presention - microsoil

Life Enriching Agriculture Products

Biomassters Global, Inc.

Since 1996

www.biomassters.com

PRESENTION

SUGARCANE

1

RESULTS YOU CAN EXPECT WHEN USING OUR PRODUCTS ♦ Increased quality and quantity of crop yield – up to 30% ♦ Lush green foliage

♦ 25% to 50% reduction in use of chemical fertilizers in first year ♦ Puts Life back into the Soils

♦ Increased organic matter & soil fertility ♦ Accelerated blooming

♦ Helps to balance the pH factor of the soil ♦ Increased mineralization

♦ Optimizes maturation of crops ♦ Increased BRIX

MicroSoil®

CLEAN/GREEN

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY

Above and Beyond Organics™

EnRich™ N48 BioTech/AgriZymes™

PureFulvic™

Trace Minerals

Increase Crop Yields By 15% to 30% ♦ Reduce Fertilzer Costs By 25% to 50%

MicroSoil®’s Life Enriching Agriculture Products

www.biomassters.com 2

The Future of the Sugarcane IndustryCLEAN/GREEN Environmental Technologies

A Worldwide Trend in the Agriculture IndustryReduce chemical fertilizers & elevate crop production

Soils all over the world are unique with various nutrient compositions and various crops are grown in these soils, therefore, Biomassters Global has brought our products, knowledge, experience and expertise into the 21st century, MicroSoil®’s TailorMade™ Fertilization Protocols and Solutions is a customized farming method that is specific to each farm and the specific crop being grown. Our protocols are based on an A&L Labs soil analysis test of all macro-nutrients, micro-nutrients, Ph, CEC and Base Saturation, plus a Fertilizer Questionnaire completed by the grower to determine current water & fertilizer application rates, usage and practices. Once these factors are known, we will review the data, evaluate the nutrient needs of the crop to be grown on referenced soils, then we will provide our recommendations utilizing our proven protocols & products in conjunction with other locally available organic materials and sometimes with lesser amounts of inorganic materials. These materials and methods are done strictly in accord with nature’s natural processes and rhythms which have stood the test of time since the beginning of life on this planet. MicroSoil®'s Proven Products Worldwide Since 1996

Benefits & Results of MicroSoil®’s TailorMade Fertilization Solutions™ ♦ Increase quantity of crop yield – up to 30%

♦ Reduce chemical fertilizers by 25% TO 50% IN FIRST YEAR

♦ Increased sugar content - BRIX (nutrient uptake)

♦ Reduce fertilization costs by 20% to 40% in first year

♦ Lush green foliage with accelerated blooming

♦ Increased organic matter & soil fertility

♦Helps to balance the pH factor of the soil

♦ Optimizes seed germination & maturation of plants

♦ Increased profitability

Great for Public Relations

♦ ALL NATURAL ♦ Non Toxic ♦ Non Hazardous

100% Safe for People, Plants and Pets

Biomassters Global, Inc. Desde 1996 4894 W. Lone Mountain Rd. Suite # 191, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130

Telefono: 702-645-1390 Fax: 702-656-2305 Email: [email protected]

Sitio Web de Agricultura: www.biomassters.com Sitio Web de Ethanol: http://home.earthlink.net/~test-results2/

3

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.biomassters.com/

http://home.earthlink.net/~test-results2/

Biomassters Global, Inc. SINCE 1996 4894 West Lone Mountain Road Suite 191 Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 USA

Telephone: (+1) 702-645-1390 Fax: (+1) 702-656-2305 Email: [email protected]

Agriculture Website: www.biomassters.com Ethanol Website: http://home.earthlink.net/~test-results2/

Boron problems in Mexico – No problem

The Sugar Mill, San Francisco de

Ameca, in Ameca, Jalisco, Mexico

In 2013, when George Aguilar first approached us with the

problems being confronted in a Sugar Cane farm of 10,000

Hectares of Boron laden soils, asking if MicroSoil® would

help reduce the presence of boron, we simply had no clue,

so we suggested they just try our MicroSoil® product and a

basic protocol which included molasses, since there was

very low soil organic matter. We only asked George one

thing. Test is the area with the highest concentration of

boron you can find. So they did and here is George’s report

of the results:

George Aguilar: “Don, in the year 2013, the yield was 40

tons per Ha and the test was done in the worst area in the

whole complex, which was what you suggested. We added

20 Liters of Molasses + 100 Liters of Water + 1 Liter of

MicroSoil. The result was 70 Tons per Ha in this year

sugar crop, 2014”. GEO

IMPORTANT: At no time did George Aguilar or Biomassters Global, Inc. make any

statements or claims that our MicroSoil® product would reduce or modify the boron conditions

in these soils. However, it seems that, both in high salty and/or boron laden soil conditions,

when you can elevate the organic matter and inject our MicroSoil® product utilizing our

protocols, much better crops and higher crop yields can be realized, as demonstrated by the

Sugar Mill, San Francisco de Ameca.

We appreciate their cooperation with Mr. Aguilar in giving our MicroSoil® product an

opportunity to demonstrate one of the many benefits of what can be done when our MicroSoil®

Life Enriching Agriculture Products and Protocols are implemented.

4





Telephone: (+1) 702-645-1390 Fax: (+1) 702-656-2305 Email: [email protected]

Agriculture Website: www.biomassters.com Ethanol Website: http://home.earthlink.net/~test-results2/

Test for Sugar Content of Sugar Cane Utilizing MicroSoil®

Conducted in Yucatan, Mexico in1998

This test was primarily conducted to determine whether or not MicroSoil would affect the sugar content of

sugar cane. The Brix scale and Test were used to measure the results. The soils where this test was conducted

were in very poor condition, as nothing had ever been applied on them due to a lack of funds.

General Observations:

This test was very significant as it proves that:

1. MicroSoil by itself should not be used in poor soils with low nitrogen content

2. MicroSoil works extremely well with reduced amounts of chemical fertilizers

3. MicroSoil was the determining factor in elevating the sugar content.

In reference to #1 above, please note that in all our protocols we state categorically that MicroSoil needs at least

2% organic matter (i.e. 80 lbs. of nitrogen per acre or 100 kg of nitrogen per hectare) in order for MicroSoil to

be effective. One half of the recommended amount of nitrogen is needed for the microorganisms to proliferate

and the other half is needed by the plants in order to grow. If a soil has only one half of the recommended 2%

organic matter, then the soil microorganisms will use it up before the plants have a chance to benefit from it

and, therefore, the plants will suffer. This is precisely what happened when only MicroSoil was used in these

extremely poor soils. On the other hand, when chemical fertilizers were used exclusively, the plants also

suffered due to the lack of balance between the macronutrients and micronutrients. However, when both a

reduced amount of chemical fertilizer was used along with MicroSoil, the soil was provided with the necessary

nutrients and in adequate amounts causing the plants to flourish.

MicroSoil is the catalyst which enhances and balances the macronutrients and micronutrients which is the key

to growing larger and healthier crops, however, MicroSoil works within certain parameters which include a pH

between 5.5-7.5, a nitrogen content equivalent to 2% organic matter and adequate macronutrients and

micronutrients. A recommended protocol based on the results of a simple soil analysis can greatly increase the

chances of having a great harvest.

Test Results:

A. As expected where only MicroSoil was applied in soil with very low nitrogen content, the sugar cane

had to be harvested early due to weak growth.

B. Where the Control crop was fertilized with chemicals 17-17-17, although the sugar cane was slightly

taller, the stalks were thinner. (See GROSS COMPARISON diagram below)

C. The MicroSoil crop with reduced chemical fertilizer 17-17-17, was much greener and the stalks were

much thicker in size. One liter of MicroSoil was applied, along with 350 kg of 17-17-17 and 150 kg of urea. In

the following photograph you will notice that the distance between nodules was greater in the control group

than in those where the MicroSoil was used, but the growth is very uneven as evidenced in the last 3 nodules in

which the control reaches up to 16.6 cm but then drops drastically to 6.7 cm. Those on which MicroSoil was

used, maintained a balanced growth of more or less 12 cm.

5




D. As shown in the tables below, the sugar content of the MicroSoil crop yielded a 2.48 degree* increase in

sugar, which calculates to an astonishing 10.69% higher sugar content.

E. Note the difference in the root structures as seen in the photograph. The roots of the MicroSoil plant are

much larger and more fully developed.

MicroSoil treated Sugar Cane

is larger with better color and

sugar content than normal plants

Since the purpose of the test was specifically to

test the sugar content, the size (weight) of the

crop yield, estimated to be 30% higher, was not

accurately measured. Please refer to the tables

below for detailed results.

*The Brix Scale: 1 degree on the Brix scale is the

equivalent of 18 grams of sugar per liter.

The thickness between nodules is shown in the

picture above. In the diagram on the right, a

comparison of the largest nodule cross-sections is

presented graphically.

A complete detailed comparison of the nodule sizes

and the sugar content between the Control plants

and the MicroSoil treated plants is presented in

tabular form below.

MicroSoil® results in consistently larger nodule cross-sections than normal

6

SUGAR CANE STUDY TABLE

FIRST STAGE: November 14, 1997 - 3 MONTHS AFTER APPLICATION OF MICROSOIL

DISTANCE BETWEEN NODULES (cm)

Nodules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL

MicroSoil 2.07 4.43 8.76 11.67 13.1 12 12.3 12.17 76.5

Control 2.55 4.4 8.65 13.05 15.35 16.6 12 6.7 79.3

Difference -0.48 0.03 0.11 -1.38 -2.25 -4.6 0.3 5.47 -2.8

THICKNESS BETWEEN NODULES (cm)

Nodules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL

MicroSoil 3.16 3.03 2.86 2.73 2.56 2.53 2.53 2.6 22

Control 2.6 2.8 2.65 2.65 2.5 2.45 2.2 2.3 20.15

Difference 0.56 0.23 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.33 0.3 1.85

SECOND STAGE: June 22, 1998 - (5 Samples) AT HARVEST

DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE)

MicroSoil 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL AVG

BASE 26.8 25.2 27 27 26 132 26.4

MEDIUM 26.8 23.8 26 26 25 127.6 25.52

HIGH 27 22.5 26 25 25 125.5 25.1

77.02

TOTAL AVERAGE IN DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE) 25.67

DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE)

CONTROL 1 2 3 TOTAL AVG

BASE 21 25.2 25 71.2 23.73

MEDIUM 21 23 25 69 23

HIGH 21.5 23 24 68.5 22.83

69.56

TOTAL AVERAGE IN DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE) 23.19

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREATMENTS

(The equivalent of 10.69% increase in sugar) 2.48

*Brix is a scale for measuring the density or concentration of sugar in solution.

7

MicroSoil® on Sugar CaneMicroSoil® on Sugar Cane

Ingenio Atencingo S AIngenio Atencingo, S.A.

Atencingo, PUE

2005 ‐ 2006

Created 2008Biomassters, Inc.

Las Vegas, NV, USA 8

ProtocolProtocol

Sugar Cane Plantation; Atencingo/Izucar de Matamoros, Pue.Sugar Cane Plantation; Atencingo/Izucar de Matamoros, Pue.Crop; Sugar CaneVariety; 51(MEX 57 0 473)Cuts; 1st Machete (dry) Cycle R1y yLocation; Pequena propeidad de Tilapa, PueblaIrrigation; Well waterIrrigation depth; 10 to 12 cmIrrigation frequency; 23 – 30 daysType of soil; light sand entrance (ATOCLE)Harvested; One month before testing of parameters N f t i l d 2 20% f 1 H 2 000 2No of trials and area; 2, 20% of 1 Ha = 2,000m2

Parcel size/test; 217.8m2

Distance between rows; 1.10mLength of each row; 33 meters


Las Vegas, NV, USA

Length of each row; 33 meters

9

Fertilizer program; t li tiFertilizer program; two applications

25% Fertilizer 50% Fertilizer 100% Fertilizer25% FertilizerTreatment A

50% FertilizerTreatment B

100% Fertilizer Treatment C

MicroSoil® 2 Lt. MicroSoil® 2 Lt.

Natural Soil 10 Lt. Natural Soil 10 Lt.

Vitamin B12 Vitamin B12

Molasses 8kg Molasses 8kg

NPK 20‐10‐10 200kg NPK 20‐10‐10 400kg NPK 20‐10‐10 800kg

Ammonium sulfate 200kg





Condition of soil and Crop at the time of first fertilizer application



Condition Crop at the time of second fertilizer application



Quality ParametersQ y



Brix Values

17.6

Treatment Brix Value

A MicroSoil® 25% F tili

16.8216 8

1717.217.4

Fertilizer

B MicroSoil® 50% Fertilizer

17.39

l16.216.416.616.8

C 100% Fertilizer 16.33

15.816

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F25% F 50% F



Saccharine

15.4

Treatment Saccharine


14.89 14.815

15.2

Fertilizer


15.32

l14.214.414.6


13.814




Purity

88.8

Treatment Purity


88.5688 2

88.4

88.6

Fertilizer


88.08

l 87 6

87.8

88

88.2


87.4

87.6




Percent Moisture Content

73.6

Treatment % Moisture


72.7072 8

7373.273.4

Fertilizer


72.41

l72.272.472.672.8


71.872




Damaged crops

0.3

Treatment Percent


0.18 0.2

0.25

Fertilizer


0.18

l 0 05

0.1

0.15


0

0.05




Fiber

12.3

Treatment Fiber


12.24 12.1

12.2

Fertilizer


12.10

l 11 8

11.9

12


11.7

11.8




Production



Grinding stalk count, Nov 22, 2005



Grinding Stalk per Hectare

140000

Treatment Number


122,850130000

135000

Fertilizer


131,950

l120000

125000

C 100% Fertilizer 134,680

115000

120000




Yield per Hectare

120

Treatment Tons


73.08 80

100

Fertilizer


102.36

l 20

40

60


0

20




Stalk Height

195

Treatment Centimeter


178.9185

190

Fertilizer


193.5

l175

180


170

175




Average Stalk Weight

900

Treatment Gram


595500600700800

Fertilizer


777

l200300400500

C 100% Fertilizer 684

0100




Yield

Treatment Yield per Treatment

Yield per Hectare Revenue (@ $ 400/ton),

Mexican Peso

A MicroSoil® 25% Fertilizer

1,640 Kg 73,083.79 Kg $ 29,232.00

B Mi S il® 50% 2 297 K 102 361 90 K $ 40 944 00B MicroSoil® 50% Fertilizer

2,297 Kg 102,361.90 Kg $ 40,944.00

C 100% Fertilizer 2,065 Kg 92,023.80 Kg $ 36,808.00



SUGAR CANE

Fertilization of sugarcane test using

MICROSOIL® and other organic matter,

instead of chemical fertilization.

Tests were conducted by the

ATENZINGO SUGAR REFINERY

IN PUEBLA MEXICO

MEXICO

2005 - 2006

27

General Data

28

General Test Data

* CULTIVATION: SUGAR CANE

• VARIETY: 51 (MEX 57-473)

• CUTS: SOCA

• TREATMENTS: 3 WITH 2 REPETITIONS

• FERTILIZATION: 1,600 KG IN 2 APPLICATIONS

• SAMPLE PARCEL: 217.80 M2 / REPETITION

• SOIL TYPE: CLEAR AND SANDY SOIL

• WATERING: ROTATED EVERY 20 DAYS

• DURATION OF TEST: 12 MONTHS (MARCH 2005 TO MARCH 2006

29

TREATMENTS

TREATMENT A

TREATMENT

B TREATMENT C

TECHNOLOGICAL

PACKAGE + 25 %

CHEMICAL FERTILIZER

TECHNOLOGICAL

PACKAGE + 50 %

CHEMICAL FERTILIZER

100 % CHEMICAL

FERTILIZATION

(WITNESS)

MICROSOIL® MICROSOIL®

HUMIC ACIDS HUMIC ACIDS

VITAMIN B12 VITAMIN B12

MOLASSES MOLASSES

FORMULA 20-10-10 FORMULA 20-10-10 FORMULA 20-10-10

AMONIA SULFATE AMONIA SULFATE AMONIA SULFATE

30

TEST IMAGES

31

TEST IMAGES

32

TEST IMAGES

33

PRODUCTIVITY

2005-2006

34

CROP YEILDS (TONS)

73,08

102,36

92,02

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

A (MS+25% FQ)B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TREATMENT

35

YIELD / TOTAL-”CRUSHED STALKS”

13

19

50

13

46

80

73

08

0

10

23

60

92

02

0

12

28

50

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

TALLOS MOLEDEROS/HA RENDIMIENTO TON/HA

TREATMENT

36

PARAMETORS OF

QUALITY

2005-2006

37

BRIX-”SUGAR CONTENT”

16,82

17,39

16,33

15,8

16

16,2

16,4

16,6

16,8

17

17,2

17,4

17,6

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

A (MS+25% FQ)

B (MS+50% FQ)

C (100% FQ)EN COSECHA 19.59

TREATMENT

38

SUCROSE-”SUGAR CONTENT

14,89

15,32

14,33

13,8

14

14,2

14,4

14,6

14,8

15

15,2

15,4

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

A (MS+25% FQ)

B (MS+50% FQ)

C (100% FQ)

EN COSECHA 17,70

TREATMENT

39

PURITY

88,56

88,08

87,81

87,40

87,60

87,80

88,00

88,20

88,40

88,60

88,80

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

A (MS+25% FQ)

B (MS+50% FQ)

C (100% FQ)EN COSECHA 90.37

TREATMENT

40

FIBER

12,24

12,1

11,91

11,7

11,8

11,9

12

12,1

12,2

12,3

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

A (MS+25% FQ)B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

EN COSECHA 11.10

TREATMENT

41

72,7

72,41

73,48

71,8

72

72,2

72,4

72,6

72,8

73

73,2

73,4

73,6

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

A (MS+25% FQ)B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

% OF HUMIDITY

EN COSECHA 69.50

TREATMENT

42

REDUCTORES- “REDUCTIONS”

0,18 0,18

0,28

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

A (MS+25% FQ) B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

TRATAMIENTOS

A (MS+25% FQ)B (MS+50% FQ) C (100% FQ)

EN COSECHA 0.132

TREATMENT

AT HARVEST 0.132

43

ECONOMIC RESULTS

2005-2006

44

TREATMENT

YIELD

PER HECTARE

(TON)

PRICE PER

TON OF

SUGAR CANE

GROSS INCOME

PER HECTARE

A 73.10 $37.00 USD $2,709.00 USD

B 102.40 $37.00 USD $ 3,795.00 USD

C 92.00 $37.00 USD $ 3,409.00 USD

INCOME PER HECTARE

45

COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS

TREATMENT

NET INCOME

PER HECTARE

FERTILIZATION

COST PER

HECTARE

NET PER

HECTARE

A $2,709.00 USD $250.00 USD $2,458.00 USD

B $3,795.00 USD $350.00 USD $3,445.00 USD

C $3,409.00 USD $407.00 USD $3,002.00 USD

46

COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS

TREATMENT “B” GENERATED AN

ADDITIONAL INCOME OF $ 442.00 USD PER HECTARE OR $175.00 PER US ACRE

($ 4,780.00 Mexican Pecos Per Hectare)

47

CONCLUSION

MICROSOIL® DEMONSTRATED THAT WITH

ITS USE ON SUGARCANE:

• A BETTER ASSILIMATION OF NUTRIENTS

(MACROS AND MICROS).

• A 50% SAVINGS IN CHEMICAL FERTILIZER

• GREATER PRODUCTION (10 TON

MAS/HECTARE)

• GREATER INCOME FOR THE PRODUCER

$ 442.00 USD Per Hectare ($ 4,780.00 Pecos Per HECTARE )

48

• Muchas Gracias!! TESTS CONDUCTED UNDER DIRECTION OF

AGRICLOA GENETICA

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO S.A.

49


Telephone: (+1) 702-645-1390 Fax: (+1) 702-656-2305 Email: [email protected] Agriculture Website: www.biomassters.com Ethanol Website: http://home.earthlink.net/~test-results2/

Sorghum Cultivation

Piche Campeche, Mexico

January – May 2007

Tests performed by:

Eng. Rodolfo Pinzon; Klaersa Biotraramientos

Eng. Roberto Mis; Agricola Santa Genoveva

Created 2008 Biomassters, Inc.







Sow Date January 17, 2007 Seed Variety; 8282 Pionne


Las Vegas, NV, USA

Control Rooting MicroSoil® 75 Kg. Urea N46 70 Kg. Urea N46

5 Lt. Rooting 1 Lt. MicroSoil®

85 Kg. MAP (11-52) 85 Kg. MAP (11-52) 5 Lt. Montys (liquid carbon)

30 Kg Potassium Chloride 32 Kg Potassium Chloride 5 Lt. Natural Soil

The fertilizers was applied through the irrigation system

Normal fertilizers was applied through the irrigation system, the Rooting was applied in band while being sowed

Normal fertilizers was not applied. The recommended MicroSoil® treatment was applied on the sorghum loin with bag sprinklers in 200 Lt. of water

51

Root Development


Las Vegas, NV, USA

MicroSoil® Rooting Control

52

Root Development


Las Vegas, NV, USA

Important; Volume of Adventitious Roots

53

Root Development


Las Vegas, NV, USA

MicroSoil® Control

54

Plant Development


Las Vegas, NV, USA

MicroSoil® Rooting Control

55

Soil Texture


Las Vegas, NV, USA

MicroSoil® Control

56

Soil Texture


Las Vegas, NV, USA

MicroSoil® Control

57

Soil Texture; one week before harvest


Las Vegas, NV, USA

Control Rooting MicroSoil® Compacted soil Moderately compacted soil Porous soil

Few adventitious roots and with horizontal growth

Great development of the anchorage roots

The soil comes of the root very easily

Little radicular development

Little development of the adventitious roots

The root comes out of the soil very easily

Humid soil due to water retention

58

View of fields; one week before harvest


Las Vegas, NV, USA

MicroSoil® Control

59

Fruiting with MicroSoil®; one week before harvest



Crop conditions; one week before harvest


Las Vegas, NV, USA

Control MicroSoil®

Non uniform growth of the plants Uniform plant growth, and an intense

green color

Small fruits Good size crops, approximately 25 cm

Space between the trenched, the soil can be seen

No space between the trenches, the soil can not be seen thanks to good vegetative

growth

61

Production


Las Vegas, NV, USA

Kg/Ha Difference

Kg/Ha Difference %

MicroSoil® 5,510

Control 4,800 -710 -12.89

Rooting 4,563 -937 -17.19

62

PRODUCCION

4000

5000

TESTIGO PAQUETE ROOTING PAQUETE MicroSoil®

PROGRAMA

Kg

s./H

a.

4,563

4,8005,510

63

COSTO POR HECTAREA

CANTIDAD COSTOCANTIDA

DCOSTO CANTIDAD COSTO

FERT. SIEMBRA 70 Kgs. $315.00 70 Kgs. $315.002a. FERT. 150 Kgs. $675.00 150 Kgs. $675.00 150 Kgs. $675.00FERT. SIEMBRA 85 Kgs. $476.00 85 Kgs. $476.002a. FERT. 25 Kgs $140.00 25 Kgs $140.00 25 Kgs $140.00FERT. SIEMBRA 30 Kgs. $150.00 32 Kgs. $160.002a. FERT. 70 Kgs. $350.00 70 Kgs. $350.00 70 Kgs. $350.00FERT. SIEMBRA 1 Lt. $600.002a. FERT.FERT. SIEMBRA2a. FERT. 15 Kgs. $60.00 15 Kgs. $60.00 15 Kgs. $60.00FERT. SIEMBRA 5 Lts. $250.002a. FERT.FERT. SIEMBRA 5 Lts. $900.002a. FERT.FERT. SIEMBRA 5 Lts. $450.002a. FERT.

COSTO POR Ha. $2,166.00 $2,525.00 $3,076.00

CARBON LIQUIDO $90.00 LITRO

PRECIO

UNITARIOUNIDAD

MICROMIX $4.00 Kg

NATURAL SOIL $50.00

CLORURO DEPOTASIO

$5.00 Kg

MicroSoil® $600.00 LITRO

$4.50 Kg

TESTIGO

LITRO

ROOTING LITRO$180.00

TRATAMIENTO CON

ROOTING

TRATAMIENTO CON

MicroSoil®

MAP $5.60 Kg

PERIODO

UREA

64

RELACION COSTO BENEFICIO

*NOTAS• REPORTE DE PRECIO ASERCA SAGARPA DEL JUEVES 24 DE MAYO DE 2007

DEL SORGO No. 2 EXPORTACION DEL GOLFO $143.30 DLLS. POR TON. , $1,541.54 POR TON.

• COTIZACION DEL DÓLAR PROMEDIO MAXIMO MINIMO DEL BANCO DE MEXICO $ 10.78 DEL MISMO DÍA

PRODUCCION COSTO POR Ha. INGRESO*RELACION COSTO BENEFICIO

TESTIGO 4.800 Tons. $2,166.00 $7,399.39 $5,233.39

TRATAMIENTO CONRooting

4.563 Tons. $3,076.00 $7,034.05 $3,958.05

TRATAMIENTO CONMicroSoil®

5.510 Tons. $2,525.00 $8,493.88 $5,968.88

65

Sin (without) MicroSoil®

Con (with) MicroSoil

CAÑA DE AZUCAR (sugar cane) - Zocatepec de Hidalgo, Mexico in 2013

An increase in production per hectare of 33.22% over previous years harvest

66

FIEZ80330/SC/009/1/13 25 de Enero de 2013 ING. JORGE AGUILAR TALAMANTES

CCEXIMM A. en P.

PRESENTE

Por este conducto hacemos de su conocimiento sobre la petición de la Sra. María de Lourdes

Fernández Olvera, del resultado de la aplicación del Producto MicroSoil de la Compañía que

Usted representa y que se vendió al productor Sr. Quintín Silva Abarca, la información es la

siguiente:

El productor cañero lo probo en su parcela lo cual se localiza en el denominado Tepeolal

perteneciente al ejido de Tlaquiltenango y tiene una superficie de 2.20 hectáreas, ciclo

Planta, variedad CP 72-2086,cuando la caña tenía tres(3) meses de edad, fue aplicada en

dosis de Un (1) Lt./ha. diluidos en 100 Lts. de agua.

El interés de la Sra. Fernández es conocer el rendimiento obtenido correspondiente a la zafra

2012/2013, el cual fue el siguiente: la producción fue 527.56 toneladas y el rendimiento por

hectárea de 239.8 ton/ha. , comparado con el rendimiento de la zafra del año anterior que

fue de 180.0 ton/ha. ; dando así un Aumento en la Producción por Hectárea del 33.22 %;

atribuyéndole principalmente a:

a) El Producto MicroSoil

b) Buen productor

c) Baja condiciones de riego (12 riegos)

d) Manejo adecuado del cultivo

e) Fecha de siembra ( septiembre 2011)

f) Nutrición balanceada (fertilización )

Sin más por el momento quedo de Usted.

67

English Translation January 25, 2013 ING. JORGE AGUILAR TALAMANTES CCEXIMM A. in P. THIS I hereby we inform you about the request of Mrs. Maria de Lourdes Fernandez Olvera, the result of applying the Company Product MicroSoil that You represent and which was sold to senior producer Quentin Silva covers, information is following: The sugarcane producer tasted in its plot which is located in the so-called Tepeolal Tlaquiltenango belonging to the ejido and has an area of 2.20 hectares, cycle plant, variety CP 72-2086, when the cane had three (3) months old, was applied in doses of A (1) Lt. / ha. diluted in 100 Lts. water. The interest of Ms. Fernandez is knowing the yield corresponding to the harvest 2012/2013, which was as follows: the production was 527.56 tons per hectare yield of 239.8 t / ha. Compared to the performance of the previous year's harvest was 180.0 ton / ha. , Giving an increase in production per hectare of 33.22%; attributing mainly to: a) The Product MicroSoil b) Good producer c) Low water conditions (12 irrigations) d) Proper handling of the crop e) Planting date (September 2011) f) Balanced nutrition (fertilization) No more for now I remain. CAREFULLY ING. HECTOR LOPEZ NERIA TECHNICAL FIELD SUPERINTENDENT

68

Root Development

Sugar Cane in Yucatan, Mexico

69

MARKETS

CITRUS TREES

GREENHOUSES

SUGAR CANE ~ MEXICO TERRACE FARMING

AGRICULTURE FARMS

COMMERCIAL GARDENS

70

HOME GARDEN

HYDROPONICS COMMERCIAL HERB

GREENHOUSE

GREENHOUSE ~ FLOWERS

GOLF COURSES Rice fields ~ China

AGAVE MEXICO

71

Truck Farms

Controlled hydroponics

Commercial agriculture

MicroSoil® Control

Vineyards ~ Mexico

Corn root growth

Mexico

landscaping

72

God's way of saying, 'Have a nice day!'

73

presention - microsoil

Documents