Humic acid (HA) and fulvic acid (FA) are important humic substances widely used in agriculture, but there is a significant price gap between them. This paper mainly explains the reasons for the price difference from two core aspects: raw materials (pure mineral-sourced humic substances vs. biochemical humic acid) and production processes. It also points out that conventional detection methods cannot distinguish between mineral-sourced and biochemical humic acid, while biochemical humic acid will cause adverse effects on soil properties and plant root growth. The research provides a reference for the rational selection and application of humic substances in agricultural production.
The price difference between HA and FA is essentially determined by the differences in their raw materials and production processes, among which the type of raw materials (mineral-sourced or biochemical) is the fundamental factor.
In terms of raw materials, pure mineral-sourced humic substances (including HA and FA) are mainly extracted from natural mineral resources such as lignite, peat and weathered coal, which are non-renewable resources formed after millions of years of geological and chemical processes. The content of humic substances in these mineral raw materials is high (up to 10%-80%), and the active functional groups (such as carboxyl, hydroxyl and methoxyl) are abundant, which have excellent effects in soil improvement and plant growth promotion. However, the exploration, mining and transportation of mineral resources require high costs, and the limited reserves also increase their raw material costs. In contrast, biochemical humic acid is produced by fermenting cheap organic wastes, such as paper-making waste, sugarcane molasses, monosodium glutamate waste residue and crop straws, through microbial fermentation technology. These raw materials are widely available, low-cost and renewable, which significantly reduces the production cost of biochemical humic acid. Generally, the price of mineral-sourced humic acid is about 10 times that of biochemical humic acid, and the price gap between mineral-sourced FA and biochemical FA is similarly obvious.
The complexity of production processes further widens the price gap between HA and FA, especially between mineral-sourced and biochemical products. The production of mineral-sourced HA and FA requires complex extraction and purification processes: first, the mineral raw materials are pretreated to remove impurities such as ash; then, chemical reagents (such as dilute alkali) are used for extraction under specific temperature and pressure conditions; finally, purification, concentration and drying are carried out to obtain high-purity products. This process not only consumes a lot of energy and chemical reagents, but also requires strict process control and special equipment to ensure the activity and purity of the products, resulting in high production costs. For mineral-sourced FA, additional degradation and separation processes are needed to reduce its molecular weight and improve its water solubility, which further increases the production cost. In contrast, the production process of biochemical humic acid is relatively simple: it only needs to inoculate specific microorganisms into organic waste raw materials, and obtain the product through fermentation, concentration and drying under normal temperature and pressure conditions. The process is simple, the equipment investment is small, the energy consumption is low, and the production cost is significantly lower than that of mineral-sourced products.
It is worth noting that conventional detection methods (such as colorimetric method, HPTA method and gravimetric method) cannot distinguish between mineral-sourced and biochemical humic acid (including HA and FA). This is because both of them are complex organic mixtures, and their main detection indicators (such as organic matter content and humic acid content) are similar, so it is difficult to identify their sources through routine detection. However, there are significant differences in their actual effects and potential hazards: mineral-sourced humic substances can improve soil structure, promote the formation of soil aggregates, enhance soil water and fertilizer retention capacity, and stimulate plant root growth; while long-term application of biochemical humic acid will bring a series of hazards.
In terms of soil changes, long-term application of biochemical humic acid will lead to soil salinization and acidification: the organic waste raw materials used in its production often contain a lot of salts, which will accumulate in the soil after long-term application, reducing soil permeability and activity, and affecting plant growth. At the same time, the pH value of biochemical humic acid is relatively low, which will further acidify the soil, cause chemical damage to plant root systems, and induce soil-borne diseases. In terms of plant root changes, biochemical humic acid has few active functional groups and low activity, which cannot effectively promote root growth; on the contrary, the harmful substances (such as residual antibiotics and hormones) contained in it will inhibit root development, lead to weak root systems, poor root absorption capacity, and even cause root rot and seedling burning phenomenons. In addition, biochemical humic acid is easy to absorb moisture and agglomerate, which will affect the application effect when used as a fertilizer additive.
In conclusion, the price difference between HA and FA is mainly caused by the differences in raw materials and production processes. Mineral-sourced HA and FA have high prices due to high raw material and production costs, while biochemical products have low prices due to cheap raw materials and simple processes. Although conventional detection methods cannot distinguish between mineral-sourced and biochemical humic acid, the long-term application of biochemical humic acid will damage soil properties and inhibit plant root growth, so it is necessary to rationally select products according to actual needs.
[1] Nongren Lecture Hall. Three “Pits” of Humic Acid You Must Avoid[EB/OL]. 2023-04-05.
[2] Douyin Encyclopedia. Humic Acid (Macromolecular Organic Substance)[EB/OL]. 2026-01-13.
[3] China Cooperative Times. Zhang Zhaohui: Differences Between Mineral-Sourced and Biochemical Fulvic Acid[EB/OL]. 2022-07-23.
[4] Douyin Encyclopedia. Biochemical Humic Acid (Products Made from Industrial and Agricultural Organic Wastes)[EB/OL]. 2025-02-13.
[5] 191 Grape Service Center. Distinguishing “Mineral-Sourced” Humic Acid and “Biochemical” Humic Acid[EB/OL]. 2017-12-16.
[6] Nanfang+. Relationships Between Humus, Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid and Fulvic Acid[EB/OL]. 2026-02-11.
Q1: What are the core differences between humic acid (HA) and fulvic acid (FA), and why do their prices vary greatly? A1: HA and FA are both key components of humic substances, but FA has a smaller molecular weight, better water solubility, and stronger mobility in soil than HA. The significant price gap mainly comes from two aspects: raw materials and production processes. Mineral-sourced HA and FA rely on non-renewable mineral resources (lignite, peat, etc.) with high extraction costs, while biochemical products use cheap, renewable organic wastes. In addition, mineral-sourced products require complex extraction and purification processes, further increasing costs, while biochemical products have simple production processes and low costs.
Q2: Can conventional detection methods distinguish between mineral-sourced and biochemical humic acid (including HA and FA)? A2: No. Both mineral-sourced and biochemical humic acid are complex organic mixtures, and their main detection indicators (such as organic matter content, humic acid content, and functional group types) are similar. Conventional detection methods (colorimetric method, HPTA method, gravimetric method, etc.) can only measure their content and basic properties, but cannot identify their sources (mineral or biochemical).
Q3: What specific hazards does long-term application of biochemical humic acid bring to soil and plant roots? A3: For soil: It causes soil salinization and acidification—organic waste raw materials often contain a lot of salts, which accumulate in the soil to reduce permeability and activity; its low pH value further acidifies the soil and induces soil-borne diseases. For plant roots: It has few active functional groups and cannot promote root growth; residual harmful substances (antibiotics, hormones, etc.) inhibit root development, leading to weak roots, poor absorption capacity, and even root rot and seedling burning.
Q4: Is mineral-sourced humic acid always better than biochemical humic acid? How to choose rationally? A4: In terms of safety and application effect, mineral-sourced humic acid is superior: it can improve soil structure, promote soil aggregate formation, enhance water and fertilizer retention capacity, and stimulate plant growth without potential hazards. Biochemical humic acid has low cost but obvious long-term hazards, so it is not suitable for long-term, large-scale agricultural application. It is recommended to choose mineral-sourced products for soil improvement and crop growth promotion, and avoid using biochemical products blindly for cost saving.
Q5: What are the main raw materials of mineral-sourced and biochemical humic acid, and what are their characteristics? A5: Mineral-sourced humic acid (HA/FA) is extracted from non-renewable mineral resources such as lignite, peat, and weathered coal, which are formed by millions of years of geological processes, with high humic substance content and abundant active functional groups. Biochemical humic acid is produced by microbial fermentation of cheap organic wastes (paper-making waste, sugarcane molasses, crop straws, etc.), which are widely available, renewable, but with low activity and potential harmful impurities.
Q6: Why does fulvic acid (FA) usually cost more than humic acid (HA) of the same source? A6: For mineral-sourced products, FA requires additional degradation and separation processes on the basis of HA production to reduce molecular weight and improve water solubility, which increases production costs. For biochemical products, the extraction and purification of FA are more complex than HA, leading to higher costs. In addition, FA has better mobility and bioavailability in soil, with more obvious effects on promoting plant root absorption, so its price is generally higher than HA of the same source.
Q1: Why is there a significant price difference between humic acid (HA) and fulvic acid (FA)? A1: The main reasons are differences in raw materials and production processes. Mineral-sourced HA and FA use non-renewable mineral resources (lignite, peat, etc.) as raw materials, with high extraction and transportation costs; their production processes are complex, consuming more energy and reagents. Biochemical HA and FA use cheap organic wastes as raw materials, with simple production processes and low costs, so their prices are much lower.
Q2: Can conventional detection methods distinguish between mineral-sourced and biochemical humic acid? A2: No. Both are complex organic mixtures, and their main detection indicators (organic matter content, humic acid content, etc.) are similar. Conventional methods such as colorimetric method and HPTA method can only detect their content, but cannot identify their sources (mineral or biochemical).
Q3: What hazards does biochemical humic acid bring to soil and plant roots? A3: For soil, it causes salinization and acidification, reduces soil permeability and activity, and induces soil-borne diseases. For plant roots, it inhibits root development, leads to weak root systems and poor absorption capacity, and even causes root rot and seedling burning due to harmful substances such as residual antibiotics.
Q4: Is mineral-sourced humic acid definitely better than biochemical humic acid? A4: In terms of effect and safety, mineral-sourced humic acid is better: it can improve soil structure and promote plant growth without potential hazards. Biochemical humic acid has low cost but obvious potential hazards, so it is not suitable for long-term and large-scale application in agricultural production.
