piedmontnc summed things up rather nicely but I'll just chime in with this: When testing something, isn't it counter-intuitive to introduce additional ingredients? : Actually, the majority of lab work is done by adding other ingredients. As we've been discussing, a deflocculating agent is added for the textural analysis. In regards to the chemistry portion, the lab has to knock stuff off of the surface of soil particles so that they can be measured by machines, which is done by adding a lot of different stuff, depending on your needs. Sometimes it's an acid, sometimes it's a chelating agent, sometimes is bicarbonate, sometimes it's a cocktail of reagents,etc. Many times, something is detected and measured through a titration in which you keep adding a chemical to a solution until you get the expected reaction and the amount of the chemical that you used tells you how much of the thing you are looking for is in the solution. Lab work is all about adding stuff to what you're testing. Arsenic - strikes me as ubiquitous from the get-go. Yes, it is. How much is too much? That's the sixty-four thousand dollar question and the answer depends on a number of factors. Are you concerned with human exposure to the soil? Plant toxicity? Toxicity to you due to uptake of arsenic by the plants? Ground water contamination? All of the above? Because they will all have different thresholds. Then the answers depend on a whole slew of things including, but not limited to, depth to the water table, soil texture, organic percent, soil pH, the form that the arsenic is in, what you're growing and on and on. Again, I don't think that every time someone uses ironite an angel cries or anything. I just think that there is an, as yet to be determined, potential for crossing one of those thresholds. When there are other options available, I tend to take the cautious route. That's just how I roll. kimmsr and since the professor of soil science I long ago got this simple test from stated that nothing exceopt the soil and water needed to be added to get a good result I've met some brilliant soil science professors, some that pretty much know what they're talking about and some that I have an urge to call after every good rain just to make sure they didn't drown while looking up to see what was falling on them. Don't be too star struck by the title "professor". I see no reason to add anything to flocculate or hold in suppension I know ya don't, buddy. I know ya don't.

The only experience I've had with this has been with the 'inky' mushrooms. We lucked out and got some great organic compost from Lowes of all places, it was in a black and pink bag, and in the later summer I noticed that I had inkies coming up in the pots! I sautéed them in butter and sea salt, very good! I then took the expended soil after the season was over and planted it in the garden, so I hope they spread more. Not sure if the chanterelles would work, but it is worth trying. I know the instructions for oyster mushrooms say that after the little mushroom kit you grow is 'spent', you can cut logs horizontally (make sure they are from living trees, let the logs sit for a month, and then put the spent spawn between the logs in a shaded place and water. Supposedly it will produce more mushrooms. I think it's best to do this just before a rainy season, and cut the trees if possible when they are dormant for more nutrients. I think trees that oysters love are maples.

Part of the fun of growing sages is my ability to differentiate Salvias in any state by the fine details of the foliage and other parts. Unless I have very many varieties or hybrids of plants like Salvia greggii, I can usually differentiate them. With variations caused by different amounts of light, heat, watering, and fertility, this can become difficult, but not impossible. As far as seedlings, I've observed distinct differences in the shape of the seed leaves depending on which of Jay B. Walker's clades, which correspond to California sages vs. European sages vs. Latin American sages. In mature plants, this skill allows me to see that Salvia leucantha is a parent of Waverly, Phyllis' Fancy, and Anthony Parker, and to recognize that Black and Blue and Argentine Skies are closely related to one another more than they are related to other guaranitica forms, and that the Costa Rican form is at least half guaranitica most likely a tetraploid, or possibly a hybrid with S. mexicana also brought into Costa Rica. This species is not found in the wild there. I have ADD (inhibitory form) and think in pictures. This is what allows me facility to make these kind of observations not only with plants, but chemicals, minerals, and other objects and natural phenomena and processes. I think that someone in the academic world should work on a fractal analysis of foliage structures. This method could be useful as an identification technique for taxonomic descriptions and for other scientific purposes. It is already used as an experimental means to measure stressed growth in Canadian pines.

I have some questions: First, is thing just a collection of varieties, or are you doing any breeding and development as well? And do you think any work being done could eventually bring any of the fruits you work with into economic significance? Also, I'm a college student, planning on doing a dual major in horticulture and finance, and I'm looking at a couple of different career paths, one of them being dropping the business end of things entirely and just going into a pure horticultural position, like becoming a professor of pomology at a university (or something like that). My main interest is in the (molecular) breeding and genetic engineering of underutilized potential crops, particularly fruits, tropical or otherwise, with the goal of bringing diverse crops to commercial significance. Do you have any particular tidbits of advice about going into the field of underdeveloped fruit species that you wish you would've known at my point that you could impart? Thanks.