More on biostimulants and other magic

[Bogweevil]

Washington state university, USA:

4 years of trials in potatoes testing 27 non-traditional treatments involving 32 products (inc. seaweed, humic acid) and finding no yield or profit differences from grower standard practice for any of the treatments.

"Snake oil" is listed in the keywords!

Open access.

https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/agj2.21259

 

[cquick]

All plots received approximately 425-390-450 kg ha-1N, P2O5, and K2O, respectively,

Jesus christ, of course they're not going to notice any effects!
Any effect you'll see through biostimulants will be in a resource-limited environment.

Note that i'm not pro-snake oil per se, but you've got to give them a fair chance.

 

[SilliamWhale]

The only interesting bit on a biostimulant label is the amount of nutrients they have so they can bring that to the party. Beyond that there is no evidence that the "biology" in the can is capable of helping the "biology" on the plant or in the field - they could be as different as earth to the moon to each other.

 

[cquick]

Quite. Of course there's no evidence to prove it yet, but that's not to say there will never be. And if your crop is swimming in NPK than there's not going to be much marginal gain to be had by a 5% boost in N use efficiency, or P-solubilising bacteria, or whatever is claimed and may or may not actually exist, because the in this trial, the plant has more resources than it could ever hope to use.

Also remember that 'bugs' are not the only form of biostimulant, and in particular I see some potential in the phytohormone class. The one I'm most interested in is Triacontanol and there have been some interesting studies surrounding it. It also costs me about 0.4p per hectare.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021023458

I'd say it's overly simplistic to consider crop production purely in terms of nutrition, there is clearly a biological element. It's just a case of running worthwhile tests to see what works.

 

[Bogweevil]

Jesus christ, of course they're not going to notice any effects!
Any effect you'll see through biostimulants will be in a resource-limited environment.

Note that i'm not pro-snake oil per se, but you've got to give them a fair chance.

Reading the report carefully suggest they tested products that promised to enhance results for industry standard crops rather than products that promised to allow reduced inputs for the same yield.

 

[cquick]

Quoting the paper:

All nutrients were applied to be non-limiting to plant growth.

Which is quite different to commercial production?

For example, I know that when I apply 180kgN to my wheat, I am imposing a nutrient limit on the plant. I assume similar economic tradeoffs exist in the US potato game and that applying nearly half a tonne of N is not standard procedure.

So under limiting conditions, a 5% lower input for the same yield is roughly equivalent to a 5% boost under the same input. Just opposite sides of the same point on the curve.

But on the plateau of the response curve, it's impossible to resolve that sort of detail. If the plant is operating at its genetic maximum, and no amount of stimulation is going to improve that.

 

[Flat 10]

Reading the report carefully suggest they tested products that promised to enhance results for industry standard crops rather than products that promised to allow reduced inputs for the same yield.

Were they using an industry standard (whatever that is) growing protocol? Unlike say the recommended lists? I’m being flippant but if most (or the average wheat) is grown with a pre-em stack say then that’s what needs to be applied whether it’s needed or not. Similarly if most wheat is actually grown on 2- indices for P and K with only offtake amounts applied then these biostimulant trials should be in this environment. That being said, you might expect the trials being discussed to have found at least some yield improvements if they were doing any good.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I'd say it's overly simplistic to consider crop production purely in terms of nutrition, there is clearly a biological element. It's just a case of running worthwhile tests to see what works.

I'd go with you on that. But then if you make a claim on introducing alternative "biology" it would need to be testable and repeatable surely? If it is not then the jury would be out on its usefulness

 

[ollie989898]

Jesus christ, of course they're not going to notice any effects!
Any effect you'll see through biostimulants will be in a resource-limited environment.

Note that i'm not pro-snake oil per se, but you've got to give them a fair chance.

I'd venture those rates are not particularly out of the typical bracket for spuds grown in Washington State?