THE CROSSING POINT of Science, the Importance of humic substances, has been rejected by status quo
agricultural Science, which is itself driven by patented toxic genetic chemical sales. Why are Humic acids considered
"snake oil" by the same people who see herbal medicine the same way and use the same term, the same lies? The
people who want to jail sick people using Cannabis or other herbal/natural products are part of the problem, the
anti-life forces. They represent the reptilian brain in action, greedy and vicious and always hungry for more. We need
to understand that in the humic substances are substances that are crucial to healthy cellular activity on every level in
the ecosystem; it's the crucial catalyst that makes life possible. Humic acids are needed to turn sterile lava, ash and
other volcanic materials into the eco-system we call soil. Humic substances store energy in the form of quinones,
which can store and transfer energy to the nucleus of the cell, keeping cells going indefinitely. The death of the cell
or the increasing weakness of the cell, causing eventual senescence and death, is due to the lack of nutrients,
including the many organic compounds in humic substances which regulate nuclear metabolism. The secret of
cellular regeneration and healing is contained in the fulvic fraction of humic substances and is what is used in the
amazing seed treatment product called Bio-Magic as well as the ancient tonic called Wuginsan which increases human
health ,vigor and longevity.
The only way to solve the problems is to move away from the contrived and greedy evil system. Humic acids can
reverse global warming, eliminate pests on crops and cure human disease, and all this has been proven in history or
in the present in countries other than the big 10. I like what Dr. Greer says in the context of UFO research. It really
applies to chemical vs. Biological farm and healing systems too. There is a connection!!!
O.K I now know that a "belief" in UFO'S can effect my credibility with some people, but it is a real phonomonon of nature and 1000's of credible people have seen, photographed and unless someone is ready to step forward and call them all liers and have proof that they didn't see what they say th
STEVEN M. GREER M.D.
Director of CSETI
Experience and observation combined with insight often yield a new breakthrough into
truth and the nature of reality.
Science (and the pursuit of truth in general) is a coordinated blending of empirical
observation with knowledge, intellect, insight and often inspiration. And just as it is
true that no problem can be solved from the level of consciousness which created it, so
too insights into reality and the great scientific developments seldom arise from the
current milieu alone but rather are born from something beyond the current status quo.
It is frequently resisted, even vilified, when first brought forward - and the current high
priests of science are little changed from the Vatican hierarchy who condemned Galileo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.SIGHTINGS.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How To Debunk Most Anything
Daniel Drasin
ddrasin@aol.com
PLEASE NOTE: This is a revised and expanded edition of an essay
that has
previously appeared in various publications between 1991 and 1997.
Revised
edition, ©1997 by Daniel Drasin. All rights reserved. May
be reproduced
noncommercially if kept intact and unedited.
3-12-99
PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY
Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment
needed: one armchair.
Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that
suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full
faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive
terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in
a manner that
suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but
as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping
infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may
fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it
entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.
Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides
any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that
therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are
inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse
the *process* of science with the *content* of science.
(Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral
to subject matter and that only the investigative *process*
can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that
happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed
successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure
everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")
Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.
The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly
proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which
are
"touted," and to your own assertions as "facts,"
which are
"stated."
Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support
such ridiculous
claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test
of
time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply
refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical
authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of
denial free and clear!)
If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back
that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a
watertight body of evidence that has survived the most
rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."
Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all*
of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
critical elements
of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration,
exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of
viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or
metaphysical terms.
Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the
unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals
reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any
situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until
what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms
of established knowledge.
Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement
and respectful debate are a normal part of science.
At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is
familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore
irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.
State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively
from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as,
at best,
an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.
Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a
single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts,
however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all,
situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."
"Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony,"
says the
correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the
simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the
most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply
strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule
of thumb but an immutable law.
Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma
as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many
historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between
science and democracy.
Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction
between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this
murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically
that there is no evidence.
If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further
investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence
alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary
evidence is not supposed to prove *anything*.
In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will
eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process
of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have
yet been established for the phenomenon in question.
Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established
for phenomena that do not exist!
Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double
standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be
judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific
rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary evidence"--but take care never to define where
the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary"
begins. This will
allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential
horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as
that
which lies just out of reach at any point in time.
Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena
popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents
and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can
indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or
from one case to another to support your views as needed. For
example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the
one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been)
exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate
example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your
armchair and just say "I rest my case."
Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies
only to
seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.
If a significant number of people agree that they have
observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply
ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing
the
possibility that the consensus reality, which is routinely
observed by millions, might itself constitute a mass
hallucination.
Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single
most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery
and innovation.
Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any
persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails
to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent
mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that
ridicule provides.
By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule
constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can
raise the level of objectivity, integrity and
dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.
Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots.
Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of
something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand
that all such "true believers" know all the answers
to their
most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of
time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them
that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic
phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not
about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.
Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion.
Never
forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo,
out- of-context information and outright lies will fool most
of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to
ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran
debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable
success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between
fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation
of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire
edifice of opinion.
Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation.
Example:
if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies,
respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great
truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one
will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.
Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in
question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep
and timeconsuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena
so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the
tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing
there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of
the
unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the
media's favorite code-word for "bogus."
Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or
expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or
reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the
whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story.
Here's how: a) take one element of a case
completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that
hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore
that one element has been explained; d) call a press
conference and announce to the world that the entire case has
been explained!
Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can
mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP,
psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public
that the original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena
must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage
magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the
same way.
Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles, no matter how
superficially, the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the
existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the
existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that
since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds,
the
enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and
therefore cannot possibly be artificial.
When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of
intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles)
focus exclusively on the mechanism that might have been
wielded by the intelligence rather than the intelligence that
might have wielded the mechanism. The more attention you
devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can distract
people from considering the possibility of nonphysical or
nonterrestrial intelligence.
Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in
"invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they
should
point out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt with
invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity?
electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle
that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."
Insist that western science is completely objective, and is
based on no untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or
ideological interests. If an unfamiliar or inexplicable
phenomenon happens to be considered true and/or useful by a
nonwestern or other traditional society, you may therefore
dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception,"
"medieval
superstition" or "fairy lore."
Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal,"
"metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural."
This will get
most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely
emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any
responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even
centuries!
Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed
knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do
no
police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or
psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they
do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)
Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of
proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't
we
seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?"
Never
forget the mother of all such questions: "If UFOs are
extraterrestrial, why haven't they landed on the White House
lawn?"
Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims
by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this
is to
misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth;
for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of
any position they've taken.
Another effective strategy with a long history of success is
simply to misreplicate their experiments--or to avoid
replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be
ridiculous or fruitless. To make the whole process even
easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims
as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.
Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not
scientifically testable because no self-respecting grantmaking
organization would fund such ridiculous tests.
Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing method has
failed to reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it
worthless, while taking care to avoid mentioning any of the
shortcomings of conventional medicine.
Hold claimants responsible for the production values and
editorial policies of any media or press that reports their
claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a
sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event
itself must have been without substance or worth.
When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that
is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not
scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed
scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly
be objective.
If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the
participants--or the journalists who reported the case.
Ad-hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are among the
most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the
issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have
profited financially from activities connected with their
research, accuse them of "profiting financially from
activities connected with their research!" If their research,
publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their
normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact
as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such
activities!" If they have labored to achieve public
recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them
as "publicity seekers."
Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the
opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the
necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted
out as experts on the UFO question, although course credits in
ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in
astronomy.
Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to
go away, set up a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they
hoaxed it. The press and the public will always tend to view
confessions as sincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon
their critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear to
lack compassion for self-confessed sinners.
Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found
the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon
exists!"
Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims
have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the
field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually
studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.
PART 2: DEBUNKING THE UFO
Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just
that,
and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do
this whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be
extraterrestrial.
Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of
nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or
interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because
obviously they would violate nature's laws." Then if a UFO
is
reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at
supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you
may summarily dismiss the report.
Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer
space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the
center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that
Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.
Point out that the government-sponsored SETI program assumes
in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist
light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption
with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all
terrestrial reports of ET contact.
When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien
technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its
origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the
product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground
government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained
from a landing on the White House lawn-the sole circumstance
universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as
conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!
If photographs or other visual media depicting a UFO have been
presented, argue that since images can now be digitally
manipulated they
prove nothing. Assert this regardless of the vintage of the
material or the circumstances of its acquisition. Insist that
the better the quality of a UFO photo, the greater the
likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test
may therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of
all!
If you can't otherwise destroy the credibility of a UFO photo,
plant a small model of the alleged craft near the
photographer's home where it can be conveniently discovered
and whisked off to the local media. The model need not
resemble the original too closely; as long as the press says
it's a dead ringer nobody will question the implication of
fraud.
Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be
bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is
the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically
isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition
that if interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot
be considered genetically isolated in the first place.
Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or
shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such
behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of
logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since
terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize
whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.
Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios
already well established in the collective imagination. If a
reported ET contact
appears to have had no negative consequences, sarcastically
accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent
ETs
have come to magically save us from destroying ourselves!"
If
someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien contact,
brush it aside as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees
stress the essential humanness and limitations of certain ETs
they claim to have met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent
beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"
Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received
alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical
evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred.
Categorize as "pure science-fiction" the notion that
alien
understandings of immunology might be in advance of our own,
or that sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited in
their ability to interact with our biological systems.
Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual
investigation of the matter.
Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody there
told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves
that
no UFOs are reported outside countries whose populations are
overexposed to science fiction.
Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee
testimony in widespread and completely independent cases,
argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always
worthless in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be
sure to add that the subjects must have been steeped in the
UFO literature, and that, whatever their credentials, the
hypnotists involved must have been asking leading questions.
If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a
contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter
perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be
entirely untrustworthy.
Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government UFO
coverup, but that it exists for legitimate reasons of national
security!
Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and
of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only *accidentalist*
theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns
of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.
Argue that since theoretically there can be no press
censorship in the United States, there is no press censorship
in the United States.
In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one in
which the UFO is suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery of
millennial proportions--just remember that the public has a
short memory. Simply say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows
this is a monumentally significant issue. As a matter of fact,
my colleagues and I have been remarking on it for years!"
Part 2
Part 2: Debunking Extraterrestrial Intelligence
<> Point out that an "unidentified" flying object
is just
that, and cannot be automatically assumed to be
extraterrestrial. Do this whether or not anyone involved *has*
assumed it to be extraterrestrial.
<> Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of
nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or
interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because
what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly
exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered
silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or
appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss
the report.
<> Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in
outer
space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the
center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that
Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.
<> Point out that the official SETI program assumes in advance
that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years
away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption with
conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all
terrestrial reports of ET contact.
<> If compelling evidence is presented for a UFO crash or
some
similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed
information about a formerly secret military project that
might conceivably account for it. The more voluminous the
information, the less the need to demonstrate any actual
connection between the reported event and the military
project.
<> When someone produces purported physical evidence of
alien
technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its
origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the
product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground
government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained
from a landing on the White House lawn-the sole circumstance
universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as
conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!
<> If photographs or other visual media depicting anomalous
aerial phenomena have been presented, argue that since images
can now be digitally manipulated they prove nothing. Assert
this regardless of the vintage of the material or the
circumstances of its acquisition. Insist that the better the
quality of a UFO photo, the greater the likelihood of fraud.
Photos that have passed every known test may therefore be held
to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!
<> Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials
must
be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth
is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a
genetically isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical
proposition that if interstellar visitations have occurred,
Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first
place.
<> Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should
or
shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such
behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of
logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since
terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize
whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.
<> Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios
already well established in the collective imagination. If a
reported ET contact appears to have had no negative
consequences, sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing
devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to magically save
us
from destroying ourselves!" If someone claims to have been
traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside as "a classic
case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential
humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to have
met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent beings offered to
solve
all our problems for us?"
<> When reluctant encounter witnesses step forward, accuse
them indiscriminately of "seeking the limelight" with
their
outlandish stories.
<> Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received
alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical
evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred.
Categorize as "pure science-fiction" the notion that
alien
understandings of immunology might be in advance of our own,
or that sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited in
their ability to interact with our biological systems. Above
all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual
investigation of the matter.
<> Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody
there told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves
that no UFOs are reported outside countries whose populations
are overexposed to science fiction.
<> Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee
testimony in widespread and completely independent cases,
argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always
worthless in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be
sure to add that the subjects must have been steeped in the
ET-contact literature, and that, whatever their credentials,
the hypnotists involved must have been asking leading
questions.
<> If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by
a
contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter
perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be
entirely untrustworthy.
<> Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government coverup
of the ET question . . . but that it exists for legitimate
reasons of national security!
<> Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists
and of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only
*accidentalist* theories can possibly account for repeated,
organized patterns of suppression, denial and disinformational
activity.
<> In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one
in
which extraterrestrial intelligence is suddenly acknowledged
as a global mystery of millennial proportions--just remember
that the public has a short memory. Simply hail this as a
"victory for the scientific method" and say dismissively,
"Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally significant
issue. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I have been
remarking on it for years!"
* * *
Daniel Drasin is a writer, media producer and award-winning
cinematographer. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.
IS RAW humic Ore practical or Acceptable to Agriculture?
Apparently not is my observation over the last 20
years and my experience as Agricultural Sales manager for a
"Humate" company.
What is the Problem with RAW humic matter, it is not HUMATE because it is an insoluble complex and except for a small amount of fulvic acids in some products, which is why these product "work" or appear to work with only 2-3% fulvic acid in the product. How else could a product which is insoluble work on a crop like Alfalfa which is top dressed with 400# per acre of raw humate and then irrigated with the response seen in the regrowth within a week or so?. The response is clearly from the 8-10 pounds of soluble fulvic acid found in the 400 pounds of humic shale/lignite applied to an acre. The farmer has to pay freight on 400 pounds per acre plus the cost of handling all that weight, the difficulty of spreading this dusty material which tend to plug spreaders and product a very un-even spread pattern in a spin spreader. Keep in mind only 8-10 pounds of fulvic acid is causing the response. Even 2# pound will give a good response,with new processed concentrated, soluble and high fulvic product HUMISOLVE, it may be 10 times more expensive per pound but far cheaper per acre as the freight is a fraction of the raw humate cost per acre, the labor and hassle,wind blowing it away,getting wet and plugging up. With humisolve it can be put down with chemical or on the planter or sprayed on the crop. It can be used to treat the seed and as a foliar spray we see color changes in 72 hours on the crop.
Humate has the potential of increasing crop yield and reducing pesticide and fertilizer use and waste in many countries around the world and there has been great interest in exporting low grade humate to countries in need of higher productivity but the freight costs and logistics seem to doom every deal before it can even happen. In the past history of the U.S. humate industry a few loads actually went out in ship to 1 or 2 locations. Once the humate get there is just about has to be unloaded by hand as it may set up hard and can not be easily handled like grain or commercial fertilizers, it just a mess which no one wants to repeat. People keep trying to sell so called humates in this form but the problems remain and many have to learn this less over and over again the hard way. Humisolve is the only practical way to get the potent humic acids effect with low amount applied per acre as low as 2# Per acre on a soil application and 200g/ 4 oz./ per acre as a foliar application. The product is shipped in drums or bags and one cargo container treats hundreds of acres while a cargo container (20 tons)of raw humate shale or coal may only treat 100 acres or so. A 20 ton container of humisolve may treat up to 20,000 acres as a soil application. All other costs are also reduced like spreading, handling ,shipping, loss to blowing ,hand labor costs. So what is the real costs per acre?
| Humisolve@ 4# per acre | $35 per acre with freight | can be applied with other fertilizers or with planter. $35 |
| Raw humate @ 400#/Acre | $40 per acre with freight | with application $50 |
| compost 15 tons wet | $375 at $25 ton | with application $400 |
There is going to be variation due to freight costs, methods of application but this give you a general picture of how you need to look at cost of products providing humic acids. Humic acids are needed at 5-10 PPM or Pound per acre in the soil solution so obviously a concentrated soluble product make the most sense for domestic or export use.