I am trying to breed alder as a grain crop. One of my ideas is to
cross A. incana (the native alder) with A. cordata ("Italian" alder,
widely planted in municipal settings for its handsome dark green
leaves) which has much bigger cones.

To do a cross you have to keep out rogue pollen. A friend gave me
Glassine Bags, H86065, they are widely available from all sorts of
suppliers, but I bought more from r s components, who are mainly an
electronics supplier, because I already had an account with them.

I cut the catkins off and put these bags over the cones and sealed
them (the bags I have may have deteriorated in storage, the flaps
weren't very sticky, so I used Sellotape) and left them. But after
only a few days the cones poked through. The "paper" of the bags had
not turned to pulp or to mush in the rain. What seems to have happened
is that bags flapped in the wind and where the cones touched the bags,
they rubbed through.

Does anybody have any recommendations or good ideas for how to get
round this? There is still time before A cordata becomes fertile in
Northumberland.

Michael Bell

--

In message
Janet Baraclough wrote:

The message
from Michael Bell contains these words:

I am trying to breed alder as a grain crop. One of my ideas is to
cross A. incana (the native alder) with A. cordata ("Italian" alder,
widely planted in municipal settings for its handsome dark green
leaves) which has much bigger cones.

I've grown A cordata . Agreed the cones are larger but the seeds
they contain are about the size and weight of dandruff.

How is such tiny seed ever going to be a useful or practical "grain
crop" ?

Janet

Yes, a lot of work is needed. We have plenty of tree FRUIT crops,
apples, coconuts, etc, but we have no tree GRAIN crops, by which I
mean a hard dry thing with good keeping qualities. Tree fix many times
more carbon than herbs; they put more green between the sun and the
ground than herbs, the ground beneath wheat can be quite brightly lit
whereas the ground under trees can be deep shade, and trees can put
out their leaves as soon as it's warm enough to be worthwhile, which
herbs, especially annuals, cannot do. (Some people are trying to
develop a perennial wheat) So, a possible worthwhile objective.

Have you any good ideas for my problem of how to protect the cones
from rogues pollen in wind and rain?

Michael Bell

--

"Michael Bell" wrote...
I am trying to breed alder as a grain crop. One of my ideas is to
cross A. incana (the native alder) with A. cordata ("Italian" alder,
widely planted in municipal settings for its handsome dark green
leaves) which has much bigger cones.

To do a cross you have to keep out rogue pollen. A friend gave me
Glassine Bags, H86065, they are widely available from all sorts of
suppliers, but I bought more from r s components, who are mainly an
electronics supplier, because I already had an account with them.

I cut the catkins off and put these bags over the cones and sealed
them (the bags I have may have deteriorated in storage, the flaps
weren't very sticky, so I used Sellotape) and left them. But after
only a few days the cones poked through. The "paper" of the bags had
not turned to pulp or to mush in the rain. What seems to have happened
is that bags flapped in the wind and where the cones touched the bags,
they rubbed through.

Does anybody have any recommendations or good ideas for how to get
round this? There is still time before A cordata becomes fertile in
Northumberland.

I wonder if those special "stayfresh" bags form Lakeland would work, they
are plastic but are impregnated with something, stone dust I think.
I heard they have used them on plant collecting expeditions from Kew.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

My understanding is that the most productive biomass crops in temperate latitudes are grasses not trees. So I don't think your argument about the sun collecting efficiency of a taller crop stacks up. It can't collect more sunlight than there is, and a low-growing crop can do that just as well.

We do have tree "grain" crops. They are usually called nuts in English, though this is not a valid taxonomic description and many languages do not have this word. Examples include pine-"nuts", chest-"nuts", wal-"nuts", almonds. Ground almonds are key part of mediterranean pastry cooking, often replacing much or all of the flour. In Corsica, or at least in the NE part of it, chestnut flour was the staple cooking flour at one time. In southern Chile, a sub-tribe of the Mapuche people called Pehuenche (ie, people of the pehuen - observe that "che", same as in che Guevara) used the "nuts" of the monkey-puzzle tree (pehuen in Mapudungun language) as their staple, huge nuts they are too. Acorn flour and beechmast has been eaten at times, too. Coffee, cocoa and carob are all "tree grains" too.

I suspect that yields of tree "grains" cannot compete with grass "grains" in terms of yield per area, nor for convenience of harvesting. Pinenuts, chestnuts, almonds, cocoa, coffee, etc, are extremely expensive in comparison to cereals. But possibly as a side-product of the wood, they might just be worth collecting.

"echinosum" wrote in message
...

Michael Bell;878779 Wrote:
Yes, a lot of work is needed. We have plenty of tree FRUIT crops,
apples, coconuts, etc, but we have no tree GRAIN crops, by which I
mean a hard dry thing with good keeping qualities. Tree fix many times
more carbon than herbs; they put more green between the sun and the
ground than herbs, the ground beneath wheat can be quite brightly lit
whereas the ground under trees can be deep shade, and trees can put
out their leaves as soon as it's warm enough to be worthwhile, which
herbs, especially annuals, cannot do. (Some people are trying to
develop a perennial wheat)

My understanding is that the most productive biomass crops in temperate
latitudes are grasses not trees. So I don't think your argument about
the sun collecting efficiency of a taller crop stacks up. It can't
collect more sunlight than there is, and a low-growing crop can do that
just as well.

snip
Must agree - consider the percentage of a modern grain plant that is yield
and it is pretty high.
The straw is useful as well as the grain so very little of the plant is
wasted.
Quick to grow, high yielding, relatively low maintenance and also conducive
to crop rotation.
Allegedly in East Anglia some places can produce as many as four crops a
year (although I haven't seen this myself).

Trees take a relatively long time to come into production and the percentage
of the plant that is suitable for harvest is relatively small.

With regard to "trees can put out their leaves as soon as it's warm enough
to be worthwhile, which herbs, especially annuals, cannot do" the OP has
obviously not noticed winter wheat, which often requires grazing back over
winter to prevent it developing too soon in the spring.
The fields are green here in Suffolk but the trees have yet to put on any
leaf.

On mature consideration, apart from the concept of condoms for trees there
is appears to be little of interest in the proposal.

Oh, I've just noticed that coconuts don't class as hard dry things with good
keeping qualities.
Whatever.

Dave R

In message
"Bob Hobden" wrote:



"Michael Bell" wrote...
I am trying to breed alder as a grain crop. One of my ideas is to
cross A. incana (the native alder) with A. cordata ("Italian" alder,
widely planted in municipal settings for its handsome dark green
leaves) which has much bigger cones.

To do a cross you have to keep out rogue pollen. A friend gave me
Glassine Bags, H86065, they are widely available from all sorts of
suppliers, but I bought more from r s components, who are mainly an
electronics supplier, because I already had an account with them.

I cut the catkins off and put these bags over the cones and sealed
them (the bags I have may have deteriorated in storage, the flaps
weren't very sticky, so I used Sellotape) and left them. But after
only a few days the cones poked through. The "paper" of the bags had
not turned to pulp or to mush in the rain. What seems to have happened
is that bags flapped in the wind and where the cones touched the bags,
they rubbed through.

Does anybody have any recommendations or good ideas for how to get
round this? There is still time before A cordata becomes fertile in
Northumberland.

I wonder if those special "stayfresh" bags form Lakeland would work, they
are plastic but are impregnated with something, stone dust I think.
I heard they have used them on plant collecting expeditions from Kew.

Thank you for a constructive answer to my question.

Michael Bell

--

In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:
"echinosum" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell;878779 Wrote:

Yes, a lot of work is needed. We have plenty of tree FRUIT crops,
apples, coconuts, etc, but we have no tree GRAIN crops, by which I
mean a hard dry thing with good keeping qualities. Tree fix many times
more carbon than herbs; they put more green between the sun and the
ground than herbs, the ground beneath wheat can be quite brightly lit
whereas the ground under trees can be deep shade, and trees can put
out their leaves as soon as it's warm enough to be worthwhile, which
herbs, especially annuals, cannot do. (Some people are trying to
develop a perennial wheat)

My understanding is that the most productive biomass crops in temperate
latitudes are grasses not trees. So I don't think your argument about
the sun collecting efficiency of a taller crop stacks up. It can't
collect more sunlight than there is, and a low-growing crop can do that
just as well.

Must agree - consider the percentage of a modern grain plant that is yield
and it is pretty high.
The straw is useful as well as the grain so very little of the plant is
wasted.

That's irrelevant - it's referring to capital not income. The
relevant figure is yield per acre, and trees ARE good. Also, wood
is more useful than straw ....

Quick to grow, high yielding, relatively low maintenance and also conducive
to crop rotation.

That's not a useful end in itself.

Allegedly in East Anglia some places can produce as many as four crops a
year (although I haven't seen this myself).

I have this bridge that needs to be sold today - how much will you
pay me for it? Look the the UK's insolation pattern.


That being said, the fact is that there are very few trees suitable
as starting points. Chestnuts and oaks are the two main ones I
can think of, and breeding the latter for low tannin would mean
major problems with pests. Most trees produce oily fruits, not
starchy ones.

Michael Bell is right in theory, but not in practice.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message
wrote:

In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:
"echinosum" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell;878779 Wrote:

Yes, a lot of work is needed. We have plenty of tree FRUIT crops,
apples, coconuts, etc, but we have no tree GRAIN crops, by which I
mean a hard dry thing with good keeping qualities. Tree fix many times
more carbon than herbs; they put more green between the sun and the
ground than herbs, the ground beneath wheat can be quite brightly lit
whereas the ground under trees can be deep shade, and trees can put
out their leaves as soon as it's warm enough to be worthwhile, which
herbs, especially annuals, cannot do. (Some people are trying to
develop a perennial wheat)

My understanding is that the most productive biomass crops in temperate
latitudes are grasses not trees. So I don't think your argument about
the sun collecting efficiency of a taller crop stacks up. It can't
collect more sunlight than there is, and a low-growing crop can do that
just as well.

Must agree - consider the percentage of a modern grain plant that is yield
and it is pretty high.
The straw is useful as well as the grain so very little of the plant is
wasted.

That's irrelevant - it's referring to capital not income. The
relevant figure is yield per acre, and trees ARE good. Also, wood
is more useful than straw ....

Quick to grow, high yielding, relatively low maintenance and also conducive
to crop rotation.

That's not a useful end in itself.

Allegedly in East Anglia some places can produce as many as four crops a
year (although I haven't seen this myself).

I have this bridge that needs to be sold today - how much will you
pay me for it? Look the the UK's insolation pattern.

What is this about?

That being said, the fact is that there are very few trees suitable
as starting points. Chestnuts and oaks are the two main ones I
can think of, and breeding the latter for low tannin would mean
major problems with pests. Most trees produce oily fruits, not
starchy ones.

Michael Bell is right in theory, but not in practice.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

There is an inevitable conflict here.

"Major forest trees", chestnut, oak and the like, grow big, grow slow,
and form climax communities because they produce big seeds which give
rise to seedling which can endure deep shade, get through forest
litter, grow under their parents. But these big seeds have to be
defended by evil-tasting susbtances.

On the other hand, there are "weed trees", fly-by-nights, fast-growing
trees which rarely form climax communities (alder only does so because
it can withstand waterlogging, so forming birch-alder carr), and have
small seeds which are widely scattered to new plots of disturbed land.

Which way do I jump?

There is one extra factor which I haven't mentioned, I want to produce
something which will grow on the uplands, such as the Cheviots where I
was brought up. This country cannot feed itself, and the uplands are
40% of its land area.

There is supposed to be a variety A. glutinosa var macrocarpa in
Chippenham Fen, near Cambridge. It seems an obvious thing to look for
bigger seeds in a variety called "macrocarpa", but I couldn't find any
in Chippenham Fen earlier this year. Any ideas?

Michael Bell

--

In article ,
Michael Bell wrote:
In message
wrote:
In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:

Allegedly in East Anglia some places can produce as many as four crops a
year (although I haven't seen this myself).

I have this bridge that needs to be sold today - how much will you
pay me for it? Look the the UK's insolation pattern.

What is this about?

There is only about 4 months a year with enough light to produce a
decent crop - 4 crops of starch a year is simply fantasy here.

There is an inevitable conflict here.

"Major forest trees", chestnut, oak and the like, grow big, grow slow,
and form climax communities because they produce big seeds which give
rise to seedling which can endure deep shade, get through forest
litter, grow under their parents. But these big seeds have to be
defended by evil-tasting susbtances.

Except for the last sentence, yes.

On the other hand, there are "weed trees", fly-by-nights, fast-growing
trees which rarely form climax communities (alder only does so because
it can withstand waterlogging, so forming birch-alder carr), and have
small seeds which are widely scattered to new plots of disturbed land.

That's irrelevant to my point, which was primarily productivity.
The difference between those categories affects only the timescale.

There is one extra factor which I haven't mentioned, I want to produce
something which will grow on the uplands, such as the Cheviots where I
was brought up. This country cannot feed itself, and the uplands are
40% of its land area.

If you succeed, I am pretty certain that you will end up with oil,
and not starch. That's not catastrophic, as it would release lowland
areas for starch crops. Or, with recent, current and proposed
governments, more building.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Michael Bell wrote:
In message
wrote:
In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:

Allegedly in East Anglia some places can produce as many as four crops a
year (although I haven't seen this myself).

I have this bridge that needs to be sold today - how much will you
pay me for it? Look the the UK's insolation pattern.

What is this about?

There is only about 4 months a year with enough light to produce a
decent crop - 4 crops of starch a year is simply fantasy here.

There is an inevitable conflict here.

"Major forest trees", chestnut, oak and the like, grow big, grow slow,
and form climax communities because they produce big seeds which give
rise to seedling which can endure deep shade, get through forest
litter, grow under their parents. But these big seeds have to be
defended by evil-tasting susbtances.

Except for the last sentence, yes.

On the other hand, there are "weed trees", fly-by-nights, fast-growing
trees which rarely form climax communities (alder only does so because
it can withstand waterlogging, so forming birch-alder carr), and have
small seeds which are widely scattered to new plots of disturbed land.

That's irrelevant to my point, which was primarily productivity.
The difference between those categories affects only the timescale.

There is one extra factor which I haven't mentioned, I want to produce
something which will grow on the uplands, such as the Cheviots where I
was brought up. This country cannot feed itself, and the uplands are
40% of its land area.

If you succeed, I am pretty certain that you will end up with oil,
and not starch. That's not catastrophic, as it would release lowland
areas for starch crops. Or, with recent, current and proposed
governments, more building.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Don't they use ground sweet chestnuts on madeira?, I am sure I have seen
folk trying to flog them in the Nuns valley
--
Charlie Pridham, Gardening in Cornwall
www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of national collections of Clematis viticella cultivars and
Lapageria rosea

In article ,
Charlie Pridham wrote:

Don't they use ground sweet chestnuts on madeira?, I am sure I have seen
folk trying to flog them in the Nuns valley

Dunno, but sweet chestnut flour is used in several places.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.