True, but if only there was a soil scientist here to explain that the chemical makeup of humus makes the nutrients in the soil more available via chelation and acids that break apart the other compounds. I am not dismissing compost, I am saying that it is not all its built up to be. Try a test if you like. Make a bed with compost heavily mixed in, then another with half the compost, but add humic and fulvic acids every now and then. If you keep up with it, then the plants that are being helped with the humic compounds will be much healthier. These two compounds (humic and fulvic acids) are just two of the countless chemicals found in humus that are not present in compost.
I think it is strange that the whole point of adding compost to soil is to speed up the process and production of humus in the soil (as well as to provide trace amounts of nutrients) and so far know one has seen how important the process outlined above is. Compost is for the added organic matter, manure for N, and other organic additives for other nutrients, compost was never supposed to provide the nutrients alone.

Of course it is a synergy of all things working together to get the best results. Soil health parallels the human body. Stomach acid is needed after saliva to break down the minerals so they can be absorbed in the intestines. It takes a total package of nutrients and processes to ultilize our foods.

On a side note for Bob...Sodium carbonate can dissolve humus I understand and capillarily bring it to the surface...called black alkali...the dreaded kind.

Ya, I was being extremely simplistic in my comment. Soil and plant growth are not simple but thankfully it goes on without me having to know a great deal about it.

:-)

Lloyd

Wayne, sodium carbonate is one of only a handful of chemicals that can dissolve humus, but these chemicals are not readily found in soils so humus is considered incredibly stable. My view of humus is the same I take for biochar: the immediate effect is not very great, but the long term effect is the incredible increase of overall soil fertility.
Pt03, you are right. Gardening is about the fun of it, and part of that fun for me is understanding the physical and chemical processes involved. It is not necessary information, but for those who have the curiosity I present this bit of info. I think it is fascinating, but not required knowledge.
This is just one small aspect of the entire science of how plants and their environments work, there is so much more to learn as gardeners, and as a society, but they are all important to how the system works.

So humus and charcoal, which are similar, are irreducible frameworks for holding minerals and fostering the fungi and bacteria that feed on the minerals.

One can skip the organic break-down of a compost pile altogether, and combine charcoal or humate with very fine rock powders and/or mineral salts, before adding to the soil. This will presumably prevent them from sucking the nutrients right out of the soil solution and instead will add great slow-release store-houses of nutrients.

Not exactly. Yes humus and charcoal have amazing CECs, but you should not simply mix them with clay and add it in. Biochar should be crushed into a sandlike consistency, and humus, well it takes while. If you want short term results humates work great, I use them in my container plants, but nothing beats naturally humified matter.
Humus and charcoal are almost irreducible. Humus cans be broken down by the presence of alkali substances, and charcoal can eventually brake down, but when it does makes the ground even more fertile. If humus in your soil does break down then I would no eat anything from it anyway, only very strong chemicals can destabilize humus (and just because I said chemicals, does not mean they can't occurs in nature)

Okay, I'm having difficulty with the 'humus never breaks down' issue.

I'm no soil scientist nor have I taken any training in soils but I can't recall anywhere that I've read that states humus never breaks down. In fact, everything I've read says it does break down (albeit extremely slowly).

Logically, if humus never broke down it would continue to accumulate and the ground level would have risen over the billions of years of existence.

Lloyd

"but you should not simply mix them with clay and add it in."

Why?

In any case, fine rock powders can be a number of things, as can clay. Clay can be based on various kinds of very broken-down rocks, over huge amounts of time. Naturally, a lot of the nutrients may have been lost long ago. Recently-crushed rocks, OTOH, may have most of the minerals retained. This is why finely powdered limestones give such an immediate boost to many soils. Mixed with charcoal, however crushed, could only be better because the structure of the char will cling to some of the fresh minerals from the rock powder and keep them from possible erosion. This would be especially true in sandy soils.

Humus most certainly will eventually break down, at least in an aerobic environment, and that breaking down is by biological (mainly microbial) metabolism and oxidation.

Where humus does not break down for prolonged time is generally in peatlands that are nearly all anaerobic in the saturated zone beneath their surface. Sometimes cold and acidity and low nutrient content help in preservation as well. Plant defensive compounds (e.g., tannins) may help in places where the vegetation is rich in such.

Alkalii materials do not really break down humus (humic acids) rather they dissove it. Much can be reprecipitated by reacidifying.

Signifcant humus in soils almost always indicates simply that the regular addition equals or somewhat outpaces the complete degradation.

Generally only charcoal has a long-term survival in aerobic non-frozen soil, though a few spodozols can have humic organic matter a few thousand years old (this is thought to represent the mean age of OM that is slowly but continuously being both added to and lost).

In ideal soils, clays should not exceed 20% of the total soil composition, after this amount its benefits (high CEC, and water retention) are far out done by it's negative effects (horribly slow drainage, and incredible compaction causing bad root growth). Another interesting point is that even the most complicated clay particles only have a tenth of the CEC as humic materials. When I talk about clay, I mean the technical definition of any particle that is smaller than around 0.002
pt03, in ideal conditions humus will remain the same for millennia, but in real every day life it will decay. After about 300 years you might loose 10% total volume of true old forest humus. So if your planing on growing any sequoia, redwood, olive, or cypress trees and you want then to do great for the next five centuries, plant them in a forest. Humus realy doesn't break down for our practice time line, it realy only gets better. I say never because it is easier, but there are areas of the world that has humus that is several thousand years old.

Ah, understood. Thx

Lloyd

"...(just like we don't completely understand how the big bang happened, but we can still tell you a lot more about it than just saying it was a mysterious event)."

The big bang happened? Are you sure?

:-]

Well, tox, He did it how He did it when He did it. Creating a Seed Word and...boom sounds good to me. Out blossomed a growing universe.

Your fancy word are way over my head.
However, I have composted for over 30 years & Know that you can get humus in less then several decades.
Grind up your particles for balance composting,then use sufficient moisture, turn it every 3-4 days, repeat until you have a fine moist compost.
I have seen it really for the garden in 6 months & if you turn it in to the bed instead of piling it up you can get it ready for plants in 3 months.
If Humus is a step not needed for plant to feed,then with all due respect, it is a mute point.
If Humus is the point of plant feeding, then all composter have this in their garden.
Some of us use only what we make in our compost pile.
I have it easy with coffee waste, because it is very small & thin dust like & wet, going though a heat before I haul away from the processor.

There is a reason why the colloid particles in humus improve the uptake of minerals by plant roots. It is described in plant physiology textbooks, OK? Very boring. I think you can garden without this kind of theoretical background.

"Humus realy doesn't break down for our practice time line, it realy only gets better."

Simply wrong. It disappears rapidly in most soils and needs continuous replenishment. In the warm moist belt of the US (entire SE US) a nice darker humus-rich A-horizon will largely disappear in a few years of cultivation and not a great deal more than that in simply sitting.

Don't confuse soil organic matter with humus.

Lloyd

Excellent thread, well-larded with the usual amounts of misunderstanding, disinformation, a bit of sniping, and a rare insightful reply or two. Great info for the careful reader with an interest in understanding the difference between humus and compost. Clearly, for some a "mute" point. Thanks again, Bob, for a well written and informative post.

"Don't confuse soil organic matter with humus."

I was thinking the same thing. If you stopped adding compost to the soil, organic matter content might drop, but I doubt that it would actually go to zero. The stuff that doesn't go away is the highly complex, high molecular weight humins.

Thank you for the kind words bi11me, I was very surprised to learn how closed minded certain people are. Indeed some organic matter will remain as humic compounds.
We must not forget that humus is organic matter, but not all organic matter is, will become, or produce, humus. Out of all the compost you add to a soil, in the long run, a small percent will become humus, I try to increase the odds of having more humus in the end.
I think it would make sense to some phrased a little differently: high N:C compost makes great fertilizer and temporarily helps soil structure, high C:N makes a bad fertilizer, but it will produce a better, longer lasting soil structure. High N makes good compost wih little humus, high C makes passable compost with an increased amount of humus.

Forgive me but I don't see a large amount of "closed minded" people here. Some of us had difficulty with some of the 'absolutes' and questioned them. Once we/I understood it was just a style of phrasing and was not meant to be a lesson plan it became moot. Similarly, some people equate well aged compost with humus when scientifically it isn't.

Basically the original post is just a personal technique for adding humus. Interesting, but not earth shattering.

Lloyd

I agree with both of you (I think) in finding the tendency towards absolutes being the most annoying element of these discussions, followed closely by poor reading skills. There is no one right way to garden; the value here is in hearing from other people about what works for them and finding methodologies that might apply to your own situation. On the other hand, science is still science, and a cogent presentation of facts makes it easier to understand the underlying processes, and adjust our practices accordingly. I've been guilty of some pontificating on occasion, based on long experience and strongly held opinions, but I try to be careful about remaining open to alternative practices - they're likely to work somewhere, if not for me.

No, your right, it is not earth shattering, nor meant to be. I think it is necessary to distinguish the several diferent forms of organic matter that we add to gardens, and honestly, humus is one form that is held on a very high pedestal and seams to have a mystique about it that is a little over the top. The method I use produces "compost that has a higher amount of humus, and will inevitably produce more humus than normal fertilizer-style compost".
This is not meant to be absolute. I still use high N compost in some applications, but if I want strong structure and lasting fertility, I use my high-humus-containing-compost. I thought that this would make for a very interesting conversation because most composters I talk to have never heard of high C compost, nor that they could make small (but larger than normal) amounts of humus with they're compost.

I collect vast quantities of fall leaves every year(several hundred bags, typically) and use them, after about 3 years of decomp, as my primary humus source. I also do a substantial amount of active composting. I think of my compost as a short-term nutrient source and the leaf-mold as my primary soil conditioner and long-term organic matter.

"I collect vast quantities of fall leaves every year"

Me too.

"I also do a substantial amount of active composting."

Me too.

Lloyd

The leaves decomposing would definitely produce a lot of good humic material. Also it is nice to hear that you too utilize the dual compost method.

I also use these materials for the nutrients they contain.

Plant Nutrients in Municipal Leaves

Nutrient Management of Land Applied Grass Clippings

Lloyd

Lloyd, That's a big job opening all those bags.

Yup. There are around 2000 bags in the field and it is just a couple days worth. It would be nice to get them in bulk but this is the way the town collects them so this is the way I get them. Well worth it IMO.

Lloyd

Dear Bob1016 and the gang, A very interesting post with responses. If you are interested in the most knowledgeable person in the US and probably the world concerning Stable Humic Substances (lay term Humus), please google Michael Martin Melendrez and see what you come up with. Some clues - He is a world renowned soil scientist, researcher, inventor and educator. Within the last 5 years he and his team have instigated the most exciting research to date which has never been done before - the humus molecule is being analyzed down to the SUB ATOMIC LEVEL. The work is being carried out at the National Laboratories at Los Alamos and Sandia, New Mexico, two of only a handful of labs WORLDWIDE capable of doing this level of research. I will not argue the truths, misconceptions and opinions on this post. For those interested, go see for yourself. By the way, it is great to see such interest in Stable Humic Substances as was generated here. Blessings to us all. Popeye.

Interesting thread. I am curious whether worm composting has any value in increasing humus production? I know it increases the bioavailability of nutrients, but there seems to be some confusion out there whether it aids in humus production.

Popeye, I will have to research Micheal Melendrez, he sounds like he's done a lot of research, thanks for the info. I use "humus" just because it is easier, you are 100% right, stable humic substances is technically correct, but a mouthful to say.
bstruss, the decomposed the matter is, the more humic materials it contains. I don't know if straight vermicompost produces more humic substances than straight aerobic or anaerobic, but if you take vermicompost and then aerobically compost it, there will be more humins. The more you decompose your compost, and the more forms you use, the more stable the end product and the more humic substances it contains.

Just bought some humate material mined in GA (here in fla). I will fortify it with azomite and try it out.

Is it derived from leonardite, or another source? Just curious. I found that layering the humic substances below azomite, greensand, or other minerals to be very effective. My original idea was that the natural decomp of the minerals is trapped by the humus below, is it true, I don't know but I seem to get better effects by doing this as opposed to the other way around. Mixing the two might give the same result, who knows, experimentation is key to learning, then teaching, then discussion amongst peers, then research.

Dear Bob1016 and the group, I am going to update us on the new scientific research on Stable Humic Substances which like Bob I will call humus for simplification.

Natural humus production happens each year in soils not disturbed by man. Dead plant remains become mulch on the soil surface and are decomposed by soil microbes at the soil surface. These dead plants contain protein, fats, carbohydrates, various minerals and other substances. This organic matter becomes recycled food for the Soil Food Web which in turn feeds next years plants. At least 99% of decomposed Organic Matter is PLANT FOOD, not HUMUS! Only a small percentage of the PROTEIN portion is a candidate to become humus. When it is fully decomposed, it undergoes a chemical reaction called the Browning Reaction after which it is Stable humus. So each year, nature slowly adds a little more humus to the soil bank account. It may take nature 100 years to make 1 inch of humus rich topsoil.

Composting speeds up the production of PLANT FOOD in a slow release form, concentrates it and that is its value. It is an insignificant source of humus! Vermicompost is a superior plant food but it too is an insignificant source of humus.

In all fairness I must say that I believed exactly as you do, Bob, until 3 years ago when I began intensively studying this new information. I couldn't believe this stuff in the beginning but now I am a true believer.

The humus molecule is so complex that until this new research was initiated, the humus molecule had only been analyzed to the molecular level. The humic acids, fulvic, ulmic and others were known about for a long time but soil scientists could only guess about some of their properties and effects. I have used fulvic acids, humates and other humus products over the years - some were effective and some wern't. None worked in all situations, but they were the best available at the time.

There are two accepted laboratory methods to measure the humus content (not organic matter) of soils, compost, humates and humic acid products. One is the A & L laboratory method and the other is the University of California method. The A & L method will claim a higher amount of humus than the California method for the same sample. The new research is revealing that BOTH methods are ineffective in determining the percentage of humus in a sample - the actual amount of humus is only a small fraction of what they claim, but their methods are the best we have at present.

One of the best humus producers in soil is a player in the Soil Food Web - the mycorrhizal fungus that attaches or penetrates plant roots. The plant roots feed the mycorrhizae sugar and the fungus sends its hyphae (hollow microscopic tubes) out into the soil to forage for nutrients that the plant needs for growth. It is really good at getting phosphorous to the plant. If there are no mycorrhizae on the plant roots it is sometimes difficult to obtain this nutrient. It can be in the soil but unavailable due to many factors, ph and others too many to go into here.

In 1996, Sara Wright, A USDA microbiologist, was working with the Glomus family of mycorrhizae and discovered a PROTEIN substance that the fungal hyphae leaked into the soil. She named it Glomaylin, after the Glomus family of mycorrhizae. It is a remarkable soil glue that helps bind soil together and give it great structure. Later, the new research I keep speaking of discovered something else even more remarkable. It was a precursor to HUMUS! Being a protein, some of it underwent the Browning Reaction to become humus.

95% of all plants on spaceship earth form the mycorrhizal partnership on their root systems. Tillage cuts them up and sets them back and repeated tillage ultimately destroys them. Once destroyed, they are extremely slow in coming back. Luckily there are excellent mycorrhizal products on the market with which we can inoculate our soils. They come in liquids and powders and they WORK! Bob, you might want to try them on your container plants. I think you will be amazed. Oh boy, another epic post but I stand behind every word. Blessings to us all and good growing.

Very interesting stuff. I have been reading up on fungi and the action of microrrhizae in soils, and I am not surprised to find there is evidence that it is very important to soil and plants.

I am not sure I agree completely that adding compost has no effect on creation of humus. According to the scheme you describe, humus is produced from decaying plant matter. It seems intuitive that adding organic matter to the soil, especially soil that was low in organic matter, may not add humus directly but will provide abundant material with which the soil food web can produce humus.

I would say adding compost has little effect. The more decay that has occurred the more humus it will contain, but most compost has only been aged for a few months and is not old enough to contain a measurable amount of humus. The more decay, the more humus, and the more types of decay, the more humus.
Popeye, I have had a hard time getting microbes in containers to last more than a month or two, the high C compost I talked about above is a very good source but they don't last. In raised beds, I have gone so far as taking mycelia from the woods and using it to start colonies. I am well aware of the benefits of these fungi, but I have not done much research on mycorrhizal fungi specifically, other than basic research just done. I wonder if they would work in my mixes (the compost is the only organic component of my mix, with the other 60-75% being inorganics like perlite, lava rock, charcoal, or others). Can you give me some product names, I might experiment with them this season.

My suspicion, not grounded in science but in observation, is that the best way to encourage and introduce microrrhizae is with the addition of lignin, and the elimination of tillage. As a stump decomposes, the activity of fungi is one of the first steps in the process. Roll over a fallen tree in the woods, and you will see lots of evidence of fungal activity, not only in the wood, but in the leaves and soil beneath it. Adding compost, or even microrrhizae, directly to garden soils will have less effect in producing humus if that area is soon or frequently disturbed by tillage - the network of mycelia is in a constant state of recreating itself. Gardeners often find that a garden built in new ground is more productive the first year than in subsequent years because the equilibrium of humus and OM is established by the existing overgrowth. When crop plants are added, typically at much lower density than natural growth, there is an abundance of nutrients and humus. By it's nature gardening is extractive and entails disturbing the soil, so it makes sense that minerals, nutrients, and humus would continually decline, rather than reach an alternate state of equilibrium.

Great responses, thanks. bi1 1me, The fungi that decompose dead trees and such are NOT mycorrhizae - they are completely different. The fungi you refer to decompose lignin, cellulose and the like - the woodier plant remains. Mycorrhizae are specialized to inhabit plant roots ONLY and then to go out and forage for nutrients that the plant needs. They operate while the plant is ALIVE, not dead. That is their sole purpose. The plant root leaks sugar and this act activates them. Lignin does not introduce them into the soil and does not encourage their growth. TRADITIONAL gardening IS destructive to mycorrhizae and the whole Soil Food Web for the reasons that we both have stated - tillage and the resultant soil destruction.

I no longer garden traditionally. My beds are 4 feet wide and 24 feet long. All my humus and mycorrhizae go on top and are watered in except when I inoculate my seeds with mycorrhizal powder before planting, which is the way to get the roots and the mycorrhizae together at the earliest possible stage of development. All wild plants are pulled and dropped in place to become mulch. I don't even walk on these beds. I am building my soil rapidly by letting nature do the work, and my soil tests are proving it.

Bob1016, Once again, there are only negligible humic substances in compost. As I stated before in my last post, humus is a product of soil CHEMISTRY (the Browning Reaction) after OM decomposition has taken place IN THE SOIL. We can compost until we are blue in the face - aerobically, anaerobically (dangerous and not recommended) and let the pile sit around for years but it will not increase the humus content. Getting fungi from the forest is not gonna work either - if you want those mycorrhizae you have to get them from the tree roots. These are the ecto type and are not the ones you want for your garden - you want the endo mycorrhizae.

Concerning products - we can't mention them on this forum - that's a no no. Once again, please go to my website for particulars or Email me at freevic76@yahoo.com and we can talk product sources and other stuff. Have you guys been to my site yet? If not, why not? I am ready to share and help but you gotta get in touch with me. My game is education and word spreading, not business. I am connected to some top shelf human beings that have what you need. By the way, the products I use are viable for at least a year, and some of them are patent pending due to the processes involved in their manufacture. Enough for now, I'm getting tired and tomorrow is a long day here on the ole homestead.

Sorry if I got a little short with ya'll with this response. I think its great that you are so interested in humus and Bob, you know a lot. Thanks for starting this thread! We are all trying to do the best job of growing that we can without further destroying Mother Earth, but we need to update our thinking. Blessings to us all. Popeye.

There is of course no chemical "humus" of set chemical composition or structure. The definition for humus is much like that for humic acid and fulvic acid: it is a functional one, it is organic matter that behaves in a certain way (e.g., for humic and fulvic acids, is soluble or insoluble in this or that chemical). (Tannic acid possibly is a bit more specified chemically, but still you often hear the plural used: tannic acidS.) Some of these organic acids that presumably help make up the humus itself need no great biochemical degradation to form; they are already in the plant or are there very soon after tissue death. Put some weak lye solution on some brown oak leaves and watch what immediately leaches out. Heck, you don't even have to do that. Make a pot of coffee or tea.

Now that I am a little more versed in mycorrhizal fungi (research on the interweb), I am fairly certain that they are very beneficial in gathering nutrients, and breaking down OM, but humus is comprised of so many thousands of chemicals broken down from many proteins like lignin, while mycilia of many fungus species is one of the main contributors to soil humus, I don't think that mycorrhizal fungi do it alone. These critters are incredible, but humic substances can be created in so many different conditions, in some cases without plants present, that even these worldwide fungi cannot be responsible for all the decomp, I'm sure it speeds up the process greatly and insures its effectiveness though.
Although I have not read any of Wright's work yet, and this may change things. We will see.
I have seen specif products recommended before on the container forum, I was unaware that it was taboo. I am trying to decide between a few of plant suc***s's products, they seem to be the best but a little pricey.

I have been here for years and am not aware of not being able to mention certain products. I think the main thing is that it IS taboo to come here and tout your own products and services.

Bob1016, Popeye has done a wonderful job of describing Humus to everyone, however I want to make a few points to add to this discussion.

Humus is a laymen's term for the term of science - Humic substances. Humic substances are part of the recalcitrant carbons of soil. Recalcitrant means they don't decay and go away real fast, while labile carbons do decay rapidly. Compost is a labile carbon material! It's the recalcitrant carbon fraction called Humic Acid that forms a Clay-Humus domain, which helps hold the macroaggregate structures together. Humic Acids are also powerful chemical biologics that perform many functions including supporting microbial respiration by being a chemical shuttle electron donor and receptor system. This is far more significant than being simply the end result of the decomposition of organic matter, which they are not. Not all Humic substances are equal, as some are hydrophobic and cannot associate with water. For example, most of the Humic substances found in Humates / Leonardite (oxidized lignites) are hydrophobic, therefore we can't claim they can help improve the water holding potential of the soil. Its difficult to even claim they contain Humic Acids, since the testing protocols for extracting and measuring Humic Acid is flawed. For example, the Humic Acid fraction that's found in Oxidized Lignite (Humates and Leonardite) is hard to measure since purifying that fraction from the sample is so difficult. This is where we run into analysis problems since there's no standardized or accurate method used by any commercial or university soil lab. As for lignin, I've read on this forum a few times the mention of Lignin as one of the precursor materials for the formation of Humus or Humic substances. Lignin is hydrophobic and resistant to decay and may contribute to the fraction of Humic substances that screw up a soils ability to hold water because they are hydrophobic. This is seen in dry peat moss that's difficult to get wet again, or on golf courses where dry spots occur due to the build up of hydrophobic Humic compounds coming from the decay of grass thatch. Don't confuse Humic Acids with Humic substances is my point, as Humic Acids found in soil are hyper hydrophilic and not hydrophobic.

Sarah Wright's publication "Glomalin" was a very informative read. I have heard of the mysterious 'glue' before, and knew that it existed, but now I understand what it is. Still, I believe this will only make up a fraction of the humic substances that exist (it might be a large fraction though). My hesitation to believe that all humus comes from fungus is that there are mineral deposits rich in humic material, which have been untouched by any microbes or fungi for hundreds of years. However, another idea is that the glomalin and other proteins decompose to form humus, along with living fungi and microbes.
Why is it that when you search for the effects of a specialty product (such as mycorrhizal inoculants) on the Internet, most of the results are on marijuana forums? I have found a little research on the effects of these fungi in containers, but when I try to search for reviews or experiments with specific products, all I get are stoners and their hydro setups; interestingly enough, these have been very interesting to read and some have been quite informative on the effects of the products. I was just wondering why it is the potheads how seem to know the most about these specialty products.

Bob, you bring up an interesting point, one that I've also been aware of, but the answer is fairly simple. Because the profit on marijuana cultivation is so high, and because there are some in that industry to whom the agriculture is innately tied to political and spiritual - let alone medicinal and recreational - interests, the marijuana industry is actually often in the forefront of horticultural science. There is a lot of real and valuable science and research being done by those potheads of which you speak, in genetics, cloning, hydroponics, and soil science, most notably in the US, Canada, and Holland, but likely, clandestinely, in many other areas of the world. The proliferation of products specifically targeted towards marijuana culture is obvious, just look at the names on some of them, or the subtleties underlying their websites. It's a huge industry.

Quercusman - Thanks so much for your post! Not because you say I did a wonderful job but because you are truly an expert. I was going to bring out some of the same points about humic substances that you did so well, ie. hydrophobic properties, problems with the labs being able to extract the various fractions of humic substances, etc. Beautiful Job!

Michael Melendrez and his company Soil Secrets LLC is the leading authority on humus research and mycorrhizae. He is the man who initiated the research at Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs that I mentioned a few posts ago. He and his team of Femto Chemists have solved the problem of analyzing and extracting the various fractions of humic substances without degrading or destroying them which has historically been the problem which quercusman so ably described.

His company manufacturers a product line that from my chair is second to none. I am going into my third year of using them and the results have been spectacular! His technical articles are some of the best I have ever seen. Everything he claims for his products is proven out by lab analysis and he stays conservative on the numbers. Fer instance, his endomycorrhizal powder has 1,450,000 spores per pound (actually more) - His nearest competitor's count is 6,810. He has supplied many species of mycorrhizae for university research. Truly a top shelf human being, and he is on OUR side!

Bob1016 and gonebananas, your search is over. Visit Soilsecrets.com and go to school like I did. His flagship product Terrapro is 94% HUMUS as measured by the A & L method. Mike fully admits the actual humus percent is much less, that is what the Los Alamos and Sandia research is concluding. By the way, he is NOT a stoner.
IF you visit my site and Soil Secrets you will find a beautiful SEM of a single humus molecule. It is truly something to behold. Quercusman, thanks again.

I did not mean pothead, stoner, or any other term to be derogatory, if I did I would be making fun of a younger me. I understand that some off these people are at the front of this research, I just thought it was a funny coincidence that there is very little comparison of these products not done by marijuana growers.

Decided to test a mycorrhizal inoculant this season, if any one is interested in following it, I posted the link below.

Here is a link that might be useful: Testing P.S.'s great white

Hey Bob, younger me also. Had to put it down cause it made ME too lazy. I wasn't getting anything done.

I just didn't think that a lazzy, funny few hours were worth going to jail, or getting a $250 fine. And not getting anything done had something to do with it : )