I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Thinking I might find something different I went and looked at Bolam
Lake (Northumberland) and indeed I found something different; the
seeds were the smallest I have ever seen. Why should this be? Where
can I find the opposite, big seeds?

Bolam lake is inland. Might I find bigger nearer the coast? Higher?
Lower? North? South?

But here is another way of looking at it. Bolam lake is an artificial
lake, no natural streams run into it, probably a design feature to
avoid silting. Alders typically spread by the seeds floating
downstream, that means that alder seeds can only have blown in, giving
rise the trees bearing small I find now.

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

I stumbled accidentally on a circumstance which selected for small
seeds. Can anybody think of a circumstance which selects for big alder
seeds?

Michael Bell

--

In article ,
Michael Bell wrote:

I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Yes. As people have commented before, good luck, because you will
need it!

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

Birch is related, and they are distributed by the wind for quite
a long way, and can be a real pain. Naturally, that selects against
becoming large. I don't know about alder.

On Nov 5, 10:20*am, wrote:
In article ,
Michael Bell wrote:



I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Yes. *As people have commented before, good luck, because you will
need it!

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

Birch is related, and they are distributed by the wind for quite
a long way, and can be a real pain. *Naturally, that selects against
becoming large. *I don't know about alder.

Has it ever dawned on you that over many thousand of years of
gathering anything that was edible someone during mankinds evolution
would have found Alder seed and some selection would have taken place
if it was of any food value.

In article ,
Dave Hill wrote:

I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Yes. As people have commented before, good luck, because you will
need it!

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

Birch is related, and they are distributed by the wind for quite
a long way, and can be a real pain. Naturally, that selects against
becoming large. I don't know about alder.

Has it ever dawned on you that over many thousand of years of
gathering anything that was edible someone during mankinds evolution
would have found Alder seed and some selection would have taken place
if it was of any food value.

Yes. That's irrelevant. Some plants have been chosen for agriculture
and others haven't and, in many cases it's completely unclear why.

Goosefoot is edible, both in leaf and seed, and was eaten by the
neolithic peoples as seed at least. Now, how many cultivated forms
of that do you know?

Some widely-grown plants, including hazel and walnut, are essentially
the same as the wild forms. A little selection has taken place, but
not enough to make much of a change.

And I could go on.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message
wrote:

In article
ps.com,
Dave Hill wrote:

I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Yes. As people have commented before, good luck, because you will
need it!

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

Birch is related, and they are distributed by the wind for quite
a long way, and can be a real pain. Naturally, that selects against
becoming large. I don't know about alder.

Has it ever dawned on you that over many thousand of years of
gathering anything that was edible someone during mankinds evolution
would have found Alder seed and some selection would have taken place
if it was of any food value.

Yes. That's irrelevant. Some plants have been chosen for agriculture
and others haven't and, in many cases it's completely unclear why.

Goosefoot is edible, both in leaf and seed, and was eaten by the
neolithic peoples as seed at least. Now, how many cultivated forms
of that do you know?

Some widely-grown plants, including hazel and walnut, are essentially
the same as the wild forms. A little selection has taken place, but
not enough to make much of a change.

And I could go on.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Well, I toyed with the idea of sedges. They have heads very like
grasses. Maize is almost unique among the grasses in having heads at
intervals up the stem, which makes it possible to have a plant which
produces a lot, but isn't bent over by all that weight at the top.
That comes naturally with sedges. Just to make the "right" choice is
huge task. I have chosen on a "hunch". I am impressed by the tree's
vigour.

Michael Bell


--

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:02:46 GMT, Michael Bell
wrote:

I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Thinking I might find something different I went and looked at Bolam
Lake (Northumberland) and indeed I found something different; the
seeds were the smallest I have ever seen. Why should this be? Where
can I find the opposite, big seeds?

Bolam lake is inland. Might I find bigger nearer the coast? Higher?
Lower? North? South?

But here is another way of looking at it. Bolam lake is an artificial
lake, no natural streams run into it, probably a design feature to
avoid silting. Alders typically spread by the seeds floating
downstream, that means that alder seeds can only have blown in, giving
rise the trees bearing small I find now.

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

I stumbled accidentally on a circumstance which selected for small
seeds. Can anybody think of a circumstance which selects for big alder
seeds?

Not that it answers your question, but, given that the lake is
artificial and (strangely) not fed by streams, perhaps the alders are
a human-introduced population, and a small-seeded clone or variety was
chosen by chance because it was the one available -- or, indeed,
chosen for some other character entirely.

--
Mike.

In message
Mike Lyle wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:02:46 GMT, Michael Bell
wrote:

I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Thinking I might find something different I went and looked at Bolam
Lake (Northumberland) and indeed I found something different; the
seeds were the smallest I have ever seen. Why should this be? Where
can I find the opposite, big seeds?

Bolam lake is inland. Might I find bigger nearer the coast? Higher?
Lower? North? South?

But here is another way of looking at it. Bolam lake is an artificial
lake, no natural streams run into it, probably a design feature to
avoid silting. Alders typically spread by the seeds floating
downstream, that means that alder seeds can only have blown in, giving
rise the trees bearing small I find now.

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

I stumbled accidentally on a circumstance which selected for small
seeds. Can anybody think of a circumstance which selects for big alder
seeds?

Not that it answers your question, but, given that the lake is
artificial and (strangely) not fed by streams, perhaps the alders are
a human-introduced population, and a small-seeded clone or variety was
chosen by chance because it was the one available -- or, indeed,
chosen for some other character entirely.

Maybe. I doubt if records have been kept or indeed were ever made. But
a new thought has crossed my mind. I looked at the alders around. on
the various burns they were rather different from each other. Alders
obviously spread down the burns, so I went to the mouth of the
Wansbeck where there is scrubby woodland. I found a large variety of
alders, their ancestors obviously swept down the Wansbeck. I hope to
find interesting hybrids tomorrow.

Michael Bell

--

On Nov 5, 10:02*am, Michael Bell wrote:
I am trying to develop alder as a grain crop. One of the things I want
is bigger seeds.

Thinking I might find something different I went and looked at Bolam
Lake (Northumberland) and indeed I found something different; the
seeds were the smallest I have ever seen. Why should this be? Where
can I find the opposite, big seeds?

Bolam lake is inland. Might I find bigger nearer the coast? Higher?
Lower? North? South?

But here is another way of looking at it. Bolam lake is an artificial
lake, no natural streams run into it, probably a design feature to
avoid silting. Alders typically spread by the seeds floating
downstream, that means that alder seeds can only have blown in, giving
rise the trees bearing small I find now.

So, how do tree seeds normally spread? In the case of hazel, oak, etc,
obviously birds and squirrels, and they are the right size to be
attractive to these creatures. Alder seeds seem too small.

I stumbled accidentally on a circumstance which selected for small
seeds. Can anybody think of a circumstance which selects for big alder
seeds?

Michael Bell

--


All our trees have local sub-varieties which if left alone can vary
over a few miles. There was an influx of Polish whips a few years
back I remember that were entirely unsuited to our climate.

But didn't it take a very long time to get from wild ancestral maize to the modern cultivated plant? Isn't it so changed from the wild ancestor that we had considerable difficulty identifying it.

I read recently that modern plant breeders using the so-called traditional method of plant breeding deliberately irradiate the plant/seed (I forget at which stage) to get random genetic mutations, which I suppose might help speed things up a bit. Though its a bit easier with small annual plants like grass, you can grow a field of it and have thousands and thousands to select from in just a year. With a tree, it takes a lot longer and they take up a lot more space.

"echinosum" wrote in message
...

Michael Bell;941151 Wrote:
Maize is almost unique among the grasses in having heads at
intervals up the stem, which makes it possible to have a plant which
produces a lot, but isn't bent over by all that weight at the top.
That comes naturally with sedges. Just to make the "right" choice is
huge task. I have chosen on a "hunch". I am impressed by the tree's
vigour.
But didn't it take a very long time to get from wild ancestral maize to
the modern cultivated plant? Isn't it so changed from the wild ancestor
that we had considerable difficulty identifying it.

I read recently that modern plant breeders using the so-called
traditional method of plant breeding deliberately irradiate the
plant/seed (I forget at which stage) to get random genetic mutations,
which I suppose might help speed things up a bit.

I think that you will find that this is no longer practised. It was tried
with exhibition chrysanthemums in the 1960's and the results were
disasterous. Cuttings were irradiated and many mutations (sports) were
produced. These were found to be quite unstable and 'broke down' genetically
after a couple of years. Unfortunately the mutations produced were used in
conventional breeding programmes and the resultant seedlings were found to
carry the genetical instability. For some 20 -30 years the breeding of
reliable exhibition chrysanths was put on the 'back foot' by this
proceedure.

Phil
Northern Highlands of Scotland

Might not have worked for chrysanthemums/cuttings, but in some other cases it works well. According to this, there are around 1,800 crop varieties in commercial production which have been bred from nuclear mutagenic methods. New Agriculturist: Focus on . . . Mutation techniques for plant breeding

Plenty of other hits indicate that the method is in active use.

In message
echinosum wrote:


Michael Bell;941151 Wrote:
Maize is almost unique among the grasses in having heads at
intervals up the stem, which makes it possible to have a plant which
produces a lot, but isn't bent over by all that weight at the top.
That comes naturally with sedges. Just to make the "right" choice is
huge task. I have chosen on a "hunch". I am impressed by the tree's
vigour.
But didn't it take a very long time to get from wild ancestral maize to
the modern cultivated plant? Isn't it so changed from the wild ancestor
that we had considerable difficulty identifying it.

I read recently that modern plant breeders using the so-called
traditional method of plant breeding deliberately irradiate the
plant/seed (I forget at which stage) to get random genetic mutations,
which I suppose might help speed things up a bit. Though its a bit
easier with small annual plants like grass, you can grow a field of it
and have thousands and thousands to select from in just a year. With a
tree, it takes a lot longer and they take up a lot more space.


I did try X-rays, I read up the scientific papers, found out what
dosage was required and got the use of an X-ray machine such as they
use to check the welds on oil pipes. It didn't work.

I read up what "real" plant breeders do. They search for natural
variations. In two autumn's work I found enough variations to make a
very reasonable start, for example seeds as big as a small rice-grain.
These seeds look different (ie, they are not products of the same
gene), so by crossing them I should be able to get even bigger and
better seeds.

More by good luck than planning I have found a tree which in 3 years
has grown more than 3 metres and looks as if it will produce cones and
catkins next year.

I have developed a technique for growing seeds under light, and
grafting them onto "adult" trees, to produce catkins and cones next
year, so I can do a cross in 2 years, rather than the 7 years it might
take with growing a whole tree.

Michael Bell



--

In message , echinosum
writes

Phil Gurr;941365 Wrote:
"I think that you will find that this is no longer practised. It was
tried
with exhibition chrysanthemums in the 1960's and the results were
disasterous. Cuttings were irradiated and many mutations (sports) were
produced. These were found to be quite unstable and 'broke down'
genetically
after a couple of years.
Might not have worked for chrysanthemums/cuttings, but in some other
cases it works well. According to this, there are around 1,800 crop
varieties in commercial production which have been bred from nuclear
mutagenic methods. 'New Agriculturist: Focus on . . . Mutation
techniques for plant breeding' (http://tinyurl.com/d7hgvhr)

Plenty of other hits indicate that the method is in active use.

If you irradiate a plant and then collect seed any plants grown from the
seed should have a single genotype, and after selection for homozygosity
any mutant phenotype should be reasonably stable.

If you irradiate a plant and propagate sports vegetatively there's a
fair chance that the cutting will have mixed genotypes, and will be
unstable. If the wild type is more vigorous it would be hard to maintain
the sport.
--
echinosum

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Excellent progress then.

It is interesting how very few species have been developed as cereal grains. In the pre-Colombian Americas, only really maize took off, though there is also quinoa, but only of very localised value. I think I read in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel that there is a N American grass which had some use, but it has very small seeds, is rather oily, and the flavour is something of an acquired taste. Though teff, a small-seeded grass, is very important in Ethiopia. It is ultimately yield rather than seed size that is the most important, though large seeds is generally helpful. I think I read in Diamond also, that, if Middle Eastern cereals hadn't been adaptable to northern Europe, there is really only one local species of grass that might have been potentially useful.

As I mentioned to you before, tree crops were previously more used as staples - acorns, chestnuts - but they fell out of widespread use because they were out-competed by alternatives with much less labour for the same calories. Acorns are still used in Korea. There are huge quantities of acorns on the ground in woods at the moment, I had half a thought of gathering a few and trying to make my own acorn bread when out for a walk recently, though there is a lot of processing to get rid of the tannin. Chestnuts have been selected for food production, though I suspect oaks have not had any more than accidental selection. Wouldn't oaks potentially be a better cropping species than alder? How does the present yield compare as a starting point? There are also a lot of oak species you can grow, it's a very big genus, or two if you include Lithocarpus. You'd be wanting to select out tannin levels as well as increase the yield.

On Nov 9, 11:05*am, echinosum
wrote:
Michael Bell;941393 Wrote: *Maize is almost unique among the grasses in having heads at *intervals
up the stem, which makes it possible to have a plant which *produces a
lot, but isn't bent over by all that weight at the top.
...
I read up what "real" plant breeders do. They search for natural
variations. In two autumn's work I found enough variations to make a
very reasonable start, for example seeds as big as a small rice-grain.
...
I have developed a technique for growing seeds under light, and
grafting them onto "adult" trees, to produce catkins and cones next
year, so I can do a cross in 2 years, rather than the 7 years it might
take with growing a whole tree.

Excellent progress then.

It is interesting how very few species have been developed as cereal
grains. *In the pre-Colombian Americas, only really maize took off,
though there is also quinoa, but only of very localised value. *I think
I read in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel that there is a N
American grass which had some use, but it has very small seeds, is
rather oily, and the flavour is something of an acquired taste. *Though
teff, a small-seeded grass, is very important in Ethiopia. It is
ultimately yield rather than seed size that is the most important,
though large seeds is generally helpful. I think I read in Diamond
also, that, if Middle Eastern cereals hadn't been adaptable to northern
Europe, there is really only one local species of grass that might have
been potentially useful.

As I mentioned to you before, tree crops were previously more used as
staples - acorns, chestnuts - but they fell out of widespread use
because they were out-competed by alternatives with much less labour for
the same calories. Acorns are still used in Korea. *There are huge
quantities of acorns on the ground in woods at the moment, I had half a
thought of gathering a few and trying to make my own acorn bread when
out for a walk recently, though there is a lot of processing to get rid
of the tannin. Chestnuts have been selected for food production, though
I suspect oaks have not had any more than accidental selection. Wouldn't
oaks potentially be a better cropping species than alder? *How does the
present yield compare as a starting point? *There are also a lot of oak
species you can grow, it's a very big genus, or two if you include
Lithocarpus. *You'd be wanting to select out tannin levels as well as
increase the yield.

--
echinosum

I think that acorns are best processed through pigs and then consumed
as pork or bacon.