When I worked in a laboratory we used to test enzymatic activities in the soil: Dehydrogenase activity, alkaline phosphatase, sulfatase, fluoresceidindiacetate test etc. to estimate the mineralizing microbial activities. These tests take only some hours but need some technical equipment. Hi from a german biologist.
Your comments beginning @17:02 are spot on. It’s like a bathroom scale, it’s more important that it’s repeatable rather than accurate. If it was always 5lbs too heavy, you could adjust for it. If it was sometimes 2lbs heavy and sometimes 2lbs light, it might be more accurate but the number is less useful. Likewise, comparing tests on the same soil in different time periods gives you a stable benchmark if the test is repeatable.
Firstly, thanks for your hard work in running all these investigations. I'm not convinced by this test. As gardeners we know that dark soils tend to be more productive because they contain more organic matter in various states of decay. Many people on the allotments near mine buy in very little compost, animal manure etc. and then complain about poor yields and marvel at some of mine. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't get it to invest in it's supply!
My soil's just about black when wet. Standard test says silty loam & the organic matter's fairly significant. I actually think the dark colour's down to this being a former mining town & all the soot & coal ash dumped on the gardens over 150 years (my house was built in 1867).
This testing method seems dubious at best. I send my soil to be tested for free from state University agriculture dept. They gave me a fairly complex readout only drawback was it takes weeks to get back. Thanks for the video.
Thank you for sharing! The microBIOMETER soil test is an inexpensive way busy growers and farmers can obtain a quick snapshot of the biology in their soil to determine if their soil management efforts and amendments are working. Testing data is saved in the app by GPS location for future reference and analysis. For many, a microscope is just not a workable option due to cost, inexperience, accuracy and time restraints.
My guess is that the reason why the samples from the forest floor had a lower microbes level is because of what feeds it. Its mostly formed from built up layers of dead leaves that have fallen in the autumn which will be very low in nitrogen because the trees suck that out of them prior to shedding them and theyll be virtually 100% carbon. This stands to reason seeing as leaves are regarded as browns in a compost heap.
so it basically relies on color variation to suggest that microbes are responsible for the coloration? In short, it deosn't measure literal microbe counts at all. At first I thought this was a joke. Now I'm lookin at the calendar to see if we've fast forwarded to April 1.
I absolutely guarantee my soil has more than enough microbes, without throwing $$$ at buying tests. How do I know? Simple; the produce coming off my vegetable plot has increased year on year since I significantly upped my production of compost. Fungal activity's way up since I went 'no till' 5 years ago too.
Tank you for your patience. Tanks a lot for you content. Your myth busting is based on common sense and science, praticality etc. I come to agriculture from a "cultural" background and tend to analyzing it from there. I belive (non science theorical...) this obcession with soil is part of post modernism, this "mother earth" (instead of "father in the sky), a bit of myth of eternal return, trying to go back to some kind of imaginary primordial paradaise...ecology as culture, as religion too, with aestetics, language, fashions, myths and obcessions. its the same thing as ever, just turn to ecology. Ecology in aestetics, in language, in instagram. And many people just got caught in this obcession about soil. If one create heaven soil one gets pardon, praise, redemption, salvation. Its some kind of prayer, showing morale... Many cant understand what a mineral is, what carbon is, what microbes are...they just want to "restore" the soil, and all soil should be dark, carbonized, flofy, moist...and full of vegetation and all kinds of microbiology. Soil is the part of the ecosystem wich is easier to focus on, and to hack, so its right there ready to obcession. People forget that a vegetable life depends on many factors, like genetics, light, temperatures, co2, o2, hydrogen, etc. Even forget the obvious: in most cases one gets more change controling the air ambient with a greenhouse then changing the soil. Water is a more modifying factor then carbon or mineral composition, most plants dont need soil to live, aquaponics its mainstream for years now. This is new science. Even biologist cant understand a lot about soil micribiology... but every new backyard farmer seems to show himself making biochar and compostea... Well, this comment tends to go to long, sorry. Tanks for going after myths, bring back some out of fashion modernist science in this new age of darkness, where amateur pseudoscientifc hacks are comercialized and spread as salvation on a click of a button.
That’s quite ironic that you see others a being so unclear and yourself as so clear on , apparently, so many matters. I wonder, rhetorically, what your takeaway from this video would be.
@@neilbennett9281 that s the point...im not clear at all, on nothing about this (soil, and the cultural aspect around it). Nor is nobody else, much less the unscientific hacking "potion" being shown around on yt. Thats my take away This is very complex science, many diversity and quantity of variables changing all the time, and no one can known, and much less contro,l much of it. And what i like about the channel is the work to trying, slowly, with no absolute assurance, test and dismistify all this unscience and pseudoscience and hacking going around.
A garden that doesn't have lots of synthetic fertilizers and herbicide/pesticide/fungicide should have much more than a forest because there should be more organic matter build up. the leaves (very high carbon; little nitrogen) falling in a forest with not much undergrowth is not great for living soil. It also makes sense the Fungi is higher in the forest- they love rotting wood.
Are you saying that this test will yield lower bacterial numbers for compost soaked in water than for compost soaked in bourbon? And you're advertising this as anyhow useful?
When I worked in a laboratory we used to test enzymatic activities in the soil: Dehydrogenase activity, alkaline phosphatase, sulfatase, fluoresceidindiacetate test etc. to estimate the mineralizing microbial activities. These tests take only some hours but need some technical equipment. Hi from a german biologist.
Your comments beginning @17:02 are spot on.
It’s like a bathroom scale, it’s more important that it’s repeatable rather than accurate. If it was always 5lbs too heavy, you could adjust for it. If it was sometimes 2lbs heavy and sometimes 2lbs light, it might be more accurate but the number is less useful. Likewise, comparing tests on the same soil in different time periods gives you a stable benchmark if the test is repeatable.
Firstly, thanks for your hard work in running all these investigations. I'm not convinced by this test. As gardeners we know that dark soils tend to be more productive because they contain more organic matter in various states of decay. Many people on the allotments near mine buy in very little compost, animal manure etc. and then complain about poor yields and marvel at some of mine. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't get it to invest in it's supply!
My soil's just about black when wet.
Standard test says silty loam & the organic matter's fairly significant.
I actually think the dark colour's down to this being a former mining town & all the soot & coal ash dumped on the gardens over 150 years (my house was built in 1867).
This testing method seems dubious at best.
I send my soil to be tested for free from state University agriculture dept.
They gave me a fairly complex readout only drawback was it takes weeks to get back.
Thanks for the video.
Thank you. I shall follow up with a good read of your books.
Good job.
Thank you for sharing! The microBIOMETER soil test is an inexpensive way busy growers and farmers can obtain a quick snapshot of the biology in their soil to determine if their soil management efforts and amendments are working. Testing data is saved in the app by GPS location for future reference and analysis. For many, a microscope is just not a workable option due to cost, inexperience, accuracy and time restraints.
My guess is that the reason why the samples from the forest floor had a lower microbes level is because of what feeds it. Its mostly formed from built up layers of dead leaves that have fallen in the autumn which will be very low in nitrogen because the trees suck that out of them prior to shedding them and theyll be virtually 100% carbon. This stands to reason seeing as leaves are regarded as browns in a compost heap.
I agree - the science suggests that the plants create the F:B ratio - not the other way around.
So your saying the test can only tell me dark things are high in microbes and lite things are low in microbes
so it basically relies on color variation to suggest that microbes are responsible for the coloration?
In short, it deosn't measure literal microbe counts at all.
At first I thought this was a joke. Now I'm lookin at the calendar to see if we've fast forwarded to April 1.
It does not count microbes. It measure color intensity - like a colorimeter.
I absolutely guarantee my soil has more than enough microbes, without throwing $$$ at buying tests.
How do I know?
Simple; the produce coming off my vegetable plot has increased year on year since I significantly upped my production of compost.
Fungal activity's way up since I went 'no till' 5 years ago too.
Tank you for your patience. Tanks a lot for you content.
Your myth busting is based on common sense and science, praticality etc. I come to agriculture from a "cultural" background and tend to analyzing it from there.
I belive (non science theorical...) this obcession with soil is part of post modernism, this "mother earth" (instead of "father in the sky), a bit of myth of eternal return, trying to go back to some kind of imaginary primordial paradaise...ecology as culture, as religion too, with aestetics, language, fashions, myths and obcessions. its the same thing as ever, just turn to ecology. Ecology in aestetics, in language, in instagram. And many people just got caught in this obcession about soil. If one create heaven soil one gets pardon, praise, redemption, salvation. Its some kind of prayer, showing morale... Many cant understand what a mineral is, what carbon is, what microbes are...they just want to "restore" the soil, and all soil should be dark, carbonized, flofy, moist...and full of vegetation and all kinds of microbiology.
Soil is the part of the ecosystem wich is easier to focus on, and to hack, so its right there ready to obcession. People forget that a vegetable life depends on many factors, like genetics, light, temperatures, co2, o2, hydrogen, etc. Even forget the obvious: in most cases one gets more change controling the air ambient with a greenhouse then changing the soil. Water is a more modifying factor then carbon or mineral composition, most plants dont need soil to live, aquaponics its mainstream for years now. This is new science. Even biologist cant understand a lot about soil micribiology... but every new backyard farmer seems to show himself making biochar and compostea...
Well, this comment tends to go to long, sorry.
Tanks for going after myths, bring back some out of fashion modernist science in this new age of darkness, where amateur pseudoscientifc hacks are comercialized and spread as salvation on a click of a button.
That’s quite ironic that you see others a being so unclear and yourself as so clear on , apparently, so many matters.
I wonder, rhetorically, what your takeaway from this video would be.
@@neilbennett9281 that s the point...im not clear at all, on nothing about this (soil, and the cultural aspect around it). Nor is nobody else, much less the unscientific hacking "potion" being shown around on yt.
Thats my take away
This is very complex science, many diversity and quantity of variables changing all the time, and no one can known, and much less contro,l much of it.
And what i like about the channel is the work to trying, slowly, with no absolute assurance, test and dismistify all this unscience and pseudoscience and hacking going around.
It also won't say whether they are healthy bacteria or detrimental anaerobic bacteria.
Great analysis. Thanks
A garden that doesn't have lots of synthetic fertilizers and herbicide/pesticide/fungicide should have much more than a forest because there should be more organic matter build up. the leaves (very high carbon; little nitrogen) falling in a forest with not much undergrowth is not great for living soil.
It also makes sense the Fungi is higher in the forest- they love rotting wood.
About fungi bacterial ratio i think dr johnson would not agree with you
we call it MICROscope
What, no microscopy?✌️
Are you saying that this test will yield lower bacterial numbers for compost soaked in water than for compost soaked in bourbon? And you're advertising this as anyhow useful?
💦 "promosm"!!
this test is simply based on color. the color of money... put the samples under a microscope and do the field analysis and learn the truth
look at it under a microscope
Why - doesn't tell you much
@@Gardenfundamentals1 it tells you what kind of microbes and how many the soil scientists do it to help determine soil health
This is about as worthless as the THC Phone Test that gives THC readings on Tea & Tobacco Leaves.