This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: milk feeding

Well, I for one hope you try this, Vanessa, and good on ya! I'd been
wanting to ask the same question about beer feeding with a wick, I too had
heard that it made big pumpkins. I think when you do your trial it should
be 1/3 the patch milk, 1/3 water only and 1/3 nothing, i.e. no slits in the
vines at all. I'd try it myself, but our season is just ending as yours
begins.  Will you also feed them all fertilizer and water them the same?
Never mind the science purists or the pumpkin police, innovation and
experimentation is where is at. Please keep me, antway, posted about your
great pumpkin experiment!

Denise McCann Beck
USDA Zone 7
Sunset Western 4
Coastal Bristish Columbia

----------
> From: Vanessa Marsden <vmarsden@postoffice.utas.edu.au>
> To: pumpkins@athenet.net
> Subject: Re: milk feeding
> Date: Friday, August 22, 1997 12:55 AM
> 
> >> Date:          Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:05:30 +1100
> >> To:            <pumpkins@athenet.net>
> >> From:          vmarsden@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Vanessa Marsden)
> >> Subject:       Re: milk feeding
> >
> >> > Cutting a vine open and trying to put milk in, is like slashing your
> >> >wrist and putting it in a bowl of milk >and thinking the milk will
enter
> >> >your body.
> >>
> >> No, it's like not taking enough nutrients in through your
gastrointestinal
> >> system- and being put on an intravenous drip. With the bonus that
plants
> >> don't have such fussy immune systems, so the job can be done in your
back
> >> garden.
> >
> >The question I would raise is would the wound tend to heal itself so
> >to speak which could prevent uptake of the fluid.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> So if you introduce a concentrated solution (you have
> >> not yet referred to my suggestion of a sucrose solution instead of
milk) to
> >> a wounded xylem or phloem vessel (providing the right initial
precautions
> >> are made) the pull from the leaves on the xylal water will suck water
and
> >> ions in the wound. And the sucrose, if the concentration is right, can
> >> enter the plant by diffusion.
> >
> >I am by no means a expert but I thought that the plant takes up basic
> >nutrients which are used by the plant to create the "goodies" the
> >plant lives on. I would guess that a plant can create sugars but does
> >not have the ability to consume them in the way an animal does. In
> >other words the plant can process nitrogen but it can't process
> >sugar. If the idea of feeding a plant is to feed the photosynthisis
> >cells then it would seem that the sugar would have to get into the
> >"vein" that is leading from the photosynthisis cells to the fruit.
> ><snip>
> >> As I said, I began sucrose feeding last year with good results until I
was
> >> struck by rabbits. I'll try a rabbit proof version again this year-
and
> >> report the results. Meanwhile, why not keep an open mind about such
things?
> >
> >If you had many identical plants and half of them were "milk fed" and
> >half of them were not then you would have some useful scientific data.
> >Without a control group the results are inconclusive.
> >
> >> Just because Howard Dill doesn't use it doesn't mean it wouldn't work.
> >
> >Just because someone else does use it doesn't mean it does work.
> >
> >> Remember- the electric light bulb was supposed to be a fad which
wouldn't
> >> last ten years.
> >
> >Remember blood letting used to be a cure for lots of things.
> >Scientific testing has proved it worthless. One thing I am sure of is
> >that as soon as you grow a milk fed 1500 pounder you will have lots
> >of believers.
> >
> >
> >Ken
> 
> Three responses to this.
> 
> Firstly, scientific testing never proves anything worthless. (Only
> incorrect interpretation does) The truth about science is there are no
> facts. Science can ONLY prove that something is likely to be worthwhile.
> 
> Secondly,
> 
> My control group- nine fruit bearing siblings of the plant in question.
> Also fruit on other vines of the plant in question. Larger and smaller.
> None showed growth rates like the sucrose fed pumpkin. For a stage 1
trial,
> that's quite a positive result. This year I can conduct stage two. Next
> year stage 3, with a large population of all types of squash. I will slit
> half and feed them a sucrose solution. I will slit the other half and
feed
> a water placebo. Of course, the entire trial will be double blind, so
> neither I nor the pumpkins will know what they are getting. I am
currently
> preparing a submission to sugar companies for funding, and of course have
> submitted an experimental outline to the neighbourrhood ethics comittee.
> The results will be published ina suitable journal. The time required for
> the project is 1.75 people per week. Of course I am an equal opportunity
> employer. Would you accept any results then?
> 
> Thirdly
> 
> the attitudes shown by what I hope to be the vocal minority of this group
> are quite disheartening.Hope your pumpkins go well in the future, with or
> without human intervention, and don't explode.
> 
> Cheerio. (I'm out)
> 
> vanessa.
> 
> 
>   _-|\
>  /    \      Vanessa S. Marsden
>  \/--_/
>      \*<-----Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index