MicroSoil - Agriculture Institute Research MEXICO & USA - SUGARCANE 1998-2018 (ENGLISH & SPANISH)

MicroSoil®Media™
University & Agriculture Research Results

MEXICO & USA 1

Grown with MicroSoil®
Trial Results: Sugarcane

(English & Spanish)

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Grown with MicroSoil®
Trial Results: Sugarcane

English: All Pages except Page 7
English & Spanish: Pages 6, 7, 9

MicroSoil® SUGARCANE TRIAL REPORTS

2017-2018—USA, Texas (p. 3-5)

Commercial Sugarcane Grower

2013—MEXICO, Ameca, Jalisco (p. 6-8)

Ingenio San Francisco Ameca SA de CV

2013—MEXICO, Zocatepec de Hidalgo, Morelos (p. 9)

Ingenio Emiliano Zapata Sugar Refinery

1998—MEXICO, Yucatan (p. 10-12)

Agricola Genética SA de CV

2005-2006—MEXICO, Atencingo, Puebla
Version 1 (p. 13-31) / Version 2 (p. 32-54)

Ingenio de Atencingo Sugar Refinery

These trials were conducted on sugarcane crops of
various International Commercial Growers/Companies

in MEXICO and USA 1998-2018.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 2

Rejuvenation of Damaged Sugarcane Crop in Texas

Thanks to MicroSoil® and MacroFoliage®

Thanks to our Distributor, Mr. Dave Shimp, and his colleague Mr. Mike
Snyder, for sending the photos below showing a 40-acre commercial sugarcane
crop in South Texas, planted October 9, 2017, and initially treated with
MicroSoil® & MacroFoliage®. The crop was damaged by frost on January 20,
2018 and snow on February 1, 2018. See the rejuvenation of the damaged
sugarcane crop on the following pages.

October 9, 2017
Photos (above, left & right) show sugarcane planted on 40 acres.

January 20, 2018 February 1, 2018
Photo (above) shows frost damage. Photo (above) shows snow damage.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 3

Since MicroSoil® Products work primarily at the root hair area, and especially
in the colder months, helping to build bigger and deeper root systems, the use of
MicroSoil® at planting helps to overcome many stressful climate conditions and
tends to make plants “snap back” much faster, thus saving an otherwise ruined
crop.
The crop recovered to robust health by March 20, 2018 and by May 21, 2018 the
MicroSoil® & MacroFoliage® treated crop was way ahead of the control crop
next to it that was planted at the same time. The commercial grower was very
pleased with the complete rejuvenation of his valuable sugarcane crop.

...continued...

March 20, 2018
Photo (left) shows the fully recovered and rejuvenated
sugarcane crop treated with MicroSoil® &
MacroFoliage®.

May 21, 2018
Photos (above, left & right) show healthy robust sugarcane crop growth with six (6) to eight (8) foot high stalks.

May 21, 2018
Photo (right) shows the neighboring sugarcane
crop that was not treated and has lagging growth.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4

Photo below (top) taken in late June 2018 clearly shows the difference between
the sugarcane treated with MicroSoil® and MacroFoliage® (left) and the
sugarcane not treated (right). Photo below (bottom) taken in late June 2018
shows the final impressive results of the 40-acre fully rejuvenated sugarcane
plants. The sugarcane crop was fully recovered and ready for harvest.

June 2018
Photo (above) clearly shows difference between the fully recovered and rejuvenated sugarcane crop treated

with MicroSoil® & MacroFoliage® (left) and the sugarcane not treated (right).

June 2018—Photo (above) shows healthy robust sugarcane crop growth with ten (10) foot high stalks, ready to

be harvested. The treated 40 acres were 49.7% greater than the Control field.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 5

UPDATE:

Rejuvenation of Damaged Sugarcane Crop in Texas
Thanks to MicroSoil® and MacroFoliage®

CLICK LINK: MicroSoil® Sugarcane Report from Texas

During December 2018, our Distributor, Mr. Dave Shimp of Pegasus Soil Solutions™, traveled
to Texas to check on his commercial grower’s 40-acre crop of sugarcane Grown with
MicroSoil® and their other inputs. Dave commented: “Attached is a trip report and a very
fuzzy 21-second video shot by the farmer from a moving pickup on a bumpy farm road—the
crop size says it all! It is clear that the strategy we put in place over a year and a half ago is
working. For example, a vegetable and sugarcane grower & customer of ours has strongly
recommended us to the agricultural process manager for the local sugar mill that processes
material from all of the 40,000 acres grown in South Texas. That manager is committed to
learning more about our products and program, then in early in January introducing us to his

South Texas growers.” CLICK LINK below to see for yourself the dramatic
difference between the two sugarcane fields!

First 10-seconds is CONTROL crop & the last 10-seconds is TREATED crop.

Dramatic CLICK HERE

20-second
Video►

TREATED CONTROL

June 2018—Difference in growth between treated June 2018—Ten-foot stalks on fully rejuvenated
sugarcane crop (left) and crop not treated (right). sugarcane crop ready for harvest.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 6

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

Sin (without) MicroSoil®

Con (with) MicroSoil

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

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 7

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.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8

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

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 9

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.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 10

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/

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.

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 11

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

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 12

SUGAR CANE STUDY TABLE

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

DISTANCE BETWEEN NODULES (cm)

Nodules 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL
8.76 11.67 13.1 12 12.3 12.17 76.5
MicroSoil 2.07 4.43 8.65 13.05 15.35 16.6 12 6.7 79.3

Control 2.55 4.4

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

THICKNESS BETWEEN NODULES (cm)

Nodules 1234567 8 TOTAL
2.6 22
MicroSoil 3.16 3.03 2.86 2.73 2.56 2.53 2.53 2.3 20.15

Control 2.6 2.8 2.65 2.65 2.5 2.45 2.2

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 2.48

DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE)

MicroSoil 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL AVG
25.2 27 27
BASE 26.8 23.8 26 26 26 132 26.4
22.5 26 25
MEDIUM 26.8 25 127.6 25.52

HIGH 27 25 125.5 25.1

77.02

TOTAL AVERAGE IN DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE) 25.67

DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE)

CONTROL 1 2 3 TOTAL AVG
25.2 25 71.2 23.73
BASE 21 23 25 69
23 24 68.5 23
MEDIUM 21 22.83
69.56
HIGH 21.5 23.19

TOTAL AVERAGE IN DEGREES (*BRIX SCALE)

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREATMENTS

(The equivalent of 10.69% increase in sugar)

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

©1996–Current Year Biomassters Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 13

MicroSoil

Ingenio Atencingo, S.A.
Atencingo, PUEBLA
2005 ‐ 2006

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

l® on Sugar Cane

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 14

P

¾ Sugar Cane Plantation; Atenci
¾ Crop; Sugar Cane
¾ Variety; 51(MEX 57 0 473)
¾ Cuts; 1st Machete (dry) Cycle R
¾ Location; Pequena propeidad
¾ Irrigation; Well water
¾ Irrigation depth; 10 to 12 cm
¾ Irrigation frequency; 23 – 30 d
¾ Type of soil; light sand entran
¾ Harvested; One month before
¾ No of trials and area; 2, 20% o
¾ Parcel size/test; 217.8m2
¾ Distance between rows; 1.10m
¾ Length of each row; 33 meter

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

Protocol

ingo/Izucar de Matamoros, Pue.

R1
d de Tilapa, Puebla

days 15
nce (ATOCLE)
e testing of parameters
of 1 Ha = 2,000m2

m
rs

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Fertilizer p

25% Fertilizer 50% Fe
Treatment A Treatm

MicroSoil® 2 Lt. MicroSoil®
Natural Soil 10 Lt. Natural Soi
Vitamin B12 Vitamin B12
Molasses 8kg Molasses 8
NPK 20‐10‐10 200kg NPK 20‐10‐

Ammonium sulfate Ammonium
200kg 400kg

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

program; two applications

ertilizer 100% Fertilizer
ment B Treatment C

2 Lt.

il 10 Lt.

2 NPK 20‐10‐10 800kg

8kg
‐10 400kg

m sulfate Ammonium sulfate
800kg

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 16

Condition of
time of first

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

f soil and Crop at the
fertilizer application

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 17

Condition C
second fer

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

Crop at the time of
rtilizer application

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 18

Quality Pa

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

arameters

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 19

Brix V

Treatment Brix Value 17.6
16.82 17.4
A MicroSoil® 25% 17.2
Fertilizer 17.39
17
B MicroSoil® 50% 16.33 16.8
Fertilizer 16.6
16.4
C 100% Fertilizer 16.2

16
15.8

A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

Values

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 20

Sacch

Treatment Saccharine 15.4
14.89 15.2
A MicroSoil® 25%
Fertilizer 15.32 15
14.8
B MicroSoil® 50% 14.33 14.6
Fertilizer 14.4
14.2
C 100% Fertilizer
14
13.8

A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

harine

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 21

Pur

Treatment Purity 88.8
88.56 88.6
A MicroSoil® 25% 88.4
Fertilizer 88.08 88.2

B MicroSoil® 50% 87.81 88
Fertilizer 87.8
87.6
C 100% Fertilizer 87.4

A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

rity

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 22

Percent Mois

Treatment % Moisture 73.6
72.70 73.4
A MicroSoil® 25% 73.2
Fertilizer 72.41
73
B MicroSoil® 50% 73.48 72.8
Fertilizer 72.6
72.4
C 100% Fertilizer 72.2

72
71.8

A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

sture Content

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 23

Damage

Treatment Percent 0.3
0.18 0.25
A MicroSoil® 25%
Fertilizer 0.18 0.2
0.15
B MicroSoil® 50% 0.28
Fertilizer 0.1
0.05
C 100% Fertilizer
0
A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

ed crops

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 24

Fib

Treatment Fiber 12.3
12.24 12.2
A MicroSoil® 25% 12.1
Fertilizer 12.10
12
B MicroSoil® 50% 11.91 11.9
Fertilizer 11.8
11.7
C 100% Fertilizer
A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

ber

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 25

Produ

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

uction

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 26

Grinding st

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

talk count, Nov 22,
2005

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 27

Grinding Stalk

Treatment Number 140000
122,850 135000
A MicroSoil® 25% 130000
Fertilizer 131,950 125000
120000
B MicroSoil® 50% 134,680 115000
Fertilizer

C 100% Fertilizer

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

k per Hectare

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 28

Yield per

Treatment Tons 120
73.08 100
A MicroSoil® 25%
Fertilizer 102.36 80
60
B MicroSoil® 50% 92.02 40
Fertilizer 20

C 100% Fertilizer 0
A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

r Hectare

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 29

Stalk H

Treatment Centimeter 195
178.9 190
A MicroSoil® 25% 185
Fertilizer
193.5 180
B MicroSoil® 50%
Fertilizer 188.5 175

C 100% Fertilizer 170
A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

Height

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 30

Average Sta

Treatment Gram 900
595 800
A MicroSoil® 25% 700
Fertilizer 777 600
500
B MicroSoil® 50% 684 400
Fertilizer 300
200
C 100% Fertilizer 100

0

A

©1996–Current Year Biomassters

talk Weight

A MicroSoil®, B MicroSoil®, C 100% F

25% F 50% F

s Global, Inc. All Rights Reserved 31

Yie

Treatment Yield per
Treatment

A MicroSoil® 25% 1,640 Kg
Fertilizer 2,297 Kg
2,065 Kg
B MicroSoil® 50%
Fertilizer

C 100% Fertilizer

©1996–Current Year Biomassters