36fuckin5 said:

Try it with different isolates. Yours just happens to like 6%, that's not a general rule.

---

Mine is the only thread I've seen on this subject with pictures; all the rest just seems to point back at a few things announced as fact in a book by Oeric and Terrence McKenna which is largely considered outdated (especially in its agar section).  You can do the experiment with some of your isolates, if you want.  Let us know how it goes. 

36fuckin5 said:

Lower nutrient content is more conducive to faster growth because they myc is searching for food. Yeah it'll be more rhizo too but that doesn't matter.

van der griegen said:

I mean I tested the same isolate on 0%, 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% starch to see which would grow the fastest.  There wasn't a hell of a lot of variation, but 6% was the winner.

---

Try it with different isolates. Yours just happens to like 6%, that's not a general rule.

---

I'm also sure some prefer 2% some may like 8%. Then the general statement should be; Start somewhere between 1-8% nutes and experiment to see what works for your cultures. Rather than

36fuckin5 said:

Ok, so you don't want 3-4% nutrient content in your agar. It'd be 3% tops, I usually shoot for 2%.

---

But I guess we don't actually want people to test things for themselves

Pastywhyte said:

But I guess we don't actually want people to test things for themselves

---

36fuckin5 said:

Pastywhyte said:

But I guess we don't actually want people to test things for themselves

---

I don't wanna encourage people to waste their time when the tests have been done.

Stop looking at amateurs on forums and read some real microbiology books.

---

So...those real microbiology books do a lot of experimentation on cubensis, do they? 

Give me sources, then.

PsilocyBen17 said:

Whats the deal with FastFred's Media Cookbook?

http://www.shroomery.org/9393/FastFreds-Media-Cookbook

Is there more to it? Cuz I can't seem to find the info.

I have some agar-agar and want to try a no pour recipe.

---

36fuckin5 said:

Pastywhyte said:

But I guess we don't actually want people to test things for themselves

---

I don't wanna encourage people to waste their time when the tests have been done.

Stop looking at amateurs on forums and read some real microbiology books.

---

When is it a waste of time to try and learn something? If we never questioned "common knowledge" or "scientifically accepted knowledge" or if amateurs never tried to prove something, we would still think the world is flat Sure some things that people try are pointless. I would never advocate using urine as a nutrition source.

Besides, for me anyway, this is not a business I am running. I work 70 hrs a week to pay my bills. This is a hobby as far as I'm concerned. I like to push the boundaries of things. As for "real sources" of information, even things that were considered the gospel 20 years ago, are laughable today. You think that everything that is known regarding mycology has been discovered and the book is closed on every possible topic? Fact is that van der grigens little waste of time proved that for at least that particular strain he was working with, 2% was not nearly as effective as the 4% the 6% or the 8%. Which means that we don't know as much as we think. So if you have a person working with a culture that is not doing well on 2% your just gonna tell him to pitch it rather than suggest a different concentration? Who is wasting who's time now?

I already said this in vdg's OP on the subject but, I would like to see more experiments on this particular subject as I feel that the "officially proven conclusions" are far from the final word on this. If you care to replicate the experiment 36 and maybe post a pic I would be more interested to see your results rather than just hearing your anecdotes

van der griegen said:

So...those real microbiology books do a lot of experimentation on cubensis, do they? 

Give me sources, then.

---

36fuckin5 said:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=agar+media+saphrophytic+fungi&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C49&as_sdtp=

There's your source. You can sift through it.

---

Why?  You clearly haven't.   

If you had, you might have found this article, which would have led you to this article where they use 0.2% mea (1g/500g) for isolating basidiomycetes.  If you corrected the spelling a bit (it's "saprophytic", not "saphrophytic"), you'd find out a bit about Sabouraud's agar, which has a dextrose content of 4%.  The truth is, while 2-3% is a good range for a catch-all agar, there are a wide variety of agar recipes, each of which calls for its own concentration of nutrients.  None of them that I found were specific to agaricales, so I did my own research.  I'm sorry if it offends you that I found something other than the orthodox, but if you don't like it feel free to prove me wrong by either actually giving me a source or doing the damn experiment yourself.

anywayz,

as for the "2%,4%,6%" experiment, ya don't wanna use a pre-isolated culture for that, it'll just perform best on whichever it wants; I wanna see it done starting with a multi-spore culture;

start on 2% with a multispore, transfer the leading edge to 4% and continuing doing the same, transferring the most "aggressive" to 6% then to so on to 8%; I guess, that manner of strain isolation would eventually give you the overall best performer? but best performer on what? agar??

side-note:

I'm feeling argumentative myself...

Quote:

Registered: Aug 11 2003
Posts: 6,080
"Trusted Cultivator"

---