It was not only green but it was sprouting from the base.
i disagree with this point. at least when theyre younger its really easy to kill a fig by uppoting it. probalby more tolerant when older, but I dont have experience with that. But its well discussed how easy it is to kill a younger cutting thats been rooted by uppoting
This is a low cordon in English garden terms. I posted a photo of mine in the other thread.
It works well. I also grow currant cordons too. Although for ornamental reasons. You can make them for production too.
That is the best time to transfer and figs are not particularly picky about moving the roots. Even if a fig starts to grow, even form leaves and then dies in the spring it’s from winter which
definitely killed it. This is fairly typical for figs.
Just my opinion but the winter killed your tree not the transfer.
1 Like
I’m inclined to agree.
1 Like
Provide a source please. Any plant that can send out roots from any part of its anatomy tends to transplant seamlessly. Of course, I can imagine extreme conditions where even this ability wouldn’t be enough, but moving a plant from a smaller to larger pot shouldn’t phase a fig tree at all.
Transplanting young fig trees into larger pots has sometimes killed them for me.
I think the reason is poor drainage and very wet soil. A typical condition in the PNW
1 Like
In my experience, this risk is real for very new (e.g., 2-4 week old) cuttings or air layers with tender new roots. For such plants, any movement of the trunk relative to the soil can shear off the new roots. At that stage, the tree may not have retained enough energy to grow new roots, leaves.
On the other hand, a young fig tree that has grown for a season (and is otherwise healthy) should be almost immune to lethal damage due to transplanting. Consider how many of us mail each other bare-root and/or severely root-pruned trees without any issues.
2 Likes
I should add that this is next to my garden, so the frogs and dragonflies that move in help keep slugs and grasshoppers, mosquitos, and who knows what else under control. I’m planning to make a small pond with native plants for them.
I agree with this. Yes when forming roots you have to be careful but after that I never lost one after the first transplant.
On another subject I keep seeing stories on how AI keeps cheating and also offers terrible advice like drinking bleach. After I saw that story I say leave AI stuff off this site until it’s more refined. We have enough bad advice on this site we don’t need more.https://www.foxnews.com/tech/when-ai-cheats-hidden-dangers-reward-hacking
With more advice comes more bad advice. AI does not contribute a disproportionate quantity of bad advice and even when it has submitted misinformation a couple of times that I’ve posted, it did not hurt the discussion at all. I have started many topics lately based on AI derived information that many other members have benefitted from and enjoyed and I’m not going to stop using it because some people have “voiced” what I consider an emotional objection to it.
I have never met anyone who has to use it in their jobs that has your views on it… because they have learned how to use it properly. You are constantly critiquing it without really knowing it. You constantly speak your misinformed view on it… without adding anything useful or even accurate in your critiques. The idea that some people can coax CHAT to provide dangerous advice is not information if it doesn’t come with data.
Sometimes airplanes crash, and they represent a much greater danger to their users than CHAT, but both can get us where we want ot go much faster.
The trick is to verify by requesting sources and asking for genuine research.
1 Like
Just for fun.
Are there ever any health advantages in humans drinking bleach?
ChatGPT said:
Short answer: No. There are zero health advantages and many serious risks.
Here’s the intellectually honest, high-level breakdown of why there are no advantages, and what related ideas (in chemistry and medicine) do exist that sometimes confuse people.
1. Chemically, bleach cannot provide any benefit to human physiology
“Bleach” (household bleach) = sodium hypochlorite, usually 3–8%.
Inside the body it would:
- Immediately react with organic molecules (proteins, lipids, DNA)
- Cause chemical burns, protein denaturation, oxidative tissue injury
- Disrupt mucosal barriers
- Potentially cause perforation of the esophagus or stomach
- Generate toxic byproducts (chloramines, chlorine gas) in acid environments
There is no biochemical pathway in which sodium hypochlorite contributes anything useful or needed to human physiology.
2. “But the body makes hypochlorous acid—so why not bleach?”
This is the misunderstanding that fuels some pseudoscientific claims.
Immune cells (neutrophils) create hypochlorous acid (HOCl) inside tiny sealed vesicles at microscopic concentrations for microbe-killing.
But the key points:
• It occurs in a controlled micro-environment
Far from the cell membrane, inside phagosomes, at extremely tiny scale.
• It never enters the bloodstream or GI tract
It would destroy everything indiscriminately.
• Concentrations are astronomical orders of magnitude lower than household bleach.
(Neutrophils produce somewhere around 25–50 micromolar HOCl; bleach is tens of thousands of times stronger.)
This is like saying:
“My body uses fire inside mitochondria (electron transport)… so maybe I should swallow a match.”
3. “But aren’t there medical uses of chlorine compounds?”
Yes — but never ingestion.
• Wound irrigation
Very dilute Dakin’s solution (0.025–0.05% sodium hypochlorite) is used topically for infected wounds.
Still damaging to healthy tissue, so used only when necessary and under medical supervision.
• Water disinfection
Trace chlorine in municipal water kills pathogens outside the body, and is neutralized before ingestion.
• Disinfection of medical equipment
Not relevant to human internal biology.
None of this implies safety or benefit from internal consumption.
4. The “thought experiment” answer
If the question is:
“Is there any concentration of bleach so low that ingestion isn’t harmful?”
Sure — at concentrations so low that:
- It is chemically indistinguishable from chlorinated drinking water, and
- It no longer functions as bleach.
That’s on the order of parts per million, where the chlorine is neutralized before absorption.
But that is not “bleach” conferring a benefit; it is simply not causing harm.
5. The only case where ingestion seems beneficial:
If someone had swallowed a highly toxic, more harmful chemical, a few sips of dilute bleach might theoretically neutralize it chemically — for instance, counteracting certain amines by forming chloramines.
But:
- This would be an uncontrolled, unpredictable reaction
- It would generate toxic byproducts
- Medical professionals would never attempt this
- There are safer and more effective antidotes
In every realistic scenario, bleach adds danger, not benefit.
6. Conclusion
From every angle — biochemistry, toxicology, clinical medicine — the answer is: