Do keep in mind the difference in measurements between liquid and powder fulvic. It's possible to boast a much higher fulvic acid content in powder form, based on industry standard measurements. As far as I can tell, Yongye's liquid refining process creates the huge spike in cost of goods sold. But I see your point. I will definitely email the company to see if they have a publicly available photo of their raw products
jonathan: I rely on Yongye's own measurements as described in its SEC filings and patents. Those filings and patents show that Yongye uses the same concentrated fulvic acid, obtained by identical extraction process from coal (or humic acid, to save a few steps), for both products - the difference is that the animal product has one more extra dry step (adding a bit of cost). Yes, the company has a publicly avalable video of its product. Look at the pile of yellow stuff at 1:25-1:30 timestamp on this video:
Well I'm glad it's actually yellow. I completely understand your points Richard. You and your colleagues' persistence is pretty compelling, but I think you're again looking for problems without analyzing the underlying issues here. It's to be expected that dry-weight measurement would lead to an out of wack production cost if you ignore the underlying issue: the cost per unit of the animal product is less than the cost per unit of the plant product; this is probably because the 35 percent stated fulvic acid in the animal product likely cost the same as the 5 percent in the liquid ... I know it sounds odd, but this could be due to tertiary refining for the liquid OR (more likely) the difference in fulvic acid measurements for liquid and powder. Like I said man, it's ridiculous that there isn't a unified measurement method for liquid/powder, but that's the way the industry operates. I'm no chemist, but it's probably a matter of solubility.