Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Verde Agritech -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: not_prudent who wrote (6807)	4/24/2011 11:47:23 AM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 16592

These guys? I don't know about other countries. cfi.ca Product Regulation Industry stakeholders recognize that fertilizers and supplements are the most important crop input. The prosperity of the agriculture and agri-food industry depends on a modern regulatory system that ensures timely access to safe and effective products. With this in mind, the Canadian Fertilizer Products Forum (CFPF) was launched in November 2006 to improve the regulatory system for fertilizers and supplements, and build a national consensus with all stakeholders. Another: tfi.org Fertilizer Regulations Like other manufactured goods, fertilizers are regulated for quality at the state level. Several federal regulations cover fertilizer manufacturing and transportation, and their potential impact on the environment and security. Every state in the country, as well as Puerto Rico, has its own fertilizer regulatory program, usually administered by the state department of agriculture. Federal Regulation While regulated primarily at the state level for quality, several federal laws also pertain to the manufacturing, distribution and use of fertilizers. Some laws, such as the community right to know acts, regard the industry's reporting responsibilities. Others, such as emission standards for air and water quality, and resource conservation and recovery acts, regard environmental stewardships. State Regulation State regulation is concerned with consumer protection, labeling, the protection of human health and the environment, and the proper handling and application of fertilizers. Fertilizers are regulated at the state level because soil conditions vary dramatically from state to state across the country. For example, the rocky, thin soils of New England are vastly different from the deep, rich black soils of the Midwest Corn Belt. A different level of fertilizer nutrients in the soil, different crops (potatoes versus corn, for instance) and different weather and cropping patterns require state-specific regulation. State Fertilizer Regulators The Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) is the national organization of fertilizer control officials from each state, Puerto Rico and Canada responsible for administering fertilizer law and regulation. AAPFCO ensures adequate labeling of fertilizers by establishing standard definitions for each fertilizer type. State control officials then test the nutrient content of fertilizers to ensure the mixture is consistent with these standards. This process protects consumers by making sure that the label on the fertilizer they purchase is consistent with its nutrient content. AAPFCO regulations also address the presence of naturally occurring metals in some fertilizers.

To: not_prudent who wrote (6807)	4/24/2011 5:51:30 PM
From: eucalypt	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16592

"...Whether or not the stuff works won't take rocket science to prove. Coming up with a test construct for a controlled environment is something that a bright grad student should be able to do." Field trials are not subject to "a controlled environment". Don't kid yourself! Agricultural and forestry trials are bedevilled with difficulties. You can't simply plant four fields and put something different in each field. There can be significant, but not necessarily obvious, differences both between and within fields. It is all too easy to believe that unambiguous outcomes (even the obvious outcomes many of us were anticipating) will jump out of the page from such trials. Industry-driven trial such as the Sekita agronomic trials are at the whim of others. Sekita may not have the vested interest, patience and expertise to undertake this in a fully rigorous manner. These trials may or may not stand up to rigorous review. At this stage we don't know anything. Maybe a bright grad student could come up with something. However the mix of skills required and the complexity of the analysis would fox most of them. Further, how do you allow for seasonal/climate related events that will be different in every trial? One trial over 3 months in one particular year tells you very little. In my experience, engineers and those form the physical sciences (as opposed to biologically-centred scientists) have very little understanding of what is involved. My pragmatic position is that the basic science says the TK process is OK, but you will never get a definitive answer from a single 3-month trial on carrots! I have no concern regarding such trials. They are needed and will always be a mixed bag. I am sorry that AMZ failed to provide even a simple commentary on the Sekita trial. That may come... or not. Since the trial was managed and funded by another party AMZ shareholders may not see the trial data. There is likely to be some selling amongst the impatient and once the hold period for the private placements expires in May. No worries for long-term investors.