OK, a few reasons for the question.
I wanted to open another thread for people to discuss and I thought it might be a fairly neutral thread to start and might be interesting.

I wanted an idea on how familiar you are with plants.

I wanted to ask which ones are your favourites, and your least favourites out of any you tried, and why.

I wanted to ask which plants the guide books lie about the most and which your personal experience reveals that the authors never did try the plant themselves.

I wanted to find out about any plants I don't know yet that somebody else might know about and have experience using.

The same thing for different uses of the plants, I bet some people have surprising information here.
After all, there are people posting on here from a wide range of places.

I am looking for any good web sites about plants you might know too.

I tried searching for the subject with the search bar and found plant uses in responses but not in a thread.

If you want to mention inedible and useless plants that is fine too.

Those are enough reasons for the question.

Try the Plants for a Future database at http://www.pfaf.org/index.php, then type in the plant you want info about in the box on the left. It usually gives edible and medicinal parts and uses, as well as how to grow them, and sometimes how/when to harvest them.

Sue

Edible plants are notoriously regional. Knowledge about one landscape doesn't translate into knowledge about another.

I wouldn't say I am enormously familiar with edible local plants. I guess know quite a few, and I know those very few that are poisonous.

But mostly, in this part of the world, it's all about calories. Plants that produce berries or nuts or have tubers that store starch get my close attention.

If it's just another kind of lettuce, I don't care.

I kinda-sorta second Dougwalkabout. Mainly, I know diddly about plants. Why? Well, I grew up in Southern California, which is classified as a "semi-arid desert." Most of the plants we have in the area, once outside the megapolis, are scrub oak, or dry grass (the kind that goes up in massive wildfires each year). Not exactly too tough to learn them, or that they're not super edible.

In that situation, the "fruits and veggy" part of my diet was going to be pre-processed in the way of a dead animal.

Now that I'm in Michigan, I'm getting a bit better. I know what a cattail is (though not really how to prepare one), kind of learning different trees, and want to learn plants. Problem is getting someone knowledgable enough to teach, or the free time to grab a book and hit the trail for a weekend. Again, my plan is lots of fish should I need to bail out.

Useless plants: anything with the word "stinging" or "poisonous" in it's name.

I concur with Doug and MDinana.

These types of questions being asked are too general....In my own area, there are 4 very distinct ecosystems and they do not all share the same species of plants let alone edible plants. For example, off the top of my head, I can list more then 40 edible plants that can grow in any of the 4 ecosystems, yet these plants are only good for eating in certain seasons, different terrain such as valleys, alpine meadows, original growth forest, 2nd growth forest, river bottoms and benches...the list goes on.

Some that I have tried and in no certain order:

Berries of all types
Fireweed
Wild grapes
Wild onion
Milkweed
Dandelions
balsam roots
Cat tails
Bracken fern
Various lichens
Seaweeds
Chicory
Juniper

Toot! Toot! Tooot!

Ye gads, where to start...

Favorites foods would be greenbriar, saw palmetto, dollar weed, purslane, and mulberries.

Usefulness would be hibiscus, yucca, willow, and American Beautyberry.

Best all-around website for learning about edible wild plants:
Merriwether's Guide to Edible Wild Plants
This easy-to-use, picture-filled site lists seventy common edible plants, where/when to find them, how to prepare them, non-food uses of plants (cordage, bug repellent, etc), any dangers you need to be aware of, gives a list of useful books/references (including strengths and weaknesses of said references), and gives links to all the other edible wild plant sites on the web.

And it's all free!

-Blast, blowing his own horn.

Blow your horn, Blast!!!! It's music to my ears!!!!

I'm printing up the latest edition of Blast's Edibles, putting the printout into double layers of ziplock gallon sized bags, and keeping them in my Personal Support Kit!!!!

Thanks for the Toot!

I don't know the formal name, but in the northeast, the plant we call "sweet fern" has these edible white things as part of the roots that look like the shape of mini bananas. The ferns are so plentiful in the forests up here that you can get a pretty good fill of these easily. You need to clean the dirt off, but, then they are surprisingly good eating raw.

Tell me more about this plant if you can.
What I heard called sweet fern in Ontario was a shrub that had leaves like a fern but wasn't actually a fern.

I am very familiar with plants, more so in certain areas.

There are many plants that you can find across the nation. Look especially into introduced species (aka weeds).

Some of the more common and widespread edible species include: dandelion, burdock, thistle, purslane, plantain, cattail, pine, oak, grasses (watch out for ergo!), chicory, shepherd's purse, nettles, roses, mallows, and watercress (boil if eating submerged parts to kill water-nasties). I'm sure some of these have already been mentioned. Fiddleheads and horsetails are known to be toxic in quantity.

Be aware that many introduced plants are most commonly found on disturbed sites, and might have pesticide sprays or exhaust grime on them. Wash them.
Also, a few common edible plants are nitrate and/or selenium accumulators. Research this.
Learn the poisonous plants before you learn the edible ones, many edibles have poisonous look-alikes, and remember that with some plants and more often fungi, even a small amount can kill, so never experiment with them. "There are no old and bold mycologists."

I like it, Blast!

I would say not to get too obsessed over the poisonous plants.

I think if you are familiar with 5 good edible plants for each season where you are, then you stand a good chance of getting a meal no matter what else happens.

By familiar I mean you actually know the plant, have gathered it and tried it instead of just identified it once from a guide book.

I found an EXCELLENT book on edible wild plants; its called Foraging in New England. I dont know if they make others regionally, but I take this with me all the time on hikes. Excellent color plates, and it lists by environment (woods, beach, swamp, etc)

Here in the West, we have two plants called Camas, the blue one and the white one. The tubers of the blue one are edible, the white one is deadly -- one tuber and you're dead. They are actually two different species, but the tubers look similar.

While you're doing your research, find out if there are lookalikes that are toxic.

Sue

A couple of credits and comments.
Blast's site on plants is quite good and he has some pretty good links on it. It is well worth taking a look at.

Field guides like Blast's are good to help you start identifying plants.
You still need to make sure you have it right. Finding people with personal experience is getting harder all the time.
Many people today wouldn't be able to identify the food they eat every day if you took them out and stood them in a field of it. (and I am talking about common food plants not exotics)
They would be able to starve in the middle of plenty.


Susan is right and Death Camas is a good example.


There are actually 2 varieties of White Camas with the western one being far more deadly.
But once you know them they are really not hard to tell apart from Camas bulbs.
(and you need to know real camas well enough to know that whatever else you might dig up is not it and not to be gathered)

If you are not careful or are guessing you are more likely to be killed by different varieties of plants we commonly use as food. There are lots of deadly plants in the carrot, bean and pea families as well.

Then there are plants that need to be ripe, ones that can not be ripe, and the ones that need to be specially processed or else they are poison too.

Sometimes even a different part of a regular food plant, or improperly stored food plants can kill.
Potato leaves and stems are deadly and a potato which has gotten enough sunlight to turn green becomes poison.

Some plants are even poison to touch!

You need to be familiar with the plant before gathering a mess of it and eating it.

However there are a lot of good plants that have no poisonous times of the year, poisonous parts or dangerous lookalikes.
So start with some of the safer ones to try.
Don't be too discouraged by some of them.

I see guidebooks that claim some plants can taste delicious if you boil them in a hundred changes of water, but the truth is cattail roots still taste like muddy swamp muck and dandelion greens are still bitter.

One of my favorites is an introduced weed called Lamb's Quarters (Chenopodium alba) because it is so simple. Just use it like spinach.
It grows anywhere there has been any sort of farming and it produces greens all year.
(The seeds can be gathered and ground in enough quantity to be useful as a grain, but that is a bit fiddly for me to bother with.)
It comes up as a weed in most gardens and the young stems and leaves make an excellent green (even better than spinach to me, it is not as gritty).


Please keep the comments coming, I am learning a bit in this thread.

One thing that we have to be careful of around the northeast, is otherwise edible plants, particularly low to the ground, or edible roots being contaminated by proximity to poison ivy. Sometimes, you don't see the poison ivy plant leaves, but, the roots can be running around, and you do one of two things, get it on your hands, or worse, eat something that has some of the oil on it, and your mouth and throat start to swell. Not good.

Last year, we had winter and spring conditions that resulted in a bumper crop of poison ivy.

If learning to identify the poisonous ones seems potentially obsessive to you, other than to wish good luck upon you in your wild culinary adventures, I suggest that you consider learning to recognize plants by family. That way you can take advantage of the fact that many families of plants contain zero or very few poisonous or dangerous species. Look into Asteraceae, Malvaceae, Pinaceae, Fagaceae, Graminaceae, Rosaceae, and others. Two books I recommend for learning about this as a general rule (with plants, there is never such a thing as too much info, especially not when toxicity is a potential issue; one never knows until one knows; knowledge of poisonous plants is always better sooner than too late) are: Christopher Nyerges' Guide to Wild Foods and Useful Plants, and Botany in a Day: Thomas J. Elpel's Herbal Field Guide to Plant Families; although I happen to disagree with the idea that the Cactaceae is a safe family.

On the other hand, as a general rule, there are families to avoid. These might include: Solanaceae, Anacardiaceae, Apiaceae (Umbelliferaceae), and others.

I myself will never use the Universal Edibility Test to make up for not knowing for sure concerning edibility, but if you think you might, let me suggest that it be thought of as an adjunct to other knowledge. That is to say that even though you have not identified the plant in question positively to species, you have positively ruled out that it is not poisonous (it could be an oxalic [eat sparingly] or irritating species) and/or that it is not in a risky family. This and because there are edible plants and poisonous plants that look nearly identical, is why knowing ALL the poisonous plants in whatever area you are in is of great benefit.

The only time I personally would ever use the Universal Edibility Test, is when I already know the plant is edible, but I have never tried it before and I want to check for any unpleasant or allergic reaction I might have to it. Not that I am allergic to anything, but with new plants, one never knows.

Excuse me, but I am not suggesting any "wild culinary adventures" and in fact am recommending the exact opposite.
Knowing well what you are picking and picking that plant is a very sensible approach.
If you don't know what you are picking don't eat it.

On the other hand your Gee, I don't know what it is, so I will eat it anyhow! advice, to simply rely upon the plant family, with no regard to similarities to totally unrelated poisonous species, strikes me as a form of Russian Roulette.
Your recomended families even include poison species. Notably in the Asteraceae, and the Fagaceae.


However, after you got past being offensive you did follow with a little bit of decent advice.

There are no universal edibility tests is very true.
Many very dangerous plants taste fine.
The fact that most poisonous plants are horrible tasting is not a reliable test at all.

It is to bad that you could spend years learning all the poisonous plants in your area, and still would not know a single food plant.
Or you could learn a few good safe food plants and learn them well enough to start safely with them.

Scatfool,

I had no intention of being offensive, nor did I advise eating any plant without regard. I can't believe that anyone thinks that is what I said. If what you are honestly telling me is that you think I said to go eat any plant regardless of edibility, because it's fun to play "Russian Roulette" as you called it, then I think that what you are trying to tell me is that you are retarded and that you believe that I should take responsibility for the fact you are personal challenged when it comes to reading comprehension.
What I did suggest is another way to proceed with being able to reduce the risk of eating a poisonous plant, if a person is not so interested in learning all the seemingly unrelated poisonous species out there. In mentioning families, I was trying to put things into perspective concerning the otherwise overwhelming number of similar plants, and I believe I did that.
I'm not going to apologize for inadvertantly hurting your feelings or whatever you're crying about me being offensive or insensible or whatever, though; and so if what I wrote has you sharing your negative emotions with me, forget about it. You obviously took my response out of context and did not understand it in many places. I stated quite clearly that my recommended families do include poisonous species; the point is that they are few in number relative to other families.
What I will do, though, is make more of an effort in future posts, to write in a manner more easily understood by the emotionally sensitive who might take insult at the fact that someone else refers to wild edible plants as wild culinaries.

Really, are we serious here??? We are seriously going to argue over freakin' wild edibles???

Sorry, got to go.... the neighbors 3 year old isn't arguing with my cat any more much more interesting ya know.


HOLY CRAP

Don't Panic, its all good.
You might not have noticed but I did point out that you did give a little bit of good advice.

[/quote]

However, after you got past being offensive you did follow with a little bit of decent advice.

There are no universal edibility tests is very true.
Many very dangerous plants taste fine.
The fact that most poisonous plants are horrible tasting is not a reliable test at all.

It is to bad that you could spend years learning all the poisonous plants in your area, and still would not know a single food plant.
Or you could learn a few good safe food plants and learn them well enough to start safely with them.


[/quote]

I did not say there are no universal edibility tests; and the Universal Edibility Test is not only about taste. It is designed to reduce the risk of eating irritating plants, and avoiding allergic reactions to otherwise edible plants, as well as to reduce the risk of eating poisonous plants, and is a very valuable knowledge tool. What I said is that I would never substitute the test for a reliable positive edible id, but that it is an otherwise very useful test in determining one's own physical reaction to a new edible. By the way, I consider a reliable positive edible id to be by way of a reputable regional flora-key, such as the Jepson Manual for CA.

ALL my advice is good, even if sometimes misunderstood. I am flawless, human! (slams hammer-fist down on table; remains seated) HUMOR

OH, so now you are agreeing with me, or not so much?

I did say there are no universal edibility tests. I will repeat that.

There is only one exception I would make.
If you eat it and live it is edible, if you die it isn't.
Other than that, nope.
(edit: note that this is not a recommended test for unknown plants)

Even peanuts, which we count as safe, will kill some people.

Maybe we should talk a bit more about personal testing to make sure you don't react to a food if you nave never tried it before?
(Especially since we are on such good terms now)

Edit: Careful not to hurt your hand there guy!

You're funny. Have a nice day, but don't forget to tip the natives. No really. They are another great (if not the greatest) resource of info concerning plants. See if you can get into a local college ethnobotany outing, you'll love it.

What more I will say about the Universal Edibility Test is that if it is being used to determine edibility, it must only be as an ultimate last resort if someone is starving and there are no other options. It is simply too unreliable to trust concerning whether a plant is edible or poisonous. Only in a last resort situation should anyone gamble with eating unknown plants.
Also, keep in mind what starvation actually is. Being "really hungry" is NOT the same thing as starving. After about 30 days without any food, you would be starving. And then, keep in mind that if you are in fact starving, as your mind begins to shut you out of the executive decision-making process, you will probably be inclined toward acting subconcsiously, so a real effort must be given to keeping the dangers of eating unknown plants, and thus the Universal Edibility Test, in mind.
Also, where there are plants, there are probably small critters. I would rather risk eating a bug than a poisonous plant.

Some good thoughts there.

Also people need to remember that gathering and preparing most plants (aside from berry plants) require more energy and calories used then the plants return to you.

If you were ever in the situation where your very survival depended on eating edible plants then you better hope that a) there is a lot of the plants in your immediate area to make it worthwhile and 2) that you have some other method of prolonging your survival such as obtaining wild game and fish by various other methods.

Desperado,

Yes, it is true that for some, forums are less of a social club and more of a learning resource. I don't know why that seems so unreasonable to some others. I don't mean to sound like I am trying to have the last word, only that it be understood that I desire to stay on topic. Sometimes people argue. So what. Argument is sometimes how people with different opinions share them with each other and learn from each other. Stop trying to point fingers at who is responsible for somebody else's feelings and contribute already. Many others have, now you can too.

Edible plants...

Sorry about egging you on Troglodyte, but I wanted you to expand on your comments a bit.

Sherpadog made a comment about the return of value for calories expended, and back near the start of the thread Dougwalkabout pointed this out.


With that I am going to shut up, sit back for now and hope somebody else picks up the thread.

Scafool,

I too apologize. I have the kind of personality that gets egged on a lot, and as a consequence, I have long held the reputation for quickly biting peoples heads clean off, so to speak. It's not personal, only a matter of respect; a personal aversion to feelings of indifference; an intolerance of certain kinds of strange criticisms.

I agree that plant leaves should not form the mainstay of a survival situation diet in terms of calories, but they do provide an abundance of nutrients (vitamins, minerals) that might prove to be just as important as calories, in little ways that might not be so obvious, and in certain situations.

I think most Americans have enough body fat, that for the few days or even several days that they might be in the wilds without food awaiting rescue, they are not even going to come close to dying of starvation, and a few daily handfuls of edible plant leaves might be enough to stave off the hunger pangs until the fat reserves are gone, which could be quite a while for some heavies. If edible plants are available, I would rather stave off the hunger pangs, while losing the fat reserves as I await rescue. To run around chasing rabbits would burn so many calories that I might then actually need to eat them. You thin guys and gals are a different story, and I hope you can catch them.
When the fat on our bigger bodies is finally gone, though, especially if on the move, and if living off the land for any extended time, meat is certainly essential, but so always will be plants.

Another consideration is for their medicinal value, and of course their utilitarian value.

For example, not only is plantain a widespread and common edible, it also stops bleeding.
Not only does cattail have starchy edible roots, the leaves can be weaved into baskets, and the fluff is a great inside the pants insulator and also a tinder.
All pine (Pinus) trees provide edible vitamin C rich needle-leaves, and strips of the inner bark can be made into cordage.
Willow shoots are made into baskets and fish traps, and the bark has salicylic acid (aspirin) in it.
The bitter tannic acid in acorns (edible) is also used to preserve leather, and as an antiseptic.

When looked at this way, plants are seen as indispensible, not only to survival, but also to wilderness living.

Well, I have to answer to that before signing off.
I was thinking about the potatoes part of it more, and more about fall and winter.

If in the fall and farther south there are fruit and nut trees that might be worth looking at.
There are also some of the swamp or shore plants like Arrowhead (saggitaria) and other duck potatoes. Saggitaria latifolia is a lot like a potato but a bit more crisp, and can be got by raking or wading into the water and uprooting them. They are usually in slow water less than 3 feet deep, and though they are scarce here they were common in southern Ontario. The leaves and shallow water habitat are pretty distinctive.

We don't get a lot of roots here, but a lot of the Lily species are worth checking. They often grow in decent patches.
Dogtooth Violet is pretty good, even though it grows deeper than I thought it would.
Wild Garlic (ramps?) grow in maple woods, usually on the hummocks, and can be dug in the early spring easily. If you know what you are looking at the dead leaves and stems let you find them in the summer and fall too, but only if the deer and rabbits didn't eat all the leaves on you.

A lot of the northern tribes considered an antler or bone scraper essential gear for traveling in winter. They used it to remove the cambium (sap) layer from poplar trees. Black poplar and Balsam being the favorites.
It is sustaining food but when I tried it I found it boiled up like slimy noodles and was just a bit bitter.

Of course being around where these plants are will put you in prime trapping and hunting areas with animals that do not hibernate. The water plants and poplar also make good bait for a lot of these animals.

Now I will do as I said and shut up for a while so others can speak.