The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999: What respected sources? What scientific journals? Are you crazy? I do not dispute the abundance of peer-reviewed "research" - I dispute the sanity of those peers who claim that some random dirty leftover salts (not acids!) of unknown composition can have a measurable benefit in any well-designed trial.
You can repeat your nonsense all you want. However, the CDFA has banned fulvic acid, and, in fact, nobody can even measure reliably such a basic thing as the concentration of fulvic acid. The CDFA says that there is no peer-reviewed research even remotely close to proving the effectiveness of FA. Now, be a sport and call the CDFA, a state agency, and tell them that they are morons for disagreeing with your claim about the wealth of peer-reviewed research! Let us know how it goes!
Finally, how can there be an industry without any companies in it? So, don't be shy - tell us, which SPECIFIC companies are you trying to protect from the detrimental impact of the truth?
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999: Yongye is a fraud because it cited Dr. Pettit's work as an example of academic literature supporting the benefits of fulvic acid-based plant nutrients applied directly to the plants. You are a fraud because you are citing quack "science" without even understanding what you are citing.
If you don't care about YONG, I suggest you rename your blog to something other than "The Scientific Truth About Yongye International YONG," otherwise your readers might get the impression that you do care about the complete fraud YONG and its business (which, as we both know, is nothing more than stealing money from gullible Americans).
So, what industry exactly do you want to protect from a detrimental effect? Which specific modern-day Clark Stanleys are you trying to defend? See http://bit.ly/MAnqSx
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
Oh, and if you don't care about YONG or their business, then why the hell did you write a blog titled "The Scientific Truth About Yongye International YONG ?"
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999: Page 19 in Example 1 shows no extraction method for fulvic acid, just for humic acid. Yongye's method is obviously different as Yongye employs large amounts of hydrogen peroxide, which Example 1 does not.
When ScienceDirect is up, you will be surprised to learn that Baglieri, etc use resin (XAD-8 or similar) to separate the fulvic acid from the salts.
The patents always show every relevant step of the process, otherwise they are invalid. NaCl is not soluble in butanone, but fulvic acid is. The details of the extraction in the South African patent are fully laid out, and the patent examiner understood them. You , apparently, haven't.
SIPO has not translated Yongye's patent, just the summary. You have not even read Yongye's patent, it turns out, yet you dare discuss Yongye's extraction process!!! I, however, have read and understood Yongye's patent. Yongye's patent is very clear and straightforward. There is no separation of the fulvic acid from the table salt.
How many tons of fulvic acid have been extracted so far in America using the extraction method in Example 4? What happened to "fulvic acid" being SOLUBLE under all pH levels? Childish, indeed! Here are some other fully legitimate American patents for you: http://bit.ly/LH0qWD
Your blog was written because you were, and still are, jealous of Mr. Bezek. The fact is that fulvic acids are not supported by scientific evidence. CDFA has found sufficient evidence of humic acid's effectiveness, allowing it to appear on fertilizer labels. However, fulvic acid is not similar to the humic acid permitted in California - in fact, it is very different. Fulvic acid is typically drained away with the salt after humic acid is extracted. Fulvic acid's molecular structures, chemical properties, and physical properties are, in fact, random. If they were similar to those of humic acid, CDFA would not have banned fulvic acid.
We already saw what your sources are worth. Humic acid and (especially) fulvic acids are snake oils without the oil. If they promote increased crop growth, they would be used in every commercial fertilzer as they are cheaper to make than NPK. But, no, nobody but a few deluded marijuana growers in California cares about humic acid.
My side of the debate has been quite easy to support - your examples, as I showed, are laughable. Fulvic acid is banned in California and other states and countries. End of story.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999: Mr. Bezek did expose you and Yongye as a fraud. According to Yongye, http://prn.to/KqN4yE , the article by Dr. Robert Petit [sic] of Texas A&M University http://bit.ly/JZJmpM is an example of academic literature supporting the benefits of fulvic acid-based plant nutrients applied directly to the plants. But we all know that the latest academic non-fiction work by Dr. Robert Pettit supersedes and extends his previous conclusions. Drawing upon his 33 years of University research and 18 years of subtle energy (spiritual) manipulations, Dr. Pettit has now discovered the relationships between the sciences and spirituality that can be applied to plants and animals before the end of the current age, around 2012 and beyond.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999: You should be ashamed for continuing this scam. Let's look at the four examples presented by you, indeed:
Example1 : Page 19 shows that fulvic acid in that coal is negligible, so obviously no extraction is warranted.
Example2 : Baglieri, etc use XAD-8 to separate the fulvic acid from the salts.
Example 3: The South African "patent" uses organic solvent, butanone, to extract the fulvic acid from the salty mess (you do know that NaCl is not soluble in butanone, don't you?)
Example 4: The unique process in this patent is rather moronic. The inventors claim to use magnesium hydroxide to create an insoluble "magnesium fulvate," and that is how they separate the "fulvic acid" (aka salt) from the NaCl solution. Hey, what happened to "fulvic acid" being SOLUBLE under all pH levels?
But you already knew all that, since you have read the above four examples in details. So, yes, most of the peer-reviewed papers utilize and refer to the International Humic Substances Society method, which uses XAD-8 resin to separate NaCl and other impurities from FA. Yongye's method, on the other hand, leaves the table salt in the "plant nutrient" solution.
Fulvic acid is banned in California and other states. In the link I gave you - http://bit.ly/Mox9yx - CDFA clearly states on page 10 that "fulvic acid" is an unacceptable term. Humic acid may be an acceptable term, but Yongye is not selling any humic-acid-based product, is it? Fulvic acid is not similar to the humic acid permitted in California - fulvic acid is soluble in acidic solution, while humic acid is not. CDFA states on the same page that there is no evidence that fulvic acid brings any benefit to plants and soils. Of course, if you believe otherwise, you are welcome to call CDFA and tell them that you have found that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of western studies supporting the effectiveness of fulvic acids in increasing crop productivity! In the mean time, no fertilizer sold in California legally has "fulvic acid" on its content label.
To summarize, fulvic acid is snake oil without the oil - http://bit.ly/LOWsrr . Yes, there has been tremendous amount of quack pseudoscience "research" since the nineteen century extolling the benefits of "fulvic acid," which is not even an acid but a salt with unknown composition that can never be replicated. And, yes, Chairman Mao decreed in the 1970s that humic and fulvic acid are going to replace regular NPK in China (NPK was getting quite expensive at that time and China's agriculture was in ruins). But the fact is, fulvic acid, especially Yongye's "fulvic acid," is nothing more than dirty table salt. And Yongye's product, when applied as a foliar "nutrient," is basically regular water with trace amounts of NPK and nothing more. That is why there would have been no demand for Yongye's fulvic-acid-based products, even if Yongye were producing them in the quantities it claims it does.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999: According to Yongye's disclosures with the SEC, Yongye's product has never been used in Mongolia, therefore, it cannot be crucial to that area. Read the 10K - Yongye's product is only sold in China, not in Mongolia. Furthermore, if Yongye's product were beneficial for desert agriculture, the concoction of 5% FA (that is, table salt) and 20% NPK would have been a multi-billion-dollar business in the deserts of California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, etc, but it is not. In fact, FA (fulvic acid) is banned in fertilizers in California and other states that follow CDFA's rules (such as Oregon). Please consult page 10 of the fertilizer guide - http://bit.ly/LJExV9 - as you can see, fulvic acid is an unacceptable term and the State "requires the support of efficacy data substantiating [its] benefit to plants and soils" before fulvic acid is allowed to appear on the content label. So much for your peer review studies! Apparently, the California Department of Food and Agriculture believes that none of your studies show any efficacy of fulvic acid, and, as a result, no fertilizer in California today contains any fulvic acid on the label. Fulvic acid is also banned in the European Union, by the way, for the same reason.
Of course there is a significant difference between Yongye's extraction method and the methods used by anyone else in the world for extracting FA. You would have known that, if you had actually read the papers you cited and Yongye's patent. Instead, you read just the abstracts which never detail the actual extraction process. Most of peer-reviewed papers utilize and refer to the International Humic Substances Society method ( http://bit.ly/LLGTkn ), which uses XAD-8 resin to separate NaCl and other impurities from FA. Yongye's method, on the other hand, leaves the table salt in the "plant nutrient" solution.
The amount of table salt in Yongye's product is not negligible. First, 1L of coal is soaked with 10L, not just 1L, of 2-4% NaOH, and there is quite a bit of subsequent concentration after the HCl is applied. Even if you are left with a just couple wt% of NaCl in the final solution, as you mistakenly claim, then the table salt content is close to 1/2 of Yongye's "fulvic acid" (as the fulvic acid is just 5 wt% in the final solution, per patent). You call that negligible? Do you now understand why everybody in this pseudo-science "industry" but Yongye feels the need to separate the residual NaCl?
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999: Ok, let's clear up two things briefly before we proceed:
1) In Yongye's recommended spraying solution, what is the concentration of fulvic acid? I claim it is 0.01% (or 100 ppm), according to Yongye's own patent. Do you disagree? Also, do you disagree that this is the concentration you will find in dirty water or even in a lake, according to your peer-reviewed studies?
2) Yongye's "fulvic acid" extraction process involves combining NaOH with HCl, but, unlike the methods in your peer-reviewed studies, there is no separation of the NaCl that I can see in the patent. Can you tell me what happens when you combine large quantities of NaOH and HCl in muddy water? What is the content of the resulting solution?
My entire argument is that "fulvic acid" is defined by its extraction method, not by its content. Therefore, it is a snake oil without the oil. Since Yongye's method of extraction is quite different from the the extraction methods in your peer-reviewed studies, then your peer-reviewed studies have no bearing to Yongye's "fulvic acid," which is no acid to begin with, but dirty table salt diluted in water.
What is even more shocking is that apparently Yongye is not even producing dirty table salt, just ash, according to my reading of the government environmental safety report.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
@Deepfryer999:
First, fulvic acid cannot be "supported" by any peer-reviewed research, because fulvic acid is of random composition depending on the composition of the raw material. After all, fulvic acid is defined as what is soluble in acidic solution. By the way, most of the extraction methods produce fulvic SALTS, so all this "peer-reviewed research" apparently researches the effects of fulvic salts, not fulvic acid.
Second, Yongye's patent is not confusing at all. What I meant was that Yongye recommends that its crop nutrient product is diluted 500:1 with water before spraying, which means that the spraying solution is basically pure water with trace amounts (0.04%) of cheap NPK and nothing more.
Third, have you even read Yongye's patent? Why do you need alkali solution to extract "fulvic acid," when fulvic acid (unlike the rest of the humic acids) is the component that is soluble when pH is below 7 (acidic solution), by definition? Why not apply just HCl directly to the pulverized coal? Is this explained on your page 19?
Fourth, how exactly does Yongye separate the NaCl (the one that results from mixing NaOH with HCl) from the fulvic acid?
Fifth, Yongye claims their method is "unique" because they claim to add hydrogen peroxide in the fulvic acid extraction process. Do you know what that does?
Six, all this is irrelevant, as Yongye's production facility apparently doesn't utilize any NaOH or HCl (at least they are not addressed in the government environmental safety report) in the process of extracting fulvic acid from lignite coal. Get the hint?
China Valves Technology: A Closer Look At Recent Developments And Business Outlook [View article]
CVVT's filings with the SEC cannot be relied upon, according to CVVT's own admission. Intentionally filing false financial reports constitutes fraud. If you actually read the latest false 10Q, you will see how this company has a unique revenue recognition policy - when it sells something, it expects to collect 75% of the money within 3 years. Which other company selling widgets waits for 3 years to get money from its customers? See, it is one thing to bribe employees of state-owned research institutes, like CVVT does in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is quite another to collect money from the "customers." CVVT is apparently so short on cash these days, it is borrowing from the "insiders," so when it declares bankruptcy shortly, all the ownership of the delapidated plants reverts back to them, for free, leaving you, the shareholder, with nothing.
The insiders already stole your money - why do you expect them to help you out?
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
I saw a reference to this blog in a discussion ( http://bit.ly/JSquN2 ). First, fulvic acid is an absolute snake oil (without the oil). Second, Yongye's product, when applied, is basically pure water.
Here is it how: According to Yongye's patent ( http://bit.ly/Kx6DOL - please see SIPO's web site for the full document), its "fulvic acid" is the solution extracted from lignite coal after treatment with NaOH and then HCl. Note that there is no separation of the salts from the organics in the solution. Now, scientifically, what happens when you add HCl to NaOH? Turns out, Yongye's fulvic acid is nothing more than dirty table salt.
So, why isn't this dirty table salt damaging the plants? Very simple: according to the label on Yongye's crop product, a bottle of it contains 5% "fulvic acid" (that is, salt), 20% cheap NPK, and the rest is basically water. But Yongye's application guidelines are to dilute the bottle contents with water 500:1 prior to spraying on the plants. So, effectively, the spraying solution is 99.9% water, with trace amount of NPK (0.04%) and salt (0.01%). That is why the plants don't die on the spot. There is no difference between applying Yongye's "life essential" and your regular rain.
@Quick: I am sorry, which decimal point do you want to move, specifically? In other words, which of the four disclosures was "mistranslated?"
No, it is not a translation error. The company created a whole FAQ just to justify its fantastic "fulvic acid" cost (but it forgot that it is also selling a product with 40% concentration, per patent, of that super-expensive fictitious "fulvic acid").
You think successfully stealing over $150 million, without any recourse for the victims, is a "loss" for the fraudsters?
1. How did you conclude that I do not consider "the obvious raw material plus manufacturing cost difference between animal and plant product?" I clearly do consider the cost difference. As I mention in the background section, the animal product is powder (of fulvic acid and minced weeds) while the plant (crop) product is liquid (mostly water, and some NPK) - clearly there are differences in input materials and mixing processes after the (identical) fulvic acid phase is complete. But the cost difference has nothing to do with the self-contradictory disclosures. See, the cost of the fulvic acid is so overpowering (according to some of Yongye's disclosures), that it causes negative gross margin for the animal product, even if you completely ignore the cost of the minced weeds. Of course, some of Yongye's other disclosures imply that the animal product sports a healthy 50% (or so) gross margin. Thus, the contradiction, and the obvious conclusion that Yongye's SEC filings are fraudulent.
2. You did not read the article, did you? You should read it first, and then comment. Don't worry, you don't need to be an expert in set theory to understand it! According to Disclosure #4, the animal product gross margin is indeed quite healthy at about 50%. But according to Disclosures #1, #2, and #3 (see the simple calculation steps #1 to #4), the cost of fulvic acid in the animal product is horrendous and results in a severely negative gross margin for the animal product, which, of course, contradicts Disclosure #4. Therefore, the four disclosures from Yongye's SEC filings cannot be reconciled, and therefore, Yongye's SEC filings are fraudulent.
@kuala1: The "fulvic acid % issue" is not at the heart of the fraud, it is a symptom of the fraud. See, Yongye figured that nobody would bother reading the patent or the content label of a product that had a tiny and declining share of revenue. There is no "contents definition issue"- the issue is that Yongye's filings with the SEC going back to 2008 are self-contradictory.
@kuala1: Too bad about the humic acids, because Yongye does not sell any humic-acid-based nutrient products, according to Yongye's filings with the SEC. Yongye claims to be selling only fulvic-acid-based nutrient products, and fulvic acids on fertilizers labels are banned in California and Europe. The reason they are banned is simple - fulvic acid (often nothing more than a solution of NaCl or KCl in water) is an inert material, especially when diluted to 0.01% (as Yongye recommends when spraying). No reputable company in the world sells any fulvic-acid based fertilizer (aka nutrient) product, contrary to what you want us to believe.
Yongye's IR is in trouble. Yongye was forced to invent the "identical manufacturing processes" in order to explain its reported production well in excess of theoretical capacity for the December quarter. The "new explanation" will create a leak somewhere else. At some point, even the most sophisticated frauds start having trouble maintaining a coherent fairy tale. Yongye appears to have reached that point.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
You can repeat your nonsense all you want. However, the CDFA has banned fulvic acid, and, in fact, nobody can even measure reliably such a basic thing as the concentration of fulvic acid. The CDFA says that there is no peer-reviewed research even remotely close to proving the effectiveness of FA. Now, be a sport and call the CDFA, a state agency, and tell them that they are morons for disagreeing with your claim about the wealth of peer-reviewed research! Let us know how it goes!
Finally, how can there be an industry without any companies in it? So, don't be shy - tell us, which SPECIFIC companies are you trying to protect from the detrimental impact of the truth?
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
If you don't care about YONG, I suggest you rename your blog to something other than "The Scientific Truth About Yongye International YONG," otherwise your readers might get the impression that you do care about the complete fraud YONG and its business (which, as we both know, is nothing more than stealing money from gullible Americans).
So, what industry exactly do you want to protect from a detrimental effect? Which specific modern-day Clark Stanleys are you trying to defend? See http://bit.ly/MAnqSx
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
When ScienceDirect is up, you will be surprised to learn that Baglieri, etc use resin (XAD-8 or similar) to separate the fulvic acid from the salts.
The patents always show every relevant step of the process, otherwise they are invalid. NaCl is not soluble in butanone, but fulvic acid is. The details of the extraction in the South African patent are fully laid out, and the patent examiner understood them. You , apparently, haven't.
SIPO has not translated Yongye's patent, just the summary. You have not even read Yongye's patent, it turns out, yet you dare discuss Yongye's extraction process!!! I, however, have read and understood Yongye's patent. Yongye's patent is very clear and straightforward. There is no separation of the fulvic acid from the table salt.
How many tons of fulvic acid have been extracted so far in America using the extraction method in Example 4? What happened to "fulvic acid" being SOLUBLE under all pH levels? Childish, indeed! Here are some other fully legitimate American patents for you: http://bit.ly/LH0qWD
Your blog was written because you were, and still are, jealous of Mr. Bezek. The fact is that fulvic acids are not supported by scientific evidence. CDFA has found sufficient evidence of humic acid's effectiveness, allowing it to appear on fertilizer labels. However, fulvic acid is not similar to the humic acid permitted in California - in fact, it is very different. Fulvic acid is typically drained away with the salt after humic acid is extracted. Fulvic acid's molecular structures, chemical properties, and physical properties are, in fact, random. If they were similar to those of humic acid, CDFA would not have banned fulvic acid.
We already saw what your sources are worth. Humic acid and (especially) fulvic acids are snake oils without the oil. If they promote increased crop growth, they would be used in every commercial fertilzer as they are cheaper to make than NPK. But, no, nobody but a few deluded marijuana growers in California cares about humic acid.
My side of the debate has been quite easy to support - your examples, as I showed, are laughable. Fulvic acid is banned in California and other states and countries. End of story.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
See this press release: http://bit.ly/KqN4yH
When will you stop?
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
Example1 : Page 19 shows that fulvic acid in that coal is negligible, so obviously no extraction is warranted.
Example2 : Baglieri, etc use XAD-8 to separate the fulvic acid from the salts.
Example 3: The South African "patent" uses organic solvent, butanone, to extract the fulvic acid from the salty mess (you do know that NaCl is not soluble in butanone, don't you?)
Example 4: The unique process in this patent is rather moronic. The inventors claim to use magnesium hydroxide to create an insoluble "magnesium fulvate," and that is how they separate the "fulvic acid" (aka salt) from the NaCl solution. Hey, what happened to "fulvic acid" being SOLUBLE under all pH levels?
But you already knew all that, since you have read the above four examples in details. So, yes, most of the peer-reviewed papers utilize and refer to the International Humic Substances Society method, which uses XAD-8 resin to separate NaCl and other impurities from FA. Yongye's method, on the other hand, leaves the table salt in the "plant nutrient" solution.
Fulvic acid is banned in California and other states. In the link I gave you - http://bit.ly/Mox9yx - CDFA clearly states on page 10 that "fulvic acid" is an unacceptable term. Humic acid may be an acceptable term, but Yongye is not selling any humic-acid-based product, is it? Fulvic acid is not similar to the humic acid permitted in California - fulvic acid is soluble in acidic solution, while humic acid is not. CDFA states on the same page that there is no evidence that fulvic acid brings any benefit to plants and soils. Of course, if you believe otherwise, you are welcome to call CDFA and tell them that you have found that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of western studies supporting the effectiveness of fulvic acids in increasing crop productivity! In the mean time, no fertilizer sold in California legally has "fulvic acid" on its content label.
To summarize, fulvic acid is snake oil without the oil - http://bit.ly/LOWsrr . Yes, there has been tremendous amount of quack pseudoscience "research" since the nineteen century extolling the benefits of "fulvic acid," which is not even an acid but a salt with unknown composition that can never be replicated. And, yes, Chairman Mao decreed in the 1970s that humic and fulvic acid are going to replace regular NPK in China (NPK was getting quite expensive at that time and China's agriculture was in ruins). But the fact is, fulvic acid, especially Yongye's "fulvic acid," is nothing more than dirty table salt. And Yongye's product, when applied as a foliar "nutrient," is basically regular water with trace amounts of NPK and nothing more. That is why there would have been no demand for Yongye's fulvic-acid-based products, even if Yongye were producing them in the quantities it claims it does.
Yongye is a complete fraud.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
Of course there is a significant difference between Yongye's extraction method and the methods used by anyone else in the world for extracting FA. You would have known that, if you had actually read the papers you cited and Yongye's patent. Instead, you read just the abstracts which never detail the actual extraction process. Most of peer-reviewed papers utilize and refer to the International Humic Substances Society method ( http://bit.ly/LLGTkn ), which uses XAD-8 resin to separate NaCl and other impurities from FA. Yongye's method, on the other hand, leaves the table salt in the "plant nutrient" solution.
The amount of table salt in Yongye's product is not negligible. First, 1L of coal is soaked with 10L, not just 1L, of 2-4% NaOH, and there is quite a bit of subsequent concentration after the HCl is applied. Even if you are left with a just couple wt% of NaCl in the final solution, as you mistakenly claim, then the table salt content is close to 1/2 of Yongye's "fulvic acid" (as the fulvic acid is just 5 wt% in the final solution, per patent). You call that negligible? Do you now understand why everybody in this pseudo-science "industry" but Yongye feels the need to separate the residual NaCl?
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
1) In Yongye's recommended spraying solution, what is the concentration of fulvic acid? I claim it is 0.01% (or 100 ppm), according to Yongye's own patent. Do you disagree? Also, do you disagree that this is the concentration you will find in dirty water or even in a lake, according to your peer-reviewed studies?
2) Yongye's "fulvic acid" extraction process involves combining NaOH with HCl, but, unlike the methods in your peer-reviewed studies, there is no separation of the NaCl that I can see in the patent. Can you tell me what happens when you combine large quantities of NaOH and HCl in muddy water? What is the content of the resulting solution?
My entire argument is that "fulvic acid" is defined by its extraction method, not by its content. Therefore, it is a snake oil without the oil. Since Yongye's method of extraction is quite different from the the extraction methods in your peer-reviewed studies, then your peer-reviewed studies have no bearing to Yongye's "fulvic acid," which is no acid to begin with, but dirty table salt diluted in water.
What is even more shocking is that apparently Yongye is not even producing dirty table salt, just ash, according to my reading of the government environmental safety report.
Or, simply put, Yongye is a complete fraud.
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
First, fulvic acid cannot be "supported" by any peer-reviewed research, because fulvic acid is of random composition depending on the composition of the raw material. After all, fulvic acid is defined as what is soluble in acidic solution. By the way, most of the extraction methods produce fulvic SALTS, so all this "peer-reviewed research" apparently researches the effects of fulvic salts, not fulvic acid.
Second, Yongye's patent is not confusing at all. What I meant was that Yongye recommends that its crop nutrient product is diluted 500:1 with water before spraying, which means that the spraying solution is basically pure water with trace amounts (0.04%) of cheap NPK and nothing more.
Third, have you even read Yongye's patent? Why do you need alkali solution to extract "fulvic acid," when fulvic acid (unlike the rest of the humic acids) is the component that is soluble when pH is below 7 (acidic solution), by definition? Why not apply just HCl directly to the pulverized coal? Is this explained on your page 19?
Fourth, how exactly does Yongye separate the NaCl (the one that results from mixing NaOH with HCl) from the fulvic acid?
Fifth, Yongye claims their method is "unique" because they claim to add hydrogen peroxide in the fulvic acid extraction process. Do you know what that does?
Six, all this is irrelevant, as Yongye's production facility apparently doesn't utilize any NaOH or HCl (at least they are not addressed in the government environmental safety report) in the process of extracting fulvic acid from lignite coal. Get the hint?
China Valves Technology: A Closer Look At Recent Developments And Business Outlook [View article]
The insiders already stole your money - why do you expect them to help you out?
The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) [View instapost]
Here is it how: According to Yongye's patent ( http://bit.ly/Kx6DOL - please see SIPO's web site for the full document), its "fulvic acid" is the solution extracted from lignite coal after treatment with NaOH and then HCl. Note that there is no separation of the salts from the organics in the solution. Now, scientifically, what happens when you add HCl to NaOH? Turns out, Yongye's fulvic acid is nothing more than dirty table salt.
So, why isn't this dirty table salt damaging the plants? Very simple: according to the label on Yongye's crop product, a bottle of it contains 5% "fulvic acid" (that is, salt), 20% cheap NPK, and the rest is basically water. But Yongye's application guidelines are to dilute the bottle contents with water 500:1 prior to spraying on the plants. So, effectively, the spraying solution is 99.9% water, with trace amount of NPK (0.04%) and salt (0.01%). That is why the plants don't die on the spot. There is no difference between applying Yongye's "life essential" and your regular rain.
Yongye is a complete fraud. More details here: http://bit.ly/uwcST0
Yongye's Cost Discrepancy [View article]
No, it is not a translation error. The company created a whole FAQ just to justify its fantastic "fulvic acid" cost (but it forgot that it is also selling a product with 40% concentration, per patent, of that super-expensive fictitious "fulvic acid").
You think successfully stealing over $150 million, without any recourse for the victims, is a "loss" for the fraudsters?
Yongye's Cost Discrepancy [View article]
Nice to hear from you again.
1. How did you conclude that I do not consider "the obvious raw material plus manufacturing cost difference between animal and plant product?" I clearly do consider the cost difference. As I mention in the background section, the animal product is powder (of fulvic acid and minced weeds) while the plant (crop) product is liquid (mostly water, and some NPK) - clearly there are differences in input materials and mixing processes after the (identical) fulvic acid phase is complete. But the cost difference has nothing to do with the self-contradictory disclosures. See, the cost of the fulvic acid is so overpowering (according to some of Yongye's disclosures), that it causes negative gross margin for the animal product, even if you completely ignore the cost of the minced weeds. Of course, some of Yongye's other disclosures imply that the animal product sports a healthy 50% (or so) gross margin. Thus, the contradiction, and the obvious conclusion that Yongye's SEC filings are fraudulent.
2. You did not read the article, did you? You should read it first, and then comment. Don't worry, you don't need to be an expert in set theory to understand it! According to Disclosure #4, the animal product gross margin is indeed quite healthy at about 50%. But according to Disclosures #1, #2, and #3 (see the simple calculation steps #1 to #4), the cost of fulvic acid in the animal product is horrendous and results in a severely negative gross margin for the animal product, which, of course, contradicts Disclosure #4. Therefore, the four disclosures from Yongye's SEC filings cannot be reconciled, and therefore, Yongye's SEC filings are fraudulent.
Yongye's Cost Discrepancy [View article]
Yongye's Cost Discrepancy [View article]
Yongye's IR is in trouble. Yongye was forced to invent the "identical manufacturing processes" in order to explain its reported production well in excess of theoretical capacity for the December quarter. The "new explanation" will create a leak somewhere else. At some point, even the most sophisticated frauds start having trouble maintaining a coherent fairy tale. Yongye appears to have reached that point.