Biobased USA, 805 Cottage Hill Way, Brandon, FL 33511
800 995-9203, 336 306-0193, Email: email@example.com Emails can go to spam, Please call me, We are available 7 days week EST 10AM to 10PM!
Introduction “Agri-Physics”! Physical Chemistry was discontined about 1920's as much as possible by Agri-Chem because they wanted simply this a patented product. I have never lost yield trail with
physical chemistry “Agri-Physics” vs organic chemistry for crop yield production, soil remediation, crop production. You might hear a very little from Ag Magazines (Why because Agri-Chem spends monthly buy $10,000 to $40,000 on Ads
and the magazines can't afford to lose that revenue about innovative technology),
Universities (They Agri-Chem Funds State Ag Colleges Period, When you control a state ag Colleges you can control the states farmers purchases!),
Crop Associations, Ext Agents (Ext Agents from Ag Colleges are given a script for farmer precentation for
each county and are not allowed to vary from it by the lead professor of each crop), Crop Consultants (CCA, Some good independents ones out there),
Why to most are dependent on Agri-Chem! Lets talk about fertilizers and anhydrous ammonia's and why we use so much. Its not because we always need it,
its because its so cheap that its used as insurance against loses and the industry had to drum up some nonsense about how much we need. Basic NPK's is
at best a 5% gross profit business. So business went to the universities and got a bunch of professors and
Naughty Scientist soil scientists and told them they need to
sell more lbs. per acre, and they obliged with some scientific proof. The reason we need fertilizers and anhydrous ammonia's after soil tests is that
the fertilizers and anhydrous ammonia's sink into the soil beyond the capability of the plants or bacteria or fungi (via a symbiotic relationship) to
deliver fertilizers and ammonia's to the plant. Maybe it's used to early, maybe the Nitrogen needs to be applied early and late, but its not for the
reason you are being told, as it's all about making more money for the fertilizers industry. Imagine what you could do with $200 to $400 more per acre
back in your pocket. You won't have to grow 100 more bushels of corn or 40 more bushels of beans just to pay for fertilizers/anhydrous. The math is
simple, a 1000 acre farmer could make $200,000 to $400,000 more per year if the actual needs were calculated. The year after unused fertilizers are
applied they are probably 6 to 8 feet below the plant you are growing! There are 3 million farmers in the USA and I only want 3000, Let Agri-Chem
service the rest! I find the dealers and universities have little knowledge on physical chemistry and dont understand “Agri-Physics” can't explain
he benefits for agri-chem doesn't understand it so I have very very few as that were educated in organic chemistry, and arent effective in selling
product even though we win yield and protection contests we enter! Farmers to make money need a CLEAN BREAK from the ways of the past as they are
going broke. There are 3 million farmers in the USA and I only want 3000, Let Agri-Chem service the rest with toxic solutions!
Where did all the fertilizer you bought go, tied up simple, Money Lost! It never got to the plant and Dr. Huber estimates above link you might get 5% of it
Corn and other major crop fields help clean the air of up to 36,000 CO2 pounds or 12,000 of carbon, i.e, CO2 and protect the environment.
But can provide as much as 12,000 pounds of carbon nutrients to plants per acre.
That explains why plants are about 50% sequested carbon for free read below. So lets do a typical major crop calculation. Farmer buts down about say 300 pounds per acre of fertilzer or 4800 oz's. Now the same
farmer plants about 150,000 plants. So when you do the math you at 100% efficency could get no more than 4800/150000 or 1/3 oz of fertilizer per plant. Sort of makes one think is fertilizers even necessary? That also
means the farmers would get 12,000,000 pounds of carbon credit per 1000 acres. Farmers might make more off carbon credits than farming, but they are getting ripoff again!
Posted on June 7, 2007 by Kurt Thelen, Michigan State University Extension, Department of Crop & Soil Sciences
Editor’s note: This article is from the archives of the MSU Crop Advisory Team Alerts. Check the label of any pesticide referenced to ensure your use is included.
Reports of climate change, global warming and greenhouse gas emissions have been all over the news lately. What does this have to do with agriculture? After many decades of being pointed to as a source of environmental issues, field crop agriculture is being looked to as one of the solutions to global climate change. The basis for this environmental remediation affect is corn’s and other crops’ tremendous potential to remove carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. In fact, Michigan growers can now receive payment for storing carbon in the soil via private sector carbon credit trading managed through the Chicago Climate Exchange.
How much carbon dioxide does an acre of Michigan corn absorb in a growing season? That is a question that is often asked, and the answer may surprise many people. Our calculations show that number to be in excess of 36,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per acre! Of course, much of that carbon is eventually returned to the atmosphere as the corn crop residue decomposes or the grain is consumed as feed or burned as biofuel, but farmers can maintain a significant amount of carbon in the soil with proper management including implementing reduced or no-till cropping systems. Currently, the Climate Exchange bases Michigan carbon payments on approximately 0.4 to 0.6 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per acre per year depending upon your location and the specific management practices implemented. The price paid per unit of carbon is based annually upon current market prices.
When used as a renewable fuel source such as ethanol, corn also displaces petroleum-based gasoline, a significant contributor of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Each gallon of gasoline burned emits 19.4 lb. of carbon dioxide (5.3 lb of C) to the atmosphere. In fact, the USEPA estimates that the average car in the United States emits approximately 6 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually. Current estimates put U.S. gasoline consumption at about 140 million gallons per year and climbing. The carbon emitted from gasoline is new additional carbon in the atmosphere – carbon that was formerly buried deep under the earth’s surface. Conversely, burning renewable fuels such as corn ethanol has the potential to be carbon neutral since emissions would be essentially recycled carbon.
Finally, in addition to the atmospheric environmental advantage of carbon sequestration, there are land-based environmental/agronomic benefits as well. Increased carbon levels in the soil provide better water infiltration, enhance nutrient cycling, help alleviate compaction and reduce surface run off.
Repeated Use of Glysosate has tied up the fertilizers up to 80% making them unavailable to the plant for production violating
Liebig's Law Of The Minimum and total waste of money for the farmer!
In what is perhaps his best-known experiment, Jean Baptist van Helmont placed a 5-pound willow in an earthen pot containing 200 pounds of dried soil,
and over a five-year period he added nothing to the pot but rainwater or distilled water. After five years, he found that the tree weighed 169 pounds,
while the soil had lost only 2 ounces. He concluded that “164 pounds of wood, bark and roots arose out of water only,” and he had not even included
the weight of the leaves that fell off every autumn. This tree was grown entirely without any fertilizer!
This is a good introduction to the puzzle of how plants grow. If asked, One might believe that plants grow by taking material from the soil.
The idea can be tested using rapid cycling brassicas or other fast growing species.
It is also an opportunity to discuss the importance of measuring dry mass when doing experiments with living material.
This can be used to develop the idea of controlling variables in experiments.
These videos below and field test also raises some questions about the use of scientific evidence to support conclusions.
So what we have is a farming practice of fertilization. We get the soil tests from people that want to sell us fertilizer, and than we spend alot of money on fertilizers per acre, from $200 to $400 an acre.
Than we might grow 50 bushels of $10 Bushel soybeans per acre and gross $500. Next the Agri-Chem companies come and sell us fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides that in many cases take almost all of the profits.
Farmers are probably lucky to make 5%. Folks, its time we change our ways as, fertilizers have almost nothing to do with growing plants. True, they do help provide the plants with important nutrients to meet
"Liebig's law of the minimum", so the plant can achieve some of their genetic potential.
The latest predictions from the University Economist predict that soybeans farmers for example, won't make a profit
for the next 4 years. So what we need is a radical change. We need to lower input costs on how to get crop production, and what is truly necessary to achieve profitability by
reducing the cost of farming. We can't get those answers from
what I refer to as co-dependents (Business, Magazine, Editorials, Associations, Universities, Ext. Agents, Land Rent, Crop Insurance, Equipment, Labor and USDA).
So in just this one area of Fertilizer, since we don't need but a fraction of the fertilizer we buy, as the plant never uses them.
Fundamental production comes from the Sun, Water and CO2.
We feel we have a solution to reduce the fertilizer through a process of fracturing and bonding fertilizers and use less fertilizer, but getting more particles that are useful to the plants.
It would be great to spend $20 to $40 per acre for our fertilizers vs what we pay today.
Something has to be done as all we have to show for the old ways are a 200 mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from runoff from the heartlands farms.
So we propose using a combination process of fracturing and covalent bonding for more particles and less fertilizer.
This Agrophysics based process will make available the immobilized chelated fertilizers up to 1000% to 4000% more particles per pound!
At the end of the day its more about particles availability to the plants vs lbs of fertilizers on the ground.
Below you can see some electro-condivity studies we did with laboratory results showing how we increase the microsiemens in soils as well as liquid agriculture products. Some experts in
agriculture have said our product has solved the "Missing Link" that being the translocation of nutrients into the plants.
These co-dependents want to keep the broken system just the way it is because it is profitable for them. However, it is not profitable or healthy for the farmers and consumers.
Who Understands Better A Common-Sense 7 Year Olds or College Graduates?
Ex-Monsanto Jerry Pritchard pro-clams, You have discovered the "Missing Link" that we have been searching for for 40 years,
of Agriculture Trans-location. Soysoap helps plant nutrient availabilty by facturing and mobilization of tied up plant nutrient!
Don- 2006 Very impressive. Awhile back when I did analysis on your product you sent me I remember my comment
was "it very definitely resembled soap!" Results look good. Mechanism for increased production would appear to be soap
ingredients act as a vehicle for plant nutrient entry and assimilation. Thanks for information. Good Luck on your
Biobased Products. John Noakes, Ph.D., Director, Center for Applied Isotope Studies, The University of Georgia, and Athens,
2009 Than we got comments from Ex-Monsanto Jerry Pritchard who helped start Monsanto back in the 60's. He made
the comments in the following attachment published in Progressive Farmer back in 2010, "You have discovered the "Missing
Link" of Agriculture Trans-location. I was baffled by the comment and it took me about 5 years to understand that comment.
2010 We also got the same kinds of comments from Tom Harris when he theorized that we were getting nutrients into
the plants through what he called the back door. There has to be a simple explanation why in leaves analysis we get more
nutrients into leaves.
2014 Because of the mobilization of the tied up nutrients we have had some farmers report to us that soil tests
before and after Burndown with the Soysoap. There soil test showed they need PK, but after showed they didn't need any fertilizers as so much of the PK had been made mobilized to increase their amounts.
Here are some opinions of what might just be happening!
1). Dr. 1 Yesterday I went over to see to discuss the apparent "fracturing" of certain micronutrients in soils
when successively higher concentrations
of the soap are added before a soil test. Bert says that somehow, the product must be releasing metal ions from their
Dr. 2 I showed him the four andrean soil analyses from SGS Europe. He immediately asked, "What's breaking the
micros loose? Very, very interesting!
Yup, and your calcium is going down. That has to happen if you free up these other elements. You gotta add calcium."
3). Dr. 3 One possible protocol for determining effect of Soysoap 1 on trace elements in water at near-normal
field rates. Hypothesis: SoySoap blended
in a water solution with chelated trace elements increases availability of those traces to crops when foliar-applied
The SGS Report shows we increased the the Fe 1500%, Mn 800% and Zn 390%. The product seems to be
fracturing elements to increased the soilability and has remediated the soils from chemical Glyphosate chelation.
Soysoap Tops the Field for Increased Brix Levels, Electrical Conductivity (EC )(Microsiemens)
and "Carbon Dioxide Consumption"
Lets get serious about farming, Dont plant seeds until you understand this!
The Foundation of good crop production and lifecycle cost management is high Brix Levels, Increased Carbon Dioxide Consumption and Electrical Conductivity (EC )(Microsiemens). After that,
You should know how your going to increase (Microsiemens) in Soils, Chemicals, Fertilizers and Plants. Your consultant needs to be an expert in "Increasing Carbon Dioxide Consumption",
Plant Pathology, Entomology, Electrical Conductivity (EC) (Microsiemens) and Soil Science! When your consultant comes to your farm I would start by asking him! "How are
you going to increase my (Microsiemens), Plant Brix, Carbon Dioxide Consumption! And than, Ask his help with immobilized nutrient trans-location.
Sap EC (mS/cd)
The SFI test are the facts that Soysoap is "Clear Winner" in raising Brix/Sugar levels, Increasing Carbon Dioxide Consumption and
Electrical Conductivity (EC)(Microsiemens). Soysoap topped all tested products with an average of 12.8 Brix and that is
33% higher than the control. This highlights how the products works at about the atom level and can work with all plants living cells as they electromagnetic
(Electric). To work atomically you cant use picotechnology (obsoletes Nanotechnology & Graphene) it is to big, you need an about atom size particle.
SFI said Sap EC (mS/cd) average was increased by 17% or 1.9 (mS/cd) Electrical Conductivity (Microsiemens) vs control. SFI proclaimed that Soysoap helps
increase Carbon Dioxide consumption by 33% over the control, i.e., more money to the farmer. Now you need to deal with
your soils remediation for chelated immobilized fertilizers and other nutrients which we can help you with before you plant!
The Competition did well: KSoff 2nd 12.25 Brix, Protein Plus 3rd 11.5 Brix, and Control 9.5 Brix.
These tests and their expert opinion were certified SFI (Soil Foodweb Institute),And Meag Consultancy, Colin Steddy, Australian, Wheat Trail: Brix,
Sap PH, Sap EC(mS/cd) Electrical Conductivity (Microsiemens), Chlorophyll, On 26 September about 15:15 - 16.20 at
Temp:72 F, Sunshine.