Let me address some of Roe's misunderstandings about fulvic/humic acid. Roe, you and your peers-in-bashing are apparently preoccupied with the COGS number for fulvic acid. That seems to be the underlying issue here. And I understand your point. But while you seem to have a pretty solid accounting background, you guys apparently know very little about buying bulk agri products.
First, let me say that quoting a bunch of "fulvic acid" prices from random distributors is not the best way to assert that Yongye's numbers are out-of-whack. If you want to say that "Public Company X's COGS is distorted," then pointing to a bunch of random foreign distributors as your pricing reference (as Asbahi did in December) is a little ridiculous. It's tantamount to saying, "Hey look! I went on the internet for 5 minutes and found some random distributor whose unverified claims indicate that he sells pure fulvic acid for $1,000 a ton! That must mean that Public Company X's fulvic acid cost is bogus!"
That's obviously ridiculous. The distributors (the ones quoted as selling for $1,000 a ton) actually sell a brown or black powder/liquid as "fulvic acid" or 70 percent "fulvic acid." Well I got a newsflash: HUMIC ACID POWDER IS BROWN OR BLACK, whereas refined fulvic is golden. Fulvic looks like urine colored liquid. Unlike others, I'm not trying to attack you personally here, but you and your peers apparently do not know very much about the underlying issues, or how to visually distinguish between the cheapest humic acid and a concentrated fulvic acid product. You and Asbahi are like a guy who knows next to nothing about wine walking into a wine factory with a bottle of Thunderbird and saying "Hey WTF?! How come you guys are charging 40 bucks a bottle, when I bought this here Thunderbird for 3 dollars! You guys must be a fraud!"
So let me break this down further: fulvic acid content can easily be overstated by distributors, because the content-analysis methods vary wildly. In fact, the online distributors who are inflating their fulvic acid content are within their legal rights to use generous, self-serving content analysis, because content-analysis methods are poorly regulated. If you know what you're doing, you can distinguish humic acid from purified fulvic acid. I recommend you and your peers click on the links below for some background on how this works.
Also, if you actually look for distributors who show proper "extracted" content, then you'll see the way the price ascends with the fulvic percentage. Since Asbahi appears to have done little agricultural research before publishing his article back in December, he didn't realize this. If you know what you're actually buying with respect to bulk fulvic acid purchases (and you know the actual color of pure fulvic), then you would know to look at the price ascension with fulvic content from distributors who bother to measure the content properly. True extracted fulvic acid, typically yellow as opposed to black or brown, is exponentially more expensive than cheap humic powder (the brownish material you and your peers reference). If you look at 25 percent, liquid fulvic acid products (again, proper liquid-based measurement), they can commonly cost over $7,000 a ton.
And I hate to break this to you, but Yong's 35 percent number could use standard measurement protocol for powder-based fulvic, which is potentially different than that for liquid-based fulvic. Do I wish the measurements were unified-yes. But I'm NOT going to go around defaming a company because it abides by the often problematic industry standard for dry weight measurements (that's assuming the company actually uses different dry-weight vs. liquid-weight measurements.)
jonathan: There is no formula for fulvic acid, but it is not some mythical thing. It is a bunch of molecules (with different formulas) extracted from low-grade coal using standard commodity chemicals in specified quantities at specified temperatures. Yongye specifies those processes in its patents. Yongye's fulvic acid is a high-end, premium one, not like some other "average" or "typical" fulvic acids. Yongye's fulvic acid is specified and determined by its production process and input materials, as described in its patents.
Yongye's fulvic acid molecules cost about $40,000/ton, as implied by YONG's disclosures.
I'll get a response from Yong. But I urge you in the meanwhile to consider the complexities involved in classifying "fulvic acid". C187H 186O89N9S1 is the typical formula for humic and C135H182O95N5S2 is the typical formula for fulvic. And there are massive amounts of iterations in between. These complex compounds DON'T have a single chemical formula, as traditionally is thought. They are classified by "typical" or "Average" structure..... So you see how this complicates the matter and gives manufacturers classification leeway.
"Unlike many chemical compounds, in which a given chemical name denotes a single chemical structure, humic and fulvic acid are both mixtures of different but similar molecules."
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/486804-the-difference-between-fulvic-acid-humic-acid/#ixzz1sDKu7nLQ
Simultaneous presence of diverse molecular patterns in humic substances in solution.
Authors: Roberto Baigorri, Marta Fuentes, Gustavo Gonzalez-Gaitano, Jose Ma García-Mina
The journal of physical chemistry. B. 10/2007; 111(35):10577-82.
The chemical and structural nature of humic substances (HS) is the object of an intense debate in the literature involving two main theoretical positions: the classical view defending the macromolecular pattern, and the new, more recent, view proposing a supramolecular pattern. In this study, we observe that both molecular patterns are present in different whole humic systems in solution. We also identify these molecular patterns with a specific fraction of HS. Thus, the HS family formed by the gray humic acids studied presented a clear macromolecular pattern, whereas the HS family formed by the fulvic acids studied presented the coexistence of supramolecular assemblies and individual molecules. The third HS family studied, the brown humic acids, presented both the macromolecular pattern and the supramolecular pattern. We also find that molecular aggregation-disaggregation has a strong influence in the fluorescence pattern of HS, thus indicating that the current concepts of HS structure derived from fluorescence studies need revision.
jonathan: If I show you that Yongye translates 黄腐植酸 as fulvic acid on its own website, will you admit that Yongye is a complete fraud? Remember, Yongye claims in its patents that both products use the same 黄腐植酸, obtained after the humic acid is thrown away as a result of the same extraction processes described in the Processing Charts here: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1398551/000114420408023667/v111067_ex10-6.htm - these charts come straight out of the two patents.
Yongye (YONG) is not Google (GOOG), right?
jonathan: I have translated them. But given that I had to explain to you that Yongye translates 黃腐植酸 as "fulvic acid" rather than "yellow humic acid," I prefer that you obtain a professional translation and or ask the FTI IR people to provide you with an official Yongye translation, so we don't get into arguments about whether lignite and weathered coal are the same thing or not. These patents should have been translated years ago and put on Yongye's web site anyway, just like the other R&D documents there.
Once you have read the patents, we can continue the "measurement" discussion. In the mean time, you will have to accept on faith that there are about 5 tons of fulvic acid molecules in 100 tons of crop (plant) product and about 40 tons of THE SAME fulvic acid molecules in 100 tons of animal product.
黄腐植酸 means yellow humic acid according to my translation. So you sent me on a wild goose chase for a patent that says 35 percent HUMIC ACID......? And all your calculations are based on an incorrect translation????
jonathan: No, we are not getting into molecular level chemistry. If you read Yongye's patents, Yongye clearly describes the input materials and processes that convert coal into fulvic acid molecules. Those molecules have the same mass or weight whether you dilute them in water or dry them in hot air.
Any measurement method that tells you that there are 5 grams of fulvic acid in a kilo of stuff when there are 40 grams is obviously not a measurement method, but somebody's wild imagination. Luckily, we don't have to rely on Verplogh or USGS or mass spectometry or anybody else. Yongye's patents (and SEC filings) are very specific as to the weight content of its products.
Have you read Yongye's patents?
NEITHER are "fraudulent" Richard. And now we're getting into molecular level chemistry. The measurement method will affect the fulvic acid content classification even down to molecular weight, obviously. The measurement method could be Verplogh method for the powder, and USGS method for the liquid, for all I know. Or mass spectometry for all I know. Like I said, it's a problem of poor standardization, industry wide. You would have to go after half the distributors in the country.
jonathan: No, this is not an issue of confusing methods of measuring fulvic acid. I want to know how many tons of fulvic acid molecules are in 100 tons of animal product, and how many tons of fulvic acid molecules are in 100 tons of crop product. That information is in Yongye's patents and its SEC filings.
Or are you saying that Yongye filed fraudulent patents or SEC filings?