I suspect honeylocust comes in male and female individuals. But can a
male tree ever turn into a female tree or vice versa?

The observation I recently found was that I had cut an old honeylocust
flush to the ground. It was a big tree. And of course suckers followed
year after year. Some I undug and transplanted elsewhere. But the tree
was thornless when I cut it down. It was about 2 to 3 feet diameter. The
surprizing thing to me is that some suckers came up that were thornless
but others were thorny.

Perhaps thorns are not male and female category.

Anyone know what is going on?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I suspect honeylocust comes in male and female individuals. But can a male tree ever turn into a female tree or vice versa?

The observation I recently found was that I had cut an old honeylocust
flush to the ground. It was a big tree. And of course suckers followed
year after year. Some I undug and transplanted elsewhere. But the tree
was thornless when I cut it down. It was about 2 to 3 feet diameter. The
surprizing thing to me is that some suckers came up that were thornless
but others were thorny.

Perhaps thorns are not male and female category.

Anyone know what is going on?


Honeylocust, as a member of the genus _Gleditsia_, is usually
polygamo-dioecious, which means that trees bear both unisexual and
bisexual flowers. So, while trees bear flowers that are mostly of one
sex, most will also have bisexual (perfect) flowers. I don't think it
is common to have fully male or fully female trees, so if you notice a
difference in fruit production from year to year, likely the tree is
just adjusting its proportion of unisexual and bisexual flowers.

Plants propagated from trunk or root sprouts will be exactly
genetically identical to the parent.

As for thorniness, it's quite variable from plant to plant. Often you
get more thorns on young individuals. AFAIK, thorniness is not
related to sex expression.

M. Reed.

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:11:46 -0600 Monique Reed wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


Honeylocust, as a member of the genus _Gleditsia_, is usually
polygamo-dioecious, which means that trees bear both unisexual and
bisexual flowers. So, while trees bear flowers that are mostly of one
sex, most will also have bisexual (perfect) flowers. I don't think it
is common to have fully male or fully female trees, so if you notice a
difference in fruit production from year to year, likely the tree is
just adjusting its proportion of unisexual and bisexual flowers.

Plants propagated from trunk or root sprouts will be exactly
genetically identical to the parent.

As for thorniness, it's quite variable from plant to plant. Often you
get more thorns on young individuals. AFAIK, thorniness is not
related to sex expression.

M. Reed.

Monique, you would not happen to know where most of the USA supply of "locust bean gum" that I see so much of the ingredients in
processed food is grown, harvested in the USA? I suppose the demand and supply is of a small demand. I am guessing it is the
honeylocust bean that is used.

Another question: Oak acorns I believe were used as a substitute for wheat flour to make bread in the old pioneer days. But I
wonder if eating oak acorns is unhealthy due to the tannins. Has anyone measured the relative food value of oak acorns to that of
wheat?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:49:48 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:11:46 -0600 Monique Reed wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


Honeylocust, as a member of the genus _Gleditsia_, is usually
polygamo-dioecious, which means that trees bear both unisexual and
bisexual flowers. So, while trees bear flowers that are mostly of one
sex, most will also have bisexual (perfect) flowers. I don't think it
is common to have fully male or fully female trees, so if you notice a
difference in fruit production from year to year, likely the tree is
just adjusting its proportion of unisexual and bisexual flowers.

Plants propagated from trunk or root sprouts will be exactly
genetically identical to the parent.

As for thorniness, it's quite variable from plant to plant. Often you
get more thorns on young individuals. AFAIK, thorniness is not
related to sex expression.

M. Reed.

Monique, you would not happen to know where most of the USA supply of "locust bean gum" that I see so much of the ingredients in
processed food is grown, harvested in the USA? I suppose the demand and supply is of a small demand. I am guessing it is the
honeylocust bean that is used.

No, commercial locust bean gum comes from carob (Ceratonia siliqua).
Honey locust pods are edible, but to my knowledge are not used
commercially, as carob is of higher quality and long cultivated for
this and other purposes.

Another question: Oak acorns I believe were used as a substitute for wheat flour to make bread in the old pioneer days. But I
wonder if eating oak acorns is unhealthy due to the tannins. Has anyone measured the relative food value of oak acorns to that of
wheat?

Lots of people. Pioneers learned to prepare acorns from the Indians,
who had lived on acorns for thousands of years. Probably the greatest
authority on the subject of acorns as food is Julia Parker; see Ortiz
and Parker, "It Will Live Forever: Traditional Yosemite Indian Acorn
Preparation" (Heyday Books).

Acorns from low-tannin species of oak are more palatable, but all
acorns need to be leached to extract tannins.

Acorns are rich and nutritious food, even if impressively bland; acorn
flour runs about 500 calories/100 grams, largely carbohydrate and
(mostly unsaturated) fat but also some protein (incomplete: it's short
on tryptophan, a common fault of plant protein sources).

--
Chris Green

Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:24:44 GMT Christopher Green wrote:
(big snip)


No, commercial locust bean gum comes from carob (Ceratonia siliqua).
Honey locust pods are edible, but to my knowledge are not used
commercially, as carob is of higher quality and long cultivated for
this and other purposes.

I could have sworn for sure that it was Locust trees that provided the commercial
bean gum used for food additive. That would be an embarrassing moment if I
turned up at a Farm Mill with a truckload of honeylocust beans to sell into the
Commodities Market.



Another question: Oak acorns I believe were used as a substitute for wheat flour to make bread in the old pioneer days. But I
wonder if eating oak acorns is unhealthy due to the tannins. Has anyone measured the relative food value of oak acorns to that of
wheat?

Lots of people. Pioneers learned to prepare acorns from the Indians,
who had lived on acorns for thousands of years. Probably the greatest
authority on the subject of acorns as food is Julia Parker; see Ortiz
and Parker, "It Will Live Forever: Traditional Yosemite Indian Acorn
Preparation" (Heyday Books).

Acorns from low-tannin species of oak are more palatable, but all
acorns need to be leached to extract tannins.

Acorns are rich and nutritious food, even if impressively bland; acorn
flour runs about 500 calories/100 grams, largely carbohydrate and
(mostly unsaturated) fat but also some protein (incomplete: it's short
on tryptophan, a common fault of plant protein sources).

Curious question. Does wheat lack tryptophan? Does honeylocust beans
possess tryptophan?

In a sense, modern society is based on wheat, potatoes, rice, corn et al. But I wonder if oak acorns and honeylocust can become one
of the basis points.

Some of the Indians relyed heavily on oak acorns but I wonder if acorns can become what wheat has become.

Just read in the news today about an estimate that 10,000 species are nearing extinction due to human overpopulation coupled with
global warming. Not only is global warming accelerating but I would then guess that species extinctions are accelerating. One of the
species mentioned on the list was "fir trees". I wonder if oak trees due to diseases is on that list.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:24:44 GMT Christopher Green wrote:
(big snip)


No, commercial locust bean gum comes from carob (Ceratonia siliqua).
Honey locust pods are edible, but to my knowledge are not used
commercially, as carob is of higher quality and long cultivated for
this and other purposes.

I could have sworn for sure that it was Locust trees that provided the commercial
bean gum used for food additive. That would be an embarrassing moment if I
turned up at a Farm Mill with a truckload of honeylocust beans to sell into the
Commodities Market.

Locust is also another name for the carob tree. Carob is a tree of
ancient domestication, so it goes by several names.



Another question: Oak acorns I believe were used as a substitute for wheat flour to make bread in the old pioneer days. But I
wonder if eating oak acorns is unhealthy due to the tannins. Has anyone measured the relative food value of oak acorns to that of
wheat?

Lots of people. Pioneers learned to prepare acorns from the Indians,
who had lived on acorns for thousands of years. Probably the greatest
authority on the subject of acorns as food is Julia Parker; see Ortiz
and Parker, "It Will Live Forever: Traditional Yosemite Indian Acorn
Preparation" (Heyday Books).

Acorns from low-tannin species of oak are more palatable, but all
acorns need to be leached to extract tannins.

Acorns are rich and nutritious food, even if impressively bland; acorn
flour runs about 500 calories/100 grams, largely carbohydrate and
(mostly unsaturated) fat but also some protein (incomplete: it's short
on tryptophan, a common fault of plant protein sources).

Curious question. Does wheat lack tryptophan? Does honeylocust beans
possess tryptophan?

Most plant protein sources are lacking in lysine, tryptophan, or both.
Wheat is especially lacking in lysine. Mixing plant protein sources,
particularly cereal grains and legumes, can compensate for the
deficiency. Thus the agricultural tribes of the Southwest and Mexico
did very well indeed on corn (maize) and beans, supplemented with meat
following a successful hunt (or battle...).

Livestock are occasionally allowed to graze honeylocust, which is
palatable to them. Because of its high tannin content, standard advice
is to limit livestock consumption of honeylocust or carob to no more
than 10% of total forage. Carob, to which honeylocust isn't closely
enough related to extrapolate, has a very high sugar content (to 72%)
and some protein (5% or so).

Acorn woodpeckers have an adaptation that allows them to defeat the
tannins and increase the protein yield of acorns: they harvest and
store acorns, which promptly become colonized by beetle grubs. Then
they eat the grubs. I don't think this approach to enhancing the food
value of acorns would be marketable.

In a sense, modern society is based on wheat, potatoes, rice, corn et al. But I wonder if oak acorns and honeylocust can become one
of the basis points.

Some of the Indians relyed heavily on oak acorns but I wonder if acorns can become what wheat has become.

Not at all likely. The biggest problems would be yield and processing:
you can grow vastly more of any of the cereal grains on the same
acreage, and none of these need extensive processing to make them
nonpoisonous.

Then there's the mouth appeal, or lack thereof, of acorns. If you got
the tannins extracted properly, so they're not bitter, what you're
left with is the quintessence of bland.

Oaks are just productive enough to sustain a hunter-gatherer society
and just palatable enough to be an acceptable alternative to
starvation. They can't be grown or processed economically in large
enough quantities to be a staple in a society in which agriculture is
established and in which land and labor have much value.

Just read in the news today about an estimate that 10,000 species are nearing extinction due to human overpopulation coupled with
global warming. Not only is global warming accelerating but I would then guess that species extinctions are accelerating. One of the
species mentioned on the list was "fir trees". I wonder if oak trees due to diseases is on that list.

Interesting that you should mention fir. Fir bark is also edible and
has been served up as an alternative to starvation in famine
conditions in various societies.

--
Chris Green

17 Nov 2004 18:39:46 -0800 Christopher Green wrote:
(much snipped)


Most plant protein sources are lacking in lysine, tryptophan, or both.
Wheat is especially lacking in lysine. Mixing plant protein sources,
particularly cereal grains and legumes, can compensate for the
deficiency. Thus the agricultural tribes of the Southwest and Mexico
did very well indeed on corn (maize) and beans, supplemented with meat
following a successful hunt (or battle...).

Livestock are occasionally allowed to graze honeylocust, which is
palatable to them. Because of its high tannin content, standard advice
is to limit livestock consumption of honeylocust or carob to no more
than 10% of total forage. Carob, to which honeylocust isn't closely
enough related to extrapolate, has a very high sugar content (to 72%)
and some protein (5% or so).

Acorn woodpeckers have an adaptation that allows them to defeat the
tannins and increase the protein yield of acorns: they harvest and
store acorns, which promptly become colonized by beetle grubs. Then
they eat the grubs. I don't think this approach to enhancing the food
value of acorns would be marketable.

In a sense, modern society is based on wheat, potatoes, rice, corn et al. But I wonder if oak acorns and honeylocust can become one
of the basis points.

Some of the Indians relyed heavily on oak acorns but I wonder if acorns can become what wheat has become.

Not at all likely. The biggest problems would be yield and processing:
you can grow vastly more of any of the cereal grains on the same
acreage, and none of these need extensive processing to make them
nonpoisonous.

Then there's the mouth appeal, or lack thereof, of acorns. If you got
the tannins extracted properly, so they're not bitter, what you're
left with is the quintessence of bland.

Oaks are just productive enough to sustain a hunter-gatherer society
and just palatable enough to be an acceptable alternative to
starvation. They can't be grown or processed economically in large
enough quantities to be a staple in a society in which agriculture is
established and in which land and labor have much value.

Just read in the news today about an estimate that 10,000 species are nearing extinction due to human overpopulation coupled with
global warming. Not only is global warming accelerating but I would then guess that species extinctions are accelerating. One of the
species mentioned on the list was "fir trees". I wonder if oak trees due to diseases is on that list.

Interesting that you should mention fir. Fir bark is also edible and
has been served up as an alternative to starvation in famine
conditions in various societies.

Well I am a bit alarmed that no tree species has formed a staple food supply for humanity and that no perennial either. And that all the
food staples are annuals and grow close to the ground and are not trees. Alarmed and fascinated because we descended from apelike species
that lived in trees and that our future food supply would be based on grasslike plants and not tree species. So this is most peculiar of
a situation and I suspect some physics explanation in terms of energy pathways would give an answer as to why all the human staples are
annual grass like species and none are tree species.

In this regard, I suppose if a tree species ever did contend for a food staple would be the walnuts.

Interesting... and why would grasses be a better energy pathway than trees?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

17 Nov 2004 18:39:46 -0800 Christopher Green wrote:


Interesting that you should mention fir. Fir bark is also edible and
has been served up as an alternative to starvation in famine
conditions in various societies.


Chris there is an experiment I am anxious to do for some time now but the materials are not that easily available to me. I eat alot of
the cereal Kaisha which is puffed cereal grains such as wheat, millet, rice, etc.

I was wondering since most every pineseed is edible whether they puff up when heated. I suppose they do. And whenever I order pine seed,
I just hate to use any on such a test.

I wonder if spruce seeds when heated form a nice edible puffed cereal?

And judging from the taste of pinenuts I would think puffed pineseed would be delicious.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
[snip]
In this regard, I suppose if a tree species ever did contend for a food staple would be the walnuts.

Olives would be the number one staple tree crop of all time. Figs.
Apples. Mangoes. Carob. Grapes grow on long-lived vines rather than
trees, but the relevance is the same. Bananas and papayas grow on
tree-like perennials.

Interesting... and why would grasses be a better energy pathway than trees?

Yield per acre is more important than energy conversion. Sunlight is
free and abundant. Land is expensive and scarce.

--
Chris Green

(Christopher Green) wrote in message . com...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:24:44 GMT Christopher Green wrote:
(big snip)


Lots of people. Pioneers learned to prepare acorns from the Indians,
who had lived on acorns for thousands of years. Probably the greatest
authority on the subject of acorns as food is Julia Parker; see Ortiz
and Parker, "It Will Live Forever: Traditional Yosemite Indian Acorn
Preparation" (Heyday Books).

Acorns from low-tannin species of oak are more palatable, but all
acorns need to be leached to extract tannins.

Acorns are rich and nutritious food, even if impressively bland; acorn
flour runs about 500 calories/100 grams, largely carbohydrate and
(mostly unsaturated) fat but also some protein (incomplete: it's short
on tryptophan, a common fault of plant protein sources).


Forget the acorns! Plant the oaks anyway, cos we badly need the timber for our wine.

Jim G
South Australia

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:10:05 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

17 Nov 2004 18:39:46 -0800 Christopher Green wrote:


Interesting that you should mention fir. Fir bark is also edible and
has been served up as an alternative to starvation in famine
conditions in various societies.


Chris there is an experiment I am anxious to do for some time now but the materials are not that easily available to me. I eat alot of
the cereal Kaisha which is puffed cereal grains such as wheat, millet, rice, etc.

I was wondering since most every pineseed is edible whether they puff up when heated. I suppose they do. And whenever I order pine seed,
I just hate to use any on such a test.

Puffed grains are made by either of two processes: like popcorn (in
hot air or hot oil, or by microwave energy), or gun popping (in which
the grains are rapidly decompressed). Either process is exacting,
since success depends largely on the moisture content of the grains
being in a rather narrow range. Cereal and popcorn makers control the
moisture of their stock very carefully.

Puffed rice, made in very hot oil, is traditional in Japan. It doesn't
puff so dramatically as Rice Krispies.

There isn't any reason in principle why pine nuts wouldn't puff; you
could try some in hot oil the way you'd do popcorn, or in a pressure
cooker. With experimentation, it might work.

I wonder if spruce seeds when heated form a nice edible puffed cereal?

Edible, just not so easy to come by as pine nuts. I don't know about
other spruces, but Engelmann spruce is definitely edible: catkins,
immature cones, inner bark, and shoot tips can all be cooked up. It
has a long history in folk medicine as well. Seeds are as edible as
pine nuts are. See http://montana.plant-life.org/sample/spruce01.htm

And judging from the taste of pinenuts I would think puffed pineseed would be delicious.

Might be. Just a question of under what conditions you can get it to
puff.

--
Chris Green

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:

I suspect honeylocust comes in male and female individuals. But
can a male tree ever turn into a female tree or vice versa?

The observation I recently found was that I had cut an old
honeylocust flush to the ground. It was a big tree. And of course
suckers followed year after year. Some I undug and transplanted
elsewhere. But the tree was thornless when I cut it down. It was
about 2 to 3 feet diameter. The surprizing thing to me is that
some suckers came up that were thornless but others were thorny.

Perhaps thorns are not male and female category.

Anyone know what is going on?


The honey locust varieties that are thornless do not reliably
reproduce from seed, and do not take well from cuttings. Nurseries
graft named varieties onto seedlings, so suckers from below the
graft line will have the characters of the seedling.

Your fancy roses, most fruit trees, etc. will do the same.

Sean

(Christopher Green) wrote in
om:

Oaks are just productive enough to sustain a hunter-gatherer
society and just palatable enough to be an acceptable alternative
to starvation. They can't be grown or processed economically in
large enough quantities to be a staple in a society in which
agriculture is established and in which land and labor have much
value.

There is another problem with acorns, they don't tend to be produced
reliably. You generally have one year of very heavy production,
followed by several with no or light yeild. If you want to support a
large country, you need a much more consistant and predictable food
supply.

Sean

Christopher Green wrote in
:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:10:05 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:


Chris there is an experiment I am anxious to do for some time now
but the materials are not that easily available to me. I eat alot
of the cereal Kaisha which is puffed cereal grains such as wheat,
millet, rice, etc.

I was wondering since most every pineseed is edible whether they
puff up when heated. I suppose they do. And whenever I order pine
seed, I just hate to use any on such a test.

Puffed grains are made by either of two processes: like popcorn
(in hot air or hot oil, or by microwave energy), or gun popping
(in which the grains are rapidly decompressed). Either process is
exacting, since success depends largely on the moisture content of
the grains being in a rather narrow range. Cereal and popcorn
makers control the moisture of their stock very carefully.

Puffed rice, made in very hot oil, is traditional in Japan. It
doesn't puff so dramatically as Rice Krispies.

There isn't any reason in principle why pine nuts wouldn't puff;
you could try some in hot oil the way you'd do popcorn, or in a
pressure cooker. With experimentation, it might work.

I wonder if spruce seeds when heated form a nice edible puffed
cereal?

Edible, just not so easy to come by as pine nuts. I don't know
about other spruces, but Engelmann spruce is definitely edible:
catkins, immature cones, inner bark, and shoot tips can all be
cooked up. It has a long history in folk medicine as well. Seeds
are as edible as pine nuts are. See
http://montana.plant-life.org/sample/spruce01.htm

And judging from the taste of pinenuts I would think puffed
pineseed would be delicious.

Might be. Just a question of under what conditions you can get it
to puff.


My suspicion is that they may not puff properly. The grains or other
seeds (there is a bean from South America that is popped) generally
have special properties that help them puff. They tend to have a lot
of starch, and a sturdy bran or other shell. They also tend to be
low in oil, though that may not be important.

I would start a puffing experiment for pine nuts by keeping them in
the shell, and then using a gun for the popping method. Out of the
shell, there just isn't any real skin to hold the pressure in.

Sean

Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1100950092.0YdXMXzRjherCCmMqRZFWg@teranews. ..
(Christopher Green) wrote in
om:

Oaks are just productive enough to sustain a hunter-gatherer
society and just palatable enough to be an acceptable alternative
to starvation. They can't be grown or processed economically in
large enough quantities to be a staple in a society in which
agriculture is established and in which land and labor have much
value.

There is another problem with acorns, they don't tend to be produced
reliably. You generally have one year of very heavy production,
followed by several with no or light yeild. If you want to support a
large country, you need a much more consistant and predictable food
supply.

Sean

Or attend squirrel school

Jim G