Even human blood once though sterile is being found to have a microbiome. Microbes everywhere!! Love this presentation! That acyrnine orange sounds awesome🔥🙌and the camera tek is next level
Highly "Educational" Matt! About to launch your lessons in 4 School Districts down in South Texas as Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council/ TCEQ/ Region One ESC collaboration on "Food Waste Reduction" via composting & vermiculture. $3,500 ea for 6 microscopes too! Keep inspiring us all to steward healthy soils 😊
I still say that we can account for "bulk density" diferientiation by using water to account for it like a soil lab tech would calculate its specific bulk density ..... start with adding water to 1ml then add sample material until it benchmarks an additional 1 mL of volume.This can then be diluted to the required rate for application, typically 9:1 W:S Additionally this allows us to calculate the weight of water Vs the weight of the soil in the water so we can obtain its specific bulk density metric ...all can be accounted for by simply reversing the protocol in its assembly order in the tube ...water first and then material ...... obviously this isnt as convenient ..but accuracy rarely is ...the hardest part is making sure the sample isn't retaining air bubbles from a hydrophobic effect or a compositional surface tension effect ..... it only takes me an extra second .... I can simply add any amount of water under my desired total ..... typically 10 ml total ...so I could add up to 9 ml at the start , however it seems to me that 3 - 5 ml is sufficient for making the task of submersion and bubble removal quite a bit easier than using 1 mL. ...it doesnt matter where you start with the water unless your looking for less than a final dilution of 9 to 1. the only thing that matters is that you have made sure that the water is a round number benchmark ...exactly 3 ml or 4 or 5 ..ect ...then simply add sample material until you have added exactly 1 mL of volume without any air bubbles ..... boom ... way more accurate than any method I can think of ...its not perfect but I would say its at least an order of magnitude more accurate than compressing the sample down to 1 mL. I find that this action of tamping down the material makes it quite difficult to emulsify into the dilute. This is more pronounced in clay and clay loam or a finer material like a worm casting or SuBeam ....... also find the nematodes are often stuck in clumps of material in these extractions but not in my density extractions ....but I need to do more of them and write up a presentation with demonstration
But because of structuring you'll never be able to have an exact representation of the 3D space from the original soil that it represents, making it incomparable to other samples with different structures and %'s of air. So chasing a 1 ml exactness doesn't change the inaccuracy, it only increases it.
![What is Regenerative Soil? with Matt Powers [FULL 2024 PRESENTATION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w0Lo6R4cjRI/mqdefault.jpg)
fantastic delivery! Thank you for this work. I am just a humble gardener hoping to catch a ride!
Awesome video we need many more lol great work matt.
Thanks for blazing the way! Blessings!
🎉🎉🎉BENDICIONES🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN DE LAS CONCIENCIAS🎉🎉🎉
Wonderful! Really looking forward to exploring the MIcrosomos!
Your a genius frfr
Thanks for sharing!
Great video!
Even human blood once though sterile is being found to have a microbiome. Microbes everywhere!! Love this presentation! That acyrnine orange sounds awesome🔥🙌and the camera tek is next level
Thank you so much for making this a sharing Matt!
@@jacobrafaat1516 Thank you for being here Jacob! And thank you for your comments!!! I really appreciate it!!
Highly "Educational" Matt! About to launch your lessons in 4 School Districts down in South Texas as Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council/ TCEQ/ Region One ESC collaboration on "Food Waste Reduction" via composting & vermiculture. $3,500 ea for 6 microscopes too! Keep inspiring us all to steward healthy soils 😊
!!! Amazing!!
That is awesome
Ratio’s, an easier way.
I still say that we can account for "bulk density" diferientiation by using water to account for it like a soil lab tech would calculate its specific bulk density ..... start with adding water to 1ml then add sample material until it benchmarks an additional 1 mL of volume.This can then be diluted to the required rate for application, typically 9:1 W:S Additionally this allows us to calculate the weight of water Vs the weight of the soil in the water so we can obtain its specific bulk density metric ...all can be accounted for by simply reversing the protocol in its assembly order in the tube ...water first and then material ...... obviously this isnt as convenient ..but accuracy rarely is ...the hardest part is making sure the sample isn't retaining air bubbles from a hydrophobic effect or a compositional surface tension effect ..... it only takes me an extra second .... I can simply add any amount of water under my desired total ..... typically 10 ml total ...so I could add up to 9 ml at the start , however it seems to me that 3 - 5 ml is sufficient for making the task of submersion and bubble removal quite a bit easier than using 1 mL. ...it doesnt matter where you start with the water unless your looking for less than a final dilution of 9 to 1. the only thing that matters is that you have made sure that the water is a round number benchmark ...exactly 3 ml or 4 or 5 ..ect ...then simply add sample material until you have added exactly 1 mL of volume without any air bubbles ..... boom ... way more accurate than any method I can think of ...its not perfect but I would say its at least an order of magnitude more accurate than compressing the sample down to 1 mL. I find that this action of tamping down the material makes it quite difficult to emulsify into the dilute. This is more pronounced in clay and clay loam or a finer material like a worm casting or SuBeam ....... also find the nematodes are often stuck in clumps of material in these extractions but not in my density extractions ....but I need to do more of them and write up a presentation with demonstration
But because of structuring you'll never be able to have an exact representation of the 3D space from the original soil that it represents, making it incomparable to other samples with different structures and %'s of air. So chasing a 1 ml exactness doesn't change the inaccuracy, it only increases it.
I still need to hunt down some acridine orange. Thanks for sharing matt !
@@chrismoore5571 we'll all be able to get it through Simeon soon ;)
Mil gracias!!!
HumuSightOMeter...hehehehe
our discretion is superior to any AI.
Is it funny though? 😂