BS Fatman (you make this shit up as you go along). Tell you what I will do though just so people don't get fed more bullshit on this forum is dig up the info when I have time and post lab tests and requirements. Basically the regs are this (very simple). Unless a product contains 1% or more S the S does not need to be listed with the CDFA. Here's a test I have from this lab but I have several more that I will wade through just to ensure that people get the right 'facts'. I will also have a look on their site because I think that they state the 1% reg. You clearly know little about how this works. Nevertheless this doesn't stop you getting on forums and making out you do.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Botanicare lacking sulfur in PBP?
- Thread starter the_extremist
- Start date
BS Fatman (you make this shit up as you go along). Tell you what I will do though just so people don't get fed more bullshit on this forum is dig up the info when I have time and post lab tests and requirements. Basically the regs are this (very simple). Unless a product contains 1% or more S the S does not need to be listed with the CDFA. Here's a test I have from this lab but I have several more that I will wade through just to ensure that people get the right 'facts'. I will also have a look on their site because I think that they state the 1% reg. You clearly know little about how this works. Nevertheless this doesn't stop you getting on forums and making out you do.
One More CDFA Lab test from 2010
One More CDFA Lab test from 2010
As I said I will add more later. I'm bored with having to argue with numb nuts but at least lets get this right. Please feel free to phone the CDFA and ask them who their testing lab is and you will find it is Western Agricultural Labs. Please also ask them about their regs before getting on forums and talking a load of shit that makes people believe products are low on S.
One More CDFA Lab test from 2010
As I said I will add more later. I'm bored with having to argue with numb nuts but at least lets get this right. Please feel free to phone the CDFA and ask them who their testing lab is and you will find it is Western Agricultural Labs. Please also ask them about their regs before getting on forums and talking a load of shit that makes people believe products are low on S.
Attachments
Here's something I quickly dug up from the CDFA regs. Registering involves many complications but this extract explains when you must state S % on the label.... Do we need to go on?
So to answer the original question correctly, the reason S is not listed is due to the fact that S listing is not compulsory unless S is above 1%. A manufacturer can of course choose to list S but this involves additional costs in testing (it is not a standard test for the CDFA) and also discloses more info than is required. Additionally if you claim the benefits of S on a label than you must give a guaranteed analysis of S on that label. C quote from CDFA reg requirements below
"A guaranteed analysis using the following format, terminology, and order presented: (Please note: Zero guarantees and guarantees below the set minimums should not be made on the label, unless they are exempt per Section 2307 of the CCR. If mention is made of a fertilizing material outside of the guaranteed analysis, a guarantee should be given for that material. For example: If a label guarantees values for magnesium and iron, but not sulfur, and then mentions the benefits of sulfur on the label, a value for sulfur should be guaranteed.)"
So to answer the original question correctly, the reason S is not listed is due to the fact that S listing is not compulsory unless S is above 1%. A manufacturer can of course choose to list S but this involves additional costs in testing (it is not a standard test for the CDFA) and also discloses more info than is required. Additionally if you claim the benefits of S on a label than you must give a guaranteed analysis of S on that label. C quote from CDFA reg requirements below
"A guaranteed analysis using the following format, terminology, and order presented: (Please note: Zero guarantees and guarantees below the set minimums should not be made on the label, unless they are exempt per Section 2307 of the CCR. If mention is made of a fertilizing material outside of the guaranteed analysis, a guarantee should be given for that material. For example: If a label guarantees values for magnesium and iron, but not sulfur, and then mentions the benefits of sulfur on the label, a value for sulfur should be guaranteed.)"
Do they show that neither ADD sulfur or
They show that neither CONTAIN sulfur?
As stated before, i dont know much about organics, but i bet fish meal or composted seabird guano CONTAINS S.
Similar to saying a supplement with kelp, fulvic, and molasses doesnt contain K.
Well it might not add K specifically, but the molasses adds K.
-
Ground-up fish and decomposing bird shit normally isnt going to smell too pleasant; i figured it the S tingling my nose.
the_extremist
Member
This is a very good point. I didn't think of it that way.
T
thefatman
What ever guy, your level of maturity shows in that you now result to name calling.
What hat or hole did you pull this out of, "A manufacturer can of course choose to list S but this involves additional costs." The regulations do not say or imply this.
However, what you just posted does not prove sulfur is not part of the standard testing. It simply sates if you calim benefits from a salt then it must also state the presence of that salt in it guaranteed analysis. By the way of your test result example posted shows obviously that sulfur was tested for even though the content was below 1%.
If argument about whether California also tests for salts that a manufacturer does not claim are in their product floats your boat go for it. But consider your test result example posted shows obviously that sulfur was tested for even though the content was below 1%. Just because sulfur at a content below 1% is not in the registry does not mean there is no test run for sulfur. As your posted example clearly indicates. If the manufacturer does not claim sulfur is in their product does not mean that the state does not test for sulfur or list the sulfur percentage if it is over 1%.
T
thefatman
They show that neither contain 1% or more of sulfur regardless of whether Botanicare claimed that they do but they do not show whether the nutrient manufactured by Botanicare claims to provide the benefits of sulfur but that a guaranteed analysis is not on their labels. Irregardless they do test for sulfur and report the level of the sulfur in the registry if the amount is 1% or over regardless of whether Botanicare says they do or not.
Fatman there is good information and then there is garbage. That hat would be the hat that I live in the real world and run real tests and deal with several regulatory bodies. I'm not speaking for Washington regs (never having dealt with Washington I don't know and clearly you've never dealt with any of them) but for CDFA regs and Oregon regs and had you any knowledge of these regs you wouldn't be postering because anyone with half a clue knows you're flat out wrong. Go back to the original question to establish what this is about. Go read the regs. This is already boring.
T
thefatman
No you are merely part right in that if there is less than 1% sulfur it need not be listed on the label. In all other aspects you are are simply wrong. Even your own posts have shown that. As for living in the real world, apparently your real world thoughts are fogged by too much mj smoking or most likely to much ego to admit when your wrong. Your feeble attempts to prove your entirely right is what is boring. Time to move on guy. I am through trying to show you most of your posting is simply your opinion rather than information based upon any facts. I am therefore hrough pointing out your errors so this is my last post in this thread. Have a good day.
not really gonna read the whole thread but one thing to keep in mind, the label has fuck all to do with whats in the bottle, if botanicare wants to list sulfur on a label they have to provide tests etc to state regulators when they register the product there.
Its easier to just omit things depending.
Also npk on the bottles is never really accurate in most cases either, always better to speak with the company itself
Its easier to just omit things depending.
Also npk on the bottles is never really accurate in most cases either, always better to speak with the company itself
OK, that might be correct and every reg must go through that lab, but the Guaranteed Analysis is listed in those databases linked below, not the results of the lab tests.
Just a couple of the fertilizers are present in the "Chemist Report Results for Fertilizer Samples" PDFs
Their Sodium in Silica Blast never caused me a problem, and had less of an effect on my pH than straight potassium silicate (like most Si supplements). The lesser effect may be seen as beneficial.
Ive used it in DWC for over a year, and then 'reused coco' for 2+ years. The only reason i switched, is Protek is cheaper where i shop.
Too much Na is bad; that is for sure. Na, K, Mg and Ca all compete with each other (see: periodic table). However, Silica Blast is the only product i know Botanicare issues that has Na, and it's not harmful at its rate (bottle listed 5ml/Gal).
From The Indoor Bible by J. Cervantes:
"Virtually all ground, river and lake water contains sulfate." (pg.126)
"Sulfur deficiency occurs indoors when pH is too high or when there is excessive calcium present and available." (pg.127)
"Organic sources of sulfur include mushroom composts and most animal manures." (pg.127)
I use PBP and amend my soil (FFOF) with bat guano (Mexican & Jamaican).
M.
"Virtually all ground, river and lake water contains sulfate." (pg.126)
"Sulfur deficiency occurs indoors when pH is too high or when there is excessive calcium present and available." (pg.127)
"Organic sources of sulfur include mushroom composts and most animal manures." (pg.127)
I use PBP and amend my soil (FFOF) with bat guano (Mexican & Jamaican).
M.
No Tester, there's a process of registration and the guaranteed analysis found during the CDFA lab tests must be listed on the labels otherwise the product is noncompliant in California and Oregon. The problem is that many of the manufacturers out there change their formulas once registered and don't bother telling the CDFA that this is the case. The CDFA moreso than any other body does test randomly for compliance violations and they've been testing a lot of products recently and caught a lot of people out. Its a tough one for manufacturers because registration costs money and if each time they decided to make a change to their formula they were to retest and reregister it would be costly so they simply don't bother. The fines for non compliance are so low that it makes it viable to cheat the system. Then of course by registering you're making your formulas public knowledge so sometimes manufacturers play the system. So back to your point. The reason the labels and CDFA data registration matches is because those labels come from the CDFA tests. To list otherwise would mean a non compliant product that would be recalled and be required to be relabeled based on the CDFA lab tests. It also gets far more complex than this when it comes to claims made on labels - that's a whole different ballgame again.
I read this kind of thing and shake my head. You need way more S than is found water. This of course seems to apply to organics so a bit of mumbo jumbo is probably acceptable. I have no idea what this material covers and I have never read a single thing written by Cervantes. If you want to learn about plant nutrition you don't read books written by mull growers. Its chemistry and plant physiology - I doubt any of these guys are really qualified to be talking about plant nutrition and physiology.
Fatman those first tests I posted were handed to me for a consultancy job where they required me to formulate from the analysis conducted by the CDFA. I told them the analysis was garbage and we would need to retest because N isn't broken down and in a heap of their tests S wasn't tested (there's also other problems but we aren't here to give you a lesson in interpreting lab analysis). And no I am 100% right I can assure you. For some reason they tested for S on a few of the tests but the client had requested this. The 3 part tests are what the standard CDFA tests look like every time unless you specifically request S tests. In those first tests I was given lab data for about 20 products - those were the only S tests and you're clasping at straws. Stop making out you are some kind of expert when you clearly aren't to anyone with a trained eye. By the way all those tests are utter garbage for reverse engineering and I would never work from such data. In the real world Fatman we don't grab labels or some dodgy data from the internet and slap it all into a shabby program and hope for the best. We test and retest using qualitative standards to do this.
I don't experience S deficiency. I suspect the plants are getting their needs fulfilled by the manure. I don't use Epsom salts but I have them in reserve should the need arise. As for JC, I know he gets much of his information from more informed sources (ex: Chimera wrote the section on breeding cannabis).
M.
