our conceptual hierarchies...

and various viruses invade cells and mess with the machinery inside
and so do some parasites

#144 shadowechos

shadowechos

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 113 posts

Posted 21 April 2007 - 03:32 PM

Transforming Plants - Basic Genetic Engineering Techniques
Pamela Peters. "Biotechnology: A Guide to Genetic Engineering." Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1993.

Cloning of Plant Cells and Manipulation of Plant Genes
Plant cells exhibit a variety of characteristics that distinguish them from animal cells. These characteristics include the presence of a large central vacuole and a cell wall, and the absence of entioles, which play a role in mitosis, meiosis, and cell division. Along with these physical differences, another factor distinguishes plant cells from animal cells, which is of great significance to the scientist interested in biotechnology: Many varieties of full-grown adult plants can regenerate from single, modified plant cells called protoplasts - plant cells whose cell walls have been removed by enzymatic digestion. More specifically, when some species of plant cells are subjected to the removal of the cell wall by enzymatic treatment, they respond by synthesizing a new cell wall and eventually undergoing a series of cell divisions and developmental processes that result in the formation of a new adult plant. That adult plant can be said to have been cloned from a single cell of a parent plant.

Plants that can be cloned with relative ease include carrots, tomatoes, potatoes, petunias, and cabbage, to name only a few. The capability to grow a whole plant from a single cell means that researchers can engage in the genetic manipulation of the cell, let the cell develop into a completely mature plant, and examine the whole spectrum of physical and growth effects of the genetic manipulation within a relatively short period of time. Such a process is far more straightforward than the parallel process in animal cells, which cannot be cloned into full-grown adults. Therefore, the results of any genetic manipulation are usually easier to examine in plants than in animals.

A Cloning Vector that Works with Plant Cells
Not all aspects of the genetic manipulation of plant cells are readily accomplished. Not only do plants usually have a great deal of chromosomal material and grow relatively slowly as compared with single cells grown in the laboratory, but few cloning vectors can successfully function in plant cells. While researchers working with animal cells can choose among a wide variety of cloning vectors to find just the right one, plant cell researchers are currently limited to just a few basic types of vectors.

Perhaps the most commonly used plant cloning vector is the "Ti" plasmid, or tumor-inducing plasmid. This plasmid is found in cells of the bacterium known as Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which normally lives in soil. The bacterium has the ability to infect plants and cause a crown gall, or tumorous lump, to form at the site of infection. The tumor-inducing capacity of this bacterium results from the presence of the Ti plasmid. The Ti plasmid itself, a large, circular, double-stranded DNA molecule, can replicate independently of the A. tumefaciens genome. When these bacteria infect a plant cell, a 30,000 base-pair segment of the Ti plasmid - called T DNA - separates from the plasmid and incorporates into the host cell genome. This aspect of Ti plasmid function has made it useful as a plant cloning vector.

The Ti plasmid can be used to shuttle exogenous genes into host plant cells. This type of gene transfer requires two steps: 1) the endogenous, tumor-causing genes of the T DNA must be inactivated and, 2) foreign genes must be inserted into the same region of the Ti plasmid. The resulting recombinant plasmid, carrying up to approximately 40,000 base pairs of inserted DNA and including the appropriate plant regulatory sequences, can then be placed back into the A. tumefaciens cell. That cell can be introduced into plant cell protoplasts either by the process of infection or by direct insertion.

Once in the protoplast, the foreign DNA, consisting of both T DNA and the inserted gene, incorporates into the host plant genome. The engineered protoplast - containing the recombinant T DNA - regenerates into a whole plant, each cell of which contains the inserted gene. Once a plant incorporates the T DNA with its inserted gene, it passes it on to future generations of the plant with a normal pattern of Mendelian inheritance.

One of the earliest experiments that involved the transport of a foreign gene by the Ti plasmid involved the insertion of a gene isolated from a bean plant into a host tobacco plant. Although this experiment served no commercially useful purpose, it successfully established the ability of the Ti plasmid to carry genes into plant host cells, where they could be incorporated and expressed.

A. Tumefaciens Infects a Limited Variety of Plant Types
The fact that only certain types of plants were naturally susceptible to infection with the host bacterial organism initially limited the usefulness of the Ti plasmid as a cloning vector. In nature, A. tumefaciens infects only dicotyledons or "dicots" - plants with two embryonic leaves. Dicotyledenous plants, divided into approximately 170,000 different species, include such plants as roses, apples, soybeans, potatoes, pears, and tobacco. Unfortunately, many important crop plants, including corn, rice, and wheat, are monocotyledons - plants with only one embryonic leaf - and thus could not be easily transfected using this bacterium.

Overcoming the Limited Range of A. Tumefaciens Infection
Research efforts in the past few years have reduced the limitations of A. tumefaciens. Scientists discovered that by using the processes of microinjection, electroporation, and particle bombardment, naked DNA molecules can be introduced into plant cell types that are not susceptible to A. tumefaciens transfection. Microinjection involves the direct injection of material into a host cell using a finely drawn micropipette needle. Electroporation uses brief pulses of high voltage electricity to induce the formation of transient pores in the membrane of the host cell. Such pores appear to act as passageways through which the naked DNA can enter the host cell. Particle bombardment actually shoots DNA-coated microscopic pellets through a plant cell wall. These developments, important in the commercial application of plant genetic engineering, render the valuable food crops of corn, rice, and wheat susceptible to a variety of manipulations by the techniques of recombinant DNA and biotechnology.

#145 shadowechos

shadowechos

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 113 posts

Posted 21 April 2007 - 03:37 PM

Crown Gall

<!-- begin content --> by Christine Engelbrecht, Plant Pathology
We occasionally receive samples in the Plant Disease Clinic of euonymus and other plants with large, round galls growing on the stems. Often, these plants show the results of an interesting disease called crown gall.
Symptoms of crown gall include small to large round or knobby outgrowths (galls) of tissue on the stem or roots, especially near the soil line. These galls may disrupt the flow of water and nutrients through the plant, resulting in an overall weakness and loss of vigor. In some cases, galls cause only aesthetic damage. Galls range in size from pea-size to several inches in diameter. When they are young, galls are light colored and smooth, but as they mature they become dark and woody and may crack and slough off. A crown gall is a solid mass of tissue, in contrast to many insect galls that are hollow.
A wide range of over 600 non-grass herbaceous and woody plants are susceptible to crown gall, but it is most common on euonymus, rose, grape, Prunus species (cherry and plum), apple, and willow. Crown gall is probably most important in the nursery industry, where the pathogen can be spread on knives used during propagation, resulting in significant losses after transplanting.
Crown gall is caused by a bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which survives in the soil. The bacterium enters the plant through wounds. The fascinating part of the bacterium's life cycle begins once it is in the plant, where the bacterium injects a portion of its genetic material into the plant's genetic material. This genetic transformation causes the plant to produce excessive hormones and compounds called opines. The hormones cause the plant to overproduce new cells, forming a gall that the Agrobacterium can live in. Opines are a special food that only Agrobacterium can use.


Crown gall is nature's own genetic engineering.


The best way to manage crown gall is to avoid it. Do not purchase plants with abnormal growths on the stem. Avoid unnecessary wounding of plants. If a plant in the landscape does develop crown gall, it should be removed. Since the bacterium survives in the soil, infected plants should be replaced with plants that do not get this disease, such as grasses, for a few years.



http://www.ipm.iasta.../crowngall.html

#146 Bobcat

Bobcat

    Selah!

  • Expired Member
  • 3,573 posts

Posted 21 April 2007 - 07:41 PM

clonning is "natural" in the sense that it happens without human intervention, all plants that are grown from cuttings are clones, and so are ones that root themselves like "spider Plants" etc.

then there is the case of twins...etc.

and salamanders can regrow an amputated limb, and that is differentiated tissue...and presumably with the same DNA...and fully functional !

I don't think nature cares about our conceptual hierarchies...

and various viruses invade cells and mess with the machinery inside
and so do some parasites


Sure for spider plants and many other examples, but if you cut a clone your taking genetic material for the purpose of making more genetic material. Your interceding and using that material for your own desires. Does it really matter what technology is being used? Scissors or microscope? Mind you this is a discussion about the dissection of the word CLONING. I still see no difference in the use of the word. But that may not have been your point. Sorry, I know your commenting on cloning being natural, but your pov eludes me.

Lets not get confusing with the differentiation thing. I was making a point on a more simplistic level. Salamanders and similars have retained this ability and its not clearly understood why. Also, if you cut off a salamanders arm, the stump would be MOSTLY differentiated. At the end of the day its kinda moot cause it all means this: undiff tissue differentiates. Some stay undiff, some diff to a point of no return. And there are mixes. But it doesn't alter the argument.

#147 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 21 April 2007 - 07:54 PM

my only semantic quibble would be that
when 'nature' does it
it's not "cloning",
it's just asexual reproduction.

"cloning" implies concious intent,
we clone plants,
we clone fungi,
we clone mammals,
they do not clone themselves.

#148 shadowechos

shadowechos

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 113 posts

Posted 22 April 2007 - 09:01 AM

Sure for spider plants and many other examples, but if you cut a clone your taking genetic material for the purpose of making more genetic material. Your interceding and using that material for your own desires. Does it really matter what technology is being used? Scissors or microscope? Mind you this is a discussion about the dissection of the word CLONING.


Actually it was a disscussion about Amanita Wine, then turned into a fight between Hip and Sterile, and now apparently, for the time being, a debate about clonning, seems to evolve on it's own.......
personally i thought the Amanita part was by far the most interesting...but so what....


I still see no difference in the use of the word. But that may not have been your point. Sorry, I know your commenting on cloning being natural, but your pov eludes me.


me too...

Lets not get confusing with the differentiation thing. I was making a point on a more simplistic level. Salamanders and similars have retained this ability and its not clearly understood why. Also, if you cut off a salamanders arm, the stump would be MOSTLY differentiated. At the end of the day its kinda moot cause it all means this: undiff tissue differentiates. Some stay undiff, some diff to a point of no return. And there are mixes. But it doesn't alter the argument.


possibly regrowing a limb is more complex than cloning--that's what I meant--after all it does'nt happen in a womb or egg, but in and on the surface of a moving organism--and this "cloning" of a nonexistant limb is obviously "natural"--so cloning isn't unatural because it's too complex for "nature"--we can clone to some degree--but we still don't know how embryos differentiate--how liver cells know they're supposed to be liver cells, etc.

But it doesn't alter the argument.


what argument? we all agree "nature" is totally awesome and beyond human comprehension
and that "Nature" doesn't give a damn in human terms about anything...
species going extinct, mixing, evolving, devolving, symbiosis, it's all just "grist for the mill"
Heck she collides galaxies in her spare time
and flushes hoards of suns / stars and planets down the cosmic toilets we call "black Holes"
i agree cloning is cloning
and parallell universes are parallell universes
without number???
To "nature" eternity is a joke, to us unimaginable...

my only semantic quibble would be that
when 'nature' does it
it's not "cloning",
it's just asexual reproduction.


the important point, from the point of view of "Nature As Evolution", is that there is no genetic variation.

"cloning" implies concious intent,
we clone plants,
we clone fungi,
we clone mammals,
they do not clone themselves.


http://www.elook.org...ry/cloning.html

cloning

[noun] a general term for the research activity that creates a copy of some biological entity (a gene or organism or cell)

(this simple definition agrees with Hip)

--------------

also

http://www.ask.com/r...t/89541/cloning

clone (klōn)

Greek klōn

noun

1. A cell, group of cells, or organism that is descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor, such as a bacterial colony whose members arose from a single original cell.
2. An organism descended asexually from a single ancestor, such as a plant produced by layering or a polyp produced by budding.
3. A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organism to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques.
4. One that copies or closely resembles another, as in appearance or function: “filled with business-school clones in gray and blue suits” (Michael M. Thomas)

(Biological meaning 1. above , does not agree with Hip's attempt to narrow the meaning
and meaning 2 includes asexuall reproduction as a subset)

verb: cloned, clon·ing, clones.

transitive verb

1. To make multiple identical copies of (a DNA sequence).
2. To create or propagate (an organism) from a clone cell: clone a sheep.
3. To reproduce or propagate asexually: clone a plant variety.
4. To produce a copy of; imitate closely: “The look has been cloned into clichĂ©” (Cathleen McGuigan)

(Biological meaning 3. above , does not agree with Hip's attempt to narrow the meaning)

=========================

http://www.ask.com/w...Meaning Cloning

Introduction

The possibility of human cloning, raised when Scottish scientists at Roslin Institute created the much-celebrated sheep "Dolly" (Nature 385, 810-13, 1997), aroused worldwide interest and concern because of its scientific and ethical implications. The feat, cited by Science magazine as the breakthrough of 1997, also generated uncertainty over the meaning of "cloning" --an umbrella term traditionally used by scientists to describe different processes for duplicating biological material.

What is cloning? Are there different types of cloning?

When the media report on cloning in the news, they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive cloning. There are different types of cloning however, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. A basic understanding of the different types of cloning is key to taking an informed stance on current public policy issues and making the best possible personal decisions. The following three types of cloning technologies will be discussed:
(1) recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning,
(2) reproductive cloning, and
(3) therapeutic cloning.

(apparently one word is too small for all the data...)

(also note the sentence: "also generated uncertainty over the meaning of "cloning" --an umbrella term traditionally used by scientists to describe different processes for duplicating biological material.")

==============================

http://encarta.msn.c...Cloning.html#s2

Sometimes mammals also produce clones, but unlike the clones of other organisms the resulting offspring arise from sexual reproduction, in which a father’s sperm fertilizes a mother’s egg. In such cases, a mammal’s fertilized egg divides in the womb and forms two or more embryos. These offspring are clones of each other, sharing exactly the same genes. They are not clones of the mother or father, however, since the offspring only have half of their genes in common with either parent.

(Another subdivision of "cloning" with no individual name, so it ends up being included by necessity?)

============================

my only semantic quibble ....


semantic quibbles indeed

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.’
– Through the Looking Glass.

===========================

this is why philosophers say to each other "define" your terms,
this is best done at the beginning of a discussion,
otherwise one ends up arguing about nothing

Only Dictionary writers, Grammarians, Lexicologists, etymologists, and profs. of Semantics, etc. can make a living out of these sorts of picky debate

even semantics itself gets stuck with two meanings
----------------------------
http://www.sil.org/l...IsSemantics.htm

"Here are two senses for semantics:

1. Semantics is, generally defined, the study of meaning of linguistic expressions.
2. Semantics is, more narrowly defined, the study of the meaning of linguistic expressions apart from consideration of the effect that pragmatic factors, such as the following, have on the meaning of language in use:
* Features of the context
* Conventions of language use
* The goals of the speaker"
==========================

quibble-ution Dispute among evolutionists over how evolution occurred.
pebble-ution An evolutionary idea that didn't rock the scientific world.
cyberfossil Someone who is always on the internet.
Noah's Aardvark The first animal on Noah's Ark in alphabetical order.
Tyrannosaurus wrecks Dinosaur graveyard.
dime-o-saur A very badly preserved dinosaur fossil.
missing sandwich The missing link's lunch.
halo plants Plants that grow near nuclear reactors.
Darwinter Olympics The struggle to propose something new about evolution that won't be given a cold shoulder.
Gould A medal you get if you win the Darwinter Olympics.
Hawking Going door to door trying to sell evolution.
Dawkins Tiny dawks.
continental drift The continental breakfast you ordered that didn't arrive.
radioactive dating Searching for a future husband or wife through radio talk-back programs.
guraniums Flowers from Chernobyl.
missing-link evidence Non-evidence used as the main evidence for something.
carnivore Animal that goes round in circles when music plays.
herbivore Polite animal that always lets his wife go first.
Frankenclone An animal that has been given some DNA from a totally different kind of animal.
Adam What you do to big numbers when you have a calculator.
Eve What people shout at the start of a tug-of-war.
zebralution The belief that everything in science is either black or white.
extinct A dead skunk.
unnatural selection Choosing the smallest piece of pie.
bad genes Blue pants that won't fade.
mootation The call of an animal with mad cow disease.
level-ution Survival of the mundane.
eclipse What the lunar gardener does to his hedges.
Darwindow dressing Something that makes evolution look respectable.
Darwince Expression on an evolutionist's face after losing a debate to a creationist.
rebelutionist An evolutionist who becomes a creationist.
arrival of the fittest What Darwin never explained.
cyber viper An evolutionist who anonymously sends abusive emails to creationists.
Henry Morris An English creationist's old car.
Tyrannosaurus rocks Coprolites from tyrannosaurs.
moomification What was done to dead Egyptian cows.
pyramid An organized pile of Egyptian rocks.
Darwindow shopping Looking for an evolutionary explanation that works.
paradox Two surgeons.
Noah's Park A Noah's Ark theme park.
Darwinian defense An excuse people use when they don't have facts to back up what they have said or done.
Darwindfall An evolutionary idea that people accept.
survival of the littlest The theory that bacteria are better able to survive than dinosaurs.
creationist cannibal A creationist who is fed up with evolutionists.
born-again agnostic Someone who doubts whether anyone can doubt God.
taxidermist A cab driver with bad skin.
bacteria The rear entrance to a cafeteria.
McTheory A scientific theory that isn't worth a research grant.
Darwindstorm Disagreement over how evolution works.
paleo-fantasy An explanation of how a fossil proves evolution.

#149 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 15,061 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 22 April 2007 - 09:22 AM

then there is the case of twins...etc.


Glad you mentioned twins, I think they can help me illustrate something.

Fertilize an egg in vitro, and remove some of the stem cells before any differentiation takes place. One set of these identical cells is put in the fridge, and the other implanted in a uterus (any uterus of the same species will do) and carried to term. The child who is born will have the same DNA as the dish of stem cells in the fridge.

When that kid turns 21, incubate the refrigerated stem cells until a few more divisions occur and split them again; one set back in the fridge and one carried to term. No matter who actually gives birth to the child, they will be genetically identical to any other child born of that cell line, BUT a kid born today from that original line will be 21 years of cell divisions younger and therefore more vigorous than a child born of DNA cloned from the 21 year old.

This is the kind of 'cloning' I'm talking about that has no natural counterpart. You could keep it going for a long, long time, producing genetically identical children for hundreds of years only a few cell-divisions away from that original DNA. This is the theory. The reality is that somewhere around 90% of cloned animals are "rejected" because of "undesireable" mutations (typical understated euphemisms for really nasty shit) whose causes are not yet understood. Cloning at the moment still takes the shotgun approach and is mostly "miss," not "hit."

When I clone a mushroom or plant, I do not get crazy-ass mutations as the majority of my results, I get another mycelial colony or a new plant. I would like to "differentiate" this time-tested and natural process with the as-yet-unperfected technology I described. I'm not worried about your cloned dope plants, but "cloned" livestock is something we don't really understand well yet and I worry about its rapid proliferation while so much is still unknown. Gotta watch those unknown unknowns, you know, and having different words to describe the different approaches would be helpful for discussions like this. That's all I'm trying to say.

EDIT: I wrote this reply while shadowechos wrote his, so mine is not a response to his, in case there's any confusion. Looks like someone had plenty of coffee this morning...

#150 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,767 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 April 2007 - 01:58 PM

Ok so I'll embed this here...:lol:

Samples sent in for sequencing show more than one type of mycelium and it can't be determined if Amanita is one. The sample must be cleaned up a bit more. Paraphrased from slp (maybe he wont read this and pull the plug)

#151 shadowechos

shadowechos

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 113 posts

Posted 22 April 2007 - 06:46 PM

Glad you mentioned twins, I think they can help me illustrate something.
.....
This is the kind of 'cloning' I'm talking about that has no natural counterpart. ......


Yes .....very interesting


Cloning at the moment still takes the shotgun approach and is mostly "miss," not "hit."

When I clone a mushroom or plant, I do not get crazy-ass mutations as the majority of my results, I get another mycelial colony or a new plant. I would like to "differentiate" this time-tested and natural process with the as-yet-unperfected technology I described.


makes sense



I'm not worried about your cloned dope plants, ...


haven't smoked since the seventies and never grew dope. I do have a spider plant, and strawberries do it too with "runners"


but "cloned" livestock is something we don't really understand well yet and I worry about its rapid proliferation while so much is still unknown. Gotta watch those unknown unknowns, you know, ...


The GMO foods are scary too--but the genie is already out of the bottle

and having different words to describe the different approaches would be helpful for discussions like this. That's all I'm trying to say.


Yup

EDIT: I wrote this reply while shadowechos wrote his, so mine is not a response to his, in case there's any confusion. Looks like someone had plenty of coffee this morning...


Green tea, perhaps

#152 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 15,061 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 23 April 2007 - 09:58 AM

Ok so I'll embed this here...:lol:
Samples sent in for sequencing show more than one type of mycelium and it can't be determined if Amanita is one. The sample must be cleaned up a bit more. Paraphrased from slp (maybe he wont read this and pull the plug)


Since I see nothing embedded does this mean the plug was pulled?

I wonder if my "Mucor Smoothie" theory will turn out to be correct?!?

:puke:

#153 dial8

dial8

    3 Fungi Mod

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 5,767 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 23 April 2007 - 10:14 AM

The post you quoted is the actual thing I meant to be embedded. I wa making a joke (half ass at best) about the direction the thread has taken.

#154 r00kn00b

r00kn00b

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 38 posts

Posted 28 April 2007 - 06:22 PM

Ok so I'll embed this here...:lol:

Samples sent in for sequencing show more than one type of mycelium and it can't be determined if Amanita is one. The sample must be cleaned up a bit more. Paraphrased from slp (maybe he wont read this and pull the plug)



I have some dried aminitas, I want to try this out :headbang:

Do you think i should do a peroxide/soap soak before I spawn the stuff o a pastuerized juice jar? Since this takes awhile I want to increase my chances of success.

#155 nicholas

nicholas

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 158 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 01:05 AM

I just "threw" some ground up dried amanitas caps into four jars of store bought pasteurized grape juice a few days ago. There is definitely growth, but so far it just looks like black pin mold. One of the jars has a small spot of green, it has been isolated from the rest of the jars. There is some nice white growth coming from the dried amanitas flakes in all of the jars so things might just turn out okay.
For this trial run, I chose not to practice anything close to sterile techniques. The jars I used were freshly washed, but everything was done in open air. If some people choose to believe that old biblical prophets used to make amanitas wine this way, I figure how sterile could they get? Granted, it's always worth one's time to make sure things are as clean as possible, but in this case it's my time to waste and my health (after I drink it) to worry about. If things go all to hell in the next few days I might scrap what I have and start over with a nice clean glovebox and home pasteurized juice.
I'll post any significant updates.

#156 r00kn00b

r00kn00b

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 38 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 07:05 AM

I think I'm going to go for somewhat sterile technique and try this out tomorrow, I'll post any results if they are worthy.

#157 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 08:38 AM

I just "threw" some ground up dried amanitas caps into four jars of store bought pasteurized grape juice a few days ago. There is definitely growth, but so far it just looks like black pin mold. One of the jars has a small spot of green, it has been isolated from the rest of the jars. There is some nice white growth coming from the dried amanitas flakes in all of the jars so things might just turn out okay.
For this trial run, I chose not to practice anything close to sterile techniques. The jars I used were freshly washed, but everything was done in open air. If some people choose to believe that old biblical prophets used to make amanitas wine this way, I figure how sterile could they get? Granted, it's always worth one's time to make sure things are as clean as possible, but in this case it's my time to waste and my health (after I drink it) to worry about. If things go all to hell in the next few days I might scrap what I have and start over with a nice clean glovebox and home pasteurized juice.
I'll post any significant updates.

can you get/post some pix of the growth ?

#158 nicholas

nicholas

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 158 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 10:40 AM

I'll see what I can do later today. I checked the jars this morning and it looks like everything is going to hell :) Two of the jars have a large growth of black mold in them, these have been isolated from the remaining 1 clean jar.

I think it's time to dust off ye olde glovebox and try it again.

#159 nicholas

nicholas

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 158 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 09:21 PM

What a difference a day makes, eh? Ugh, these weren't this bad this morning...

Attached Thumbnails

  • DSCN5126.JPG
  • DSCN5123.JPG


#160 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 01 May 2007 - 09:49 PM

do not think i'd drink that...
:eek:




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!