Glaucus
Omono
I kind of skimmed through this talk because it is always interesting to figure out if someone is doing some groundbreaking science, or is kinda of a charlatan.
At 38 minutes there is some interesting discussion about akadama, decomposition of it because of the 10% organic content, release of manganese, which should kinda make it toxic, and effect on manganese. All sounds reasonable.
Using ionized fertilizers, ie inorganic salt-based fertilizer (ammonium nitrate as opposed to organic). Then he starts to talk about the 'carbon' in organic fertilizers. He means organic molecules like sugars, amino acids, humic compounds, etc.
At 46:20, he says the essential thing about this approach is to use 'carbon as a fertilizer', ideally ionic carbon'. Maybe he means an ionic fertilizer, with also small organic molecules, though. But he does seem to say 'ionic carbon'.
But there are no stable ionic forms of carbon. The closest thing would be a carbon radical. Or a carbocation which we use as a concept as the intermediate in a chemical reaction. Or are obtained in a mass spectormeter.
It is not a fertilizer thing.
So it is not clear to me what is is advocating. We use ionic fertilizer with akadama? Or we don't. Because first he says akadama decomposing works because you combine it with an ionic fertilizer. And then he starts to talk about the importance of 'fertilizing carbon'. Then they talk about Biogold being good.
There is some good discussions though. The more arid climate in parts of western US. And then Japan having a monsoon in summer, with tons of water washing out the soil or bonsai substrate.
It starts to get kind of interesting, though.
Maybe the interesting part is literally feeding the plant (so giving them sugars through the roots, rather than producing them in the leaves and taking up NPK mineral fertilizers). So the plant feeds itself with sugars through the roots, using the microbiome, because you apply additional 'carbon-based fertilizer'. But it would require a strong microbiome because I think it is understood that plants by themselves can't take up small organic molecules. Reminds me of the theory that states that huge trees feed their smaller seedling offspring through the roots, through the fungal network.
Maybe the main takeaway is that you can't just us the Japanese method of substate, the Japanese method of fertilizing, and use it in other parts of the world, where the climate is different and the yamadori you use are used to different environments.
At 38 minutes there is some interesting discussion about akadama, decomposition of it because of the 10% organic content, release of manganese, which should kinda make it toxic, and effect on manganese. All sounds reasonable.
Using ionized fertilizers, ie inorganic salt-based fertilizer (ammonium nitrate as opposed to organic). Then he starts to talk about the 'carbon' in organic fertilizers. He means organic molecules like sugars, amino acids, humic compounds, etc.
At 46:20, he says the essential thing about this approach is to use 'carbon as a fertilizer', ideally ionic carbon'. Maybe he means an ionic fertilizer, with also small organic molecules, though. But he does seem to say 'ionic carbon'.
But there are no stable ionic forms of carbon. The closest thing would be a carbon radical. Or a carbocation which we use as a concept as the intermediate in a chemical reaction. Or are obtained in a mass spectormeter.
It is not a fertilizer thing.
So it is not clear to me what is is advocating. We use ionic fertilizer with akadama? Or we don't. Because first he says akadama decomposing works because you combine it with an ionic fertilizer. And then he starts to talk about the importance of 'fertilizing carbon'. Then they talk about Biogold being good.
There is some good discussions though. The more arid climate in parts of western US. And then Japan having a monsoon in summer, with tons of water washing out the soil or bonsai substrate.
It starts to get kind of interesting, though.
Maybe the interesting part is literally feeding the plant (so giving them sugars through the roots, rather than producing them in the leaves and taking up NPK mineral fertilizers). So the plant feeds itself with sugars through the roots, using the microbiome, because you apply additional 'carbon-based fertilizer'. But it would require a strong microbiome because I think it is understood that plants by themselves can't take up small organic molecules. Reminds me of the theory that states that huge trees feed their smaller seedling offspring through the roots, through the fungal network.
Maybe the main takeaway is that you can't just us the Japanese method of substate, the Japanese method of fertilizing, and use it in other parts of the world, where the climate is different and the yamadori you use are used to different environments.
Last edited:
. Can just imagine many crapadama believers generating justification for continued use of this unduly expensive junk
.
