Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
looks to be a great year for mushrooms
In article ,
Malcolm wrote: In article , Tom Gardner writes I asked if you could post a URL for the "rules" for identifying edible and non-edible fungi, but you appear to have snipped it. I'm sure such a URL would be welcomed by many here. I'd be surprised if anyone knowledgeable would dare publish such a list. The problem is that all of the old wives tales fail in some important cases. More modern rules are either overly cautious, ambiguous, have the same limitation, or all three. There really is no substitute to knowing what's necessary to differentiate species, then rigorously checking /all/ the characteristics against multiple references. Absolutely, and this is what I have always done, using the taxonomic keys that exist in all good books on fungi identification. When Nick mentioned "rules" and then "secondary rules", my interest was naturally aroused, as this suggested additional information new to me, so I asked him about them. He has just chosen to throw my question back in my face. Yes, as you so richly deserved for such egregious trolling. I had already said that I could remember only some of them - and, as Tom Gardner says, the simple rules are overly cautious. But I am NOT going to post any information that I am not certain of on this matter based on 40 year old memories, no matter how much you troll. I did NOT post that there were rules for identifying poisonous from edible fungi, but that there were simple rules that could avoid the most lethal specimens, and (in some cases, specifically boleti) some secondary rules to avoid the worst of the rest. This is at least the fifth time you have misrepresented what I have posted in order to start your trolling. In this particular case, you first have to positively identify the fungus as a boletus. The rules for doing that are definitely in any good book on British fungi. The secondary ones are to avoid any that EITHER have red gills OR stain (especially blue). That rule avoids B. satanas and several other not-edible boleti, though it probably avoids some edible ones, too. I did NOT claim that the rules I was referring to would protect you from getting ill, merely that you could avoid killing yourself or becoming very ill. The rules I was referring to are solely to enable the relatively inexperienced to become more experienced. There are similar rules for 'field mushrooms', trumpet ones, bracket fungi and so on. In all cases, they will ensure that you can avoid the most lethal fungi that are easy to mistake for the edible ones you are looking for. I know of no good rules for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits :-( Now go back under your bridge. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
looks to be a great year for mushrooms
On 29/09/13 17:02, Nick Maclaren wrote:
... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-( .... unless you eat them raw |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
looks to be a great year for mushrooms
In article ,
Tom Gardner wrote: ... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-( ... unless you eat them raw I didn't know that! I live and learn. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
looks to be a great year for mushrooms
On 29/09/13 18:15, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article , Tom Gardner wrote: ... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-( ... unless you eat them raw I didn't know that! I live and learn. Most references with any culinary pretensions say "do not eat raw". Certainly the last time I saw them for sale in Waitrose(!) a couple of decades ago they had an /extra/ sticky label to that effect. Michael Jordan in "A Guide to Mushrooms" (one of the more entertaining references w.r.t. the effects of poisoning) claims it contains a haemolytic agent, but you would have to eat a "large quantity" for it to have any effect, and that it is inactivated on heating. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
looks to be a great year for mushrooms
In article ,
Tom Gardner wrote: ... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-( ... unless you eat them raw I didn't know that! I live and learn. Most references with any culinary pretensions say "do not eat raw". Certainly the last time I saw them for sale in Waitrose(!) a couple of decades ago they had an /extra/ sticky label to that effect. Michael Jordan in "A Guide to Mushrooms" (one of the more entertaining references w.r.t. the effects of poisoning) claims it contains a haemolytic agent, but you would have to eat a "large quantity" for it to have any effect, and that it is inactivated on heating. My books are mostly of the era when it was unthinkable to eat even Psalliota, sorry, Agaricus bisporus raw :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
looks to be a great year for mushrooms
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:02:20 +0100, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In this particular case, you first have to positively identify the fungus as a boletus. The rules for doing that are definitely in any good book on British fungi. The secondary ones are to avoid any that EITHER have red gills OR stain (especially blue). You've ruled out my entire harvest of the day! Lots of Boletus erythropus, and some good Boletus badius (Bai). The Red Foot is, to my taste, as good or better than the Cepe; what's more the bugs don't like it so even older ones are usually sound. The blue turns black in the early part of cooking but then goes an appetising yellow as the moisture boils out. It ends with a crunchy texture and nutty taste. It has red tubes (not gills as you mis-typed) and flashes quite blue -- as does the bolet bai -- but nothing like the Satan, which also has a nasty whitish creme cap. We did find some Boletus calopus, not common but does turn up, which has a similar cap to the Satan but is of course not edible anyway (and doesn't have red tubes). I know a fairly crazy guy who actually cooked and ate the Satan, (yes, intentionally), he reported getting pretty sick but "it wasn't that bad." Not an experiment I'd like to carry out! -- Gardening in Lower Normandy |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
looks to be a great year for mushrooms
In article ,
Emery Davis wrote: In this particular case, you first have to positively identify the fungus as a boletus. The rules for doing that are definitely in any good book on British fungi. The secondary ones are to avoid any that EITHER have red gills OR stain (especially blue). You've ruled out my entire harvest of the day! Lots of Boletus erythropus, and some good Boletus badius (Bai). The Red Foot is, to my taste, as good or better than the Cepe; what's more the bugs don't like it so even older ones are usually sound. The blue turns black in the early part of cooking but then goes an appetising yellow as the moisture boils out. It ends with a crunchy texture and nutty taste. It has red tubes (not gills as you mis-typed) and flashes quite blue -- as does the bolet bai -- but nothing like the Satan, which also has a nasty whitish creme cap. We did find some Boletus calopus, not common but does turn up, which has a similar cap to the Satan but is of course not edible anyway (and doesn't have red tubes). Grin :-) As Tom Gardner said, the simple rules are over-restrictive. The point is that they are designed to keep the inexperienced person safe (nothing is idiot-proof). I know a fairly crazy guy who actually cooked and ate the Satan, (yes, intentionally), he reported getting pretty sick but "it wasn't that bad." Not an experiment I'd like to carry out! That figures. I once ate B. felleus by accident (I put it in the wrong pile), and had mild diarrhoea - two others who ate it had no ill effects. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
looks much better this year for CA water | Edible Gardening | |||
A fast climber that looks good all year round? | United Kingdom | |||
Valley Forge Elm looks great | Gardening | |||
Dogwoods Looks Ugly This Year | Gardening | |||
Some great NEW products... and a great Bonus ordering opportunity! | Gardening |