Thunk!
Really. Except for the "thunk" part. And it was actually yesterday morning that I awakened and noticed the leaves had migrated south for the winter, but anyway.
It was rather a strange feeling, looking out the window and noticing that I could no longer see the grass (which in Alabama, is still green). The giant tree on the hill that looked as though it was on fire the day before (eye-catchingly bright red) had progressed to reddish-yellow, and dropped over half its leaves at once.
So. Time to rake, I reckon.
I just heard on NPR last week that leaves are a tree's way of waging chemical warfare on its neighbors. Obviously, with many plants, a good ground-covering will smother much of what is trying to grow. In addition, many changing leaves have toxins that kill their competitors. Controversial theory, I know, but quite an interesting one.
There are pecans now, too. The tree here in the yard isn't putting out great yet (but I haven't checked the ground in the last couple of days, either). I asked the neighbor if he wanted his pecans, and he invited me to pick up all I could carry, then gave me a huge bucket.
It's Veteran's Day, and this vet plans to put it to good use. I plan to make some progress on my ever-present homework, and if I get tired of using my brain, I'll go out in the crisp autumn air, rake leaves and start a fire in the backyard.
I'll be doing my thesis on attitudes toward alcohol in post-Prohibition Alabama, so I've been doing some preliminary reading. Unfortunately, I've been sucked into some books that deal with alcohol through the ages, who drank what and why--stuff like that. (It's very interesting, but not furthering my thesis work, you see.) Last week, I started a thread in the science forum at IIDB to ask why the Romans watered their wine down.
See, I've always heard that it was in order to sanitize the water, which was less than safe to drink. I had several questions, but the main reason I brought the subject up was because it seems to me that wine does not have strong enough alcoholic content to "sanitize" anything. I had read years ago that the alcoholic content of wine (or beer) is limited by the percentage of alcohol that can be in the liquid before the yeast producing the alcohol is killed. Some people in the thread stated that unfortified wine can't get stronger than 17%, but I think that's a very high estimate. 14.5% is strong wine. 18% or above is fortified (that is, distilled liquor is added to increase the alcoholic content). But even if it were possible to make unfortified 17% wine, that still is not strong enough to sanitize water.
I had an add-on question that, if it did sanitize water, then at what ratio did it cease to be effective, because I've heard that the Romans diluted wine anywhere from 2 parts water to 1 part wine to 20:1.
Some discussion concerning specific chemicals broke out, but those discussions were over my head. Someone remarked that if the wine had turned to vinegar, it would have some degree of sanitizing effect on water. I've read here and there (again...this is my ongoing caveat here, because I've far from covered the entire range of material available on the subject) that wine-making techniques had many flaws in those days, often producing undrinkable vinegar. If this is the case, then sanitizing water with such "wine" would make some sense, although I daresay it wouldn't be very tasty.
My guess for why they watered their wine down was this: it was probably very sweet wine,* which if drunk undiluted, is overpowering (in taste) and can be downright sickening. Watering it down would make it pleasantly drinkable. The ratio used would depend on the wine being diluted. Also...you don't run the risk of getting drunk--unless you have a very, very low alcohol tolerance.
* I need to check more into this, but I read that dry wine is a comparatively recent phenomenon.
EDIT TO ADD: Here's an interesting sidebar about lead poisoning from a friend of mine, Michael, who calls himself "The Lone Ranger":
It's often speculated that lead poisoning contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire, but if lead poisoning was a problem, it's more likely that Romans were poisoned by their wine than by their drinking water.
While it's true that the pipes in the aqueducts were often made of lead (our word "plumber" comes from Latin word for lead -- plumbum), Rome is situated on calcareous rocks, and the pipes quickly became coated with lime deposits. Those lime deposits would have provided insulation and protection from lead leaching into the water.
Unfermented grape juice (called mustum) was boiled to concentrate it and make it sweeter. Mustum reduced to one-half its original volume was known as defrutum, and mustum reduced to only one-third its original volume was known as sapa. The defrutum and sapa were added to wine as a sweetener and were also used to preserve fruit. Defrutum was also commonly used as a sauce.
Since the grape juice was frequently boiled in lead bowls, it has been speculated that the consumption of defrutum and sapa in wines, preserved fruit, and in the form of sauces, was a major source of lead poisoning in ancient Rome. Grape juice reduced to 1/3 its original volume by boiling in a lead bowl would contain about 1,000 milligrams of lead per liter. Jerome Nriagu (Lead and Lead Poisoning in Antiquity, 1983) estimated that the typical Roman aristocrat took in more than enough lead in his or her food during the course of a typical day to put him/her at risk for lead poisoning.
What's more, lead acetate (cerussa or "sugar of lead") has a sweet taste, and was often added to old wines to sweeten them.
Enough rambling. Y'all have a great Vet's Day. :)
d
