Capsiacin made with vinegar

Capsiacin is a pure crystaline extract taken from plants in the capsicum family--otherwise known as peppers. Part of the nightshade family (Solanaceae) there are a number of different kinds of peppers but all have some level of capsiacin. It's this chemical that gives peppers their heat and unique flavor.

Capsiacin has been shown to be a potent painkiller, both taken internally and rubbed in topically. Recently it has also been used (on an experimental basis) for painkilling after surgery. The numbness continues for up to two weeks and the capsiacin also aids in healing.

This is definitely something I want in my emergency first aid kit.

I found a post on the forums at Gardenweb about creating pure capsiacin. To get the crystals would take more time and effort than I want to expend, so I'm working on extracting the capsiacin gel or oil.

The information I found all indicates to use 190 proof alcohol, which is dangerous, flammable, and expensive. Since many herbal mixtures will work with vinegar when alcohol is called for (and I have vinegar sitting around the house) I decided to use vinegar.

I didn't use the hottest peppers. I had the seeds, so I grew an heirloom habanero pepper this year. I pulled off the fruit, dried it thoroughly, crushed it small and poured vinegar over it.

I ran the mash through twice, and ended up with this. This is placed on top of a candle warmer so you can see the color.

Almost a full quart of liquid. This is after several filterings--one through paper napkins, one through fabric, then I let it settle and poured off the clear liquid from the top. I started with about a quart and a half. There was that much gunk mixed in with the liquid.

11/14/2014

This next picture is after three or four days of evaporation. Since it's cold outside and I'm not working with toxic chemicals I have it in a crock pot with water up to the evaporation line.

There is some settling even now. As the liquid evaporates I am seeing granules separating out at the bottom of the bottle. I'm not sure what they are yet--they may be capsiacin granules, or they may be leftovers from the filtering process that are starting to coagulate.

11/17/2014

When it started to get thick I poured it in a pint jar. This stuff has a life of its own. There's about a half inch of black goo at the bottom of the jar. No light gets through, it's like tar. It crawls up the glass and clings.

That edge you see isn't the level of the goo, it's the stains on the glass. I used a toothpick and touched it to my tongue, and my tongue is still burning.

I think this experiment has been a qualified success. I found a smaller jar to put the stuff in, a glass jar with a glass lid. It's going in my emergency kit with a bottle of olive oil and a handful of latex gloves. :)

Jerusalem Artichoke

Helianthus Tuberosus

I am cooking with Jerusalem artichoke for the first time. One of my family members has high cholesterol and was told he shouldn't eat potatoes. Jerusalem artichoke is a possible substitute, since potatoes form a major part of our diet.

The Jerusalem artichoke is not an artichoke, nor does it have any connection to Jerusalem. It's actually a variety of sunflower (which makes me wonder about the roots of the sunflowers growing in our yard). Since it has an invasive habit, I planted it in a container. That's probably why I didn't get as large a crop as I expected. The information I found indicated that the tubers could be harvested throughout the season, but each time I dug down around the plant I found (at best) a few rhizomes approximately the thickness of my smallest finger. When I dug it up this morning, all the tubers were directly under the main plant. We got a couple of pounds of small tubers, most of them between an inch and an inch and a half in diameter. Again, I think that was because it was in a small, isolated space and couldn't spread out.

In herbalism, Jerusalem artichokes are used as a supplementary pre-biotic, helping to balance the bacteria levels in the intestines. Instead of traditional starches, they have a starch called inulin (not to be confused with insulin) which doesn't break down readily and is not passed through into the bloodstream. They have very little effect on blood sugar, unlike traditional potatoes, and can be used to partially regulate blood sugar levels in diabetics.

According to hearsay, they can be used in anything that requires potatoes. I found that they slice easily, in perfect thin slices, where potatoes would tend to break or shear. One source said they can be used raw (rather like water chestnuts) in salads. Whether or not they should be peeled is a matter of choice, but their skins are thin and barely visible. The tubers are wrinkled and bubbled, making removal of the skins into more of a chore than I'm willing to take on.

I made hash-browns with them as a test. They have a nutty, sweet taste and a texture similar to potatoes but slightly more crunchy. They also stuck to my teeth like glue and I spent the next half hour prying them loose.

I got ambivalent reactions from family members. The taste would certainly take some getting used to. Not sure yet whether they would be worthwhile as a crop in the future. I'm guessing not, but I'll leave it open for discussion.

GMO's (Part 3--Environment)

One of the larger documented problems with GMO's (Genetically Modified foods) is pollen drift. Time after time, conventional crops have been found to be contaminated with patented gene complexes. A number of times to my knowledge, the farmers in question have been slapped with lawsuits because they didn't "rent" the rights to grow the genetically modified versions, even though they had no idea that what they were growing was a patented version.

Time after time, it has been proven that the genetically modified plants happened because of pollen drift--the pollen from genetically modified fields drifting over to a traditional crop. If this happens in an area where seed crops are being planted, the seeds will include the patented gene modifications. If the farmer keeps part of his crop to replant (which was traditional in the early 20th century) then he's keeping genetically modified seeds.

A number of times, a gene modification has been traced back to a farmer who had no idea he was planting something he shouldn't--and the gene modifications in question were never cleared by the FDA. The seed stocks were supposed to be destroyed. And yet, somehow the genes ended up being in some farmer's crop in the middle of nowhere.

Coincidence? Genetic drift?

So let's take this a step further. Many common food crops have wild relatives. Like the beefalo (a buffalo/beef mix), even if the genetic material doesn't result in a true cross the genes are still there.

When you look at any wild environment, it's built on an extremely delicate balance. Let once piece of that environment disappear, the whole thing might collapse.

So let's set up a scenario. A wheat field planted with a genetically modified variety has a prevailing wind toward a wild area with various native grasses closely related to wheat. The wheat includes a terminator gene which doesn't allow for viable seeds. This is so that the seed provider doesn't need to worry about seed "piracy," or the farmer keeping seed without permission.

The wheat blooms and the pollen blows toward the grasslands. It pollinates several close relatives of the wheat. Because of the differences the genes are not fully integrated--the grass is visibly the same as before.

But now it carries the terminator gene. A few generations down the road (plant generations) the terminator gene activates and all the grass dies. The animals and birds that usually eat the seeds have nothing to eat and either leave or die. The animals that usually eat those animals also leave or die. The process of grass mutation continues until all the grass is dead. Meanwhile, the gene complexes have migrated even further and are now working on a wetland preserve about half a mile away.

The toxins built into the altered wheat have also migrated to the wild grass. The insects the toxins are designed to defend against have gained a level of immunity, increasing risk to the traditional crops in the area.

Five or ten or twenty years down the road, people are scratching their heads and demanding to know who should be held responsible. The FDA that approved the strains? The companies that made and marketed the gene complexes? The farmers? The EPA? Everyone who made the decision is now safely retired or dead.

A far-fetched scenario, perhaps, but definitely possible. So do we allow the risk for a possible immediate gain? Or do we remove the risk and never know if it would have happened?

Personally I'd prefer the latter.

Part 4

GMO's (Part 2--health and safety)

The main argument against GMO's (genetically modified organisms) is that they haven't been proven safe. Those who sell them argue that they haven't been proven unsafe either. Which is true, in a sense. All of the studies done (as far as I know) have been done by the companies selling GMO products, with the express intent of proving that they're safe.

Just as the tobacco companies did a few generations ago. It's perfectly safe, look at all the data we have showing that it doesn't affect anyone's health...then a few generations down the road, here we are. Same with nuclear testing.

The arguments for or against safety and health effects must be addressed from a different perspective at this point, because GMO's haven't been around long enough to study any possible long term problems.

So let's take a common sense approach.

One of the main crops that has been heavily engineered is corn. It has been engineered to have a high concentration of a particular protein, one which is toxic to various insects. Thus, the insects leave it alone or die.

If it can kill an insect, doesn't logic say it is also dangerous to humans, or any other large animal? While the amounts required for immediate toxicity may be extremely high, the continued ingestion of such substances poses a significant risk.

Other plants have been genetically engineered with various other toxins. Theoretically they grow faster, are more resistant to blights and fungi of various kinds, which means more profit for the growers. In reality that may not be entirely true.

The FDA has stated that there is no significant health difference between GMO and non-GMO corn, or wheat, or sugar beets. And yet, the insects die...

The animals that eat the corn also have high concentrations of these toxins in their eggs, meat or milk. And yet, the FDA says there is no significant health difference between animals raised on GMO feed and non-GMO feed.

Most people don't care--as evidenced by the empty grocery store shelves and full cash registers, most people will continue to buy what they want to buy regardless of possible health risks. So why bother? Why do these companies pour millions of dollars into public information campaigns and squashing those who disagree?

And the answer is, as always, money. Money and control.

Part 3

The Hum

All over the world at the end of day...

Maybe we should write a book called "People Hear a Hum" as a companion book to "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr. Seuss.

In various areas of the world, a very small percentage of people hear a humming noise. It's not tintinitis, hearing is not affected, and although some instances have been linked to noise pollution most remain without an explanation. Some have connected it to HAARP
(High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) or other experimental technologies. The connection to the aurora though...The sunspot activity has been exceptionally high this week, and the aurora borealis was visible in the northern US.

Something to think about, anyway.

Some have said they hear it mostly when meditating, or when extremely relaxed.

It's referred to, collectively, as "The Hum." Sounds like a horror movie. The Hum has been known and studied since the 1950's. People experience a continuous low drone, similar to a big truck idling nearby or a sub-woofer. The majority of people seem to hear it only in the right ear, and mainly at night. It is more likely to be found in rural or suburban areas, perhaps because big cities create enough noise to cover it. Based on the reports I found it's seldom heard in the tropics or sub-tropics, but only closer to the poles.

I haven't heard the hum (there are way too many "h's" in this post) until the last week. It's actually quite interesting. It's only in my right ear. I hear it more toward the east end of the house, but the difference is negligible. I hear it day or night, but it's not loud enough to be irritating. Turning off various appliances makes no difference. Plugging or covering my ear makes no difference, so obviously it's not a "sound" as such.

It seems to have a frequency of about 5 to 10 beats per second, fast enough that if I don't pay attention it's just a drone. Based on the way it behaves I'm guessing that it's direct stimulation of the auditory nerves, perhaps from the intense solar storms this week.

I've always been able to hear things I shouldn't, such as televisions or computers going on, radios in neighbors houses, and hints of phone conversations. It's nice (in a weird way) to know that there's an explanation for some of this.


Links:
The Hum

"The "hearing" of electromagnetic waves is an established fact. It appears that this takes place by direct stimulation of the nervous system, perhaps in the brain, thus bypassing the ear and much of the associated hearing system. It is a possible, perhaps the most probable, explanation of the reports of hearing meteors and auroras."

GMO (Part 1)

GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms, are a trigger topic for many people. Some feel strongly that GMO foods are the wave of the future. Others feel they're a health hazard. The companies that make them and own the gene complexes are naturally supporting their product with studies and legislation. The other side supports their own opinions with studies. Not legislation so much there because they don't have the money the corporations have.

It's a David and Goliath battle. The corporations say it hasn't been proven a hazard therefore they can do what they like. The other side says it hasn't been proven safe so take it off the market.

The corporations insist the government doesn't force them to label anything, so they don't have to. The other side says they have the right to know what's in their food.

Throughout most of the world, GMO's have been banned. That doesn't stop them from growing GMO crops for importation into the US. The argument is that the GMO foods are easier to grow, more disease and insect resistant, use less water and less fertilizer. These things haven't been satisfactorily proven (in fact, GMO crops seem to use more insecticide and more fertilizer) but the corporations responsible continue to make the claims in big loud voices that try to overwhelm any kind of dissent.

Or lawsuits if the voices don't work.

Currently there is a lawsuit against the state of Vermont. Vermont passed a law requiring labeling of GMO foods--those who would be required to comply are fighting back, declaring the law "unconstitutional." They're calling it restraint of trade.

There are hundreds of aspects to this problem, but it primarily comes down to rights--whose rights take precedence, the citizens, or the corporations?

Yes, technically the corporations have the "right" to do whatever they want within the framework built by government (which is another topic, but I'll leave it alone right now). But the rights of the people MUST take precedence. It is the people who the government is sworn to protect. NOT the businesses. And while business is necessary to the economy and the safety and health of the people, they do not have the right to over-ride the desires of the people for their profit.

If the people want GMO labeling, no business should be able to countermand that.

Part 2

Isolation techniques

I walked into a nursery a few blocks from my home and talked to the lady who orders the seeds. She said that heirloom plants were a fad and would fade out in a few years.

I said "Not for me."

There are a number of reasons that people buy heirloom seeds and plants. They are generally a bit more expensive, but they are GMO free (so far), have more variety, and you can save seeds with the assurance that you'll get the same thing next year.

Or...not quite.

If you plant two heirloom varieties of squash close together you might get a hybrid the next year. A pumpsquash maybe, or a waterlope. :) Just kidding.

While tomatoes and peppers, peas and beans, are generally not pollinated by insects (they're self-fertile and most blossoms pollinate themselves) there is still a possibility of a mixture.

There are a number of ways to make sure you get the same variety, mostly determined by the way the particular plant is pollinated.

The simplest is distance. Do not plant wheat, for example, within half a mile of any other strain of wheat. They will mix. Corn is also wind pollinated but the pollen is heavier--plant different varieties of corn about fifty feet apart.

The second option, which relies on the experience of the gardener, is to plant different varieties at different times. This might be as simple as planting each variety in an alternate year, or it might mean planting them a month or two apart. It depends on how long the flowering season is for each variety and how long it takes the seeds to mature. This won't work for some types of plants.

The third, and the one I prefer for most things, is isolation. From a seed bag (scraps of gauze with yarn woven around the outside to make a drawstring bag) to a tent over an entire plant, isolation makes sure that only you can get to the blossoms to pollinate them. Done with a paintbrush, a q-tip, or some other similar item, isolation is the only way to completely verify that you're getting the pollination you want.

It's a learning curve. If you accidentally end up with something unintended, try again next year. That's part of why I always plant only a small portion of the seeds in any one year. I always have something left over from the last batch so I can start over if necessary.