Plant Impact Share Discussion Threads

[p1nkfish] 13/5/2014 11:33

RobardS - what happened to your thoughts from posts 170 & 175.
They are about to put the foot to the metal.
Have you called the company or met with them?

Always will be some volatility in such micro caps.
Buckle up.

[p1nkfish] 13/5/2014 11:20

Also, if this is considered to have a material impact on the share price/market/valuation the company should RNS. If they do not they are not operating properly.

[robards] 13/5/2014 11:19

Apparently the IP is meaningless, the beneficial effect of the product is in any event minimal, and a fund raise is inevitable...
... and yet you're still a holder?


Costs are currently running at £2.2m pa, with plans to raise them to £2.6 or 7 to deal with extra business in line with greater sales visibility. That would mean they need about £4m sales pa to break even: not far off where they are right now, and not a £4m INCREASE in sales.

[p1nkfish] 13/5/2014 11:19

Nothing is 100% positive but the big investors are close to the management.
If they increase holdings, especially if it's a group that are typically on the ball, it is telling us something. They will not have been blind sided by the patent issues, especially when it is such a foundation of the company valuation.

Each to their own.

I am lucky as sitting on a good % increase anyway with a reasonable volume.

Good luck all.

[55villain] 13/5/2014 11:10

P1nkfish. Agreed some investors do reasonable research and make sons investments. Some of course do not. Others choose to ignore anything that isn't the least bit positive.

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 11:02

P1nkfish

Interesting observations. However it is worth pointing out that the unfortunate bad news on the rejection of the INCA/AMESTROS/verytas patent was only published last friday, see link.

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

This is the first week of trading since. The last sale of yesterday, and first of today are sells it will be interesting to see if this is a trend.

I tend to agree with an earlier poster who did the maths, and concluded they need at least 4m increase in sales to break even. I can't see that happening this year, especially with costs going up (Director pay, new facilities etc as discussed earlier by other posters).

It is difficult to see past a fund raise in the near future, as even though they are getting closer to break even, they are not there yet. I agree not all the investors are mugs, those in the well researched category will surely be interested in this news, it will likely take a while to become common knowledge, as people are unlikely to shout about it.

[p1nkfish] 13/5/2014 10:26

Breakeven is closer than many realise.
I do not expect a funding round for existential reasons.
If there is any further money needed it will be on the basis of a large increase in business needing working capital and it being cheaper in the market than via the banks. Just mho.

Given the issues raised in above posts the share price appears tranquil. Under most circumstances, just a hint of a problem, and the share price moves down as those close to the know begin to sell down before the general market becomes aware.

Interesting that there was an increased institutional holding recently too. They are not all mugs. some do reasonable research and don't waste their money ;-)

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 10:09

Lets not get into infantile arguments, I have just entered into this discussion with only referenced information, directly concerning our investments. I have been following this board for sometime, but this is the only news I have felt important be talked about. A spanish inquisition about my past seems a little rich from an anonymous poster.

An IP company, struggling to get any meaningful IP, on their only selling technology, I would think, catastrophic to any business model, and something investors would like to discuss. Positioning this referenced information, which is clear and relevant, as someone who must be concerned, or as some conspiracy, or agenda, devalues your argument at best.

I started a string to have an intellectual discussion about the possible effects on share price of the news that the patent covering Amestros/INCA/veritatas, is likely to be rejected. I think it is important that a discussion about a company is informed and balanced, this information is far more relevant than inane posts about how many soy beans there are in Brazil.

I don't want to argue with you guys, as it is clear I have more patent experience than you, and yes I offer than experience out to those who wish to have a discussion about the effects this may have.

Just to explain quickly wan, I understand PI have got new improved facilities at rothamstead, and perhaps they could use this for the creation of new IP? However, this is not relevant to this IP, as you cannot add new data post filing date, and the data included is insufficient, we will see the response from PI shortly, hopefully. The response will be posted at this link,

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

[wan] 13/5/2014 09:33

I am not a scientist and I have no patent experience per se, aside from regularly checking the patents of the companies I am invested in, but I have been conducting research on my investments for many years, and whilst I stand to be corrected on any issue or matter of fact, I am capable, at the very least, of grasping the scientific basics. I have been posting on these boards for many years and I have written a few articles. Furthermore I am a "validated" poster. I note you created your username only yesterday and that you are not validated (why?), perhaps it would be more appropriate then for you to divulge more about your status given that it's you that is claiming that you are "in the industry and well informed"?

PS...Just finished reading the third party observations, and PI's last response to the original observations (which are similar to the latest one), all very interesting though.

The opposing argument of course is; given PI's expanded claims, what will be the impact if PI can effectively address the EPO requests, especially given what has been available to PI since moving to Rothamsted? As I said, one could also interpret that someone somewhere is worried.

[here and there] 13/5/2014 09:19

Out of interest agextpert

1/.You appear out of nowhere
2/. You claim to be an expert
3/. You make claims aimed at undermining the IP of the company whilst claiming to be a share holder
4/. You kindly invite us to ask you questions
5/. You set up a whole new PIM thread...whose thread title is 'based on sand'

It strikes me that you have an agenda here

1/. what is or was your connection with PIM?
2/. who are you working for now?
3/. Why are you taking such a huge and sudden interest in PIM for?


It strikes me that you are up to no good. I have seen this sort of social media attack on companies before

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 09:03

I didn't refer to any third party observations. There are a few different third party observations though, and ome of them are more recent than that.

It isn't third party observations that matter, though is it. It is the patent that is being judged, by the patent office, whose findings seem pretty conclusive. They don't like the original claims, they don't like the new claims. They have asked questions which PIM has failed to answer, and should they remain unable to do so then the patent will be rejected. PIM themselves seem to think that the original claims do not give them any protection even if they are granted.

Out of interest Wan do you know anything about calcium mobilisation? Are you a scientist? Do you have any experience with patents?

[wan] 13/5/2014 08:53

The third party observations you refer to are not entirely new though, they were communicated back in 2012 (with some apparent errors) and are again related to PI's 2012 expanded claims. There also appears to be a conflicting remark in the most recent observation regarding Calcium mobilisation, so let's wait and see what PI response is.

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 08:29

To discuss further.

I expect that PIM will have to raise cash, as it is obvious from the books that they are still cash burning and likely to run out of money again.

If I were looking at investing in a fund raise, I would be very worried by the patent situation. Could be it makes it hard for them to raise money this time, as it places a big question mark over their viability.

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 08:26

Wan,

No this is not routine at all. It is highly irregular for a request to be made several years after filing to make large scale additional claims, and to try and justify them by claiming 'it isn't fair, because the original claims do not offer any protection'. I am not surprised they have been knocked back, they were never going to get them.

I would have thought that if PIM were in a position to answer the questions over the original claims, then they would have done so in the first place. Their response however was to effectively tell the patent office that if they gave them extra claims then they didn't have to answer the difficult questions,and the response given smacked of desperation.

What the patent office are saying is that the invention is not novel, not disruptive, that it is not new and has already been done. The compound in the patent was being used in the 1970s.

Regards Bayer. There are plenty of precedents for this, it isn't like they have any investment in IP, so the moment it becomes less interesting due to low margin or competition it would be dropped like a stone. Bayer and the big 6 like to have at least 70% margin, a cheaper product coming in would see them ditch very quickly. Especially with such marginal benefits for farmers - The tiny yield increase the trials show is less than a quarter the seasonal variation in yield due to weather. The amount extra it gives a farmer would be wiped out with a few cents shift in soybean price. It's a marginal business proposition even with IP.

As for Simplot, very small niche market, this is not core business for Simplot, it is a tiny little sub-business sector. The product has already been touted for this market (US Turf) by PI with other partners (Arysta) who have obviously dumped it (be interesting to know why). It isn't that long ago PIM were claiming they would need "a factory in every state" (Blezard former CEO) to keep up with demand, before dropping the idea completely. I will watch with interest what revenues appear, but lets face it they have form for over promising.

It's easy to point at names they are working with, but what about the past ones. Both Arysta and Syngenta walked away from the Brazil business already. Arysta seem to be doing nothing, yet so far as I can tell they still have deals for most PIM products in vast swathes of the globe. Where are the sales? Did they walk away because they couldn't compete in the market?

[wan] 13/5/2014 07:59

Agextpert...Thanks for the heads-up. These types of challenges/observations are surely relatively routine, if not to be expected, especially if your technology is disruptive, and PI's technology/patent appears to have rattled someone's cage anyway!

I note PI have 4 months to respond, which they obviously will and no doubt robustly so.

I would also suggest that the likes of Bayer and Simplot take perhaps a different view of PI's IP than you do.

[agextpert] 12/5/2014 17:48

Hi I have had an interest in this share for a few years now, I used to have a higher shareholding (divested most), but retain an interest. I am in the industry, so am well informed of what happens in the market (real market, not stock market).

It strikes me that a lot of nonsense is talked about this stock by happy clappers not wanting to face obvious flaws, so thought I would start a sensible thread.

Interesting news this week, the patent office rejected nearly all current claims for CAT/INCA/VERTITAS/AMESTROS/whatever they are calling it this week. They have a few months to dilute their claims, if they can. If you check their history on the EPO site, PIM attempted to increase the patents coverage 18/06/2012 after the fact, as they claimed without extra protection "this would allow the essence of the invention to be unprotected".

The patent office seems to have rejected the extra claims en mass, and have made some very interesting observations regarding demonstration of efficacy and novelty in the original claims, which will also be rejected should PIM not make a better case. Looking at it I can't see how they can do this.

It will be interesting to see how the market reacts to this, as big companies like Bayer dislike open competition (no patent protection). Especially with competitors already already entering the market at lower prices. It would be easy for a competitor to undercut in the absence of patent protection.

This will also affect the new apple product (AMESTROS) they have been heavily advertising this Spring.

It would be less worrying if they had sales of other technology, but they are a bit of a one trick pony with nearly all current sales being based on this patent. These sorts of things become generic very quickly in the Ag industry, as the issue is that you pretty much tell people how to make the product in the patent, so if rejected the knowhow is out there for all to see, you basically publish your recipe. Be very hard to see the price maintained at even half going forwards sans patent.

Anyways, here is the link:

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

Happy to answer Qs for those of you that don't understand patent-ese.

[agextpert] 12/5/2014 17:34

Hi I have had an interest in this share for a few years now, I used to have a higher shareholding (divested most), but retain an interest. I am in the industry, so am well informed of what happens in the market (real market, not stock market).

Interesting news this week, the patent office rejected nearly all current claims for CAT/INCA/VERTITAS/AMESTROS/whatever they are calling it this week. They have a few months to dilute their claims, if they can. If you check their history on the EPO site, PIM attempted to increase the patents coverage 18/06/2012 after the fact, as they claimed without extra protection "this would allow the essence of the invention to be unprotected".

The patent office seems to have rejected the extra claims en mass, and have made some very interesting observations regarding demonstration of efficacy and novelty in the original claims, which will also be rejected should PIM not make a better case. Looking at it I can't see how they can do this.

It will be interesting to see how the market reacts to this, as big companies like Bayer dislike open competition (no patent protection). Especially with competitors already already entering the market at lower prices. It would be easy for a competitor to undercut in the absence of patent protection.

This will also affect the new apple product (AMESTROS) they have been heavily advertising this Spring.

It would be less worrying if they had sales of other technology, but they are a bit of a one trick pony with nearly all current sales being based on this patent. These sorts of things become generic very quickly in the Ag industry, as the issue is that you pretty much tell people how to make the product in the patent, so if rejected the knowhow is out there for all to see, you basically publish your recipe. Be very hard to see the price maintained at even half going forwards sans patent.

Anyways, here is the link:

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

Happy to answer Qs for those of you that don't understand patent-ese.

[p1nkfish] 07/5/2014 09:59

Wonder if impact on soy bean prices:

hxxp://www.indonesia-investments.com/news/todays-headlines/chances-of-new-el-nino-cycle-in-2014-impact-on-agricultural-commodities/item1906

[here and there] 07/5/2014 09:58

nice to see city natural resources continues to add stock

[p1nkfish] 07/5/2014 09:51

Yes, good sign.
Still reckon breakeven is not that far off.
Demand is there for the end product, need is real, niche capabilities at PIM.

[wan] 07/5/2014 09:17

I note CITY NATURAL RESOURCES have added further to their stake.

[freddie01] 04/5/2014 16:24

Off Topic but you may find interesting.

Richer soil from old bones


Is it possible to produce fertilizer from animal bones? And what are the potential benefits for agriculture and the environment? To find out Futuris went to a test plant in Hungary, where an unusual experiment is under way.

Scientists from a European research project called Refertil are trying to develop an organic phosphorous fertilizer out of an unlikely ingredient; pig bones.

To explain more Edward Soméus, an environmental engineer with Terra Humana Ltd and Refertil project coordinator showed us some bones.

"You can see here food quality pork bones, which are rich in phosphates and other minerals. By burning this material we can create charcoal that can be used as a phosphate supply in bio-farming," he said.

The bones are burnt at an average temperature of 600ºC, in an oxygen-free vacuum. No gases are emitted into the atmosphere.

The resulting product, known as bone biochar, is rich in minerals and, unlike agro-chemical fertilizers, it is virtually free of heavy metals.

Seemingly, an ideal organic phosphorous fertilizer, according to the researchers.

"These bones have macroporosous structures. That's really good for the microorganisms in the soil, especially the fungus." Soméus explained. "Fungi can enter and practically use it as a house, where they can live"

The product's quality and safety are analysed at a laboratory in Budapest. Researchers say it is free from potential contamination sources, like heavy metals and certain types of hydrocarbons.

Samples of the bone charcoal have also being analysed to identify its inner chemical secrets.

The results are promising, says Zoltán Palotai, a chemist, at Wessling Hungary lab: "This product can be a good natural supply of phosphates for the agricultural soils in the future, because it contains 30 percent of phosphate. Apart from the phosphorus, it also contains a lot of calcium, since the major element in it is calcium phosphate".

Researchers are now studying how those contents could be useful for food crops. They have come up with some positive conclusions.

Massimo Pugliese, an agronomist at the University of Turin has also worked on the project.

"Using a high-quality fertilizer from animal bones allows the plants to better resist environmental stresses, like droughts. It also helps them to better fight against pathogens. And at the end, this is what's going to allow plants to yield better crops," he says.

The next step is marketing. At a waste treatment plant near Budapest, 5,000 tons of bio-compost are produced every year. Managers there believe bone byproducts could make a good natural fertilizer by themselves, or as a complement to other fertilizers – if the price is right.

"The real question is competitiveness. Even if, scientifically, we can prove it has a favorable effect, the question is if whether the market will support the additional costs of the biochar mixing," says László Alexa, managing director of the ProfiKomp plant.

Researchers are optimistic bone-derived organic fertilizers will be a competitive product used on crops in Europe within five years.

[wan] 01/5/2014 07:46

A couple of points of interest (amongst others)-

Prof John Beddington to join top team at Rothamsted

23 April 2014 | By Olivia Midgley

THE Government's former chief scientific adviser Professor Sir John Beddington has become the new chairman of directors at Rothamsted Research.

Prof Beddington said: "Rothamsted is both our oldest and one of our most prestigious research organisations in the agricultural field.

"The problems of food security and the associated issues of water and energy security need research at the highest level and I am confident that Rothamsted can provide it."

Full story -


Bloomberg News
Global Soybean Production Forecast Raised by Oil World on Brazil
By Whitney McFerron April 29, 2014

Global production of soybeans will be bigger than previously expected after farmers in Brazil and Paraguay expanded planting for the second of two annual harvests, Oil World said.

World output will be 281.9 million metric tons in the 2013-14 season, up from 279.68 million estimated in March and 6.1 percent more than a year earlier, the Hamburg-based researcher said. Brazil's crop will total 86.2 million tons, 2 percent more than previously expected, and production in Paraguay will be 9 percent higher at 8.5 million tons, as farmers boost planting of the so-called safrinha crop in the two countries, it said. Brazilian farmers are almost finished collecting the main crop, and the smaller safrinha harvest will be in June or July.

Full story -

[wan] 29/4/2014 07:45

Bayer reported their First quarter on Monday, with notable growth from Cropsciences -

Strong start to the season at CropScience

Sales of the agriculture business (CropScience) increased in the first quarter by 4.9 percent (Fx & portfolio adj. plus 11.8 percent) to EUR 2,900 million (Q1 2013: EUR 2,764 million). Both Crop Protection/Seeds and Environmental Science contributed to this encouraging growth. "Our business benefited mainly from an early start to the season in Europe and strong sales in Latin America," Dekkers said. The subgroup grew sales by 17.0 percent (Fx adj.) in Europe and by 21.3 percent (Fx adj.) in Latin America/Africa/ Middle East. Sales advanced by 8.2 percent (Fx adj.) in Asia/Pacific and 4.3 percent (Fx adj.) in North America.

The Crop Protection business saw positive development in all business units, with new products (launched since 2006) playing a key role. The Fungicides (Fx & portfolio adj. plus 16.6 percent), SeedGrowth (Fx & portfolio adj. plus 19.1 percent) and Insecticides (Fx & portfolio adj. plus 12.6 percent) units all posted double-digit growth rates. Herbicides (Fx & portfolio adj. plus 7.7 percent) mainly benefited from the good development of products for use in cereals. Business in the Seeds unit also expanded markedly (Fx & portfolio adj. plus 11.9 percent). Environmental Science registered a positive performance both by products for professional users and by the consumer business, raising sales by 7.9 percent (Fx & portfolio adj.).


And to breakdown that 21.3% growth in Latin America/Africa/ Middle East -

Excerpts below from Seeking Alpha (page 4 Q&A) -

Amy Walker – Morgan Stanley

The first on CropScience. Liam, you call out Latin America as a strong growth driver for Crop quarter-after-quarter. I presume you are still taking market share in this region, given your 21% growth rate. Is that indeed the case? And what is your current Latin American share in Crop Protection, and where do you think you could get to? What is the sustainable level that you could achieve there?

Liam Condon

Yes. Just let me talk a little bit about the numbers Amy the 21% refers to LatAm, Africa, and Middle East, the way we define it. And we had a very strong Africa Middle East business in this quarter. The LatAm business grew by 18%, just to take that out of those numbers in total. So still very strong, especially given the fact that this is not a typical LatAm; it's the end of the season now for LatAm.

So still surprisingly strong growth. This was more or less across-the-board; again, heavily driven by fungicides and insecticides, but also by our still very small seed business. We had very strong growth there. And we do believe that this is sustainable to continue at the relatively high growth levels in Latin America.

From a market share point of view, we don't break it down now quarter by quarter. It's constantly moving, and we reflect always what the competitors are basically reporting. From what we have seen I would say in the last 12 months, , if you look at the 12 month moving average and what we are reporting, what competition is reporting, I would say it is very clear that we are e gaining marketshare in Latin America. And this is clearly part of our strategy; Latin America is very much in focus.

Marijn Dekkers

Okay. And then CropScience visibility for the second half, particularly with respect to Latin America. Liam.

Liam Condon

Yes, it is still too early to make the call. The only thing what we are clear on so far is that Europe is going to have a very strong season because of the early start. Where we don't yet have the visibility was very crucial going forward is the full extent of the yield in LatAm. So what are the final yields actually going to be that will have the influence then, commodity pricing and planting decisions going forward?

And where we don't have any visibility or not enough visibility is on when exactly, how much and what will be planted in the U.S., so that is two huge variables at the moment, which will have the impact the second half of the year. And until that is clear, we wouldn't change our guidance, so as of today we stick very clearly to the guidance that we have given.



With strong 'sustainable' growth in LatAm and a strong start to Europe, things bodes well for PI, and there is much more to play for in terms of new products, additional countries/regions.