As somebody who first studied soil science 50 years ago and has studied it continuously since, I was never taught that humic extracts represented the true nature of the substances in humus. Everybody at that time understood that the powerful extractants used were greatly altering the materials extracted, but the techniques were easy and told us something. It is good that we have been able to progress to studying humus in place but that doesn't require that history be rewritten to make it seem as if past researchers were profoundly stupid. There are lots of popular articles about humus but they don't necessarily represent what soil scientists thought about the real nature of humus or even what the term recalcitrant means. Recalcitrant is a funny word to choose to describe a chemical property. If soil scientist wanted to imply that humus was resistant or impervious to decomposition, those words were available. Recalcitrance implies an increasing resistance but avoids implying an endpoint where no further breakdown can occur. So much of what modern science publishes is simply a restatement of old concepts from different disciplines, as in "chemistry discovers soil science and finds that soils vary in buffer capacity- UA-cam video at 9:00“.
Hello Diego! Yesterday I made a video on Instagram about this topic, and I get myself in a big meshy debate, with some people arguing that I was talking bullshit 😅 I would love to record a new video answering some of the controversial comments from yesterday, and I though that it would be great if I could use some clips from this interview, do I have your permission to use it with it's propper atribution link to your UA-cam Chanel??? Thanks!
As somebody who first studied soil science 50 years ago and has studied it continuously since, I was never taught that humic extracts represented the true nature of the substances in humus. Everybody at that time understood that the powerful extractants used were greatly altering the materials extracted, but the techniques were easy and told us something. It is good that we have been able to progress to studying humus in place but that doesn't require that history be rewritten to make it seem as if past researchers were profoundly stupid. There are lots of popular articles about humus but they don't necessarily represent what soil scientists thought about the real nature of humus or even what the term recalcitrant means. Recalcitrant is a funny word to choose to describe a chemical property. If soil scientist wanted to imply that humus was resistant or impervious to decomposition, those words were available. Recalcitrance implies an increasing resistance but avoids implying an endpoint where no further breakdown can occur. So much of what modern science publishes is simply a restatement of old concepts from different disciplines, as in "chemistry discovers soil science and finds that soils vary in buffer capacity- UA-cam video at 9:00“.
Hello Diego! Yesterday I made a video on Instagram about this topic, and I get myself in a big meshy debate, with some people arguing that I was talking bullshit 😅 I would love to record a new video answering some of the controversial comments from yesterday, and I though that it would be great if I could use some clips from this interview, do I have your permission to use it with it's propper atribution link to your UA-cam Chanel??? Thanks!
Sure, go for it.
Humus is the Answer but what is the question..
Humus, is organic materiel, + life
But there also, sand, and other.
Lehmann. Is Egmont. Euroman
Magasin,.
Are you thinking 🤔🤔
You Wise,. Grown up, try talk
German,. As. A danish
Try get a lesson. Farm school