Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
harvesting black walnut
This year harvesting bigtime. Started with 100 gallons of unhusked and
looks to be 30 gallons of husked black walnut. I have plastic containers with lids to keep the squirrels and rodents out of until unhusked. I read somewhere that the green husked have a better flavor than waiting for a black husk. Alot of the fly and maggots in the husks. Time consuming to place on the woodstove top to dry and roast the nut. Maybe as the years roll by I can find some alternatives to make the work easier. Read that commercial operations have a sort of wheel belt that unhusks the black walnut. One year I tried soaking them in water until the husk was easy to remove, but I wonder if the water penetrated the nut itself which would be dirty water. Tried a few and they are delicious with a strong flavor. And that the small ones often are better tasting than the larger nuts. They do seem to take alot of time and will have to find better methods of dehusking. The only thing left to harvest now is frostbite tomatoes that are green but will redden in the winter and potatoes and rhubarb. Also have to plant the strawberries out of their pots and into the ground for the winter and cover with straw. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
harvesting black walnut
wrote in message
... This year harvesting bigtime. Started with 100 gallons of unhusked and looks to be 30 gallons of husked black walnut. You're sure going to have a "fun" time of it cracking open those many gallons of wickedly hard black walnuts to engage in ultra-tedious picking out of the meat. We used to have a couple of prodigiously productive black walnut trees in our back lot--every year, I'd gather up a bunch of the fallen nuts, placing small lots of them in a cardboard box to shake around with vigorous vitality in order to wear off most of the surface "black soot." And then the fun began. In my spare time, I'd patiently crack open the nuts with my geology hammer, then use one of those sharp dental tools (the variety a hygenist uses to clean one's teeth) to poke around and pluck out the meat. After a few weeks of occasional dedicated work, I'd have a nice cache of black walnuts to store away. In one of our better landscaping decisions, I must say, we finally removed both the black walnut trees several years ago; but, if I ever wanted to collect more black walnuts to mess around with, there are certainly numerous huge, producing wild specimens concentrated down by our local river. Anyway, good luck with your project--'cause you're gonna need it. Fossil Plants Of The Ione Basin, California http://members.aol.com/Waucoba5/ione/ioneproject.html (An addendum here--all of my paleobotany web pages, plus all my paleontology pages, in general, will not be found at their current URLs after October 31, 2008; this, because my ISP provider is eliminating all of their members' web space.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
harvesting black walnut
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
vegetable proteins replacing animal proteins harvesting blackwalnut
Inyo wrote: wrote in message ... This year harvesting bigtime. Started with 100 gallons of unhusked and looks to be 30 gallons of husked black walnut. You're sure going to have a "fun" time of it cracking open those many gallons of wickedly hard black walnuts to engage in ultra-tedious picking out of the meat. We used to have a couple of prodigiously productive black walnut trees in our back lot--every year, I'd gather up a bunch of the fallen nuts, placing small lots of them in a cardboard box to shake around with vigorous vitality in order to wear off most of the surface "black soot." And then the fun began. In my spare time, I'd patiently crack open the nuts with my geology hammer, then use one of those sharp dental tools (the variety a hygenist uses to clean one's teeth) to poke around and pluck out the meat. After a few weeks of occasional dedicated work, I'd have a nice cache of black walnuts to store away. Cracking open and picking out is easy. You have half of the equation of ease as I also use dental tools. But the other half of the equation of ease is to use a vise-grip, I use a medium sized Vise-Grip which takes 1 second to crack a nut, no mess, no splatter when held inside a container. I am still experimenting as to where to take a hold of the nut and crack it so it maximizes the size of the meat to pull out. The ideal crack is where it is in two pieces and the four pieces of meat are lifted out. In one of our better landscaping decisions, I must say, we finally removed both the black walnut trees several years ago; but, if I ever wanted to collect more black walnuts to mess around with, there are certainly numerous huge, producing wild specimens concentrated down by our local river. Anyway, good luck with your project--'cause you're gonna need it. No, you meat eaters are goning to need more luck than I do. I am not a complete vegetarian for I occasionally eat meat. But I am looking into the data and research of nuts replacing all meat. I see that someone computed that black-walnuts per weight are 1.5 times more of all the protein found in beef. So let us say that a human requires at least 1 roast beef sandwich per day to survive with protein. So the weight of that roast beef let us say is the weight equivalent of 10 black walnuts kernels. And the cracking open of 10 black walnuts takes 10 seconds and delivers to me 1.5 more of all the protein I need per day. Not a bad trade off. But it gets even better, in that, counting the time it takes for me to process black walnuts (1) collect (2) dehusk (3) dry or roast for storage; is far less of a time of processing than if I took a cattle, slaughtered it and dressed out the meat and then cured and storaged. And not counting the time it took me during the seasons to care for the cattle whereas the tree is sitting there doing what a tree does-- give off more nuts. So I think scientists should be doing more of these sort of calculations of moving society over to better sustaining food. I am not saying we eliminate meat from diet, but saying that the bulk of human protein food should come from vegetative protein, since it decomposes in far longer time than does the decomposition of animal protein. And animal protein cares uric acid and other mild poisons. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
replacing meat protein in human society with vegetative protein harvesting black walnut
Mike Ruskai wrote: On or about Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:37:07 -0700 (PDT) did dribble thusly: This year harvesting bigtime. Started with 100 gallons of unhusked and looks to be 30 gallons of husked black walnut. I have plastic containers with lids to keep the squirrels and rodents out of until unhusked. One method of dehusking which I've heard of, but not tried personally, is to put the walnuts in a sack (canvas or burlap) on your driveway and drive over it repeatedly with your vehicle. There's no risk of cracking the nuts, as anyone who's tried to open a black walnut knows well. Nay, that is a poor technique, for hand removal is far faster and less messy. Besides all the gasoline gone to waste. If the husks are very green then just keep them in a squirrel free container for about 2 weeks and when easy to pull off by hand wearing rubber gloves. If I had hundreds of black walnut trees to harvest every year, I would invent some machine that would automatically dehusk. At the moment I think I may have bypassed one of the time consuming operations of drying and roasting. I dehusked a bucket last week and seeing if it will just naturally dry out in the back room, and so far good news in that the upper layers are becoming dry. So maybe I do not have to put the wet nuts on the wood stove top and dry the nuts. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
what is this white growth on wet black walnut not fully dehusked
wrote: (snipped) At the moment I think I may have bypassed one of the time consuming operations of drying and roasting. I dehusked a bucket last week and seeing if it will just naturally dry out in the back room, and so far good news in that the upper layers are becoming dry. So maybe I do not have to put the wet nuts on the wood stove top and dry the nuts. No, I am wrong about that, I remember now in some past years ago, I had a bucket of them that were wet without the woodstove treatment, and getting closer to the bottom of the bucket was massive whitish looking some kind of fungus or mold or some growth. Whitish looking growth. Anyone know what that whitish growth is? So I have to give them the woodstove roasting treatment otherwise the nuts are covered in some white growth. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
#1 vegetable proteins replacing animal proteins harvesting black
Two number assumptions I am going to go under. 1901 the human world
population was 1 billion and by 2008 it reached 7 billion. Now there are some facts that anyone can find out about agriculture and I would be surprized if noone used these facts to compute the optimal human population size. Earth has 150 million km^2 of land of which 20 million km^2 is arable-- that is farmable productive in growing food. Not counting the Oceans for protein or food then 7,000,000,000 humans has 20,000,000 km^2 of land to grow food upon. That means 350 people per every 1 km^2 of land to live on. Now, how many walnut trees can grow on 1 km^2 of land? In my previous posts, I outlined a Optimal Human Population as that of 1901 where we can say that humanity could live on this planet by using purely, and only renewable energy and nothing else that dirtys the air and no Global Warming and preservation of plant and animal wild species. So that if we kept human population with 1 and 2 billion humans, and no more that we would each have plenty of food and plenty of energy. But now, let me compute the 1 to 2 billion figure from agriculture. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
#2 vegetable proteins replacing animal proteins harvesting black
Earlier today I wrote:
Not counting the Oceans for protein or food then 7,000,000,000 humans has 20,000,000 km^2 of land to grow food upon. That means 350 people per every 1 km^2 of land to live on. Now, how many walnut trees can grow on 1 km^2 of land? Now km^2 means a square kilometer or a square whose sides are 1,000 by 1,000 meters. Now a mature black walnut tree is about 10 meters spacing between trees, so that in a square kilometer we can expect 100 by 100 black walnut trees or 10,000 black walnut trees growing in such a nut orchard of km^2. Now let us assume humans only ate black walnuts and that ten trees supplied the food of one human for a full year. So that each square kilometer of arable land supports a population of 1,000 humans. Now looking at the arable land of UK, of Germany, of USA of China we have 60,000 sq km, 120,000 sq. km, 2,000,000 sq km, and 930,000 sq km respectively. Now we make the assumption that all the arable land can grow black walnuts or some equivalent nut tree. Then given these assumptions we can derive what a optimal human population is for UK as 60,000 x 1,000 which gives us 60 million and from looking at the data the population of UK in the 1997 census was 58 million. Germany would yield 120,000 x 1,000 which would be 120 million people and Germany was 82 million in the 1997 census. The USA could have an optimal population of 2,000,000 x 1,000 or 2 billion humans whereas its actual population is 268 million in the 1997 census. China could have optimal population of 930,000 x 1,000 = 930 million whereas its actual population is 1.2 billion in the 1997 census. Now the data of the total arable land in the world is 20 million square kilometers which when multiplied by 1,000 would give a population of 20 billion humans. But there are huge flawed assumptions in the arable land. The worst assumption is that all the arable land of 20 million square km cannot support trees such as black walnut but that much of this arable land is grassland farmed land where the rainfall is not for trees but for grassland which requires alot of yearly energy inputs whereas black walnuts require little energy inputs. Of the arable land that can support perennial trees for food is about 1/5 of the 20 million square km. That means only 4 billion humans and not 20 billion humans. Now there is another flawed assumption in arable lands is the energy input for annual plants such as wheat, corn, rice etc rather than perennials such as black walnuts. Energy inputs of tilling, fertilizing, herbicides, pesticides and then of erosion of soil. I have not calculated what affect energy has on 20 million square km arable land has. I would guess that when it is detailed computed that the 20 million square km of arable land of planet Earth can support only at maximum 6 billion humans. In other words, we already surpassed the upper reaches of feeding the human population and that every year a billion humans will die of starvation. There is another assumption I have not included and that is the food of oceans and waters such as the fish and marine life we eat. But also, on the negative ledger side I have not accounted for the food spoilage or the insect and rodent and other pests that eat the food before we can eat. Summary: in posts a long time ago, I said that the human population of the year 1901 was a watershed year because in that year we had 1 billion humans as census and when we had 1 billion humans we could live on purely renewable energy and obviously we could all feed 1 billion humans so that noone starves or has a dismal life. Now I believe that a range of 1 to 2 billion humans but no more than 2 billion can still meet all the energy needs by renewable sources where we do not have to burn coal or wood but can live on purely clean energy of wind, hydroelectric, solar. And where we do not need to use gasoline. Where the air can be as pristine clean as it was before we ever burned a single air polluter device. Where the oxygen content of the air we breathe is back to the 21 to 22% of air and not the dirty air we now breathe where the oxygen content is less than 18% (need some reliable data on oxygen content in air). So anyway, the picture is beginning to form that the optimal human population for planet Earth looks to be between 1 to 2 billion humans. Now we have to begin to teach the politicians that we want our countries to slim down and decrease their populations to that 1 to 2 billion mark. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
black spots, Black Spots, BLACK SPOTS!!!!bbbbbblllllllaaaaacccckkkkkk ssspp | Roses | |||
black spots, Black Spots, BLACK SPOTS!!!!bbbbbblllllllaaaaacccckkkkkk ssspppOOOTTTSSSS!!!!!! | Roses | |||
black spots, Black Spots, BLACK SPOTS!!!!bbbbbblllllllaaaaacccckkkkkk | Roses | |||
Black walnut/White Pine | alt.forestry |