covertjoy said:

40 plates poured, 4 different recipes (10 of each).
Recipe 1 (bottom left)
200ml distilled water 3.0g agar 3.0g light malt extract
Recipe 2 (top left)
200ml distilled water 3.0g agar 3.0g casein hydrolysate
Recipe 3 (bottom right)
200ml distilled water 3.0g agar 3.0g light malt extract 0.1g nutritional yeast
Recipe 4 (top right)
200ml distilled water 3.0g agar 3.0g casein hydrolysate 0.1g nutritional yeast
It's an experiment. I have 2 clones, 6 various transfers and 2 germinations to do. For each inoculation I will repeat 4 times across each of the different recipes. This way I will be able to compare like for like for each of the recipes in different situations.
I poured them a little hotter than I usually do due to time constraints so there is probably a fair amount of condensation. I'll leave them in front of the flow hood until tomorrow and do the inoculations at about +20 hours.
Initial observations are that light malt extract is more orange where as the casein hydrolysate is very pale. Nutritional yeast makes the recipe cloudy. Casein hydrolysate is much nicer to work with than malt extract.
Some earlish results on these. As one might expect, mycelium is growing faster on light malt extract (LME) compared to casein hydrolysate (CH). However, it does grow on casein hydroxylate. The growth there is not thin and sparse like water agar, just slower than LME.
I have a Ps. Cubensis transfer (Leucistic JMF) that is about 3-4 times larger in diameter on LME compared to CH. With and without nutritional yeast is not making much difference in terms of speed of growth however with nutritional yeast it is noticeably more rhizomorphic.
For some Ps. Natalensis transfers the story is very much the same as the Ps. Cubensis transfers. LME about 3-4 times larger diameter compared to CH. In this case the mycelium is thicker as well as more rhizomorphic with nutritional yeast compared to without, although the diameter is actually slightly less.
I have some Ps. Cubensis tissue clones where the difference between LME and CH is much less. LME is 1.5 times the diameter of the CH at most. Same observation with the nutritional yeast, the mycelium is more rhizomorphic with it.
Interestingly I have some Ps. Cyanescens transfers that are very much the same on LME and CH, looking healthy on both. Nutritional yeast compared to no nutritional yeast is more rhizomorphic again although both are looking good.
I also have a suspected monokaryotic Ps. Natalensis transfer which has shown the biggest difference between recipes of all. The cultures on LME are 5-6 times larger than on CH. With nutritional yeast compared to without the culture is significantly thicker and fluffier, again with similar diameter.
I wonder if CH would work well for long term storage, slants and the like, where slower growth is preferred. I'll do further experiments with different mixes of LME and CH.
I have mixed feelings about the nutritional yeast. It does seem to promote rhizomorphic form but so what. On the flip side it makes the plates cloudy with particles in and affects microscopy.
covertjoy said: Just made spore suspensions for:
- Ps. Hispanica
- Ps. Cubensis (Stargazer) × Ps. Natalensis [F1]
Ps. Hispanica is from a spore print.

This is the second of two Hispanica spore prints I had. The first one I failed to get any germinations from so am having another shot at it. I dropped the spore print into 2ml of sterile distilled water in a test tube with a steel ball bearing. I shook and vortexed the tube then used a sterile pipette to transfer the suspension into another test tube.
The spore print is on card and when shaking it (less so vortexing) it decimated the card. When I was counting the spore concentration with a haemocytometer and microscope it was very difficult due to there being so much paper debris. Perhaps this will affect germination in some way. The card may contain toxic glues. Please don't use card for spore prints. The spore concentration is 1,875.0 single spores per drop (assuming 0.05ml per drop) with an additional 0.33 clusters of spores per single spore.
Inoculated 4 petridishes of different recipes each with 5 drops of the spore suspension in a crosshair formation. If I get any successful germination then I will do a serial dilution and inoculate more plates to try to isolate a monokaryotic culture.

Ps. Cubensis (Stargazer) × Ps. Natalensis [F1] used a very sparse looking swab. I pulled the end of the swab away from the wooden stick using tweezers and snipped it into 3ml of sterile distilled water in a test tube with a steel ball bearing. I shook and vortexed the tube and then used a sterile pipette to transfer the suspension into another test tube. In the final test tube there is about 2.25ml of suspension since the swab absorbed some of the liquid.
The spore solution for this one was much cleaner, I like working with swabs, and the concentration was higher than I expected. There are 5,062.5 single spores per drop (assuming 0.05ml per drop) with an additional 0.23 clusters of spores per single spore.
Inoculated 4 petridishes of different recipes each with 1 drops of the spore suspension mostly just to test it's germination and potential contamination rate. I'm planning to send the spore suspension directly to spawn for top fruiting to select an F2.
In terms of these germinations only 1 lone culture has appeared so far, of Ps. Hispanica on an LME plate. It appeared after about 1.5 days and looks very much like a mycelium culture under the microscope.
With it being a lone culture with no sign of anything else I decided to try to isolate it as a monokaryon. There were many spores around and amongst it so I waited a day for it to gain some depth and then using fine tweezers pulled some mycelium from the top of it and put it into another petridish. It was a small germination culture only perhaps 2mm in diameter and I couldn't visibly see any mycelium on the tweezers however under the microscope I confirmed that some strands of mycelium were transfered. I'll label this transferred culture as suspected monokaryotic.
I'm working towards converting my microscope to fluorescence to use Hoechst 33342 stain to count the nuclei in hyphae to prove or disprove monokaryons.
--------------------
|