-
The Helpful Gardener
- Mod
- Posts: 7491
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:17 pm
- Location: Colchester, CT
well I would like an answer about the humus thing. I'm as confused as ever.
but that's up to Jeff.
In a perfect world, it would be cool if everybody did the jar test and reported back with a picture or just words. But even if we get a couple we can talk about them.
I mean, the subject is kinda boring (no offense Jeff!), but it might be because we are talking abstract instead of looking at something.
but that's up to Jeff.
In a perfect world, it would be cool if everybody did the jar test and reported back with a picture or just words. But even if we get a couple we can talk about them.
I mean, the subject is kinda boring (no offense Jeff!), but it might be because we are talking abstract instead of looking at something.
-
MichaelsMommy
- Newly Registered
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:46 pm
- Location: Zone 3
-
The Helpful Gardener
- Mod
- Posts: 7491
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:17 pm
- Location: Colchester, CT
-
gixxerific
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 5889
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:42 pm
- Location: Wentzville, MO (Just West oF St. Louis) Zone 5B
Carry on if you will this is definitely a book to reread. Great job Jeff.This is the sample
[img]https://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/toilpics/soiltest/DSCF0001.jpg[/img]
here is a slice
[img]https://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/toilpics/soiltest/DSCF0002.jpg[/img]
and this is enhanced for detail.
[img]https://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/toilpics/soiltest/DSCF0002_2.jpg[/img]
[img]https://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/toilpics/soiltest/DSCF0001.jpg[/img]
here is a slice
[img]https://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/toilpics/soiltest/DSCF0002.jpg[/img]
and this is enhanced for detail.
[img]https://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/toilpics/soiltest/DSCF0002_2.jpg[/img]
-
The Helpful Gardener
- Mod
- Posts: 7491
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:17 pm
- Location: Colchester, CT
This was a pretty interesting chapter for me (don't mind all the chemistry stuff). I liked learning about the various types of in-soil water and their characteristics.
It was also interesting to find out that is is merely particle size, and not elemental-make up, that largely determines if it is sand, silt, or clay. And that sand and silt don't have an electrical charge, so they play a lesser role in determining the CEC of the soil.
I also enjoyed the science behind the CEC of the soil. It seems like we could say that plants that prefer nitrogen in the ammonium form wold get a better supply in good organic soil since this is the form that had a positive charge and is locked up by the soil. However, it would seem that nitrates, which have a negative charge, would be in slightly less supply since they appear to be more subject to reaction and leaching because of them not being locked up in the soil. However, it is nitrogen oxidizing bacteria that would create the nitrate, so perhaps they store it as well. What do you think?
On the topic of Ph, I thought it to be very clear about what Ph is and how it is determined (although, as you all have previously demonstrated, it appears to be a little more complex). It states that is is a measure of how many hydrogen ions are in a solution. Now, on page 41 it seems to directly contradict what RBG said about pH: "The pH tells the concentrations of hydrogen ions (H+, a cation) in the solution being measured. If you have relatively few hydrogen ions compared to the rest of what is in solution, the pH is low and the solution is acidic. Similarly, if you have a lot of hydrogen ions in solution, then you have a solution with a high pH, one that is alkaline."
RBG said that high levels of hydrogen denotes acidic soils and the book said high leaves denote basic (alkaline) soils. Which is correct?
I did not get a chance to try the soil layer test, but I'm glad someone did......now I need an interpenetration of it. How would you rate the particle levels in the soil, Toil? From my view, it looks like 40% sand and silt and about 10 or 20% clay
. I'm having trouble differentiating the layers 
Great discussion on this chapter, everyone.
It was also interesting to find out that is is merely particle size, and not elemental-make up, that largely determines if it is sand, silt, or clay. And that sand and silt don't have an electrical charge, so they play a lesser role in determining the CEC of the soil.
I also enjoyed the science behind the CEC of the soil. It seems like we could say that plants that prefer nitrogen in the ammonium form wold get a better supply in good organic soil since this is the form that had a positive charge and is locked up by the soil. However, it would seem that nitrates, which have a negative charge, would be in slightly less supply since they appear to be more subject to reaction and leaching because of them not being locked up in the soil. However, it is nitrogen oxidizing bacteria that would create the nitrate, so perhaps they store it as well. What do you think?
On the topic of Ph, I thought it to be very clear about what Ph is and how it is determined (although, as you all have previously demonstrated, it appears to be a little more complex). It states that is is a measure of how many hydrogen ions are in a solution. Now, on page 41 it seems to directly contradict what RBG said about pH: "The pH tells the concentrations of hydrogen ions (H+, a cation) in the solution being measured. If you have relatively few hydrogen ions compared to the rest of what is in solution, the pH is low and the solution is acidic. Similarly, if you have a lot of hydrogen ions in solution, then you have a solution with a high pH, one that is alkaline."
RBG said that high levels of hydrogen denotes acidic soils and the book said high leaves denote basic (alkaline) soils. Which is correct?
I did not get a chance to try the soil layer test, but I'm glad someone did......now I need an interpenetration of it. How would you rate the particle levels in the soil, Toil? From my view, it looks like 40% sand and silt and about 10 or 20% clay
. I'm having trouble differentiating the layers Great discussion on this chapter, everyone.
-
rainbowgardener
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: TN/GA 7b
I don't know where my copy of the book is off hand to see what is going on there and if there's anything in the book to resolve the contradiction.
But here's the Wikipedia explanation of pH:
"In a solution pH approximates but is not equal to p[H], the negative logarithm (base 10) of the molar concentration of dissolved hydronium ions (H3O+); a low pH indicates a high concentration of hydronium ions, while a high pH indicates a low concentration. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
If the author of the book said otherwise, then he just got it wrong.
Hydronium ions incidentally are H30, which is how hydrogen exists in water. Wiki: "Hydrogen ions in water can be written simply as H+ or as hydronium (H3O+) or higher species (e.g. H9O4+) to account for solvation, but all describe the same entity." So that is not the difference.
But here's the Wikipedia explanation of pH:
"In a solution pH approximates but is not equal to p[H], the negative logarithm (base 10) of the molar concentration of dissolved hydronium ions (H3O+); a low pH indicates a high concentration of hydronium ions, while a high pH indicates a low concentration. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
If the author of the book said otherwise, then he just got it wrong.
Hydronium ions incidentally are H30, which is how hydrogen exists in water. Wiki: "Hydrogen ions in water can be written simply as H+ or as hydronium (H3O+) or higher species (e.g. H9O4+) to account for solvation, but all describe the same entity." So that is not the difference.
Well, RBG, after reading several sources and looking at it closely, you are clearly correct and the section on pH clearly got in backwards.
I think the trouble may lie in the fact that pH is a negative logarithm of the concentration of hydronium (hydrogen). I believe this means that it increases as the concentration decreases. I'll bet that more than likely, the article assumed that it was a direct measurement of the ion concentration. That is, it assumed pH increased as the concentration increased. Of course, the author could have just as easily confused the acid/alkaline properties of the compounds, but I think the former is more likely to have happened.
If HG was here, he'd probably kick both of us and tell us we should be focusing on the biology and not worry about the chemistry technicalities. I'll be the first to admit he'd be right, too.
However, I can't resist a resist a deeper look when presented with a discrepancy like this (and after all, this chapter is titled Classic Soil Science ). I'm glad I did, since now I've got an even better understanding of pH 
.
I think the trouble may lie in the fact that pH is a negative logarithm of the concentration of hydronium (hydrogen). I believe this means that it increases as the concentration decreases. I'll bet that more than likely, the article assumed that it was a direct measurement of the ion concentration. That is, it assumed pH increased as the concentration increased. Of course, the author could have just as easily confused the acid/alkaline properties of the compounds, but I think the former is more likely to have happened.
If HG was here, he'd probably kick both of us and tell us we should be focusing on the biology and not worry about the chemistry technicalities. I'll be the first to admit he'd be right, too.
However, I can't resist a resist a deeper look when presented with a discrepancy like this (and after all, this chapter is titled Classic Soil Science
). I'm glad I did, since now I've got an even better understanding of pH .-
The Helpful Gardener
- Mod
- Posts: 7491
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:17 pm
- Location: Colchester, CT
Concentrate on the biology. It'll adjust the pH to where it needs to be anyway... 
And Hydronium isn't hydrogen, it's H3O. Reduce the H3O and we get water and a free hydrogen. So an increase in hydrogen and a decrease in hydronium? Could this be our discrepency?
I dunno... just pay attention to the biology...
HG
And Hydronium isn't hydrogen, it's H3O. Reduce the H3O and we get water and a free hydrogen. So an increase in hydrogen and a decrease in hydronium? Could this be our discrepency?
I dunno... just pay attention to the biology...
HG
-
rainbowgardener
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: TN/GA 7b
It is how hydrogen ions exist in water. H+ ions quickly bond to become H30, and "higher species." That is not the discrepancy. He just made a mistake.rainbowgardener wrote:
Hydronium ions incidentally are H30, which is how hydrogen exists in water. Wiki: "Hydrogen ions in water can be written simply as H+ or as hydronium (H3O+) or higher species (e.g. H9O4+) to account for solvation, but all describe the same entity." So that is not the difference.
-
applestar
- Mod
- Posts: 30550
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 7:21 pm
- Location: Zone 6, NJ (3/M)4/E ~ 10/M(11/B)
Interesting! So the publisher's people don't "edit" -- I.e. have someone check a manuscript over -- for technical errors? I mean a scientific work -- the original science might be the author's but there could still be "typos" and "spelling/grammatical" errors, couldn't there? Isn't that what science editors do? (I've no idea) Hmm... I wonder if I know someone who would know that sort of thing....
Apps, I've been thinking about that as well. Perhaps, as we all know, pH is such an intricate subject that the editors didn't even want to start picking apart the technicalities of it and just took the authors at their word (Jeff even said that this was a chapter he wasn't enthused about writing)? Just a guess.
Logically, this should have been double-checked and corrected, however, logical things don't always happen
. Like HG said, the biology makes things how they should be, so I suppose we shouldn't worry too much.
Logically, this should have been double-checked and corrected, however, logical things don't always happen
. Like HG said, the biology makes things how they should be, so I suppose we shouldn't worry too much.Return to “Teaming with Microbes Revised Edition - Jeff Lowenfels - Wayne Lewis”