"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

My point was that I do not understand what process can determine
the
amount of arbitrary organic matter in a sample by simply shaking a
suspension of the sample in a liquid and looking for a colour
change.

Probably something like: a fairly powerful oxidising agent, a
catalyst
and a suitable indicator.

I am sincerely doubtful whether *all* organic compounds would respond
identically to such a group of agents.

It may be more specific than that - targeting
the acidic peaty component that is guaranteed to rot and change
volume.

That would be a pH meter. That does not measure "total organic
content", and would give wildly misleading results in limestone
country.

I still think it is a scam.

Franz

In article , Martin
writes

I still think it is a scam.

Be more positive Franz, *we* know it's a scam :-)

IMHO it is a scam, but not because it doesn't do what it claims, it is a
scam because having one and using it is not any contribution to how
horticulturally organic the soil is - as distinct from structurally
organic. This is yet another indication that the word organic is an
unfortunate one to describe a particular style of gardening.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:39:23 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


I still think it is a scam.

Be more positive Franz, *we* know it's a scam :-)

I think very positively that it is a scam.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
writes

I still think it is a scam.

Be more positive Franz, *we* know it's a scam :-)

IMHO it is a scam, but not because it doesn't do what it claims, it
is a
scam because having one and using it is not any contribution to how
horticulturally organic the soil is - as distinct from structurally
organic. This is yet another indication that the word organic is an
unfortunate one to describe a particular style of gardening.

You have beaten me there. What do you mean by "horticulturally
organic" as opposed to "structurally organic"?

Franz

In message , Franz Heymann
writes

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

My point was that I do not understand what process can determine
the
amount of arbitrary organic matter in a sample by simply shaking a
suspension of the sample in a liquid and looking for a colour
change.

Probably something like: a fairly powerful oxidising agent, a
catalyst
and a suitable indicator.

I am sincerely doubtful whether *all* organic compounds would respond
identically to such a group of agents.

Oh. I can assure you that *all* organic compounds will respond the same
way to sufficiently powerful oxidising agents - ending up as CO2. The
problem is that most of these chemicals are far too dangerous to be used
in a soil test. PTFE and a few other designer molecules might resist
attack at room temperature but ultimately even they give up the ghost.

It may be more specific than that - targeting
the acidic peaty component that is guaranteed to rot and change
volume.

That would be a pH meter. That does not measure "total organic
content", and would give wildly misleading results in limestone
country.

There are more cunning ways to measure humic acids.

I still think it is a scam.

I am pretty sure the test being sold is supremely irrelevant to
gardening, but if the Organic(TM) suckers want to buy into a spurious
chemical test of "goodness" then so be it.....

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In article , Franz Heymann
writes


You have beaten me there. What do you mean by "horticulturally
organic" as opposed to "structurally organic"?

Horticulturally is to do with the way you carry out your gardening,
structurally is to do with the composition of the soil.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Martin Brown
writes
I am pretty sure the test being sold is supremely irrelevant to
gardening, but if the Organic(TM) suckers want to buy into a spurious
chemical test of "goodness" then so be it.....

Well yes, but what is 'goodness'?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

My point was that I do not understand what process can determine
the
amount of arbitrary organic matter in a sample by simply shaking
a
suspension of the sample in a liquid and looking for a colour
change.

Probably something like: a fairly powerful oxidising agent, a
catalyst
and a suitable indicator.

I am sincerely doubtful whether *all* organic compounds would
respond
identically to such a group of agents.

Oh. I can assure you that *all* organic compounds will respond the
same
way to sufficiently powerful oxidising agents - ending up as CO2.
The
problem is that most of these chemicals are far too dangerous to be
used
in a soil test. PTFE and a few other designer molecules might
resist
attack at room temperature but ultimately even they give up the
ghost.

I was talking about responding by imparting a characteristic colour to
a test fluid.

It may be more specific than that - targeting
the acidic peaty component that is guaranteed to rot and change
volume.

That would be a pH meter. That does not measure "total organic
content", and would give wildly misleading results in limestone
country.

There are more cunning ways to measure humic acids.

I don't doubt that. By the way, I don't like the catch-all term
"humic acids".

I still think it is a scam.

I am pretty sure the test being sold is supremely irrelevant to
gardening, but if the Organic(TM) suckers want to buy into a
spurious
chemical test of "goodness" then so be it.....

Agreed

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes


You have beaten me there. What do you mean by "horticulturally
organic" as opposed to "structurally organic"?

Horticulturally is to do with the way you carry out your gardening,
structurally is to do with the composition of the soil.

Sorry, but that passed right over my head.
Let's call it a day. I will probably never understand it.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Brown
writes
I am pretty sure the test being sold is supremely irrelevant to
gardening, but if the Organic(TM) suckers want to buy into a
spurious
chemical test of "goodness" then so be it.....

Well yes, but what is 'goodness'?

That is what we have been trying to establish in this thread.

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

Sorry, but that passed right over my head.
Let's call it a day. I will probably never understand it.

Don't worry about it Franz. Just accept that there are people carrying
out their gardening in different ways to those normally accepted. If
those methods are alien to your way of thinking it doesn't make them
wrong, but you would have difficulty in figuring out what they are doing
and why they are doing it. I get like that about GM cropping.

If you really want to learn something new, ask Janet about Permaculture!
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
[...]
There are more cunning ways to measure humic acids.

I don't doubt that. By the way, I don't like the catch-all term
"humic acids".

Well, now that we've disposed of the undoubted scam, in particular
applications catch-all terms may have their uses. For example, the
concentration of acidic humic compounds in a water sample is of
serious and proper interest, and most of the time no more specific
term is needed -- in fact, listing the compounds out would often be a
waste of space. I've just looked for another example, and at once
found an on-line oil-industry glossary which suggests that, at least
for one phase of that industry, the term's good enough for practical
purposes:

quote/humic acid

1. n. [Drilling Fluids] ID: 1986

Organic carboxylic acids of complex molecular structure (aromatic and
phenolic) that comprise 10 to 90% of lignite. Humic acids in lignite
react with caustic ingredients (NaOH and KOH) in mud. The water
solubility of lignite depends on its humic acid content.
Decarboxylation of humic acid groups by hydrolysis in alkaline muds is
a major source of carbonate and bicarbonate anions in water muds.
/endquote

You could afford to forget more about this than I shall ever have
known, but it seems to me that even such ordinarily useful expressions
as "fatty acids" or "amino-acids" could also be called "catch-all
terms".

(Deep breath.)

Mike.

In message , Alan Gould
writes
In article , Martin Brown
writes
I am pretty sure the test being sold is supremely irrelevant to
gardening, but if the Organic(TM) suckers want to buy into a spurious
chemical test of "goodness" then so be it.....

Well yes, but what is 'goodness'?

According to Organic(TM) scheme it is mainly about getting premium
prices off the worried well for vastly overpriced and overpackaged
Organic(TM) branded goods in supermarkets. After being sanctified by the
acolytes of the Soil Association you can charge a massive premium.

Often the Organic(TM) stuff is flown half way round the world using
vastly more petrochemicals than it would require to grow it locally.

I have no problem at all with minimum inputs agriculture (as opposed to
modern intensive commercial farming) or local farmers markets, but
Organic(TM) is founded primarily on marketing concerns rather than on
real science.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In article , Martin Brown
writes
Well yes, but what is 'goodness'?

According to Organic(TM) scheme it is mainly about getting premium
prices off the worried well for vastly overpriced and overpackaged
Organic(TM) branded goods in supermarkets. After being sanctified by the
acolytes of the Soil Association you can charge a massive premium.

Often the Organic(TM) stuff is flown half way round the world using
vastly more petrochemicals than it would require to grow it locally.

I have no problem at all with minimum inputs agriculture (as opposed to
modern intensive commercial farming) or local farmers markets, but
Organic(TM) is founded primarily on marketing concerns rather than on
real science.

Well yes, but you still haven't defined 'goodness' in this context.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

Sorry, but that passed right over my head.
Let's call it a day. I will probably never understand it.

Don't worry about it Franz. Just accept that there are people
carrying
out their gardening in different ways to those normally accepted. If
those methods are alien to your way of thinking it doesn't make them
wrong, but you would have difficulty in figuring out what they are
doing
and why they are doing it.

That's what I tried to say.

I get like that about GM cropping.

I don't have enough information about GM foodstuffs to have a serious
opinion one way or the other.

If you really want to learn something new, ask Janet about
Permaculture!

Janet, What is Permaculture?

Franz