I think adding sugar, or an apirin, or bleach... or even the packet they give you with long stem roses... to the vase of water, is designed explicitly to prolong the bloom and the turgidity of the stem holding the bloom... and/or to keep the water fresh so the stem can "drink"... not for any other purpose. It has nothing to do with rooting them. Personally, I have found that taking a fresh, slanted cut to the stems of cut flowers, and changing out the water daily, helps keep bouquets looking nice as long as possible. But they are only cut flowers, and they will eventually die. For rooting cuttings, I find that the main ingredient necessary is patience! I recently did twin scaling on a bulb to save its life... it was rotting between several of the layers. I cut the bulb into quarters, cutting out as much rot as possible, and keeping a portion of basal plate attached to each quarter (necessary for root development). I dusted the bulb pieces with anti-fungal powder, and placed them in moist vermiculite in plastic ziploc bags. I kept the baggies on a heat mat, using a plastic bowl cover for a heat buffer, and waited for roots and new bulblets to form. It took a very long time! I neither moved the baggies around, and I didn't open them at any time. It took oodles of patience! Finally, after months of waiting, new green bulblets appeared, and I turned on the overhead grow lights. The bulblets eventually grew their own leaves, and at that time, I removed them from the baggies and potted them up in Al's Mix. Here are the bulblets when newly potted... And here are the bulblets forming inside the bag... Here they are when first bagged... The pieces when cut... And finally, the rotting bulb, itself... The progression is posted backward... and it really doesn't mesh with the discussion... except for one huge detail! PATIENCE! Patience is probably the biggest factor in rooting cuttings... Al laid out the technical, scientific facts... and I just wanted to add that, fungal issues notwithstanding, I don't think there's really a need to use anything chemical to obtain roots. But patience is necessary, and if you leave the cuttings alone and simply wait, most plants will reward you with roots! Ok... I'll shut up now... I'm off to check my pots for moisture... :-)

For those of you who think Splenda is so awesome you may want to know more about it. People may think Johnson & Johnsons Splenda®, made from sucralose, has "come to the rescue" as the newest chemical sugar replacement "made from real sugar." People donÂt want to hear that it may be just as dangerous as aspartame, and this "white knight" of sweeteners is no improvement. So, what exactly is Splenda? Splenda is the trade name for sucralose. Johnson & Johnson bought the rights in 1998 to sell sucralose in the United States as Splenda. Its basic characteristics are: * Its taste is nearly identical to sugar because itÂs made from sugar * Its "trademark" inability to break down in processing or in storage But Splenda is potentially harmful because it contains chlorine, which is a carcinogen. The Splenda marketers insist the chlorine is chemically "bound" so it cannot be "released" in the body during digestion. I question that, and wonder if this artificial chemical can safely pass through the human body. Wait until you discover what chlorine can do to the body. Then, you decide if you want to ingest this chemical. Splenda (sucralose) is created in the lab, using a complex process involving dozens of chemicals you and I can barely pronounce - let alone consume. Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product, but at a price: a huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard. To illustrate the alarming "chemical soup" required to create sucralose, I have listed here the actual process for producing this sweetener. I highlighted the chemicals in bold type for emphasis. According to the Splenda International Patent A23L001-236 and PEP Review #90-1-4 (July 1991), sucralose is synthesized by this five-step process: 1. sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride, 2. the resulting TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose) is chlorinated with hydrogen chloride in the presence of toluene, 3. the resulting 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid, 4. the resulting 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammonium chloride, and 5. the resulting TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) is treated with methanol (wood alcohol, a poison) in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose. The Splenda marketers stress that sucralose is "made from sugar but is derived from this sugar through a process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule." While this is true, it is a deceptively simple description, implying that sucralose is just a benign sugar with a touch of chlorine, and thereby, safe for consumption. According to research on the hydrolysis of sugars, just the process of inserting chlorine into the sugar molecule (hydrolysis means breaking it into smaller molecules) ultimately allows these chemicals to penetrate the intestinal wall. So sucralose becomes a "low-calorie" sugar with a complicated process that results in SplendaÂs chemical formula: 1,6-dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is Splenda. They say it is a perfectly safe sugar molecule. Sucralose is patented as a manmade "chlorinated sucrose sweetener" and it is registered as "chlorinated sucrose." Chlorinated sucrose is not found anywhere in nature, like real sugar (sucrose) that is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets. Chlorinated sucrose exists because of man. The FDA states in their Final Report on Splenda that sucralose is "produced at an approximate purity of ninety-eight percent." The other two percent does not have to be reported to the FDA, nor listed as added ingredients. So whatÂs in the other two percent? The chemicals used to synthesize sucralose in the five-step process: 1. Acetone 2. Acetic acid 3. Acetyl alcohol 4. Acetic anhydride 5. Ammonium chloride 6. Benzene 7. Chlorinated sulfates 8. Ethyl alcohol 9. Isobutyl ketones 10. Formaldehyde 11. Hydrogen chloride 12. Lithium chloride 13. Methanol 14. Sodium methoxide 15. Sulfuryl chloride 16. Trityl chloride 17. Toluene 18. Thionyl chloride Although manufacturing guidelines specify limits on these veiled substances, there are no assurances these limits have been met since they do not have to be reported. In addition, the FDA does not presently require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, so itÂs open season for the rules, at present. Now you can see why I do not recommend sucralose for pregnancy or for children, especially after reading this list. ItÂs time to admit that there is no free ticket to eating all the sugar-free products you desire without paying the high price of harming your body in the long run. The "technology of foods" (artificial sweeteners and manmade foods) has gone too far, and will not secure eternal health, beauty, slimness, or youth. Laboratory chemicals are not the answer. ____________________________________ This information is based on research from Dr. Janet Starr Hull. For more information on Splenda, see Dr. HullÂs newly released book SplendaÃ: Is It Safe Or Not? at http://www.issplendasafe.com. Posted on November 9, 2005 in Splenda Toxicity : Link To This Entry : Comments (17) Comments

Good catch! The "honeydew" of psyllids is often solid rather than liquid and looks much like sugar crystals.

I think the jury is still out on these "anti-fungal" diets. I think diets high in refined carbohydrates can have all kinds of health side effects, (weight gain, high cholesterol, and as mentioned, diabetes or pre-diabetes, allergies, etc.) and one would be wise to limit them, if not cut them out all together. However, I don't recommend going without grains all together, since I personally need the fiber. Lack of fiber, IMHO, is another thing that causes health problems in people who eat high sugar/refined carb diets. I personally don't believe it is just "yeast" that is the culprit. There are approximately 6 billion little bacteria that live on you and in you. You are an ecosystem, and you can get out of whack. Good stewardship of one's body can help. No cure all, but neither are all the creams and pills, which often do not cure at all either. I followed a no-gluten diet for months to curb menstrual cramps, and it had no effect. Exercise on the other hand, goes a long way for me in helping that problem. However, following a diet high in fiber and with a good balance of carbs and protein helps with a whole lot of systemic health problems. Good fuel keeps the body running well, and that in turn helps the immune system fight off yeast infections. Also may help good bacteria establish themselves in your gut and also on your skin. That's a whole other aspect to the story. Modern vinegar is a far cry from the original fermented product. We're using all kinds of weird bacteria and doing all kinds of things that cause bacteria to mutate, not just "yeast." People are getting mutated e-coli establishing itself in their guts too. I have persistent urinary tract infections that are hard as heck to control too, and I've tried all the suggestions of conventional and alternative medicines, and spent THOUSANDS on tests that showed NOTHING. Here's is a recipe Web site that I like. I am no purist when it comes to anti-yeast dieting, but I think the recipes here are very good and very healthy. Oh, and then there's the issue of all the pesticides and hormonal mimics, and food grown on unnatural fertilizers, etc. It is no wonder that many of us are feeling unwell. We're stressing the earth's immune system and then wondering why our own immune systems are having a tough time. Trying to find good wholesome food, fresh air and pure water and time to de-stress and exercise are quite the luxuries nowdays. I have to balance the cost of healthy food vs the benefits, which is hard to do. I also recommend coconut oil, it is a great food. Not a panacea, but worth including in one's diet. Don't know about yeast issues, but oatmeal is a godsend for helping me with my IBS. But not the instant stuff, that's very refined, the old style rolled oats or oat groats. Modern yogurt, dairy and cheese is a far cry from the old style stuff with natural bacteria in it. One of the worst substances for health is this ultra pasteurized milk that is on the market too. They even sell "organic" versions but ultra-pasteurizing things is not a good idea as a substitute for good hygiene in the processing of food. Here is a link that might be useful: Candida diet recipes