[neddy]

Originally Posted by thefatman

Sulfur is tested for by the by the California labs for product registration regardless of the amount contained. The test results would not be supplied by the registry if they did not do the testing for sulfur and the sulfur percentage is shown within the data based registry for levels of sulfur for 1% or more. Just what do you consider a small fine?

While neither state does a break down of the nitrogen into urea, NO3 N and NH4 N it is also very likely that the fertilizer manufacturers do not do so either. They likely just calculate the contribution of the different forms of nitrogen based upon the salts they use. Few nutrient formulas that contain sulfur contain less than 1% if sulfur has been purposely supplied through a salt containing sulfur..

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.

[neddy]

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.

[neddy]

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.)"

[ShroomDr]

Originally Posted by thefatman

They show that neither of the PBP products from Botanicare contain sulfur.

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]

Originally Posted by ShroomDr

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.

This is a very good point. I didn't think of it that way.

Originally Posted by neddy

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.)"

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%.

Originally Posted by ShroomDr

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.

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.

[neddy]

Originally Posted by 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%.

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.

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.

[NOTB]

i hav'nt bought from Botanicare for yrs but they use to put sodium in their stuff..... that's a no go for mj.