Seeking Alpha

Deepfryer999's  Instablog

Deepfryer999
Send Message
My blog:
need4sheed.com
  • The Scientific Truth About Yongye International (YONG) 90 comments
    Apr 19, 2011 1:15 PM | about stocks: YONG

    Yongye International's products consist of fertilizers using fulvic acid in combination with various micronutrients. The main benefit of fulvic acid or humic acids in these fertilizers is to facilitate the uptake of nutrients, resulting in healthier and faster-growing plants.

    To understand this, let's start with the basics: what exactly is this stuff? Well, humic acid and fulvic acid are two closely-related classes of acids that naturally occur in the humus found in soil. They are produced by the biodegradation of dead organic matter (decomposing leaves, etc). So, when you put compost on your garden at home, you are essentially feeding your garden a mixture of humic/fulvic acids and micronutrients - sound familiar?

    Humic acid produces the greatest benefits in areas with poor soil, and shows fewer benefits in areas where the soil is already healthy. With this in mind, it shouldn't be a surprise that YONG's products cause such a large increase in crop yields in the areas where they are used; areas which are notorious for being low in nutrients. On their homepage, YONG explains that the company "carries out its main operations in the city of Hohhot,  Inner Mongolia, PR China".

    On the Wikipedia page for the city of Hohhot, we can see that, "due to desertification, the city sees sandstorms on almost an annual basis." With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that YONG's products have been so successful, especially on farms located in the regions of Inner Mongolia and Northern China.

    In his article on YONG,  Ian Bezek claimed to have done research into the effectiveness of fulvic and humic acids. He wrote:

    "I could not find a single Western study to support the use of humic or fulvic acids in increasing crop productivity"

    Many of his readers were left with the impression that humic acid is some sort of new-age fertilizer ingredient, which is unsupported by scientific evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I have found that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of western studies supporting the effectiveness of humic and fulvic acids in increasing crop productivity. Several people have already shown these studies to Ian, yet he has repeatedly ignored them. To this date Ian still has not responded to this evidence, nor has he issued a correction or retraction to his article, so I can only conclude that he is more interested in bashing YONG than he is in conducting serious research and due diligence.

    Scientific studies are not hard to find. One way to find them is by using Google Scholar, a search engine for scientific publications and patents. I recommend excluding patents from the search results, so that you will only find scientific studies. Another good source is Science Direct. You will find a staggering number of results by using search terms such as "humic acid fertilizer" ; "fulvic acid fertilizer" ; "humic acid foliar spray" ; "humic acid plant growth", etc. The vast majority of these studies found that humic/fulvic acids had positive effects on plant growth. (Here I should mention that foliar spraying is a common technique where fertilizer is applied directly onto the leaves of a plant, instead of being added to the soil. YONG's products are often used in this way).

    In many cases, only the abstracts of these scientific studies are available online. This is sufficient for our purposes here because the abstracts contain a summary of their findings, along with their conclusions. If you want to read the full studies, your local library should have no trouble finding a copy of these journals for you.

    I selected ten of the most directly-relevant studies to include here. All of them appeared in highly-regarded, peer-reviewed, scientific journals related to the field of agriculture. Each of these studies concluded that humic and/or fulvic acids had positive effects on plant growth. Dozens of additional, related studies can be found in the reference sections of each of these papers:

    1.
    Effect of different levels of humic acid on the growth and nutrition uptake of teak seedlings.
    Journal of Plant Nutrition, 17: 173–84
    Fagbenro, J.A. and A.A. Agboole, 1993.
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905921900

    2.
    Effect of humic substances on plant growth.
    In : Humic substances in soil and crop science.

    American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 161–86
    Chen, Y. and T. Aviad, 1990.
    http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19911950511.html

    3.
    Effect of a soil fulvic acid on the growth and nutrient content of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants.
    Plant And Soil, 63: 491–5

    Rauthan, B.S. and M. Schnitzer, 1981.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k182412422426241/

    4.
    The effect of commercial humic acid on tomato plant growth and mineral nutrition.
    Journal of Plant Nutrition, Volume 21, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 561 - 575
    Fabrizio Adania; Pierluigi Genevinia; Patrizia Zaccheoa; Graziano Zocchia.
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905929787

    5.
    The effect of foliar application of fulvic acid on water use, nutrient uptake and yield in wheat.
    Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 37 (4) 343 - 350
    X Xudan
    http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AR9860343 

    6.
    A humic acid improves growth of tomato seedling in solution culture
    Journal of Plant Nutrition, Volume 17, Issue 1, 1994, Pages 173 - 184
    P. P. David; P. V. Nelson; D. C. Sanders
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905888642

    7.
    Iron in Relation To the Stimulation of Growth By Humic Acid
    Soil Science, June 1932, Volume 33, Issue 6, pages 413-454
    Burk, Dean; Lineweaver, Hans; Horner, C. Kenneth
    http://journals.lww.com/soilsci/Citation/1932/06000/Iron_in_Relation_To_the_Stimulation_of_Growth_By.2.aspx 

    8.
    Effect of Humic Acid on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Seedling Growth
    Environmental and Experimental Botany, Volume 25, Issue 3, August 1985, Pages 245-252
    Kauser A. Malik and F. Azam
    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0098847285900085

    9.

    Effect Of Humic Acids On The Growth, Yield And Nutrient Content Of Sugarcane
    Science of The Total Environment, Volumes 117-118, 30 May 1992, Pages 575-581
    R. Govindasmy and S. Chandrasekaran
    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0048969792901229

    10.

    Effect of Pre-Sowing Seed Treatment with Zinc and Foliar Spray of Humic Acids on Yield of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).
    International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. v. 7(6) p. 875-878
    Muharrem Kaya, Mehmet Atak, Khalid Mahmood Khawar, Cemalettin Y. Çiftçi And Sebahattin Özcan
    http://www.fspublishers.org/ijab/past-issues/IJABVOL_7_NO_6/3.pdf



    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
    Stocks: YONG
Back To Deepfryer999's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (90)
Track new comments
  • Nice bit of information. Thanks! Very consistent with this type of crop improvement method used in Mexico, India, and Africa. This certainly supports the potential for increased use of YONG products in PRC.
    24 May 2011, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • 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.

     

    Yongye is a complete fraud. More details here: http://bit.ly/uwcST0
    22 May 2012, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Richard: thanks for the comment.

     

    "First, fulvic acid is an absolute snake oil (without the oil)."

     

    No it isn't. Fulvic acid is supported by a wealth of peer-reviewed research, as shown in this very blog.

     

    "Second, Yongye's product, when applied, is basically pure water."

     

    Also incorrect. I'm sorry you didn't understand the patent, but it can be confusing reading a foreign document.

     

    A nearly-identical process is described in plain English in this text, on page 19, section 2.3.2:

     

    http://bit.ly/Kd2jLE

     

    This extraction method is standard and widely-used. I imagine Yongye's method is only unique (ie: patentable) because of the final steps where they add various nutritional compounds.

     

    Washing the coal with NaOH solubilizes everything in the coal except for the heaviest, solid parts. Then, adding HCl will isolate fulvic acid from the other compounds, because fulvic acid (unlike the other molecules found in coal) is soluble in both alkaline and acidic solutions. Then they use PAM to remove the heavier compounds that are still present as contaminants (ie: phytic acid). The resulting clear solution contains concentrated fulvic acid.

     

    The process of isolating fulvic acid using NaOH followed by adjustment to pH=1 with HCl is also described here, in section 2.2:

     

    http://bit.ly/LBkDKb

     

    For additional examples, the same extraction method is seen in these 2 English-language patents:

     

    http://bit.ly/Kd2h6A
    http://bit.ly/Kd2jLJ
    6 Jun 2012, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • @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?
    6 Jun 2012, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "First, fulvic acid cannot be "supported" by any peer-reviewed research"

     

    Untrue. It can, and is, supported by a wealth of peer-reviewed research. Again, see the references included in this very blog.

     

    "because fulvic acid is of random composition depending on the composition of the raw material."

     

    I suppose it is "random" to some extent, but fulvic acid is a well-defined class of compounds. It consists of several different molecules with very similar properties, molecular weights, and chemical structures.

     

    Again, the logical basis of your argument is absurd. Let me ask you: is it possible to prove that proteins are useful for building muscle tissue? After all, proteins are just a "random", heterogeneous class of polypeptides. Does that make it impossible to prove anything about them?

     

    "After all, fulvic acid is defined as what is soluble in acidic solution."

     

    A very sloppy definition. I think what you mean is that fulvic acid refers to the humic substances which are soluble in water under all pH conditions.

     

    "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."

     

    Yes. For the most part we are talking about the sodium salts of fulvic acid. That certainly doesn't make it any less useful.

     

    "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."

     

    Utter nonsense. You are forgetting that their solution also contains fulvic acid.

     

    From many Western peer-reviewed studies, such as link #3 in my original blog, we can see the fulvic acid is quite beneficial at these levels. 0.1% is plenty.

     

    For instance:

     

    "The addition of 100 to 300 ppm of FA produced highly significant increases in the growth and development of above and below ground plant parts, in the uptake of nutrient elements (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe and Zn), and in the formation of numbers of flowers per plant."

     

    You said: "Turns out, Yongye's fulvic acid is nothing more than dirty table salt."

     

    Um, I would disagree. According to their patent and the other links that I just showed you, their fulvic acid is indeed, fulvic acid.

     

    "Third, have you even read Yongye's patent?"

     

    Yes.

     

    "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?"

     

    Well, it is fairly obvious for practical reasons, and that is why this method is used by the entire industry. The reason is: so that the humic acids are not disposed of, along with the insoluble "junk" compounds contained in coal. Yongye uses humic acids as well as fulvic acids in their products. Even if they didn't use humic acids, it still wouldn't make sense to throw away a useful commodity.

     

    "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."

     

    I don't know what safety report you are referring to, and frankly I don't care. Your entire argument was based on the premise that their extraction method is somehow invalid.

     

    That argument was ridiculous, as we can see that the same extraction method is used all around the world, and it shows up in scientific journals and patents from Italy, Australia, The United States, etc, etc.
    6 Jun 2012, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • @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.

     

    Or, simply put, Yongye is a complete fraud.
    7 Jun 2012, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "1) In Yongye's recommended spraying solution, what is the concentration of fulvic acid?"

     

    For the 5% FA product, at 500:1, the FA content would be 100 ppm.

     

    "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?"

     

    I don't see where you found this claim in my peer-reviewed studies, because unlike me, you are not using quotations to support anything that you say.

     

    I suppose in some places there could be 100 ppm FA in a lake, or wherever else. But this is certainly not the case in the desert regions of Mongolia - which is why their product is so crucial to that area.

     

    "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."

     

    There is no significant difference between their method and the methods used by anyone else in the world for extracting FA.

     

    Show me where my other examples describe the separation of NaCl from the solution. Can't find it, can you?! In other words; you tried to pull this argument out of your you-know-what.

     

    Regardless, at most, it is a neglible amount of NaCl. Initially, they separate the HA and FA from coal using a solution of 2-4% NaOH in water. After acidifying the solution with HCl, you are left with a couple wt% of NaCl. This will be negligible compared to the amount of FA in the solution, which is why no one in the industry feels the need to separate the residual NaCl.
    7 Jun 2012, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • @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?
    10 Jun 2012, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "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."

     

    That is an outright lie. I would try to be less blunt, but I don't see how I can.

     

    Let's take another look at the 4 examples that I showed you before. Each one shows a detailed extraction method for FA.

     

    Here are the links again:

     

    http://bit.ly/Kd2jLE

     

    http://bit.ly/LBkDKb

     

    http://bit.ly/Kd2h6A

     

    http://bit.ly/Kd2jLJ

     

    As you can see, each of these links takes you to the entire article/patent, which includes the full extraction method - not just the abstracts. And yes, I read all 4 in their entirety (which you obviously have not done).

     

    At no point in any of these 4 examples do they describe the removal of NaCl by XAD-8, or by any other method.

     

    "In fact, FA (fulvic acid) is banned in fertilizers in California and other states that follow CDFA's rules (such as Oregon)."

     

    FA is not banned anywhere. It just has not been approved, at this time, to appear on the label.

     

    Interestingly, "humic acid" has been approved by the CDFA to appear on the label. And humic acid is essentially the same thing as FA, just with slightly different solubility characteristics.

     

    The reason, most likely, is that the majority of the scientific research deals with humic acid, rather than fulvic acid, because humic acid is more prevalent (coal contains much more humic acid than fulvic acid).

     

    "Apparently, the California Department of Food and Agriculture believes that none of your studies show any efficacy of fulvic acid"

     

    You have nothing to support this view. If you can show me an application which was rejected, or a comment by the CDFA on these studies, then you would have some support for this.
    11 Jun 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • @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.

     

    Yongye is a complete fraud.
    11 Jun 2012, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • Hey deepfryer -- Why is YONG trading at P/E < 2 (excluding cash, < 1) ? Market is just dumb? I guess the CEO and all his friends, who "know" that the company is not a fraud, are really dumb too, for not buying more shares? But I suppose we should believe that you are the brilliant one. In my opinion, these fraudulent stocks sucker those with big egos, who think they have outsmarted the world, when in fact they are the ones who can't see the obvious. So I have little sympathy for the victims.
    12 Jun 2012, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "Example1 : Page 19 shows that fulvic acid in that coal is negligible, so obviously no extraction is warranted."

     

    Fulvic acid is present in lower quantities in certain types of coal (ie: Victorian coal).

     

    Obviously you have chosen to ignore the relevant part of that page, where they describe the extraction method:

     

    "Fulvic acids are normally obtained by acidifying the alkaline solution after the extraction of brown coal, during which the humic acids would precipitate".

     

    This is identical to YONG's method.

     

    "Example2 : Baglieri, etc use XAD-8 to separate the fulvic acid from the salts."

     

    ScienceDirect is down right now, but I will respond to this later on.

     

    "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?)"

     

    I'm glad you mentioned this because this demonstrates that patents don't always show every step of the process (this is relevant because it highlights your misunderstanding of YONG's patent). You see, butanone is soluble in water, so if you add butanone to the solution, you will just have a solution containing butanone, water, fulvic acid, and NaCl. The details of the extraction are not fully laid out.

     

    By the same token, the relatively poor translation of YONG's patent at the english SIPO site does not fully explain whether or not they separate the fulvic acid from the clear solution before adding it to the reactor.

     

    "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?"

     

    It seems pretty clear that you have been exposed to 1 method of extacting fulvic acid, and you are rejecting any other method - even if it appears in a fully legitimate, American patent. How childish.

     

    Isn't it possible that the experts in this field have developed methods that you don't fully understand? How about this: if you have an issue with this method, take it up with the US patent office.

     

    "So, yes, most of the peer-reviewed papers utilize and refer to the International Humic Substances Society method,"

     

    Not a single one of the examples refer to that method.

     

    "Fulvic acid is banned in California and other states."

     

    No, it is not banned in any states. You can use as much fulvic acid as you want in your fertilizer.

     

    "CDFA clearly states on page 10 that "fulvic acid" is an unacceptable term."

     

    Yes. However, you can still use it, and just leave it off the label. Or you can just label it as humic acid, because "humic acid" is often used as a broader category which also includes fulvic acids (if you simply skip the acidification step). This is explained at this link, which I am posting for the 3rd time, because you clearly aren't paying attention:

     

    http://bit.ly/Kd2jLE

     

    "Humic acid may be an acceptable term, but Yongye is not selling any humic-acid-based product, is it?"

     

    Irrelevant. I don't care about YONG or their business.

     

    This blog post was written as a response to Ian Bezek's article, where he tried to argue that neither humic nor fulvic acids are supported by scientific evidence. You have pointed out that the CDFA has found sufficient evidence of humic acid's effectiveness, allowing it to appear on fertilizer labels. Thank you for the help!

     

    "Fulvic acid is not similar to the humic acid permitted in California"

     

    A ridiculous claim. It is extremely similar - the molecular structures, chemical properties, and physical properties are all extremely similar. If you really want to debate this point, I can find plenty of Western sources to support my stance. I wonder if you can find any contrary opinions from respected sources?

     

    "fulvic acid is soluble in acidic solution, while humic acid is not."

     

    Yes, that is the distinction. A single, very minor difference. They are both very effective in promoting increased crop growth, which is what really matters here.

     

    "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."

     

    False. I have already shown peer-reviewed research proving its effectiveness. I don't care about your personal OPINION, which is that it must be ineffective (for no apparent reason).

     

    The only thing that matters here is the scientific evidence, and peer-reviewed publications are the best way to find that evidence.

     

    Why should I take your opinion over the findings of the scientific community? You have presented absolutely nothing to support your side of the debate.
    12 Jun 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • @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.
    12 Jun 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • 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 ?"
    12 Jun 2012, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "Page 19 in Example 1 shows no extraction method for fulvic acid, just for humic acid."

     

    False. Read it.

     

    "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."

     

    Incorrect. I already explained this.

     

    "SIPO has not translated Yongye's patent, just the summary. "

     

    False. They provide a machine translation of the entire patent.

     

    If you really want to examine the patent in detail, then please provide the original Chinese text.

     

    "How many tons of fulvic acid have been extracted so far in America using the extraction method in Example 4?"

     

    I do not have that information, and I'm not sure why you are wasting my time instead of providing legitimate arguments.

     

    "What happened to "fulvic acid" being SOLUBLE under all pH levels?"

     

    Nothing "happened" to this characteristic of FA. I'm growing tired of you trying to deflect and waste time with moronic questions & statements.

     

    "Your blog was written because you were, and still are, jealous of Mr. Bezek"

     

    False, and absurd. How about trying to stay on topic rather than waste my time?

     

    "The fact is that fulvic acids are not supported by scientific evidence. "

     

    False. The fact is, they are supported by a wealth of peer-reviewed research, as I have already shown in this blog and referred you to several times.

     

    "CDFA has found sufficient evidence of humic acid's effectiveness, allowing it to appear on fertilizer labels."

     

    Yes.

     

    "However, fulvic acid is not similar to the humic acid permitted in California - in fact, it is very different"

     

    False. Since you insist on being thick-headed about this simple point, I will clear it up for you as soon as I get home & have a few minutes.

     

    "Fulvic acid is typically drained away with the salt after humic acid is extracted."

     

    False.

     

    "Fulvic acid's molecular structures, chemical properties, and physical properties are, in fact, random."

     

    Also false, and contradicted by all peer-reviewed research, such as the links I have already shown you, which describe FA's effectiveness.

     

    "If they were similar to those of humic acid, CDFA would not have banned fulvic acid."

     

    As I have already explained to you, the CDFA has not "banned" fulvic acid. Apparently you don't understand my previous explanation.

     

    Why don't you just write a letter to them and ask if they have "banned" FA?

     

    "We already saw what your sources are worth."

     

    This is meaningless. Please, explain why peer-reviewed research should be ignored in favor of your rumors and insinuations?

     

    In an earlier comment, you cited the IHSS as a reputable source of information (ie: for information on the extraction methods for HA & FA). Since you cited them yourself, I can only conclude that you consider them to be a trustworthy source - otherwise, your previous argument makes no sense. You certainly wouldn't be so dishonest as to cite a source that you consider untrustworthy, would you?

     

    From a visit to your own source, the IHSS, we can find this quote:

     

    "Most of the data on HA, FA and humin refer to average properties and structure of a large ensemble of components of diverse structure and molecular weight. The precise properties and structure of a given HS sample depends on the water or soil source and the specific conditions of extraction. Nevertheless, the average properties of HA, FA and humin from different sources are remarkably similar."

     

    Surely you understand their explanation?
    12 Jun 2012, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: If page 19 in Example 1 shows the extraction method for fulvic acid, please share it with us! How exactly is the trivial amount of fulvic acid extracted from the dirty mix of coal, water, and salt? I reread the page, and I can't figure it out. Since you claim you have, please clue us all in!

     

    NaCl is not soluble in butanone, but fulvic acid is. Therefore, butanone is used in the South African patent to extract the fulvic acid from the salty mess, whether you disagree or not.

     

    If SIPO has translated the entire Yongye patent, then how come you did not know that Yongye's FA extraction process is unique because it utilizes hydrogen peroxide? The original text of the patent is, of course, available on SIPO's web site (as a set of tif files). Here is the combined pdf, for your convenience: http://bit.ly/LHC4Mp I suggest you read it carefully before you comment on it.

     

    The answer to my question on the number of tons of fulvic acid extracted so far in America using the extraction method in Example 4 is ZERO. Therefore, the patent in Example 4 is just as absurd as those other absurd American patents I showed you. And, yeah, the "fulvic acid" in Example 4 is INSOLUBLE, looks like.

     

    Fulvic acid's molecular structures, chemical properties, and physical properties are, in fact, random. They all depend on the raw material source and the specific extraction process and cannot be replicated - thus, they are random. So, FA's effectiveness cannot be measured. But you already knew that.

     

    If CDFA has not banned fulvic acid, why is "fulvic acid" an unacceptable term and why has the CDFA decided to ignore all of your peer-reviewed research studies? I know why - because FA is a random dirty mess of unknown composition, so forget measuring its effectiveness!

     

    Your peer-reviewed research should not be ignored. It should be studied, and, once understood, rightfully ridiculed.

     

    IHSS is not a reputable source of information, not at all - but the fact of the matter is that most of your peer-reviewed research relies on IHSS' methods of extraction. Still, the precise properties and structure of a given HS sample depends on the water or soil source and the specific conditions of extraction. The "average properties" of random things are indeed remarkably similar, if you want them to be.
    12 Jun 2012, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Caller Out:
    I have never had a position in YONG, and I am not interested in their stock, so I don't care what their PE is.

     

    Maybe they are a fraud. But, the most important thing is to hold people accountable for what they write. So if someone like Ian Bezek wants to expose a fraud, he should do it using real science, not unsupported psuedo-scientific arguments. Otherwise he is no better than the fraudsters.
    12 Jun 2012, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • @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.

     

    See this press release: http://bit.ly/KqN4yH

     

    When will you stop?
    12 Jun 2012, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Please, explain how this would make me a fraud. I have never cited Dr. Pettit.

     

    He may be a quack, and YONG may be a fraud, but that is all irrelevant to this discussion.

     

    "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 ?" "

     

    I just explained the reason, but apparently you don't have the integrity to understand why this is important.

     

    Using misinformed arguments against FA will have a detrimental effect on the entire industry using it - not just YONG.
    12 Jun 2012, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • @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
    12 Jun 2012, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "You are a fraud because you are citing quack "science" without even understanding what you are citing."

     

    False. You, sir, are the only fraud here; slandering respected sources and scientific journals that contradict your biased opinion. Your thoughts on the "randomness" of molecules are ridiculous as well, but I won't waste my time explaining this, since you are just ignoring everything anyway.

     

    As I showed in the original blog post, there is a wealth of peer-reviewed research proving the effectiveness of HA and FA.

     

    I'm just going to repeat this statement over and over until it sinks in, because it's the only thing that matters here. Until you can refute that peer-reviewed research, or give me some compelling reason to ignore it, nothing else really matters.

     

    So that you don't forget again, 3 more times:

     

    There is a wealth of peer-reviewed research proving the effectiveness of HA and FA.

     

    There is a wealth of peer-reviewed research proving the effectiveness of HA and FA.

     

    There is a wealth of peer-reviewed research proving the effectiveness of HA and FA.

     

    "Which specific modern-day Clark Stanleys are you trying to defend?"

     

    Now you are just resorting to name-calling, and abandoning any illusion of putting forth a substantive argument.

     

    Ok, once more:

     

    There is a wealth of peer-reviewed research proving the effectiveness of HA and FA.

     

    Lastly: I don't care about any particular companies in this industry, but I do hope they succeed, because food production is an important issue around the world.

     

    Also: I empathize with the thousands of scientists who have put in so much time proving the effectiveness of these compounds. It's just unfortunate that a couple of bloggers can have such a detrimental effect on this industry, despite the overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that has been published in support of HA and FA.
    12 Jun 2012, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • deepfryer,

     

    You claim that you want to hold people accountable. Maybe you should hold YONG and YONG's management accountable for the lies contained in their SEC reports, instead of criticizing those who hold YONG's management accountable. You said "Maybe" they are a fraud, but there really is no doubt that they are a fraud. It is clear as night and day.

     

    As far as I can tell, Ian and Richard are both correct on the science. Try to name one legitimate western company that sells a fulvic acid based product at scale. You can't.
    12 Jun 2012, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Caller: It is not my job to look over YONG's financial records, because I have no interest in them. Besides, plenty of people have already done that. It's not interesting.

     

    Please explain: why do you believe Ian and Richard are both correct on the science? This certainly doesn't make sense to me, because they aren't even taking the same position (their position is the same on FA, but their positions are contradictory on HA). Anyway, in terms of the "science", which part of their argument do you find convincing?
    13 Jun 2012, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Nope, my "position" on HA does not contradict Mr. Bezek's position on HA. Here is the proof: HA is cheaper to manufacture than NPK. If it were effective, HA would be selling more tons than NPK worldwide. Yet, it is not selling at all.

     

    Therefore, HA is snake oil without the oil. FA is simply snake oil squared. Now, please name the companies that I am hurting! Be specific!

     

    The Scientific Truth About Yongye International YONG is that it is a complete fraud.
    13 Jun 2012, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Again, which of your sources are respected? Also, which of your sources disputes the "randomness" of FA molecules?

     

    As I showed in my responses to your original blog post, you have no clue what the "wealth of peer-reviewed research" actually proves. It only proves that HA and FA are dirty salts of unknown, random composition that cannot be replicated, and thus, cannot be properly evaluated for effectiveness. That pseudo-science "research" should be studied and ridiculed, once understood.

     

    So, which specific companies are in the industry you are trying to protect from my or Mr. Bezek's detrimental impact?

     

    Food production is an important issue around the world, indeed, and it is doing quite well without any HA or FA.

     

    No scientist will ever even consider proving the effectiveness of random compounds of unknown composition that cannot be replicated.
    13 Jun 2012, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • Deepfryer, name one legitimate western company that sells a fulvic acid based product at scale. You can't.
    13 Jun 2012, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "Again, which of your sources are respected?"

     

    Each one. They are industry sources.

     

    "Also, which of your sources disputes the "randomness" of FA molecules?"

     

    The IHSS quote directly disputed this notion. Why didn't you respond to that quote?

     

    Let me explain something about "randomness", in case someone else stumbles across this blog later on. I know you won't pay attention, but this isn't for you.

     

    Say you have an apple tree. The sizes of the apples can be described as "random" to some extent. Each apple is unique, there is a significant amount of variation between them, and there is no way to predict exactly how large each apple will become.

     

    However, all of the important properties of apples are still the same. They look pretty much the same. They taste the same. And their weights are similar, when you take the average weights over a large enough sample size. FA is the same. Again, refer to the IHSS quote from earlier. FA and HA are both described in the same way: they are classes of molecules with very similar molecular weights, structures, and properties.

     

    If you want to debate this, then stop asking the same stupid questions over and over, and instead find a scientist who disagrees with anything that I have said. I have no problem supporting my position with scientific evidence.

     

    If the apple example doesn't do it for you, and you need a class of molecules that can be described similarly, I already gave you one: proteins. There are different types of proteins, with "random" structures. But of course, scientists have no problem studying the properties of proteins - and, those properties are both reproducible and consistant.

     

    "It only proves that HA and FA are dirty salts of unknown, random composition that cannot be replicated, and thus, cannot be properly evaluated for effectiveness."

     

    Again, your argument has no scientific basis, and all of the peer-reviewed scientific research on the issue contradicts you. See the 10 references in the original blog post. They very clearly evaluated these compounds for effectiveness.

     

    It's a little pathetic that you have been so thoroughly defeated that you have abandoned your illusion of a "scientific" argument. You are simply resorting to name-calling, stalling tactics, changing the subject, and ignoring my explanations.
    13 Jun 2012, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Which industry manufactured the sources you cited? Please name a few specific companies in that industry that we have to thank for those sources!

     

    The size of an apple can be measured very precisely - you place the apple on flat surface, take a ruler and measure it. To measure the volume, you submerge the apple in a cylindrical vessel and measure the volume of the water displaced. Each apple is unique, but its size can be measured easily. Even a caveman can do it reliably. On the other hand, no one can measure the concentration of FA reliably. FA is a random dirty mess of unknown composition - and Yongye's FA is basically dirty table salt, as anyone who has read and understood Yongye's patent knows. You cannot properly evaluate something for effectiveness, if that something is of random composition that cannot be replicated.

     

    And, I am sorry, how are the properties of FA and HA very similar? I thought FA is soluble in acidic solution while HA is not. I am confused now.

     

    So, here are some of your obvious lies so far: 1) You claimed that Yongye's FA extraction process is similar to that of the "industry," yet it turns out Yongye's process uniquely relies on hydrogen peroxide, as shown in its patent. 2) You claimed that the peers do not separate the table salt form the FA, yet Baglieri etc do. 3) You claimed that the CDFA has not banned FA in California, yet it did.

     

    Should I go on? Now, who is detrimental to which industry?

     

    Conclusion: The Scientific Truth About Yongye International, YONG, is that YONG is a complete fraud, and so are you.
    .
    13 Jun 2012, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "Which industry manufactured the sources you cited?"

     

    Why don't you look for yourself? Plant nutrition, soil science, etc.

     

    "On the other hand, no one can measure the concentration of FA reliably."

     

    In the sources that I have already provided, they measured the concentration of FA reliably. Is that clear enough?

     

    If you disagree, please show me where their measurements were unreliable. Or show me a scientist who agrees with your absurd position.

     

    "And, I am sorry, how are the properties of FA and HA very similar?"

     

    That's easy. Their molecular structures are very similar, with a few minor differences (FA generally has lower molecular weight and higher carboxyl group content). But overall, the structures are very similar. And of course, both are very effective in improving crop yield.

     

    "You cannot properly evaluate something for effectiveness, if that something is of random composition that cannot be replicated."

     

    In the studies that I have already shown you, and referenced several times, they did, in fact, evaluate FA and HA for effectiveness.

     

    Maybe you should write a letter to the Journal of Plant Nutrition, or any of my other sources, if you don't understand their requirements.

     

    "1) You claimed that Yongye's FA extraction process is similar to that of the "industry," yet it turns out Yongye's process uniquely relies on hydrogen peroxide, as shown in its patent."

     

    So the hydrogen peroxide is what concerns you and makes their patent "unique"?

     

    Here is an American patent application describing the extraction of FA using hydrogen peroxide, in a manner very similar to YONG's patent: http://bit.ly/LJqHns

     

    Do you really not know how to find information like this, or are you just lazy?

     

    "2) You claimed that the peers do not separate the table salt form the FA, yet Baglieri etc do. "

     

    Not in the method that you claimed, which was the issue. None of my sources referenced the IHSS or used the method that you described.

     

    "3) You claimed that the CDFA has not banned FA in California, yet it did."

     

    No, it did not. You still have not issued any support for this. You have merely shown that FA has not yet been approved for listing on the label. If it were a "banned substance", that would be completely different. But you clearly don't work in an industry that uses these types of regulations, and do not understand what the word "banned" means.
    13 Jun 2012, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Still waiting, deepfryer. Are you so egotistical that you think you understand the science of fertilizers better than all the capitalists in the western world?
    18 Jun 2012, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » GTX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

     

    There, I did what you asked. I assume that addresses your concern?

     

    Now I am still waiting for YOU to respond, because after my last respone, Richard has stopped posting. Please explain which part of his and Ian's "scientific" arguments you found to be so convincing. I would love to continue discussing the science behind these products until every possible angle has been covered.
    20 Jun 2012, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Don't worry, I will respond - I have been collecting some data about the random composition of fulvic acids and am almost ready. Regarding GTX Technologies - that is NOT A LEGITIMATE company. It is simply the scam vehicle of Mr. Norbert K. Chirase. Mr. Chirase was a "consultant" of Humatech while the fraud was going on ( read http://1.usa.gov/LkKqc5 ). Here is an example of his fraudulent research: http://bit.ly/PuukMT

     

    Are you related to this obvious crook, by any chance?
    20 Jun 2012, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » HumaTech committed financial fraud, but Chirase had no involvement with that. You have no evidence whatsoever that there has ever been any wrongdoing on the part of Chirase or GTX Technologies.

     

    I will post some more Western fulvic acid suppliers later, although I want to stick to science for the most part, rather than getting sidetracked by these non-issues. I realize that you guys will keep grasping at straws until the end of time.
    20 Jun 2012, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, you can buy it right on Amazon.com. So to give another western supplier I will name Advanced Nutrients.

     

    You can buy some right here: http://amzn.to/LkWc6q
    20 Jun 2012, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Mr. Chirase facilitated Humatech's fraud by manufacturing fraudulent research. Therefore, GTX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC is not a legitimate company but a front for a known scam artist, Mr. Chirase.

     

    You cannot post the names of any LEGITIMATE Western suppliers of fulvic acid, because fulvic acid is of random composition (depending on the raw materials, extraction process, and the time of the day) that cannot be replicated, and therefore, its effects cannot be properly studied and measured. Yongye's fulvic acid, for example, is dirty table salt (based on Yongye's patented extraction process), not an acid at all. Therefore, "fulvic acid science" is an oxymoron.

     

    No straws here, just the hard, cold facts.
    20 Jun 2012, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: You can buy snake oil on Amazon, too: http://amzn.to/MjZua9 It really works says the peddler, masquerading as a customer!

     

    The fact is, plant nutrients aka fertilizers with fulvic acid on the content label are banned in California. No such fertilizer is sold in that State, because that would be illegal. If you know of any, please let me know, so that its distributor is reported to the authorities.

     

    Note that Advanced Nutrients' Grandma Enggy F-1 product DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY FULVIC ACID, ACCORDING TO ITS CONTENT LABEL:

     

    http://bit.ly/MMlmXr

     

    So, try again! Advanced Nutrients, by the way, is a tiny little scam run by an Eastern European crook in Canada. http://bit.ly/MjZuaf Other than a few sales to brain-dead illegal marijuana growers in California, it has zero revenues. In fact, this scam artist did not even have $100,000 to pay his consultant who provided the "intellectual property" for your Grandma Enggy F-1 http://bit.ly/MjZuaf !!! You call that a legitimate Western company???

     

    I suggest you redouble your efforts to find a legitimate western supplier of fulvic-acid-based fertilizer!
    20 Jun 2012, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • No, you did not answer the question I asked. I asked for someone who sells it "at scale". The fact that you named a company that no one has ever heard of is enough proof that no one legitimate is selling this product at scale. There are many multi-billion dollar fertilizer and ag companies who wouldn't touch fulvic acid with a 10-foot pole. Only in your egotistical mind is this insignificant snake oil seller smarter than the ag giants.
    20 Jun 2012, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Fulvic acid is used at low concentrations, generally as an additive at several ppm. So obviously it will not be sold in the same quantities as a traditional fertilizer. And, you have not described what "at scale" means. You seem to think that an industrial chemical needs to be a household name in order to be considered "at scale". What a strange idea.

     

    Anyway, here is another American supplier of FA:
    http://bit.ly/MkgLQE

     

    And before you start slandering this company, here is a letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, where they affirm the effectiveness of DinoSoil for ex-situ environmental remediation (look it up yourself if you don't know what that means). And yes, the DEP does clearly state that DinoSoil contains fulvic acid, which is helpful for re-enriching the soil:

     

    http://bit.ly/MkgLQG
    20 Jun 2012, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » From their website:

     

    "What's more: GRANDMA ENGGY'S F-1™ is golden clear and is the purest Fulvic available."

     

    They make it very clear that this product does indeed contain fulvic acid, so give it a rest with the misleading arguments.

     

    Obviously fulvic acid is not listed because it is considered a part of "humic acid", and because "fulvic acid" is not yet approved for listing on a fertilizer label, as we have already discussed.

     

    "Advanced Nutrients, by the way, is a tiny little scam run by an Eastern European crook in Canada"

     

    This sentence makes it seem as though you are biased against small companies and Eastern European people.

     

    "Other than a few sales to brain-dead illegal marijuana growers in California, it has zero revenues"

     

    Oh really? Should I just take your word on that?

     

    "In fact, this scam artist did not even have $100,000 to pay his consultant who provided the "intellectual property" for your Grandma Enggy F-1 "

     

    Where are you pulling these statements from? Your link is to an unrelated website.
    20 Jun 2012, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "Mr. Chirase facilitated Humatech's fraud by manufacturing fraudulent research. "

     

    Instead of slandering people, why don't you simply post some evidence of fraud in his research?

     

    Do you really need me to explain how to make a coherent argument instead of relying on insinuations and slander?

     

    "You cannot post the names of any LEGITIMATE Western suppliers of fulvic acid, because fulvic acid is of random composition (depending on the raw materials, extraction process, and the time of the day) that cannot be replicated, and therefore, its effects cannot be properly studied and measured."

     

    Nonsense. I have already refuted your "random" argument, and you have failed to respond, or to even understand it.

     

    Also: I have already shown that FA has been properly studied and measured in dozens, if not hundreds, of peer-reviewed publications. Therefore your statement that it "cannot be properly studied and measured" is obviously incorrect, and is completely contrary to the findings of the scientific community.
    20 Jun 2012, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: No, the product does not contain any fulvic acid according to its content label. Obviously, fulvic acid is not on the content label because fulvic acid is banned in California and many other States and countries. Please show that Advanced Nutrients is a legitimate Western company! So, far I have shown you with a court document that Advanced Nutrients is an Eastern European scam operating out of Canada that does not have even $100,000 in the bank. So, it is not my word, really. Which unrelated website are you babbling about? I linked a court document. Can't you read a court document?
    20 Jun 2012, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: I am not slandering anyone. Mr. Chirase is clearly a scam artist, manufacturing fraudulent research for a fraud that was shut down by the SEC. I already posted a link to the SEC litigation release.

     

    You have not refuted anything. Fulvic acid is of random composition that cannot be measured or replicated - no different from snake oil without the oil. If you disagree, please post here the composition of fulvic acid! You can quote one of your quack peer-reviewed studies, if you want.

     

    FA has not been properly studied by anyone. A compound of random composition that depends on the time of the day, the exraction method, and the raw material cannot be properly studied and measured. So far, you have not shown a link to even one peer-reviewed publication that has measured or studied FA - all you have linked are "publications" measuring and studying samples of a random compound, and each and every one of those publications shows a DIFFERENT composition of FA!!!

     

    No scientific community exists that would be crooked enough to study and measure a compound of random composition that cannot be replicated.

     

    More importantly, no legitimate western company manufactures or sells any fulvic-acid based fertilizers.
    20 Jun 2012, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Yongye claims to be selling 46,000 tons a year of a fulvic-based foliar fertilizer. I call that significant production and sales operation at scale. So, please show us at least one legitimate Western company that manufacturers or distributes over 40,000 tons a year of fulvic-based fertilizer! I assume Caller Out will be satisfied with the definition of "at scale" meaning over 40,000 tons a year.

     

    Rare Earth Soil is not an American supplier of anything. It does not even have an address, forget legitimate! DinoSoil incorporated aka Freeport Gutter and Steel apparently makes a product for "remediation of oil spils." Its sole proprietor, Mr. Samuel Ward, operated it out of his beautiful Florida residence. The crook was cited by OSHA for serious violations shortly after your Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems ridiculous "acceptance" : http://bit.ly/LEke96

     

    Now, how would the DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems know what DinoSoil contains and whether it is helpful for re-enriching the soil? Don't you know where to stop? How many scam artists are you planning to expose here?
    20 Jun 2012, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » You did not link to a court document. Check again, you posted the Omri link twice. Didn't you even have the intelligence to check your links again after my last post?

     

    I thought you were busy gathering some real scientific information... so why do you keep wasting time with these garbage arguments and non-sequitors?
    21 Jun 2012, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Again, you are spinning your wheels. FA has been studied in peer-reviewed publications. End of story.

     

    If you want to argue that it cannot be studied due to its "random" composition, please show me some peer-reviewed research that supports your viewpoint.
    21 Jun 2012, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » You can't win an argument by pulling nonsense from thin air.

     

    Rare Earth Soil does indeed have an address, it is:
    4119 Balem st
    Concord, CA

     

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

     

    Your document shows that Sam Ward's company had a "serious violation", for which he was fined the staggering amount of... $2240. Whoa, stop the presses!

     

    Lastly, if they don't have a product, how did they get the product approved by the DEP?

     

    "Now, how would the DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems know what DinoSoil contains and whether it is helpful for re-enriching the soil?"

     

    How would they know?... Did you forget to take your medicine today?
    21 Jun 2012, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Well, let's try again then. Here is the link to "Hornby and Hedron Analytical Inc. v. Advanced Nutrients Ltd., 2008 BCSC 962, Docket: 073545, Registry: Vancouver" http://bit.ly/MHd5HK Apparently, the link did indeed get lost in my original post (probably during the editing).

     

    As you can see, Advanced Nutrients is a tiny little scam operated by an Eastern European crook that is short on cash.

     

    I am not wasting any time. And I am not gathering any "scientific information," just evidence that your peer-reviewed quack studies show that FA is of random composition that cannot be verified and reproduced because depends on the raw material, extraction method, and the time of the day.
    21 Jun 2012, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: No, FA may have been "studied" in your peer-reviewed "publications," but those publications show that FA is of random composition that cannot be reproduced, and therefore FA cannot be studied through scientific methods. No wonder FA has been banned in California and other States and countries!

     

    Now, I am sure you will agree with the US government that snake oil is of random composition: http://bit.ly/MAnqSx So, please show some peer-reviewed research that supports the view that snake oil cannot be studied due to its "random" composition!

     

    Oh, and please name at least one legitimate Western company that makes any fulvic-acid-based fertilizer (preferably in scale, that is, over 40,000 tons a year).
    21 Jun 2012, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Nope, Rare Earth Soil does not have an address. There is no Balem street in Concord, CA - it simply does not exist - so it obviously cannot be an address. Don't you ever get tired of lying?

     

    That $2,240 constituted the whole net worth of the scam artist Sam Ward!

     

    DEP does not approve any products, much less any fertilizers! In the letter that you cited, DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems reaffirmed its original December 13, 2001 acceptance of dinoSoil, a humic substance (NOT A FULVIC ACID), as a product for ex situ remediation of petroleum-contaminated soil. Now, why none of your peer-reviewed studies mentions anything about the effects of fulvic acid in remediation of petroleum-contaminated soil?

     

    Help me here: How would the DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems know what DinoSoil contains and whether it is helpful for re-enriching the soil? I mean, the DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems may have some knowledge about Petroleum, but what does it know about re-enriching the soil?
    21 Jun 2012, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "No, FA may have been "studied" in your peer-reviewed "publications,"

     

    Yes, they were studied scientifically and their results were published in numerous scientific journals.

     

    "but those publications show that FA is of random composition that cannot be reproduced,"

     

    No, they did not. Why don't you ever include support for your statements? Please, show me where my sources called FA "random" or impossible to reproduce.

     

    If their conclusions could not be reproduced, then of course they never would have been able to have those conclusions published in a scientific journal.

     

    "Now, I am sure you will agree with the US government that snake oil is of random composition: http://bit.ly/MAnqSx "

     

    Your link does not make the claim that snake oil is of a random composition.
    21 Jun 2012, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » The address was clearly a typo on the site that I visited, it is 4118 Salem St.

     

    "That $2,240 constituted the whole net worth of the scam artist Sam Ward! "

     

    Oh, really? Are you his accountant?

     

    "DEP does not approve any products"

     

    Yes, they merely "affirm" and "accept" products. Thanks for wasting my time once again.

     

    "Now, why none of your peer-reviewed studies mentions anything about the effects of fulvic acid in remediation of petroleum-contaminated soil?"

     

    I'm sure I could find studies to that purpose, but what is the point?

     

    The reason I supplied this link is because Caller Out asked for a legitimate western company that makes fulvic acid. If this company makes a product using fulvic acid, and that product has been approved by a government agency, then obviously they are really making the product as they have claimed. And according to the DEP report, which includes elemental analysis, the product does indeed contain fulvic acid.

     

    Also: the DEP clearly supports my early claim, that fulvic acid is very similar in structure to humic acid. Maybe you should actually read the report if you want to learn something.

     

    "How would the DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems know what DinoSoil contains and whether it is helpful for re-enriching the soil?"

     

    See above. They studied the contents of the product.

     

    "I mean, the DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems may have some knowledge about Petroleum, but what does it know about re-enriching the soil?"

     

    As I told you before: look up environmental remediation if you don't know what it is.

     

    The DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems is responsible for environmental remediation, as the report clearly explains.
    21 Jun 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "And I am not gathering any "scientific information," just evidence that your peer-reviewed quack studies show that FA is of random composition that cannot be verified and reproduced because depends on the raw material, extraction method, and the time of the day. "

     

    Well, why is it taking you so long to gather this information? I would love to see it!

     

    If you can show me some "evidence" that FA is of random composition and cannot be reproduced, then "this" evidence certainly would qualify as "scientific information" (as I described it earlier). So please, don't be shy: show me the evidence!
    21 Jun 2012, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • I'll settle for any company that is doing 1/10 of YONG's EBIT, 1/4 of YONG's revenue, or 1/4 of YONG's production volume in fulvic acid basec fertilizer. Or, any company w/ market cap of above $1 billion (listed in a developed market) that discloses fulvic acid based fertilizer as a material contributor to revenue. Or, any company that is widely recognized by industry experts to be a legitimate business selling legitimate products.

     

    Any one of these five conditions will suffice.

     

    Your inability to meet these very lenient conditions is just proof that you think you somehow understand the science better than actual businesses seeking actual profits. As a famous fund manager once said, money talks, bulls*** walks. There is no money in fulvic acid fertilizers
    21 Jun 2012, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: 4118 Salem St., Concord, CA is the address of a 3-bedrooms, 2-bathrooms single family residence, not an address of a legitimate Western company. Here is a little bit about the Chinese catalog copywriter that lives there: http://linkd.in/L8iWSF When do you plan to stop lying?

     

    The DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems has not studied any fulvic acid. The letter clearly states that the jurisdiction of the Bureau is the cleanup of petroleum. Therefore, this whole letter is ridiculous. Furthermore, Mr. Sam Ward, a crooked and destitute "court reporter," makes no product containing any fulvic acid, especially not out of his Florida residence.
    21 Jun 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: If I show you the evidence that FA is of random composition and cannot be reproduced, will you admit that the scientific truth about Yongye International is that Yongye International is a complete fraud?
    21 Jun 2012, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "There is no money in fulvic acid fertilizers "

     

    It's interesting that you have abandoned all "scientific" arguments, and are not even trying to respond to the scientific evidence that I have presented.

     

    If it's all about money, then do you understand how certain businesses could be viable in other countries, but not necessarily profitable in the US? There are also dozens of FA producers in Turkey (many more than in the US). Are you implying that those are all frauds as well?
    21 Jun 2012, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "4118 Salem St., Concord, CA is the address of a 3-bedrooms, 2-bathrooms single family residence, not an address of a legitimate Western company."

     

    Why can't it be both? He is just a distributor. I don't see any problem in using his home address to incorporate his small business. This is the address listed for the company, on several different websites.

     

    "The DEP's Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems has not studied any fulvic acid."

     

    Not pure fulvic acid, but they have studied and approved DinoSoil, a product which contains fulvic acid.

     

    "The letter clearly states that the jurisdiction of the Bureau is the cleanup of petroleum."

     

    You can't get off that easily, just by "playing dumb". They clearly state that they deal with ex-situ and in-situ environmental remediation. This process involves cleaning the soil, as well as enriching it with nutrients so that it can be effective once again. Tell me: why else do you think they would be interested in a product like DinoSoil?

     

    "Furthermore, Mr. Sam Ward, a crooked and destitute "court reporter," makes no product containing any fulvic acid, especially not out of his Florida residence. "

     

    Their website clearly states that DinoSoil comes from Texas. So, no, he clearly is not "making" the product at his residence. No one ever claimed that he was.

     

    You have shown nothing to imply that he is "crooked".

     

    I am still waiting for proof that Chirase's research was fraudulent. Or are you simply going to abandon that argument with the hope that I will forget about it?

     

    Kind of like you did with your argument about hydrogen peroxide?
    21 Jun 2012, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Of course I will, although I should warn you, my burden of proof is much higher than yours... I don't think you have cited a single scientific or peer-reviewed source in this entire discussion.
    21 Jun 2012, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • So, if i understand your comment correctly, you cannot name any non-fraudulent fulvic acid fertilizer companies that produce 1/10 of YONG's EBIT, 1/4 of YONG's revenue or production, or is widely recognized by industry experts as legitimate.

     

    I guess we should trust a random guy called "deepfryer999" over the system of capitalism, which seems to have missed out on the deep scientific insights you have discovered.
    26 Jun 2012, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I guess we should trust a random troll called "Caller Out" instead of listening to the entire scientific community?

     

    I love how you started out talking about "science", and now that you have been completely refuted on every single point, you are trying to re-frame the discussion around the viability of their business.

     

    Anyway, I have already shown plenty of companies that sell FA-based products, similar to YONG. And there is zero evidence showing any of them to be frauds. Especially DinoSoil - which as I just showed, has been approved by the DEP.

     

    There are plenty more American FA suppliers... I just haven't bothered to show them all to you yet. Why don't you look them up yourself, if you're so interested?

     

    Here's another one: http://www.mycsa.us

     

    And no, I don't know exactly how much they produce, because they are a private company and this information is not readily available. If that's the extent of your argument, then you are wasting my time. I'm sure you can call them, or one of their distributors, and order a truckload if you really want to.
    26 Jun 2012, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Since fulvic acid is of random composition that cannot be replicated, no member of the scientific community can study and research it.

     

    Now, be a sport and read this nice published peer-reviewed paper and let me know what you think of the composition of the fulvic acid: http://bit.ly/M1FdHI Hopefully, the link will work. If not, google for "Transformation of fulvic substances in the rhizosphere during" and look for the link to the full text in a pdf file.

     

    Yes, all of the companies you have shown so far are complete scams and frauds, so they are indeed quite similar to YONG. But you have failed to show even one legitimate Western company that makes and sells fulvic-acid-based fertilizer in scale (10,000+ tons a year). DinoSoil is not a legitimate company - it is a scam run by a demented, destitute court reporter out of his basement with ZERO revenues. I repeat, DinoSoil has zero revenues, and is not approved by any DEP.

     

    MyCSA's product called "Fulvic Acid Tech Grade in Powder Form" contains zero grams, I repeat, ZERO grams of fulvic acid, as evidenced by the guaranteed content label and report:
    http://bit.ly/Mzo4RH

     

    MyCSA is a one-man scam run by Mr. Federico Casillas and has annual revenues of less than $100,000 (meaning, less than 100 tons): http://bit.ly/M1FbQ9 Most of the stuff it sells (to braindead illegal marijuana growers) is imported from China. See here: http://bit.ly/Mzo2JA So we know exactly how much it produces (zero), and how much it sells (less than $100,000 annually) - the information, as you see, is readily available. You call this an American FA supplier? Moron!

     

    26 Jun 2012, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I thought you were spending all these days "gathering evidence", as you said earlier? And that is why you have been taking so long to respond?

     

    And now you respond with ONE obscure paper? Are you kidding?

     

    Please, show me in that paper where they say that FA "cannot be studied". Show me some relevant quotes that support your case.

     

    They show that FA can interact chemically with motor oil under certain conditions. Who cares? Lots of chemicals can react with motor oil. That doesn't mean that those chemicals cannot be studied.

     

    You claim that FA cannot be studied. However, I have already shown that it has been studied - extensively! Do you understand? It has been studied in peer-reviewed publications. Your position is ridiculous.

     

    "DinoSoil is not a legitimate company - it is a scam run by a demented, destitute court reporter out of his basement with ZERO revenues. I repeat, DinoSoil has zero revenues, and is not approved by any DEP."

     

    I have already shown you that it was approved by a bureau which is part of the DEP. So stop lying.

     

    And you have no evidence that they have "zero revenues". You are just a demented troll posting from your mom's basement.

     

    "MyCSA's product called "Fulvic Acid Tech Grade in Powder Form" contains zero grams, I repeat, ZERO grams of fulvic acid, as evidenced by the guaranteed content label and report:
    http://bit.ly/Mzo4RH "

     

    Um, false. Last time I checked, 0.3% plus 1.25% does not add up to 100%. They are obviously just showing the amount of nitrogen and potash in the product. They make it very clear on their website that the product does indeed contain FA.

     

    "MyCSA is a one-man scam run by Mr. Federico Casillas and has annual revenues of less than $100,000 (meaning, less than 100 tons): http://bit.ly/M1FbQ9"

     

    According to your link, their "annual revenues" are 500,001 to 1,000,000 US$. You were looking at the wrong figure... idiot.

     

    Also, I have absolutely no reason to believe that your website is in any way accurate.

     

    This more accurate and widely-used site shows their annual sales as $1 - $2.5 million: http://bit.ly/MRj4tZ

     

    "Most of the stuff it sells (to braindead illegal marijuana growers) is imported from China. See here: http://bit.ly/Mzo2JA"

     

    They buy some raw materials from China. Is that supposed to be unusual?

     

    You have no evidence that this is "most of what they sell". As usual, everything you have posted is either inaccurate, or simply made up.

     

    Also: I am still waiting for your scientific rebuttal to Mr Chirase's research, which you slandered earlier. And I am still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong regarding your inaccurate claims about hydrogen peroxide with regards to FA extraction.
    26 Jun 2012, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • If I understand your comment correctly, you still cannot name any fulvic acid fertilizer companies that produce even a fraction of YONG's EBIT, Revenue, or product volume.

     

    I guess these companies are so successful, that they keep their success a secret from the world, hate going public, and hate to be widely recognized as legitimate? And all of those multi-billion $ companies listed on stock exchanges around the world whose business is fertilizer, somehow missed out on your scientific insights?

     

    No, fulvic acid is a scam, and no legit business can make money off it, at least not enough money to warrant any attention from anyone but yourself and their victims.
    26 Jun 2012, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: The paper I linked is not obscure. It is a seminal paper published in a peer-reviewed publication. It demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that fulvic acid is of random composition that cannot be replicated. I will show you the quote you desire when you show me a "scientific paper" that says that snake oil cannot be studied. FA is as absurd as snake oil, so no scientific paper will ever address it (none of your peer-reviewed publications has anything to do with science). But this nice "oil" paper published in a peer-reviewed journal confirmed what I have been saying - FA is affected by what has been grown and put over the raw material, and therefore it is of random composition and cannot be replicated reliably. So, now you have to admit that the scientific truth about Yongye International is that it is a complete fraud. Unless you disagree with the findings in the peer-reviewed paper, of course...

     

    DinoSoil is a scam run out of the basement of a destitute and demented court reporter, and obviously has no revenues. If you disagree, show me the address of its production facility!

     

    Now, about MyCSA: Why should I need to add the Nitrogen and the Potash (K2O) content to arrive at the fulvic acid content? Does fulvic acid contain Nitrogen and K2O in 0.30:1.25 ratio? Or is fulvic acid of random composition? If the product contained fulvic acid, the content label should have mentioned it, don't you think? The fact is, fulvic acid is banned in California, and that is why no one dares to sell fulvic-acid based fertilizer even out of Texas. Not even the one-man scam MyCSA. Now that you have agreed that MyCSA's revenues are less than $3,000,000 a year, we both agree that the company produces zero tons and imports and sells less than 3,000 tons of something a year. Compare to YONG's 46,000 tons of fulvic-acid-base fertilizer a year! 3,000 is less than 1/4 of 46,000, so you need to find another legitimate Western company right now!

     

    Say, what raw materials does MyCSA buy from China? Oh, that is right, the magic fulvic acid, full of toxic mercury.

     

    Mr. Chirase facilitated a known fraud busted by the SEC. His fraudulent research was used and paid for by the fraudulent company in the period specified by the SEC complaint. Just like you are attempting desperately to facilitate a known, and now scientifically-proven, fraud, Yongye International.
    26 Jun 2012, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "It demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that fulvic acid is of random composition that cannot be replicated."

     

    It absolutely does not demonstrate this. You are simply lying because you cannot find even a single source to support your idea.

     

    "I will show you the quote you desire when you show me a "scientific paper" that says that snake oil cannot be studied."

     

    Here you go. The federal gov't analyzed some "snake oil" and determined that it did not really contain any oil from a snake:
    http://bit.ly/M46utj

     

    This is not the same as your "randomness" argument, because your argument makes no sense. The reason "snake oil" is infamous is because it was not really "snake oil" at all, and because it did not really provide any of the benefits that were advertised. No one has ever made an argument based on the "random composition" of snake oil. This just goes to show how you misunderstand EVERYTHING that you are ever exposed to.

     

    Fulvic acid, obviously, is completely different because it is supported by science.

     

    Ok, your turn: show me the quote I asked for. Or don't - I really don't care. But if you don't, then you have not even taken the first basic steps towards forming a coherent argument.

     

    "FA is as absurd as snake oil, so no scientific paper will ever address it (none of your peer-reviewed publications has anything to do with science)."

     

    Again, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Please explain why those publications have nothing to do with science. This may be the most pathetic argument that you have tried to use so far.

     

    "Now, about MyCSA: Why should I need to add the Nitrogen and the Potash (K2O) content to arrive at the fulvic acid content? Does fulvic acid contain Nitrogen and K2O in 0.30:1.25 ratio? Or is fulvic acid of random composition? If the product contained fulvic acid, the content label should have mentioned it, don't you think?"

     

    I already explained this to you in my previous comment.

     

    "The fact is, fulvic acid is banned in California, and that is why no one dares to sell fulvic-acid based fertilizer even out of Texas."

     

    I have already explained to you that FA is not banned anywhere. Also: they do sell it out of Texas.

     

    "3,000 is less than 1/4 of 46,000, so you need to find another legitimate Western company right now! "

     

    No, I don't. At least you have admitted that your previous numbers were wrong, because you were too stupid to find the correct numbers.

     

    How about this: find me an American facility that assembles 1/4 as many cell phones as Foxconn makes each year. Do you understand that China engages in more high-volume manufacturing than the US?

     

    Anyway, this is all just a "victory lap" for me at this point, because you are failing to address your previous arguments that you have now abandoned. You are still hoping that I will forget about your arguments that were based on YONG's patent. And you have not shown any evidence of fraud in Chirase's research.

     

    "Mr. Chirase facilitated a known fraud busted by the SEC."

     

    No he didn't.

     

    "Say, what raw materials does MyCSA buy from China? Oh, that is right, the magic fulvic acid, full of toxic mercury."

     

    Mercury, eh? So I'm sure you can show me some evidence that there is mercury in MyCSA's products? No?? So you are just making things up, for lack of a coherent argument?

     

    "His fraudulent research was used and paid for by the fraudulent company in the period specified by the SEC complaint. "

     

    Why not form an argument based on the actual research? Have you even read it? Which part of his research was inaccurate?
    27 Jun 2012, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Still waiting deepfryer. Can't name a single company?

     

    Why don't we reduce the conditions drastically. Name me one company in the US that does even 1 million USD revenue in fulvic acid fertilizer. This is compared to some 400 million for YONG. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if someone manages to sell 1 million of snake oil, but if you can't even meet this easy criterion then I think we can agree that your entire argument is a joke.
    29 Jun 2012, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I already named such a company. Pay attention.

     

    I also am still waiting. Please explain to me which of Richard & Ian's specific, scientific arguments you found to be convincing. And, please tell me why you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion away from the scientific evidence of fulvic acid's benefits (which was the topic of this blog). It almost seems like you are trying to change the subject for some reason...
    29 Jun 2012, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • MyCSA does not produce > 1mil in FULVIC ACID FERTILIZER revenue. At best, they sell many different snake oils, the total revenue of which might be slightly over 1 mil. Again, I would not be surprised if someone is selling > 1 mil in fulvic acid snake oil. Your argument is definitely a complete and utter joke if you can't prove at least that small hurdle. I don't think anyone would take you seriously unless you could show someone making ~1/4th of YONG's revenue in fulvic acid or one of the other conditions I listed. The best test of the scientific arguments is to follow the money. Money says that Richard and Ian are 100% correct.
    6 Jul 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "MyCSA does not produce > 1mil in FULVIC ACID FERTILIZER revenue. At best, they sell many different snake oils, the total revenue of which might be slightly over 1 mil. "

     

    Unless you have detailed sales numbers for each of their product lines, you are just speculating. And, using the term "snake oil" isn't going to help your side of the argument, unless you can back it up with some substantive arguments.

     

    "Your argument is definitely a complete and utter joke if you can't prove at least that small hurdle."

     

    Incorrect. My argument is that fulvic acid works, and I have proven my case using peer-reviewed research. The peer-review process for these scientific publications is quite rigorous, so unless you can show me specifically where you have an issue with their results, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that the scientific community is in fact correct, and that FA does indeed work in terms of increasing crop growth.

     

    As for your sales-based arguments, they certainly do not invalidate the findings of the scientific community. At best you are merely implying that YONG's business model might not be profitable in the United States. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but that obviously doesn't mean their business model could not work in China. Do you understand that? Because I have explained this already, and it seems that you are having trouble understanding it.

     

    So, again, I would ask you to show me a company with a manufacturing site in America that assembles as many iPhones as Foxconn does. I hope that you will spend some time researching this question, and then I think you will begin to understand that there is a difference in the scale of manufacturing being done in China compared to the US.

     

    If you still don't understand this, then please take some time and do some research, and we can further discuss this manufacturing topic, as well as the details of the scientific research that has been performed on FA.

     

    But, if you are just going to post a 1 or 2 sentence response, my advice is to not even bother, because that does not really accomplish anything in terms of advancing the discussion.
    9 Jul 2012, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • You can of course name an American company manufacturing the fertilizer in China. In fact, you can name any company where the financials are non-fraudulent. Heck, feel free to name a fraudulent chinese company, as that will most likely just give me another name to short.

     

    Sounds to me like you can't show that any company is making even that tiny amount of 1 million in fulvic acid based revenues. 1 million being, what, 1/400th of what Yongye is claiming? LOL
    15 Jul 2012, 01:14 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » " Sounds to me like you can't show that any company is making even that tiny amount of 1 million in fulvic acid based revenues."

     

    Actually, I have already done this, as I just told you.

     

    Yet another American fulvic acid producer, in addition to all the others I have listed, is BioAg.

     

    I am still waiting to hear your explanation of how your position makes any sense. If you cannot find any errors in the scientific sources that I have cited, then how can you argue that fulvic acid in not beneficial? Surely there must be SOMETHING that you can use to support your postion? Is changing the subject really your only option?
    16 Jul 2012, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • You keep throwing out names that no one has ever heard of, with no proof that any of them make 1M in fulvic acid fertilizer revenues.

     

    You lost the argument. It's over.
    16 Jul 2012, 11:38 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » And now you have satisfied Danth's Law. Not surprising.

     

    If you don't know who BioAg is, Google them - it's not hard. This is your argument, so you should do your own research. You asked for a company and I gave you a company. End of story.

     

    And if you want to get into a financial argument about fulvic acid, then you should start your own blog dealing with that topic. Please do not clutter my blog with off-topic discussions.

     

    For this blog, let's get back on topic, which of course is science. Do you understand that nothing you have said invalidates the peer-reviewed research that I have posted? So, let's discuss the methods and the conclusions of those studies. If you can find flaws in each of them, then perhaps you can win the argument. But you will never win the argument by changing the subject.

     

    The fact remains that I have proven that fulvic acid works. If you refuse to address the scientific evidence, then you are simply avoiding the discussing entirely.
    17 Jul 2012, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: I googled BioAg, whose "products" were developed by the owner Robert Faust, PhD. Would it surprise you to learn that his PhD is fake (yeah, fake - he has no PhD from an accredited institution) and that he states that "You are not allowed to know basic scientific facts of a natural, traditional herbal remedy in the U.S. So, if you are from the United States the above science [that is, your Deepfryer999 snake-oil science] does not apply for you" and that BioAg's production facility is located on his residential roof in Hawaii while his "sales" facility and his airplane field (yeah, his privately-owned airplane field!) share the same address? He also seems to agree with me that "The precise properties and structure of a given humic substance sample depends on the water or soil source and the specific conditions of extraction," and therefore, no two fulvic acids are the same.

     

    Comments?
    17 Jul 2012, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Look at that, you are back after all this time. Let's pick up the discussion exactly where we left off earlier. You can't just use silence to get off the hook...

     

    So are you admitting that your previous comments regarding the use of hydrogen peroxide in fulvic acid extraction were wrong? Because I cannot think of any other reason why you still have not responded to the example that I posted earlier.

     

    Also: now you must defend your previous comments about "mercury" being present in FA products.

     

    Lastly: you must provide solid evidence of fraud in Mr Chirase's scientific work.

     

    Look at that, I can ignore you too...
    17 Jul 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Look at that, you thought that because I was minding my own business, you could tout the tiny fraud BioAg as an example of a Western company making and selling fulvic acid in volume.

     

    I cannot admit that my previous comments are wrong, because they are not wrong, but quite correct and truthful. I don't remember what example are you babbling about.

     

    The presence of mercury in FA derived from lignite or any other coal using HCl is obvious - mercury is present in coal and is soluble in HCl, my dear "scientist."

     

    Why should I provide "solid evidence of fraud" in Mr Chirase's scientific work, when he is a known scam artist and has done no scientific work whatsoever?
    17 Jul 2012, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "I cannot admit that my previous comments are wrong, because they are not wrong, but quite correct and truthful. I don't remember what example are you babbling about."

     

    Well, before we move on, perhaps you should re-visit your comment where you claimed that YONG's use of hydrogen peroxide was "unique". I showed you a Western patent application which also uses hydrogen peroxide for FA extraction. Therefore, YONG's use of hydrogen peroxide is not unique, and obviously you must have been wrong. Is that so hard to understand?

     

    "The presence of mercury in FA derived from lignite or any other coal using HCl is obvious - mercury is present in coal and is soluble in HCl, my dear "scientist.""

     

    Many things are soluble in HCl. What you seem to be forgetting is that the use of HCl is, obviously, not the only step used in the extraction process of FA. So, again - please show me some solid proof that there is mercury in these FA products, because you have shown nothing to support this claim.

     

    "Why should I provide "solid evidence of fraud" in Mr Chirase's scientific work, when he is a known scam artist and has done no scientific work whatsoever?"

     

    He did, in fact, perform scientific work supporting the effectiveness of FA. You are getting lazier by the minute. Show me where his work was incorrect.

     

    Claiming that someone is a "known scam artist" doesn't make it true, especially if you can't provide the slightest amount of support for your slander.
    17 Jul 2012, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: It is hard to understand why you equate a patent with usage. Yongye claims to be producing up to 46,000 tons a year of fulvic-acid based fertilizer using hydrogen peroxide, while the Western patent applicant has produced ZERO tons of fulvic-acid based fertilizer as of today, so obviously he has not USED any hydrogen peroxide.

     

    Mercury is present in coal: http://bit.ly/ORW6Rj Mercury is soluble in HCl: http://bit.ly/MiOuKo FA, or the soluble crap extracted from the coal, is produced using HCl. Therefore, mercury is present in FA. QED.

     

    Mr. Chirase has performed no scientific work whatsoever. He is a known crook, scam artist, and a fraud facilitator. Mr. Chirase was a paid consultant to the known fraud HumaTech. What more do you want to know?

     

    Now, please apologize to your readers for touting the obvious scam BioAg as a legitimate company!
    17 Jul 2012, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "It is hard to understand why you equate a patent with usage. "

     

    No - for most people this is very easy to understand. No one would pay the significant filing and maintenance fees for a patent without good reason.

     

    "Mercury is present in coal"

     

    True.

     

    "Mercury is soluble in HCl"

     

    True.

     

    "FA, or the soluble crap extracted from the coal, is produced using HCl."

     

    FA is extracted from coal using a process which involves much more than just HCl. I just explained this to you.

     

    As I have said before, you can't win an argument by pretending to be an idiot. And if you really are this stupid, then you have my sympathy.

     

    "Therefore, mercury is present in FA. QED."

     

    Obviously false, for the reasons I explained earlier.

     

    "Mr. Chirase has performed no scientific work whatsoever. He is a known crook, scam artist, and a fraud facilitator. Mr. Chirase was a paid consultant to the known fraud HumaTech. What more do you want to know?"

     

    See my previous response. I explained it to you very clearly, and you are merely trying to avoid the discussion.
    17 Jul 2012, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: The filing and maintenance fees for a patent are not significant, and can be easily paid by scam artists like you. Here are the proofs: http://bit.ly/OG0tOr , http://bit.ly/NhAMJH , etc. Repeat after me, patent not the same as usage!

     

    Idiot or not, FA is the soluble crap left after treatment of the coal containing mercury with HCl, therefore there is mercury is present in FA extracted from coal (and, yeah, you can't even isolate it entirely by XAD-8 or dialisys).

     

    So, just to be clear, you seem to agree that BioAg is a tiny scam. In fact, each "company" that you have mentioned so far is a tiny scam with no production facility rather than a Western company manufacturing and marketing fulvic acid in volume. It is not your fault - fulvic acid is a snake oil without the oil - it is of random composition that depends on the raw material, extraction method, and the time of the day and cannot be replicated reliably. And that is why it cannot be studied by the scientific method and is banned in California and other states and countries..
    18 Jul 2012, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Yes, there are some stupid patents in the world, most of which were filed a long time ago, when the fees were much smaller. As everyone knows, it costs about $10k-$30k to file and maintain a single US patent. That is obviously a "significant" cost.

     

    "Idiot or not, FA is the soluble crap left after treatment of the coal containing mercury with HCl, therefore there is mercury is present in FA extracted from coal"

     

    False. I just explained this to you.

     

    " (and, yeah, you can't even isolate it entirely by XAD-8 or dialisys)."

     

    If this is true, then why aren't you able to provide some support for this claim? And why can't you show me some evidence of mercury in FA products?

     

    "So, just to be clear, you seem to agree that BioAg is a tiny scam."

     

    No, of course not. You can order their products online and have them shipped right to your home. How about this: if they are a scam, why don't you or someone else file a lawsuit against them for false advertising? Or for some other form of fraud? This should be no problem because they are based in the US.

     

    "And that is why it cannot be studied by the scientific method and is banned in California and other states and countries.. "

     

    FA has been studied by the scientific method, and it is not banned anywhere. I have explained this in detail to you already.

     

    If you want to discuss these topics, then go back, read my responses, and post your own response to what I said. But if you are simply going to repeat yourself, then you are acting like a troll and you do not deserve a response.

     

    Also: in this latest response you have failed to show any evidence of fraud in Mr Chirase's published work. If fraud existed, you would not have to resort to insults and indirect accusations. Why don't you just review his published work, and show me, specifically, where there is inaccurate information?
    18 Jul 2012, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: The reason I have not sued the fraud BioAg is because it does not have any assets, so it is not worth it. Its owner wasted all his money on getting a fake PhD and all he has now is inherited residential property in Hawaii (which roof is used to "manufacture" the purest FA of all) and a "private" air field where nobody lands.

     

    FA cannot be studied by the scientific method, and it is banned in California and elsewhere. No commercial fertilizer sold in California contains any FA.
    18 Jul 2012, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "FA cannot be studied by the scientific method"

     

    False.

     

    "No commercial fertilizer sold in California contains any FA. "

     

    False.
    18 Jul 2012, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Prove that FA can be studied by the scientific method! Prove that FA's content is not random and can be replicated! Because BioAg's founder and owner, the one with the fake PhD, claims that the content of his FA is unique like no other FA.

     

    Which commercial fertilizer sold in California contains FA? I want you to show me a picture of the content label explicitly stating the FA content (in % or g).

     

    Your failure to do so will mean you are a scam artist.
    18 Jul 2012, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "Prove that FA can be studied by the scientific method!"

     

    I have already done this, and explained it to you several times. See the original blog post. Those studies obviously never would have passed the peer-review process if the scientific method had not been followed correctly. The peer-review process is much more rigorous than you seem to understand.

     

    "Prove that FA's content is not random and can be replicated! "

     

    I have already been over this. There is some variation in FA's chemical structure. That does not mean it is "random".

     

    Think of it this way: there is a lot of variation in the genetic structure beween different human beings. Human beings have a lot of differences; for example, different eye color. However, that does not mean that humans are "random" (to use your ridiculous terminology), nor does it mean that humans cannot be studied in a meaningful way, using the scientific method. For example, despite their genetic differences, it has been proven that aspirin reduces inflammation in human beings.

     

    FA is similar, except with much less variation than what we see between human beings. So you see, even with some variation, the scientific method can of course still be applied.

     

    "Which commercial fertilizer sold in California contains FA?"

     

    Lots of them. Probably any of them labelled as containing humic acid.

     

    "I want you to show me a picture of the content label explicitly stating the FA content (in % or g)."

     

    We have already been over this. They are not allowed to put FA on the label in CA, so obviously it will not be shown on the label.

     

    However, it is still in the product, and is certainly not "banned".

     

    When humic acid is extracted from coal for use in a fertilizer sold in the California market, they can simply skip the additional step of separating the FA from the HA. They will probably just leave the FA in there with the HA (in fact, FA is often considered to be a type of HA - this is just a minor point on terminology commonly used in the industry).

     

    It would make no sense for them to remove the FA from the product, because there is no law requiring them to do so. So, of course FA will still be in the product. It just won't be on the label, because unlike the other 48 states, it has not yet been approved for listing on the label in CA and 1 other state.
    19 Jul 2012, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • @Deepfryer999: Thank you for proving that you are scam artist. You have failed to produce an image of the content label of even one commercial fertilizer sold in California that contains FA.

     

    Regarding humans and FA and peer reviews, read here about the pseudo science EUGENICS and its peer-reviewed publications: http://bit.ly/MaYWRD;wap2 Humans, unlike FA, are not sold as fertilizers by scam artists. Aspirin, unlike FA, has a non-random content that can be replicated and studied.
    19 Jul 2012, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "You have failed to produce an image of the content label of even one commercial fertilizer sold in California that contains FA."

     

    I've told you before: you will never win an argument simply by pretending to be an idiot. The issue of labelling is relatively straightforward, and I have explained it in such a way that even a child could understand it

     

    "Regarding humans and FA and peer reviews, read here about the pseudo science EUGENICS and its peer-reviewed publications: "

     

    Is your position that we should ignore all peer-reviewed research on any topic? Or just when that peer-reviewed research is contrary to your financial position in a company?

     

    "Aspirin, unlike FA, has a non-random content that can be replicated and studied. "

     

    How can you study the effect of anything on a human being, if humans have a "random" structure?

     

    Also: as I have explained to you before, many other classes of chemicals such as proteins have some degree of variation in their chemical structures - this is similar to FA. But of course, proteins can be studied, and they have repeatable effects, just like FA.
    19 Jul 2012, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • @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?
    12 Jun 2012, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "What respected sources? What scientific journals?"

     

    See the 10 sources in the original blog post.

     

    "Are you crazy?"

     

    Nope.

     

    "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."

     

    So you disagree with the 10 sources in my original blog post? In other words: you question the validity of the entire scientific community and the peer-review process. Well, then in your world, we can no longer trust ANYTHING published by the scientific community.

     

    If bloggers are to be considered more trustworthy than the scientific community and the peer-review process, then I guess we have no choice but to revert back to the dark ages. Up is down, the world is flat, etc.

     

    "However, the CDFA has banned fulvic acid"

     

    No, they have not.

     

    "nobody can even measure reliably such a basic thing as the concentration of fulvic acid"

     

    This statement is completely absurd and ridiculous. Please, find me a respected scientist who agrees with this position.

     

    In the peer-reviewed publications that I posted earlier, they reliably measured the concentration of fulvic acid. It is not a hard thing to do.

     

    "Finally, how can there be an industry without any companies in it?"

     

    Are you kidding? You can go on Amazon.com right now and search for "fulvic acid". You will get 1,930 results. It is an enormous industry, both in the US and around the world.

     

    "So, don't be shy - tell us, which SPECIFIC companies are you trying to protect from the detrimental impact of the truth?"

     

    I have no personal or financial interest in any company related to this industry. I have already explained my motivations to you. So, lets stay on topic and stop wasting time with these garbage questions.
    13 Jun 2012, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Well, I am kicking myself for not buying any YONG! There were too many question marks for me to pull the trigger and buy some shares. The question marks had to do with financial and economic issues (but clearly, their products and technologies were not an issue).

     

    Anyway, the saga is over. YONG has posted an impressive 70% gain over the past 6 months, and the company is now being taken private. Congratulations to the longs, and my condolences to the shorts.
    6 Nov 2012, 04:30 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

  • CNTF Volume tells the whole story: 3.3 million shares traded on June 6th due to margin calls. No worries. Stock will go back up.
    Jun 16, 2011
  • CNTF selloff on June 6 was due to margin calls caused by increased margin requirements. Source: http://bit.ly/jsPYvb
    Jun 16, 2011
  • CNTF Short interest probably still low - we'll see at end of the month. I don't expect to see a hit piece. Target price: $10 by end of 2011
    Jun 16, 2011
More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.