This certainly isn't my fight - I don't even eat it, but a lot of people here in E. Tn. do eat poke. I do a fair amount of foraging, mostly to learn the wild plants and how to prepare them. Some I eat all the time, others I try just to taste. But I've been reading this exchange for a few days now, and I think some things should be emphasized. As long as I have a positive id, I don't mind eating plants that have toxic and edible components. In fact, I have a bowl of wild black cherries in the fridge that will become syrup later today after I separate out the toxic pits... not an easy task btw... However, when posting on a public message board, I always, ALWAYS lean to the side of caution. It's a simple maxim... what I am willing to do with my choices are a much different matter than what I suggest that others do with their own. In the case of the cherries... I'll be glad to tell you that the flesh of the fruit is edible, but I will heavily caution that, when working with them, I wouldn't even scratch the toxic pits. In fact, I wouldn't use any metal tools. I would also add that the person look up for themselves the toxicity of all parts of the trees, especially leaves drying on a broken branch. They routinely take out large cattle with much better digestive protections against wild foods. I try to be cautious, especially since foraging isn't really necessary to my lifestyle. I simply enjoy it. I like the idea of eating rare foods and flavors untouched by, and unavailable in, the factory food marketplace. And when discussing these foods on a public forum where some, potentially, may not have the faculties to understand the danger, why suggest that people cut corners? You don't ask for proof that it's poisonous. You assume it's poisonous! Knowledge is what helps a person make good choices. If you aren't 100% sure of what you are doing, you don't lessen the caution, you increase it. If you wish to take the risk yourself, that's a choice you live with (hopefully,) but you don't argue for the lessening of caution that might put others at risk. If you have the ability to hire a laboratory and test out the amount and effect of the toxin across a wide selection of poke varieties, as well as using various cooking methods, along with portion size, frequency of consumption, and weight and maturity level of the individuals consuming, then have at it - and please publish your findings. Until then, the cautions should remain in place.

This is complicated. Maybe we should just discuss brownie recipes. In lieu of that, let's just for now try to focus on two aspects of the question, food quality and conservation. Wasn't there someone who, early in the discussion, cited a large study published in Science magazine? I can't find that post now but the study is the most important one I am aware of. The full text can't be accessed at the Science web site without subscribing. It is available elsewhere on the web. The study sampled and compared wild and farmed salmon from many regions around the world. The level of PCBs and other dangerous substances was found to be "significantly" higher in farmed salmon. The word "significant", when used in this sort of document is understood to mean statistically significant, which is not the same as the every day usage. Statistical significance means that a difference between two samples can be proven mathematically at a certain criterion. It does not mean the difference is important. If I sprinkle 2 grains of salt on my order of fries and you sprinkle 4, the difference obviously is statistically significant. But is it important? Neither one is enough salt to affect the taste at all. Significant but not important. The study found, at some locations, levels of certain toxins at 10 or so parts per billion. At those levels, differences of say, 4 parts per billion would be significant. But important? FDA standards allow hundreds of times that concentration. But that is not the end of the controversy. Some, including the authors of the study, prefer the standards of the EPA over those of the FDA. EPA standards are much stricter. This is where science and politics collide. One might think that the "Food" and Drug Administration would take precedence over the "Environmental" Protection Administration in the matter of food safety. But that would be too simple. I have to observe that, although the importance to science of a "not statistically significant" finding is equal to, often greater than, one of "statistically significant". The importance in press releases is not. Everyone wants the results of their work to be "significant". Well, that is the health issue in a nutshell, a very small nutshell. The conservation issue is more difficult. Jim Here is a link that might be useful: Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon

Florantha, I have orange walls. We were criticizing the colors not because of what's stylish but because of the exact shades used. That particular yellow is very aggressive and the orange stripes going in two directions are a bit day glo. I think the orange fabric could be made to work with the right yellow on the wall. As it is, I find the combination, at least as it shows in the picture, to be painful (As in, ouch! my eyes!). They also don't go with the counter or the floor. The paint and homemade curtains both look fresh and clean, leading to the assumption that the current residents put them in, so the choice of them leads us back to the discussion about what it takes to design a kitchen. And I contend, as I have through this all, that it's little touches like choosing the right paint color, not granite counters. MV, It's interesting about the "other" kitchens you mention. I have my own big stack of (pre-GW/FKB) kitchen magazines. And while I can't live on a steady diet of Architectural Digest, I pick it up every now and then. I love looking at home and kitchen design, and am as likely to look at it in the background of a personality profile as in a house photo, because then you see real people houses. But I wouldn't want to live in most of them! I love thinking about how life would be in an MCM masterpiece, or the arboreal house with the canopy style copper roof. I love looking at them and thinking about how the way the house works will interact with the way the people live their lives. But I'm honest with myself and know that I want more function than one of those shiny Italian curvopoli where it's more important that the ladle and can opener match the kitchen design than work well, and that I'm too prone to clutter to do justice to an MCM. Kmsparty, I can definitely attest to the more cooking in a more convenient kitchen thing. I cooked less and less in the old kitchen because it was so awful. Now cooking is so convenient and pleasant in my not-quite-finished new kitchen that I'm actually cooking too much!

LunarSolarPower - Thanks for coming back to my questions, I appreciate your responses. As I'm probably overthinking the CEC impact in my intended use (vegetables in containers), but I do like to optimize systems for efficiency and highest performance, so it was a natural question for me to follow. I'm under the impression that by using CRF and a liquid solution, I'm in a good position to provide what the plants need with little regard for the CEC. My question about the zeolite was to raise the CEC, and in fact, you mentioned in an earlier post about ground basalt, so if I decided to go that route, I could always look more closely there as well. As to getting 10 years out of the media - I can always dream, can't I? :) It appears inefficient (on the convenience and labor sides) to mix new media every spring. It seems wasteful to the product as well - I have limited ground space, and who knows what I would do with the "old" mix. There is always the cost aspect as well. My primary thought was to go fully inorganic and have nothing that decomposes within 5-10 years. But, even if I ended up going with some organics as a fraction of the mix, I'm thinking that if I maintained a reasonable particle size with the inorganics (say Turface/DE/pumice/grit), AND as long as the combo of inorganics comprised the lion's share of the mix (say ~70%), then the organics would be free to decompose and disintegrate their structures without much harm overall. I could simply "top off" the organics (for instance pine mini fines) as needed to keep the overall volume of media to my liking. If CEC value is not critical in my specific scenario (vegetables in containers, using CRF and liquid fertilizers), and assuming I'm able to relatively easily adjust the pH as needed, then I would be able to design the mix primarily on water/air retentiveness. Do you see any faults in the logic so far, or glaring oversights with such a plan?