"Hard" Akadama?

[coh]

Until the all knowing Oz comes out from behind his bunker/curtain and spreads his particular version of enlightenment, it seems we are all destined to wander the bonsai landscape in ignorance.

 

[markyscott]

Until the all knowing Oz comes out from behind his bunker/curtain and spreads his particular version of enlightenment, it seems we are all destined to wander the bonsai landscape in ignorance.

I dunno - this is progress, at least for me. But maybe I have low standards. Until I read the paper that Dario referenced, I had only seen bulk rock compositions of akadama. I suspected kaolinite and possibly zeolite as they are commonly derived clays. Now I know that it's a partly to completely altered pumice with the alteration products being allophane and subsidiary kaolinite. What is unknown is the organic content (although we can say with confidence it is less than 10 wt%) and the variability in composition (one sample is not enough to characterize the whole succession).

Scott

 

[fore]

.....but "Dirt", you are tilting at wind mills.

Very funny Vance!

 

[Poink88]

I dunno - this is progress, at least for me. But maybe I have low standards. Until I read the paper that Dario referenced, I had only seen bulk rock compositions of akadama. I suspected kaolinite and possibly zeolite as they are commonly derived clays. Now I know that it's a partly to completely altered pumice with the alteration products being allophase and subsidiary kaolinite. What is unknown is the organic content (although we can say with confidence it is less than 10 wt%) and the variability in composition (one sample is not enough to characterize the whole succession).

Scott

FYI, I read that akadama is actually decomposed pumice.

 

[markyscott]

I dunno - this is progress, at least for me. But maybe I have low standards. Until I read the paper that Dario referenced, I had only seen bulk rock compositions of akadama. I suspected kaolinite and possibly zeolite as they are commonly derived clays. Now I know that it's a partly to completely altered pumice with the alteration products being allophane and subsidiary kaolinite. What is unknown is the organic content (although we can say with confidence it is less than 10 wt%) and the variability in composition (one sample is not enough to characterize the whole succession).

Scott

FYI, I read that akadama is actually decomposed pumice.

What's the difference between altered and decomposed?

Scott

 

[coh]

I dunno - this is progress, at least for me. But maybe I have low standards. Until I read the paper that Dario referenced, I had only seen bulk rock compositions of akadama. I suspected kaolinite and possibly zeolite as they are commonly derived clays. Now I know that it's a partly to completely altered pumice with the alteration products being allophase and subsidiary kaolinite. What is unknown is the organic content (although we can say with confidence it is less than 10 wt%) and the variability in composition (one sample is not enough to characterize the whole succession).

Scott

I was being sarcastic

I agree that seeing the chemical composition is interesting and informative. But it still begs the question as to what makes akadama "special". Is it the few % carbon compounds which may be present? Or something else.

 

[Vance Wood]

FYI, I read that akadama is actually decomposed pumice.

But----That does not make it organic---or does it? I am not so sure how important this aspect of the argument really is. I appreciate your investigative quest and hope it is not in vane.

I think you will remember the disagreement we had over "Potting Mix". I do not wish to stir that pot again because I am not sure we are really talking about the same thing, but the disagreement does show how significant our perceptions can be. It is for this reason that soil ingredients can create a lot of quarrelsome discussions with disagreement over terminology and local nomenclature that none of us understand. One man's dog shyte can be another man's angle doo-doo.

 

[Poink88]

What's the difference between altered and decomposed?

Scott

I dunno. Just posted the info...hoping to reinforce your post.

 

[Poink88]

But----That does not make it organic---or does it?

It doesn't.

 

[Poink88]

I think you will remember the disagreement we had over "Potting Mix". I do not wish to stir that pot again because I am not sure we are really talking about the same thing, but the disagreement does show how significant our perceptions can be. It is for this reason that soil ingredients can create a lot of quarrelsome discussions with disagreement over terminology and local nomenclature that none of us understand. One man's dog shyte can be another man's angle doo-doo.

Agreed.

 

[Vance Wood]

I dunno. Just posted the info...hoping to reinforce your post.

Not a problem. It is interesting that there is such a thing as decomposed Pumice. I know there is decomposed Granite. I would however be interested in finding out how and into what state Pumice decomposes. How long and under what conditions. Decomposition is usually the action of organisms, or active environmental forces such as wind, rain, wind, and so on.

 

[Poink88]

BTW, the info was from a Japanese Akadama quarry.

 

[Vance Wood]

BTW, the info was from a Japanese Akadama quarry.

Interesting. OH_____I see, didn't someone bring up the point some time back that Akadama is actually decomposed Pumice? If that's so we are closer to understanding why it might be good, mostly the mineral content of the stuff not the organic content. ---I think.

 

[markyscott]

Not a problem. It is interesting that there is such a thing as decomposed Pumice. I know there is decomposed Granite. I would however be interested in finding out how and into what state Pumice decomposes. How long and under what conditions. Decomposition is usually the action of organisms, or active environmental forces such as wind, rain, wind, and so on.

That's what the paper was about. As it breaks down, it forms the clay minerals preciously noted. Also, the degree of alteration is quite variable, with unaltered pumice still visible in some grains and completely altered to clay mineral phases in others.

Scott

 

[Poink88]

Interesting. OH_____I see, didn't someone bring up the point some time back that Akadama is actually decomposed Pumice? If that's so we are closer to understanding why it might be good, mostly the mineral content of the stuff not the organic content. ---I think.

Could be me.

 

[Poink88]

The new question...what are the advantages of akadama over pumice and vice-versa?

 

[Vance Wood]

The new question...what are the advantages of akadama over pumice and vice-versa?

Hype???? So many things are sold on the basis of someone else thinking it is better than tantric sex. Not too long ago we had someone post a long tirade about how bad Turface was to use. I'm not sure but I think it was Mike Hagadorn---don't quote me on that.

 

[Poink88]

Hype???? So many things are sold on the basis of someone else thinking it is better than tantric sex. Not too long ago we had someone post a long tirade about how bad Turface was to use. I'm not sure but I think it was Mike Hagadorn---don't quote me on that.

He posted something to that effect in his blog and it was posted here by someone else. I agree that Turface by itself is not a good substrate. But I use Turface a lot and not changing just because that is the best affordable material I can get. I just amend it to make it work and it works. IF I can get more pumice at a reasonable price I would use it much more.

We have to use what we have, can get, and/or what we can afford.

 

[Paradox]

Based on the scientific definition of "organic", I would say that based on the chemical composition stated, akadama is not organic.

There is such a thing as inorganic carbon though so we are really talking about organic carbon. Diatomaceous earth is silca based and by itself is inorganic once the organic matter associated with the organisms (diatoms) whose shells make up diotomaceous earth are gone.

Ive done work on determining organic matter in soils. We took samples and heated them to > 300 deg C burn off the organic material in the soil. What is left is purely inorganic material that can include inorganic carbon. It is actually a very common analysis in geology, chemical oceanography and geological oceanography.

Equating "naturally occurring" to organic is erroneous as well. Sand is naturally occurring and it is most definately not organic at least from the true definition of the word.

Edit: Apparently the hardness of the akadama has to do with the depth from which it is mined. The deeper the depth, the harder the substance.

 

[Dav4]

Anybody know if humates are typically found in akadama? I'll give 5 points extra credit if you can give us the chemical formula for humic acid, too......