Bamboo plants grow rapidly, and in installments, each pole emerging
as a shoot from the ground at the base of a bamboo plant, expanding
vertically as it grows upward, and then stopping completely once it's
reached its preprogrammed size. The whole process of growing a new pole
or culm takes only a few months. ...Even the gigantic, 6-inch-diameter
50-foot-high timber bamboos grow from ground level to full height in
a single summer.

The bamboo shoot starts out as a piece of squat, vegetative growth
at ground level (attached to the underground rhizome part of the bamboo
plant). Then bam! vertical growth begins, and like a slinky being
stretched from end to end, the shoot elongates, expands and becomes
narrower until it is a full sized bamboo cane. If you look at
the odd hollow slits in the inside of a bamboo shoot, what you
are seeing is the gaps that will one day, stretch out to form the
hollow inside sections of a bamboo pole.

Best - krnntp

Frogleg wrote:
As a gardener, I wouldn't call bamboo shoots "sprouts". No dictionary
def, but to me a "sprout" is a sprouted seed with perhaps 2 true
leaves. After that, it becomes a plant.

However, what *are* bamboo shoots? Some in cans appear to be sliced
from a rather large stalk/whatever. I'm guessing they're supposed to
be slices from the tender base of new growth.

"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
As a gardener, I wouldn't call bamboo shoots "sprouts". No dictionary
def, but to me a "sprout" is a sprouted seed with perhaps 2 true
leaves. After that, it becomes a plant.


Yeah, for me too.


However, what *are* bamboo shoots? Some in cans appear to be sliced
from a rather large stalk/whatever. I'm guessing they're supposed to
be slices from the tender base of new growth.


Yes. It's apparently called a culm. Nice pic on the midddle of this web
page (Doesn't look too appetizing in this picture, but for scientific
purposes...)

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ecoph39.htm

Peter

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
In ,
Frogleg typed:

I've heard of people using dandelion greens and I think --
EEEchhhk.

Worse, there are stores that *sell* dandelion greens! Yes,
there are.


Many do. I buy them often.


I find most 'wild' edible greens rather bitter -- don't care
much for
arugula, either, at least as a salad green. A little goes a
long way.


I like both dandelion greens and arugula in salads. I wouldn't
want a salad mde up entirely of either one, but a little is very
good. I like that bitterness, and find salads without it to be
very dull.


I agree, though I probably could eat a salad made up of only the bitter
ones.

And I love endives! Thank God for the Belgians!

Peter

No mistake... a picture really is worth a thousand words...

krnntp

Peter Dy wrote:

"Frogleg" wrote in message
...

As a gardener, I wouldn't call bamboo shoots "sprouts". No dictionary
def, but to me a "sprout" is a sprouted seed with perhaps 2 true
leaves. After that, it becomes a plant.



Yeah, for me too.



However, what *are* bamboo shoots? Some in cans appear to be sliced
from a rather large stalk/whatever. I'm guessing they're supposed to
be slices from the tender base of new growth.



Yes. It's apparently called a culm. Nice pic on the midddle of this web
page (Doesn't look too appetizing in this picture, but for scientific
purposes...)

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ecoph39.htm

Peter

In . com,
Peter Dy typed:

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
In ,
Frogleg typed:

I've heard of people using dandelion greens and I think --
EEEchhhk.

Worse, there are stores that *sell* dandelion greens! Yes,
there are.


Many do. I buy them often.


I find most 'wild' edible greens rather bitter -- don't care
much for
arugula, either, at least as a salad green. A little goes a
long way.


I like both dandelion greens and arugula in salads. I wouldn't
want a salad mde up entirely of either one, but a little is
very
good. I like that bitterness, and find salads without it to be
very dull.


I agree, though I probably could eat a salad made up of only
the
bitter ones.


Oh, I could too. My point was that it wouldn't be my preference.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake wrote:

In ,
Betty Lee typed:

Ken Blake wrote:

+ A fruit is the part of the plant that carries the seeds. From
a
+ culinary standpoint, we think of a fruit as being something
+ edible, but many fruits aren't edible, so are therefore not
+ vegetables. For example, the dandelion head that goes flying
in
+ the air on a breath of wind is a fruit, but certainly not a
+ vegetable.

Do I need a new dictionary? This one says that "vegetable" can
simply
mean a member of kingdom Plantae. So, that dandelion head
still
technically qualifies as a vegetable as far as this dictionary
goes
(which agrees what my AP Bio teacher in high school said), even
though
the common usage of "vegetable" implies that it's edible.
Technically, vegetables aren't required to be edible.

Well, the problem is that dictionaries are history
books--histories of words--and like most historians, those who
write dictionaries often disagree. I don't know what dictionary
you quoted from, but here's the definition in the Random House
Dictionary (a widely used, well respected one): "any herbaceous
plant whose fruit, seeds, roots, tubers, bulbs, stems, leaves, or
flower parts are used for food."

Each to his own, of course, but I think calling something
inedible a vegeatble is bizarre.



Ken, when I was kid, I certainly thought all vegetables were inedible

Ken Blake wrote:
+ Betty Lee typed:
+ Technically, vegetables aren't required to be edible.
+
+ Well, the problem is that dictionaries are history
+ books--histories of words--and like most historians, those who
+ write dictionaries often disagree. I don't know what dictionary
+ you quoted from, but here's the definition in the Random House
+ Dictionary (a widely used, well respected one): "any herbaceous
+ plant whose fruit, seeds, roots, tubers, bulbs, stems, leaves, or
+ flower parts are used for food."

I believe that would make wheat, rice, and potatoes vegetables.
When the FDA recommends 8 servings of vegetables, I somehow don't think
they meant cereal, mochi, and fries... The other poster said it best:
"vegetable" isn't a technical term. Armed with the right dictionary,
I managed to convince someone (after their first experience chewing
on sugar cane) that either sugar is a vegetable or bell peppers aren't.
(If parts of plants qualified as vegetables, then sugar is a part of
a plant. If parts of plants didn't qualify as vegetables, then bell
peppers aren't full plants by themselves and thus aren't vegetables. ;-)

+ Each to his own, of course, but I think calling something
+ inedible a vegeatble is bizarre.

Then define "inedible". Those bad-tasting dandelion bits can be
considered vegetables even if you define vegetables as edible --
they're arguably edible in that they won't kill you. (I'm assuming
they're not poisonous if someone ate them and lived to post about it.)
Then again, there are lots of things that you can probably eat (inert
materials? ceramics?) that would simply pass through your system without
hurting you. If you want to define "inedible" as "indigestible", then,
since lots of vegetable parts are indigestible, wouldn't that make
them inedible? Members of certain religions probably have a good case
for calling pork and beef inedible.

I _would_ agree that calling something inedible a vegetable to be bizarre,
about as bizarre as eating "bamboo sprouts".

ObFood: http://www.stanford.edu/~bettylee/japan/014_12A.JPG

"Betty Lee" wrote in message
...
Ken Blake wrote:
+ Betty Lee typed:
+ Technically, vegetables aren't required to be edible.
+
+ Well, the problem is that dictionaries are history
+ books--histories of words--and like most historians, those who
+ write dictionaries often disagree. I don't know what dictionary
+ you quoted from, but here's the definition in the Random House
+ Dictionary (a widely used, well respected one): "any herbaceous
+ plant whose fruit, seeds, roots, tubers, bulbs, stems, leaves, or
+ flower parts are used for food."

I believe that would make wheat, rice, and potatoes vegetables.
When the FDA recommends 8 servings of vegetables, I somehow don't think
they meant cereal, mochi, and fries... The other poster said it best:
"vegetable" isn't a technical term. Armed with the right dictionary,
I managed to convince someone (after their first experience chewing
on sugar cane) that either sugar is a vegetable or bell peppers aren't.
(If parts of plants qualified as vegetables, then sugar is a part of
a plant. If parts of plants didn't qualify as vegetables, then bell
peppers aren't full plants by themselves and thus aren't vegetables. ;-)

+ Each to his own, of course, but I think calling something
+ inedible a vegeatble is bizarre.

Then define "inedible". Those bad-tasting dandelion bits can be
considered vegetables even if you define vegetables as edible --
they're arguably edible in that they won't kill you. (I'm assuming
they're not poisonous if someone ate them and lived to post about it.)
Then again, there are lots of things that you can probably eat (inert
materials? ceramics?) that would simply pass through your system without
hurting you. If you want to define "inedible" as "indigestible", then,
since lots of vegetable parts are indigestible, wouldn't that make
them inedible? Members of certain religions probably have a good case
for calling pork and beef inedible.

I _would_ agree that calling something inedible a vegetable to be bizarre,
about as bizarre as eating "bamboo sprouts".


I think you guys are just trapped amongst the different levels of meaning of
the word. I've certainly heard of plants in general being referred to as
the "vegetable world". We talk about someone in a coma, or whatever, as a
"vegetable," ie., like most every plant, not capable of voluntary motion.
But in every day use, we use "vegetable" to refer to certain idible plant
parts that, well, are not used in desserts--in the US, avacodo is considered
a vegetable, but in the Philippines, we also eat it as a "fruit," with sugar
and milk (same with in Vietnam etc.). Still, I think botanists only use the
word "fruit" as a scientific term--a fruit is a ripened ovary. Common usage
doesn't heed that, calling fruits like tomatoes, corn, or zuchini
vegetables.

I think you are both correct.


ObFood: http://www.stanford.edu/~bettylee/japan/014_12A.JPG


Woohoo!! Nice! Are your feet amongst any of those?

Peter

PS. Did you just attach the photo to your post? Didn't know one could do
that.

"Peter Dy" wrote in message
. com...
ObFood: http://www.stanford.edu/~bettylee/japan/014_12A.JPG


Woohoo!! Nice! Are your feet amongst any of those?

Peter

PS. Did you just attach the photo to your post? Didn't know one could do
that.


OK, forget that. It was a link... My bad.

Those private schools with all their computer stuff.... Go Bears!!

Peter

Peter Dy wrote:
+ "Betty Lee" wrote:
+ ObFood: http://www.stanford.edu/~bettylee/japan/014_12A.JPG
+
+ Woohoo!! Nice! Are your feet amongst any of those?

hehehe I was wearing socks and sitting to the left of the photo --
the close foot belongs to my partner (who took the picture).

That dinner was at the Hotel New Akao in Atami. The hotel was built
partly on the ocean, and the view was spectacular.

The upper-left container was a seafood soup, and the yellow tulip-shaped
cup contained ikura. The ikura in Japan -- even from the 24-hour quickie
mart type stores -- isn't nearly as salty as the ikura here, and there's
an underlying almost sweet flavor to it. The covered white bowl with
orange highlights was a non-sweet egg custard containing more seafood
in it. The upper-right was a sizzling dish. I think it was scallops,
but I don't remember for sure -- the scallops might've arrived later.
They also brought a tempura dish later. I think my partner said that
there were 18 dishes total. I lost count rather quickly, so I couldn't
verify the number. I wish I had more pictures, but my digital camera
wouldn't focus on the food. Here's an attempt by my digital camera:
http://www.stanford.edu/~bettylee/japan/IMG00055.JPG
Besides, there were sooo many dishes of food that it was overwhelming
enough to taste of everything, even without having to deal with the
camera.

In ,
Lawrence typed:

Ken Blake wrote:

Well, the problem is that dictionaries are history
books--histories of words--and like most historians, those who
write dictionaries often disagree. I don't know what
dictionary
you quoted from, but here's the definition in the Random House
Dictionary (a widely used, well respected one): "any
herbaceous
plant whose fruit, seeds, roots, tubers, bulbs, stems, leaves,
or
flower parts are used for food."

Each to his own, of course, but I think calling something
inedible a vegeatble is bizarre.



Ken, when I was kid, I certainly thought all vegetables were
inedible



LOL! I wasn't far behind you.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

In ,
Betty Lee typed:

Ken Blake wrote:
+ Betty Lee typed:
+ Technically, vegetables aren't required to be edible.
+
+ Well, the problem is that dictionaries are history
+ books--histories of words--and like most historians, those
who
+ write dictionaries often disagree. I don't know what
dictionary
+ you quoted from, but here's the definition in the Random
House
+ Dictionary (a widely used, well respected one): "any
herbaceous
+ plant whose fruit, seeds, roots, tubers, bulbs, stems,
leaves, or
+ flower parts are used for food."

I believe that would make wheat, rice, and potatoes vegetables.
When the FDA recommends 8 servings of vegetables, I somehow
don't
think they meant cereal, mochi, and fries...


No, I'm sure you're right. The FDA gets to set rules about how
products are labeled, etc., but they are not the arbiters of the
English language. I think the FDA (or was it Congress?) once
ruled that a tomato was a vegetable, not a fruit. Their ruling
makes it true in American law, but that's all. As far as I'm
concerned, a tomato is a fruit (and a vegetable) regardless of
what the American government says. In other words, Congress has
the right to pass a law that says a telephone is a vegetable, but
I don't have to believe it.

Besides, at most the FDA can only speak for Americans. English is
spoken in several other countries, and the FDA's opinions about
what words mean don't necessarily have any weight outside the
USA.


The other poster said
it best: "vegetable" isn't a technical term.


That's certainly true. But words have meanings, even if they are
not technical terms. The problem is that definitions for
technical terms are usually much more precise than for
non-technical ones, so you tend to have discussions over what a
non-technical term means much more often than over technical
ones.



+ Each to his own, of course, but I think calling something
+ inedible a vegeatble is bizarre.

Then define "inedible".


Perhaps "inedible" was a poor choice of words. No, I certainly
didn't mean it was poisonous. What I meant was simply that people
don't eat it. I suppose that you could take a bite out of a
soft-enough tree trunk without it killing you, but people don't
normally do that. Therefore I wouldn't call that tree trunk a
vegetable.

I think I'm about done with this thread. I don't have anything
else to add, and I certainly don't want to get into anything
approaching a fight over it.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

In . com,
Peter Dy typed:

Still, I think botanists only use the word
"fruit" as a scientific term--a fruit is a ripened ovary.


Yes, "fruit" is much more a technical term than "vegetable."


Common
usage doesn't heed that, calling fruits like tomatoes, corn, or
zuchini vegetables.


That's true. Nevertheless I personally think of them as both
fruits (in the botanical sense) and vegetables.


--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

In . com,
Peter Dy typed:

"Peter Dy" wrote in message
. com...
ObFood:
http://www.stanford.edu/~bettylee/japan/014_12A.JPG


Woohoo!! Nice! Are your feet amongst any of those?

Peter

PS. Did you just attach the photo to your post? Didn't know
one
could do that.


OK, forget that. It was a link... My bad.


Nevertheless, you *can* attach photos (or other files) to
newsgroup postings. However be aware that it almost always seen
as very poor netiquette. Attachments should be used only in
newsgroups with the word "binary" as part of their names.

Also note that some newsreaders strip off attachments and some
news servers will automatically delete any message over a certain
size (which means almost anything with a binary attachment). And
attachments usually get you reprimanded by other participants in
the newsgroup. It's far better to include a link, as Betty did.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup