|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
shroom-o-shroom
Stranger
Registered: 04/24/17
Posts: 3
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) 2
#24268937 - 04/24/17 05:24 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Hi all,
Thanks for all the helpful info so far. This is my first grow and it's testament to this forum's quality and depth that I'm only having to post now, ten days into fruiting...
I have done lots searching here and elsewhere and believe that what I have may be the Rosecomb mutation.. but if so then this seems to be a very severe case!
I am growing B+ using a spore vial from magic-mushrooms-shop.com.
About half the pins on my PF tek cakes start growing with caps open (gills showing), as if wearing sombreros or lady hats, and have continued to mature from there. They start like this:

Actually the resulting fruits are rather beautiful, here is a more-or-less mature one (next to an otherwise apparently very healthy one)

Not realising that chemicals could be such a big problem I did use antibacterial wipes and 70% ISO alcohol solution at various points throughout, from inoculation through to cleaning the chamber before they went in, so it is possible one of those contained rosecomb-causing chemicals.
My questions are:
1) Is this rosecomb, or something else?
2) If so, I believe they are edible, correct?
3) Given that they don't have veils that will open, how will I know when is the right time to pick them?
4) unrelated - does the other mushroom pictured above look healthy to you? It is short, fat, fuzzy and bumpy, and I noticed it doesn't seem to be forming a veil, so wondering how it looks to experienced eyes.
Thanks in advance!
W
Edited by shroom-o-shroom (04/24/17 05:52 PM)
|
shroom-o-shroom
Stranger
Registered: 04/24/17
Posts: 3
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: shroom-o-shroom]
#24268981 - 04/24/17 05:44 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
More pics re: the above...
Here's another tiny pin that started growing with its cap already open. Is that Rosecomb or something else? The mutants above all started this way, so time will tell I suppose:

Another pic of a semi grown mutant...:

Another pic of the big ones from my first post, a few hours later:

In case these help diagnose.
I really hope this isn't something serious..
Edited by shroom-o-shroom (04/24/17 05:48 PM)
|
Hunter S Hoffman
Psychonautic Warrior

Registered: 04/04/17
Posts: 28
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: shroom-o-shroom]
#24269011 - 04/24/17 05:56 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Those are some pretty far out shroomies dude. I'm no expert but they just look like mutants to me, and I always was told they are perfectly fine to eat (although I have never gotten any).
Anyway congrats on a relatively successful grow, and I don't think you have anything to worry about.
|
mushpunx
Fungus Punk


Registered: 04/20/14
Posts: 13,394
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: Hunter S Hoffman]
#24269058 - 04/24/17 06:16 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Just a mutant
--------------------

Amateur Mycologists United
AMU Q&A
|
shroom-o-shroom
Stranger
Registered: 04/24/17
Posts: 3
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: mushpunx]
#24269863 - 04/25/17 01:51 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
What causes a mutant?
It's happening across 5 different cakes, and the pictures seem to match others that people called Rosecomb so I did feel it's not a random isolated thing.
|
Hunter S Hoffman
Psychonautic Warrior


Registered: 04/04/17
Posts: 28
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: shroom-o-shroom]
#24272378 - 04/26/17 06:58 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Many people say using Lysol can damage the genetics of mycelium and consequently fruits. I don't know from experience though, I've only used 91% Iso, and have yet to encounter a mutant. I also have used hand sanitizer in a pinch.
But some people also believe Lysol has no effect of mushies, but when I read posts like this usually they used Lysol.
|
Phibonacci
Stranger in a strange land

Registered: 05/25/16
Posts: 50
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: Hunter S Hoffman]
#24273453 - 04/26/17 02:31 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Lysol or petrochemicals used?
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,915
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: Phibonacci]
#24273559 - 04/26/17 03:07 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Rosecomb is usually too wet of a casing or bacteria in my experience those cause lots of rosecomb mutants
|
mushpunx
Fungus Punk


Registered: 04/20/14
Posts: 13,394
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: Hunter S Hoffman]
#24273579 - 04/26/17 03:15 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Hunter S Hoffman said: Many people say using Lysol can damage the genetics of mycelium and consequently fruits. I don't know from experience though, I've only used 91% Iso, and have yet to encounter a mutant. I also have used hand sanitizer in a pinch.
But some people also believe Lysol has no effect of mushies, but when I read posts like this usually they used Lysol.
You should switch to 70%, its actually better at sanitizing than 90%
--------------------

Amateur Mycologists United
AMU Q&A
|
bodhisatta 
Smurf real estate agent


Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,915
Loc: Milky way
|
Re: Is this Rosecomb mutation? (first grow, strange mushrooms!) [Re: mushpunx] 1
#24273584 - 04/26/17 03:17 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushpunx said:
Quote:
Hunter S Hoffman said: Many people say using Lysol can damage the genetics of mycelium and consequently fruits. I don't know from experience though, I've only used 91% Iso, and have yet to encounter a mutant. I also have used hand sanitizer in a pinch.
But some people also believe Lysol has no effect of mushies, but when I read posts like this usually they used Lysol.
You should switch to 70%, its actually better at sanitizing than 90%

Quote:
bodhisatta said: 1L of 91% turns into 1.3L of 70%
Quote:
Qjsands said:
Quote:
Mad Season said: 70/30 is considered most effective, but 50/50 works great too, much better than 99
Do you mean 99%? Why wouldn't that be as effective?
look it up, this conversation happens weekly
Quote:
bodhisatta said: For iso and ethanol
70% kills better It has the right osmotic pressure and tonicity to penetrate cells and denature their insides. It may denature surface proteins on cell walls and bacterial envelopes but not to the extent higher percentage alcohol(both iso and ethanol) will. Alcohol is able to permeate cells and then go to work on intracellular components
A secondary benefit is it evaporates slower which potentiates it's killing ability
91% doesn't have the right osmolality. It doesn't cross the cell membrane or bacterial envelope as well. It "puckers up" cells. It denatures the proteins on cell surfaces. This disables cells but doesn't necessarily kill them, they can re-able themselves later when conditions are favorable
A secondary hindrance of 91% is it evaporates faster making it even less effective than it already is.
Also you shouldn't be using it at incredible rates A bottle should last a long time. If you go through it like water your sterile technique sucks ass and you're relying on chemicals too much. Chemicals won't save your ass
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: 70% is preferred, but it has nothing to do with rate of evaporation.
Cells admit water through their cell walls via osmosis. Cell walls are particularly good at preventing the entry of toxins, so by mixing water with the alcohol, it 'tricks' the cell wall into admitting the mixture, which then kills the cell as the alcohol evaporates back out.
I'm sure one of our resident chemists can put it in more scientific terms, but that's the jest of it. RR
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: It has nothing to do with how fast the alcohol evaporates.
It has to do with pure alcohol not being admitted inside the cell walls by osmosis. If water is mixed with the alcohol, it tricks the cell wall into admitting it, therefore killing the cell. 70% has been shown to be a good mixture for sanitizing, and superior to higher concentrations. RR
Quote:
bodhisatta said: Alcohols Although several alcohols have been shown to be effective antimicrobials, ethyl alcohol (ethanol, alcohol), isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol, propan-2-ol) and n -propanol (in particular in Europe) are the most widely used (337). Alcohols exhibit rapid broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against vegetative bacteria (including mycobacteria), viruses, and fungi but are not sporicidal. They are, however, known to inhibit sporulation and spore germination (545), but this effect is reversible (513). Because of the lack of sporicidal activity, alcohols are not recommended for sterilization but are widely used for both hard-surface disinfection and skin antisepsis. Lower concentrations may also be used as preservatives and to potentiate the activity of other biocides. Many alcohol products include low levels of other biocides (in particular chlorhexidine), which remain on the skin following evaporation of the alcohol, or excipients (including emollients), which decrease the evaporation time of the alcohol and can significantly increase product efficacy (68). In general, isopropyl alcohol is considered slightly more efficacious against bacteria (95) and ethyl alcohol is more potent against viruses (259); however, this is dependent on the concentrations of both the active agent and the test microorganism. For example, isopropyl alcohol has greater lipophilic properties than ethyl alcohol and is less active against hydrophilic viruses (e.g., poliovirus) (259). Generally, the antimicrobial activity of alcohols is significantly lower at concentrations below 50% and is optimal in the 60 to 90% range.
iso is preferred to ethanol as a sanitizer because iso solubilizes fats better than ethanol does, hence being slightly more bactericidal
at 70% concentration it's hypotonic look up tonicity and osmolality to understand why this is important
Anyway ethanol and iso are interchangeable as sanitizer against non viral contaminants
You can go on if you would like I'm done here with this. You can be into facts or not. 90+ will inhibit the cell wall and not penetrate the interior as well thus not being as effective.
70% has a more effective osmotic pressure than 71-90
Evaporation is a secondary benefit
91+ % iso and ethanol are inferior sanitizer to 70 iso and ethanol
there's a reason hospitals and labs use 70% and it's not cost.
first and foremost the osmotic pressure of the 70% concentration is best the tonicity of this concentration means it will be able to denature the inside of a cell rather than surface proteins on the bacterial envelope. If a bacterial envelop is disabled the cell can come back to life later on since the inside of the cell hasn't been scrambled by the alcohol. the added benefit is that 70% doesn't evaporate as fast this potentates it's effectiveness but is not the cause for the effectiveness.
|
|