Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 29-09-2013, 05:02 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2013
Posts: 767
Default looks to be a great year for mushrooms

In article ,
Malcolm wrote:

In article , Tom Gardner
writes

I asked if you could post a URL for the "rules" for identifying
edible and non-edible fungi, but you appear to have snipped it.
I'm sure such a URL would be welcomed by many here.


I'd be surprised if anyone knowledgeable would dare
publish such a list.

The problem is that all of the old wives tales fail
in some important cases. More modern rules are either
overly cautious, ambiguous, have the same limitation,
or all three.

There really is no substitute to knowing what's necessary
to differentiate species, then rigorously checking /all/
the characteristics against multiple references.

Absolutely, and this is what I have always done, using the taxonomic
keys that exist in all good books on fungi identification. When Nick
mentioned "rules" and then "secondary rules", my interest was naturally
aroused, as this suggested additional information new to me, so I asked
him about them. He has just chosen to throw my question back in my face.


Yes, as you so richly deserved for such egregious trolling. I had
already said that I could remember only some of them - and, as Tom
Gardner says, the simple rules are overly cautious. But I am NOT
going to post any information that I am not certain of on this
matter based on 40 year old memories, no matter how much you troll.

I did NOT post that there were rules for identifying poisonous
from edible fungi, but that there were simple rules that could
avoid the most lethal specimens, and (in some cases, specifically
boleti) some secondary rules to avoid the worst of the rest. This
is at least the fifth time you have misrepresented what I have
posted in order to start your trolling.

In this particular case, you first have to positively identify
the fungus as a boletus. The rules for doing that are definitely
in any good book on British fungi. The secondary ones are to
avoid any that EITHER have red gills OR stain (especially blue).

That rule avoids B. satanas and several other not-edible boleti,
though it probably avoids some edible ones, too. I did NOT claim
that the rules I was referring to would protect you from getting
ill, merely that you could avoid killing yourself or becoming
very ill. The rules I was referring to are solely to enable the
relatively inexperienced to become more experienced.

There are similar rules for 'field mushrooms', trumpet ones,
bracket fungi and so on. In all cases, they will ensure that
you can avoid the most lethal fungi that are easy to mistake for
the edible ones you are looking for. I know of no good rules
for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits :-(

Now go back under your bridge.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

  #17   Report Post  
Old 29-09-2013, 05:29 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 198
Default looks to be a great year for mushrooms

On 29/09/13 17:02, Nick Maclaren wrote:
... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-(


.... unless you eat them raw


  #18   Report Post  
Old 29-09-2013, 06:15 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2013
Posts: 767
Default looks to be a great year for mushrooms

In article ,
Tom Gardner wrote:

... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-(


... unless you eat them raw


I didn't know that! I live and learn.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #19   Report Post  
Old 29-09-2013, 08:30 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 198
Default looks to be a great year for mushrooms

On 29/09/13 18:15, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Tom Gardner wrote:

... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-(


... unless you eat them raw


I didn't know that! I live and learn.


Most references with any culinary pretensions say "do
not eat raw". Certainly the last time I saw them for
sale in Waitrose(!) a couple of decades ago they had
an /extra/ sticky label to that effect.

Michael Jordan in "A Guide to Mushrooms" (one of the
more entertaining references w.r.t. the effects of
poisoning) claims it contains a haemolytic agent, but
you would have to eat a "large quantity" for it to
have any effect, and that it is inactivated on heating.



  #20   Report Post  
Old 29-09-2013, 08:43 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2013
Posts: 767
Default looks to be a great year for mushrooms

In article ,
Tom Gardner wrote:

... for some of the best of the edible fungi, such as blewits:-(

... unless you eat them raw


I didn't know that! I live and learn.


Most references with any culinary pretensions say "do
not eat raw". Certainly the last time I saw them for
sale in Waitrose(!) a couple of decades ago they had
an /extra/ sticky label to that effect.

Michael Jordan in "A Guide to Mushrooms" (one of the
more entertaining references w.r.t. the effects of
poisoning) claims it contains a haemolytic agent, but
you would have to eat a "large quantity" for it to
have any effect, and that it is inactivated on heating.


My books are mostly of the era when it was unthinkable to eat even
Psalliota, sorry, Agaricus bisporus raw :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


  #21   Report Post  
Old 29-09-2013, 10:14 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 868
Default looks to be a great year for mushrooms

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:02:20 +0100, Nick Maclaren wrote:

In this particular case, you first have to positively identify the
fungus as a boletus. The rules for doing that are definitely in any
good book on British fungi. The secondary ones are to avoid any that
EITHER have red gills OR stain (especially blue).


You've ruled out my entire harvest of the day! Lots of Boletus
erythropus, and some good Boletus badius (Bai). The Red Foot is, to my
taste, as good or better than the Cepe; what's more the bugs don't like
it so even older ones are usually sound. The blue turns black in the
early part of cooking but then goes an appetising yellow as the moisture
boils out. It ends with a crunchy texture and nutty taste. It has red
tubes (not gills as you mis-typed) and flashes quite blue -- as does the
bolet bai -- but nothing like the Satan, which also has a nasty whitish
creme cap. We did find some Boletus calopus, not common but does turn
up, which has a similar cap to the Satan but is of course not edible
anyway (and doesn't have red tubes).

I know a fairly crazy guy who actually cooked and ate the Satan, (yes,
intentionally), he reported getting pretty sick but "it wasn't that
bad." Not an experiment I'd like to carry out!



--
Gardening in Lower Normandy
  #22   Report Post  
Old 29-09-2013, 11:15 PM posted to uk.rec.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2013
Posts: 767
Default looks to be a great year for mushrooms

In article ,
Emery Davis wrote:

In this particular case, you first have to positively identify the
fungus as a boletus. The rules for doing that are definitely in any
good book on British fungi. The secondary ones are to avoid any that
EITHER have red gills OR stain (especially blue).


You've ruled out my entire harvest of the day! Lots of Boletus
erythropus, and some good Boletus badius (Bai). The Red Foot is, to my
taste, as good or better than the Cepe; what's more the bugs don't like
it so even older ones are usually sound. The blue turns black in the
early part of cooking but then goes an appetising yellow as the moisture
boils out. It ends with a crunchy texture and nutty taste. It has red
tubes (not gills as you mis-typed) and flashes quite blue -- as does the
bolet bai -- but nothing like the Satan, which also has a nasty whitish
creme cap. We did find some Boletus calopus, not common but does turn
up, which has a similar cap to the Satan but is of course not edible
anyway (and doesn't have red tubes).


Grin :-) As Tom Gardner said, the simple rules are over-restrictive.
The point is that they are designed to keep the inexperienced
person safe (nothing is idiot-proof).

I know a fairly crazy guy who actually cooked and ate the Satan, (yes,
intentionally), he reported getting pretty sick but "it wasn't that
bad." Not an experiment I'd like to carry out!


That figures. I once ate B. felleus by accident (I put it in the
wrong pile), and had mild diarrhoea - two others who ate it had
no ill effects.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
looks much better this year for CA water songbird[_2_] Edible Gardening 14 29-10-2016 05:15 AM
A fast climber that looks good all year round? Mentalguy2k8[_2_] United Kingdom 13 05-05-2011 08:48 PM
Valley Forge Elm looks great stonej Gardening 2 19-05-2005 01:29 PM
Dogwoods Looks Ugly This Year germ Gardening 3 11-05-2003 03:08 PM
Some great NEW products... and a great Bonus ordering opportunity! Earl Buchan Gardening 0 21-03-2003 06:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017