Anyone eating corn for nutrition...be it now or 100 years ago...is "doing nutrition wrong." It's never been a nutrient-dense food as far as vitamins go, though it does have some nutrient quality in the way of carbs and vitamin B. It's a minor, yet noticeable, vitamin A+C contributor to nutrition. Also, the notion that our lines of supersweet corn came from radioactive/mutating experiments is grossly off the mark. Most come from lines of natural selection and breeding by John Laughnan at UI working with a gene most other breeders wouldn't touch. It is a total bastardization of John Laughnan's work (who, unlike what was stated WAS a plant breeder and botanist at U.Illinois) to claim he was by-chance poking around human-mutated "radioactive" corn to make supersweets happen. His work on the sh2 gene is one of the most important breeding pushes in the line of sweet corn. His crossses with Golden Cross Bantam (not to be confused with Golden Bantam which has been around since the early 1900s) for enhanced sweetness are his babies and it was developed with much resistance from his peers because they didn't see the value of the sh2 gene, which usually caused undesirable shrived kernels (because of less starch content and higher sugar content). One of his crosses, Illini Chief, is still sold by Burpee (who developed the initial Golden Bantam, btw), Shumway, and a few other seed sellers over 50 years after it first hit the market. Until his research into this gene it was believed to be a gene that led to inferior product rather than a line worth investigating. When his work led to incorporating the sh2 gene into corn which can produce full/plump kernel cobs, people paid attention. Btw, this was not a 1959 discovery, as stated by the author...he published his initial work on the sh2 gene as a breeding gene worth investigating in 1953 and his work started years earlier. I have no idea where he/she got her information on Dr. Laughnan from, but he/she should check that source again. John Laughnan is a bit of a hero to many in the breeding industry. This kinda pokes me wrong a bit personally to see his name/work trashed like this...and his work cheapened to being some fool who stumbled upon his discovery. It's so off the mark it's insulting. He was far ahead of his time given that supersweets took another 1-2 decades to even become popular in breeding. His work with developing the sh2 gene from a shriveled-kernel "undesirable" gene into a farmer/consumer market changer ranks right up there with Lamborn and Parker's work with the sugar snap pea that led to the "modern" sugar snap we've enjoyed since the 1970s. It was a game changer that went ignored for far too long given the long cultivation history of the plant(s). This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, May 26, 13 at 20:56

To Al- thanks for the pics of your wonderful plants! Your Bonsai plants are just lovely, but I've never tried it myself. Hope the bad weather lets up very soon for you folks. To Nik- Thanks for your reply. You're right about the micronutr toxicity- I'm being careful, applying 1 Tbls to 1/4 tsp at a time, with a week or more in between applications, and repeating only if the plant's color isn't good. to SandandSun to answer your questions about the conditions here so you can make a better decision about the micronutrients: I've been cultivating this particular garden here for 8 years, adding truckfuls of rotted mulch provided by the county (not nice clean, pine bark fines- real detritus!). Other conditions: No freezes, sand which is really finely crushed shells, salt spray, very windy, periods of too much rain, not enough rain, foggy when colder weather sets in. This "soil" won't hold water at all unless augmented with a great deal of organic material. The roses all have circular berms of soil around them to direct the water toward the roots. Black spot is a problem, but most of my roses here manage to "grow through" it. Now about the micronutrients I've been using: Percentages on bag: nitrogen 1%, Phosphorous 0%, Potash 1%, calcium 12%, sulphur 10%, iron 4.5%, boron .02%, manganese .1096%, molybdenum .0005%, Zn .10% I'm being very careful to make the applications small- 1tbs or less to start, wait a week or more, evaluate the color and growth, then 1 tsp -1/4 tsp more, if warranted. It's a little bit of a guessing game, because some roses have dark green foliage and some are lighter, so I'm judging the plant to see if it looks "right" to me, according to the pictures and descriptions of that particular rose. Hope this helps, Avalon2007

Laura, I'm glad you brought this thread back to life, because I have never found it. Al, as always, is very informative and reasonable. I agree whole heartedly with how he approaches gardening. I too prefer to use compost, and avoid chemicals, but am not against using chemicals either. For example, I refuse to sit back and watch my garden be destroyed by insects because I don't want to use chemicals. Usually I don't need to, but if things get rough, I have to bust out the big guns. Anyways, Laura, you talked about the runoff problems in your area; these issues come up all over, including here in WI. The biggest misconception people have is that the people using the "nasty" chemical fertilizers are causing the runoff, when in fact runoff problems can be caused by organic fertilizers as well. The biggest issue is not the stuff causing the problems, but the people who are. Proper use of inorganic AND organic fertilizers is key. You can buy all sorts off different products, both organic and inorganic, and each has instructions as to the proper application. If you don't follow these instructions, well, that is where the problem lies. So, with that said, you seem like a very reasonable and responsible person, so whether you apply organic fertilizer or synthetic fertilizer, and can assure you that if you follow the directions, you personally are NOT contributing to the runoff problems. Again, thanks to Al for his infinate wisdom, and to Laura for bringing this one back to life. Joe

Incredibly elaborated & very instructive discussion on a subject on which I clearly need constant enlightment. Al, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge & experience. Your way to approach the growing experience is really inspiring. I already did my very first 5.1.1 mix, a great experience. It felt like I was doing the right thing for my trees. The group overall is really great, people from so many different places coming together by their passion for plants:) I'm planning the 2017 spring bare-root up/repoting of all my plumerias and I plan having them all going into the GMX medium. Could you please help mewith some questions? 1) Turface = is unheard of here in Belgium/Brussels area. Can I replace turface with pumice at equal proportions? What do you think about mixing Pumice 4 + Bark 3 + Granite 2? 2) Crushed granite = also hard to find with the size required by the GMX. If I replace the granite with perlite the ingredient distribution in the GMX should also change? What do you think about mixing Pumice 4 + Bark 3 + Perlite 4? 3) Is the volcanic lava (3 mm size) a good replacement for the crushed granite in equal proportions? Thank you very much for your time. Regards, Michael