I posted this last year to show how Chaulker-Scott oftentimes goes WAY overboard in her assertions. There are more examples but this is one that is fairly typical IMHO. As to Chaulker/Scott - she makes many overblown statements in her myth papers IMHO. From the old post: One example deals with her conclusion that bone meal is detrimental to plant growth due to its inhibition on beneficial fungi growth. The detailed study below shows some basis for her conclusions but the bonemeal was not nearly as detrimental on beneficial fungi as she opines IMHO. In fact, in one test bone meal was beneficial for fungi innoculation! Plus the fact that bone meal can help grow plants in and of itself. Well at least it has always helped me in my gardening as well as millions of other gardeners. Look at the last paragraph and see where bone meal, peat, mineral soil and innoculated fungi WAS NOT detrimental to fungi innoculation. So sometimes bone meal might reduce fungi development, sometimes increase it, sometimes nothing - but to say that it prevents fungi innoculation is way overblown IMHO. This is typical of Chaulker/Scott IMHO. Not that bone meal is required, this is just an example of Chaulker/Scott's exaggerations. Do not believe, at 100 percent, everything you read from her myth papers IMHO. Quote: Mycorrhizal inoculation of organically grown tomato plants Siri Caspersen Department of Horticulture, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 55, SE- 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden Improvement of plant nutrient uptake and protection against root pathogens by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) might contribute to a reduced utilization of soluble fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture and horticulture. For organic cultivation of glasshouse crops, regulation of nutrient supply and of the balance between nutrients is a major challenge. Common nutrient sources are green and animal manures together with plant and animal residues from the food industry. The recommended soil nutrient levels for glasshouse cultures are gerally high and based on easily available nutrients extracted by water or weak acids. Thus, for P in particular, luxury levels are common in the soil and the risk of P leakage is evident. When tomatoes are cultivated organically in the same soil for consecutive years, root pathogens may also become a problem. Root colonisation by mycorrhizal fungi in combination with the use of slowly soluble P- sources might be desirable both for bioprotection against root diseases and for a reduced risk of P leakage. However, establishment of mycorrhizal root colonisation is difficult due to the normally high soil P concentrations in combination with a widespread use of peats, which have a low P- fixing capacity, for pH regulation and for soil structure improvement. The aim of the presented work was to investigate the influence of organic and slowly soluble fertilizers and of inoculation with AMF on mycorrhizal root colonisation and on plant growth and nutrient uptake of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Delito) plants grown until planting stage (six weeks after sowing) in soil- or peat- based substrates. In sterilized soil: sand (1: 1, v: v) amended with apatite and bonemeal, we observed a strong plant growth response to inoculation with an isolate of Glomus intraradices. Plant growth was lower and the mycorrhizal response stronger in pots where the slowly soluble Psource apatite was added alone in comparison with pots where apatite and bone meal were added together. Mycorrhizal root colonisation and sporulation were reduced by the addition of bone meal. The positive response of plant growth and nutrient uptake to mycorrhizal inoculation in the soil: sand was probably related to an increased P uptake of the mycorrhizal plants. The effects of inoculation with Glomus intraradices (BEG87) and addition of bone meal and/ or blood meal were investigated for tomato plants grown in a substrate containing mineral soil and peat (4: 1, v: v). Root mycorrhizal colonisation was high (60- 80%) in pots containing either bone meal or blood meal or none of them. When both fertilizers were present, however, AM fungal colonisation was reduced. Inoculation with G. intraradices increased shoot dry weight in comparison with the uninoculated plants for all fertilizer combinations, and in particular for blood meal alone where no growth response was observed for nonmycorrhizal plants. It is possible that an AMF- mediated increase in plant the uptake of P was necessary for a positive effect of blood meal on plant growth. As the mineral soils in the substrate had been partly sterilized, however, introduced microorganisms were probably quite important for the mineralisation of bone and blood meal, and effects of other microorganisms associated with the AM fungus on plant utilization of the organic fertilizers can not be excluded. End quote.

For what it's worth, I do leave blackspot-infested leaves under the bushes but, unless it rains, the leaves dry up in record time. Rust-infested leaves I dispose of in the trash. I believe a mature China, such as my large Mutabilis, can be cut back drastically, but only very rarely. I was forced to do this because it looked sick, and when the leaves were gone I found the gopher hole that was killing it. The rose looks better than ever now after its drastic pruning, but unless I have a very good reason I wouldn't do it again for quite some years. Some Austins bloom very little if I don't prune them, and did splendidly afterwards. I wouldn't dream of pruning roses that are small or young, or pruning teas except to keep them within bounds. If I pruned out the deadwood in my four Le Vesuve planted at the edge of a hill, I'd be a bloody mess afterwards, assuming I didn't fall down the hill (been there on both counts). There are innumerable variables in our individual gardens and in our choice of roses. Jon, I would have loved to have your input. Your experience at Mottisfont would have yielded some invaluable advice. Granted, conditions there are not the same as everywhere in the United States, but enough areas have some similarities, and even for me in a very different climate it would be extremely interesting to know what you think. Your own garden is incredibly beautiful and I'm sure it didn't arrive at that state by benign neglect. Ingrid

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.

Correction to my earlier post.....above should read ......."secret techniques used in making a WHITE seafood jambalaya"......not brown. FYI....A brown jambalaya's flavor comes from the deep browning of the onions and the meats. A white jambalaya's flavor comes from the toasting of the rice and the delicate flavors of the seafood. A red jambalaya's flavor comes from the browning of the tomatoes, the added herbs/spices , and the seafood. Sherry, When making a WHITE shrimp jambalaya I usually brown ordinary rice to a light golden color to get the flavor that I am seeking. I have also experimented with toasting rice sprayed with Pam in a skillet and find it works OK. I also will use the aromatic type rice in making the white jambalaya. My favorite is Jasmine or Popcorn rice. I never brown my rice to serve as a side dish. Just for added information: I add a bit of butter or oil to the pot when cooking a pot of rice that is almost filled to the top. I do this to help break the starch froth that forms and can overflow the pot. A bit of butter helps prevent the spillover onto the burner and adds a good additional flavor component. For a whiter cooked rice product add just a tad of vinegar.....I like to use a bit of rice wine vinegar. It has the right acidity and a bit of sweetness that I like. Dan