Universal Eatability Test

[kyratshooter]

I think this would be a good place for reference to the long refered "universal eatability test".

http://dsc.discovery.com/survival/pl...edibility.html

I am surprised it is not already a sticky in this section.

It has been in use for as long as anyone remembers, if anyone remembers, and takes the place of the "Get a book" instructions as the most common advice on wilderness forums.

Cave man technology at its best! I can see the group standing around the cook pot right now and someone spouting out

"Let Mikey eat it!"

[Sarge47]

It's been done, Kyrat...to death. Opinions on the reliability/feasibility seem to vary:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...edibility+test

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...edibility+test

[kyratshooter]

Not surprised it has been done and shuffled away.

Might know there would be argument over the standard test used world wide for 2,000,000 years!

[Rick]

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/plants-1.php

[hunter63]

So it like takes over two days per plant?.......If you don't die?
I like the Mikey method myself.


Hey Joe, this stuff is OK to eat...
Yeah, when what about Mikey....he croaked....?

Wasn't poisoned, just starved to death....go ahead and chow down.....

[Celticwarrior]

There are way too many variables from environment to environment to say whether something you don't recognize is edible. Plants are notoriously unreliable when it comes to ease of identification, with many species that are deadly poison looking nearly identical to a perfectly edible species right next to it. ALL of the old 'rules of thumb' have exceptions, like 'don't eat/drink anything with a milky discharge or sap'. What about thistle? It wilts down like lettuce and is a great source of nutrients, but has a milky discharge. The whole 'eat a small amount and wait an hour' or whatever is equally idiotic. Some nightshades and hemlocks will kill you with less than a teaspoon-ful of plant matter. Plenty of alkaline-loving plants in the desert are more toxic than a rattlesnake bite. You'd never know it until you ate some, and then it is too late. Others kill cumulatively, so when you taste it, then eat a little, nothing will happen. Then as the toxins build up, you become lethargic, hallucinate, and make bad judgement calls on other things that could kill you before the poisons in your system get a chance to do so.

In a wilderness survival situation, the experts (real experts, not made for tv ones) will tell you to stick with insects, 99% of which are harmless if you stay away from the danger colors of red/black and yellow/black, and any freshwater fish, fowl or mammal, all of which are edible and safe if cooked. Better to go with a sure thing than risk dying from misidentification. There are too many berries, roots, and fungus that look alike and might kill you while you sleep after eating them to go running around without a reliable guidebook trying to stay alive on something that might be deadly poison rather than nutritious food.

[Rick]

The UET was designed for military personnel that found themselves half a world away in environments that would not be familiar to them at a time when modern electronics could not pinpoint them for extraction. In that scenario, it is a method of determining what is and is not safe. I can't imagine I'd ever use it. Now, where's my PLB?

[Ted]

There are way too many variables from environment to environment to say whether something you don't recognize is edible. Plants are notoriously unreliable when it comes to ease of identification, with many species that are deadly poison looking nearly identical to a perfectly edible species right next to it. ALL of the old 'rules of thumb' have exceptions, like 'don't eat/drink anything with a milky discharge or sap'. What about thistle? It wilts down like lettuce and is a great source of nutrients, but has a milky discharge. The whole 'eat a small amount and wait an hour' or whatever is equally idiotic. Some nightshades and hemlocks will kill you with less than a teaspoon-ful of plant matter. Plenty of alkaline-loving plants in the desert are more toxic than a rattlesnake bite. You'd never know it until you ate some, and then it is too late. Others kill cumulatively, so when you taste it, then eat a little, nothing will happen. Then as the toxins build up, you become lethargic, hallucinate, and make bad judgement calls on other things that could kill you before the poisons in your system get a chance to do so.

In a wilderness survival situation, the experts (real experts, not made for tv ones) will tell you to stick with insects, 99% of which are harmless if you stay away from the danger colors of red/black and yellow/black, and any freshwater fish, fowl or mammal, all of which are edible and safe if cooked. Better to go with a sure thing than risk dying from misidentification. There are too many berries, roots, and fungus that look alike and might kill you while you sleep after eating them to go running around without a reliable guidebook trying to stay alive on something that might be deadly poison rather than nutritious food.

Gotta send you some rep for that! I made the mistake of testing an edible plant once. Many years ago I'd come across some arrowheads, which have edible tubers. I recognized the plant but didn't have my book . So I pulled one up and peeled the root not a tuber. I shaved off of a very, very small portion with my front teeth and bang, tip of my tounge was on fire! I immediately spit it out. A couple minutes later my tounge felt like someone stompted on it, and I talk funny all day like my tounge was to thick for my mouth!

[mountainmark]

+1 to CelticWarrior. This test is a bad idea, and unfortunately it leads people to believe they can be lax when it comes to knowing their plants when they have every resource at their disposal. If you think you can just learn what to eat when/if you need to you will end up wasting valuable time, when you could really use the energy. Or worse yet, get sick or maybe die. I personally think it isn't a bad thing to know, but with even moderate study one can find enough plants in their area to feed themselves for a short term emergency, and with dilligent study, feed themselves for a lifetime. Take advantage of the resources you have now, don't bet your life on this test.

[mountainmark]

Ted- sounds like you confused arrowhead with arrow arrum. I made a simmilar mistake years ago when digging trout lilly bulbs in early spring. I had a whole handfull and decided to just wash them in the stream and take the whole bunch at once. Long story short, I had accidentaly got a jack in the pulpit corm in the mix and it seemed like I had a mouthfull of hornets stinging my gums, toungue and the back of my throat. Lasted about ten minutes but felt like an eternity. No fun.

[Ted]

Ted- sounds like you confused arrowhead with arrow arrum..

I think your right! Never heard of the arrow arum. Just looked them up. Thanks for pointing that out.

Rep on the way to you too!

[Sarge47]

Just remember that almost every wild edible that's safe to eat has a deadly duplicate that, while it looks like the plant you think is safe, can actually kill you. One thing I like to do is get somebody I'm with to eat the plant, if they're still alive 24 hours later, then I get lunch! If they die as a result, then I get "long pig!" Either way it's "win-win!"

[RandyRhoads]

I use the test for plants i'm 99% sure I have a correct ID on. That mugwort could have turned out pretty bad had I just started tasting it.

I think the test is good as long as people know it's a last resort and not 100% effective.

[mountainmark]

[QUOTE=Sarge47;358949]Just remember that almost every wild edible that's safe to eat has a deadly duplicate that, while it looks like the plant you think is safe, can actually kill you.QUOTE]

This is a joke right? I think it is, but am just trying to make sure. Thanks

[Sarge47]

[QUOTE=mountainmark;358975]

Just remember that almost every wild edible that's safe to eat has a deadly duplicate that, while it looks like the plant you think is safe, can actually kill you.QUOTE]

This is a joke right? I think it is, but am just trying to make sure. Thanks

Maybe I should have said "look-alike" as opposed to duplicate?

http://www.practicalsurvivor.com/wildedibleplants

http://www.wildwoodsurvival.com/surv...rot/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fygSGya3GoM

http://www.wildedibletexas.com/2012_03_01_archive.html

[RandyRhoads]

Lol....... Cat tails deadly "look alike" is Iris. Just like fennels deadly look alike is hemlock...? I don't understand how someone can even call these look alikes, they're so different. I guess compared to IDing mushrooms plant differences aren't as subtle.

[mountainmark]

Just like we have fingerprints that tell us apart, plants all have distinguishing characteristics that can be used to form a possitive ID. There is no such thing as a look-alike. If they looked alike, they would be alike. I much prefer the usage of the term look-similar, but maybe i'm just splitting hairs.

Sarge- I guess I have to dissagree on your statement "almost every wild edible that's safe to eat has a deadly duplicate ". I have been studying wild plants and mushrooms for several years now and I have to say that there are very few deadly plants in comparison to the thousands of edible plants out there. Of course one must always be sure of what they are eating, and there is always a risk (as in going to the grocery store), but statements like that are what lead many "survivalists" to never venture into plant identification for fear of almost certain death. It is good to be cautious, just as you would follow the signs on the road for your safety, you must follow the rules of identification to not poison yourself. Experience has shown me that there are far more edible plants w/o poisonous look similars than plants with them.

Not trying to get in an argument, just sharing my experience for whatever its worth.

[mountainmark]

Ok Sarge, after thinking on this for a bit, I have decided that determining a plant has a "look-similar" is very subjective. So if you tried hard enough, you could certainly find a plant for every edible plant that "looks similar." I'll give you that. But in most cases it would be akin to walking through the grocery and mistaking an orange for a peach because they are both Orange and round. When I go through the guide books and read the plants that look somewhat like the plant described I am often confused as to why they put it there, when they really aren't similar at all. How someone, for instance, could mistake wild carrot for poison hemlock is beyond me. You would have to be an idiot to not note the differences. Wild carrot has a solid, hairy stem and petioles and hemlock has a hollow, smooth, stem and petioles with a powdery bloom. This would be similar to not noting that an orange has a smooth, thick, peelable rind, and a peach has a thin, fuzzy skin. I know there are dumb people out there, and all these folks who tout their "look-alikes" are just trying to cover their butts from lawsuits and morons. But if you aren't a moron, you should have no trouble learning to ID plants. Make sure ALL the defining characteristics match up, and you can be sure you have your plant. It may not hurt to go back in your guidebook and compare characteristics with the "look-alike," but when you do, you will be shocked by how different they really are. Especially when you see the "look-alike" in person. JM$0.02

Not saying I haven't been a moron at different points in my life, just saying that if you follow the rules, you'll be OK.

[your_comforting_company]

Just like we have fingerprints that tell us apart, plants all have distinguishing characteristics that can be used to form a possitive ID. There is no such thing as a look-alike. If they looked alike, they would be alike. I much prefer the usage of the term look-similar, but maybe i'm just splitting hairs.

When it comes to things you put in your belly that could be poisonous, it is imperative to have positive identification. I will agrue that till I'm blue in the face. One of my bee mentors, just a few weeks ago, watched one of her friends eat a particular mushroom right out of her yard. My friend, feeling confident that it was the same mushroom, sampled a piece, and got very, very sick.
Rubbing a nipplefruit nightshade fruit on your skin probably won't do anything to you. But if you eat it, you will most certainly wish you hadn't. Plants have distinctive characteristics for a reason. There is no "Universal" language. Only eons of people trying particular foods, and not surviving the experience. Let Mikey try it, he'll eat anything!
If you're splitting hairs, I'm sharpening the knife.