I go back to this old discussion concerning the OM of the soil, the humus or humic substances
Did67 wrote:
Now, the definition of humic substances, their chemical nature, their classification and especially the thorny question of "synthetic routes" is currently quite shaken up and called into question. Already, for twenty years, glomalins have blurred the tracks. I tried, at the time of writing the 2nd book, to see clearly and got ... bogged down (so much the documents that I found contradicted each other, in particular because no precise definition of "humic substances "," stable humic substances "," glomalins "did not make consensus, so I gave up)
What I just wrote does not take this into account:
a) there is still a lot of controversy in all this and I have not taken the time to delve into the subject sufficiently; so I do not decide at this stage
b) above all, I am not at all certain that from a global point of view, and in practice, this changes the terms of the balance sheet; Obviously, some materials "end" by giving more humic substances than others (even if the path by which this passes is dark and therefore subject to questioning) ... Wherever one makes contributions of vegetable matter fibrous, the color of the soil becomes darker, the soil content of "stable humic substances" increases little by little, over the long term; the agronomic qualities of the soil improve. Everywhere where no more is added, the rates drop slowly, the structure deteriorates, the soil needs more crutches (fertilizer, work) to maintain its fertility ... If a "genius" questioned that, I think I won't believe it. I would allow myself to think that like Lysenko or Benvéniste (he is the "scientist" who demonstrated the memory of water - scientifically "justifying" homeopathy), he has too big an ego and needs to be talked about. of him (even if it means denying the obvious) ...
[Note that it is always very difficult, if not impossible, in the short term, to decide between a "brilliant new idea" and a "deception"; the fact that the same result can be obtained by the same protocol by anyone is not always easy to verify; another way of presuming correctness is that the idea ends up being imposed and verified by applications; E = mc² was shocking and not easy to verify; at the latest after Hiroshima, it became difficult to doubt; but long before, the "coherence" with the rest of the knowledge was essential; Einstein was not taken long for a pie despite his looks!]
c) on the other hand, I have a (arduous) article in English (finally American) where a team questions the NATURE of humic substances and defends the hypothesis that the current classification (well old, the one I gave) would only be artifacts of the extraction methods used. Otherwise fulvic, humic, humic acid would not exist in reality. There would be a kind of "continuum" of stable organic matter, in the soil, of different natures. And when you extract them with different solvents, they precipitate in one form or the other ... And that, I want to believe it. It even seems quite logical to me! But that does not change the situation in practice ...
A bit as if a mechanic was telling a Martian who had just landed: there are cars, they have 4 wheels, there are 3 wheels. And then there are motorcycles, they have two wheels ... And a finer observer of road traffic would say to him: but no, there are also scooters which have 3 wheels and some trucks or tractors also have 4 wheels but this is not the same. And between a Smart and a big "dressed" motorcycle, the difference is no longer so clear ... The second would be right. But that would not fundamentally change the traffic on our roads and in our cities ...
I am always very, very late in my vegetable garden (onions not harvested!). And in the editing of videos. I'll see if I have time to update myself and dig into the subject.
But you are right: it is the good old approach (it is not strictly speaking a "theory", but a very global quantitative approach, in which one does not even distinguish the various humic substances).
in a recent video, A Sélosse also seems to have "evolved" on the subject ...
speaking of humin, humic and fulvic acid he says that they are laboratory artefacts and that no one today thinks these substances exist in soils anymore.
And explain what is actually considered to be stable OM (or stable humus).
the passage lasts about 4 minutes in this video (from 3.02.30 to 3.06.40)