Superthrive Vs. Seasol

[Bretts]

It absolutely amazes me how people totally disregard the facts laid out for them in this issue.
This professional study shows up to 20 times the lateral root growth from using an auxin just like the one in Superthrive. What more do people need to stop discussing whether it works and work out how we can best use it.

[BrianBay9]

It absolutely amazes me how people totally disregard the facts laid out for them in this issue.
This professional study shows up to 20 times the lateral root growth from using an auxin just like the one in Superthrive. What more do people need to stop discussing whether it works and work out how we can best use it.

Superthrive (at least in the US) is a victim of it's own hype. It may very well have benefits in specific situations. However, it's outrageous promotional literature claims huge benefits for all kinds of situations. Many of those claims can, and have been, conclusively proven to be false. Many of its claims are simply ludicrous. Many of its claims also add that additional fertilizer must be used to show benefit, because ST itself supercharges the plant metabolism thereby requiring more fertilizer, a laughable claim designed to deceive. Any rational person reading their product literature would conclude they are charlatans, and could potentially ignore a possible real benefit from the product. If they were only more circumspect in their promotion, they may have a product that is generally recognized as useful.

It would take only two things for me to use Superthrive:

1. A list of ingredients. At least in the US there is no indication what is inside. Brett says it has auxin, so I'll have to take his word on that. From the bottles I've seen, I have no clue.

2. Realistic claims, based on known science of the ingredients.

Brett, I don't dispute your evidence on the horticultural use of auxins. I've never examined that, and I'm happy to accept peer-reviewed scientific literature. I dispute label claims of ST, at least those that I've tested.

Brian

[Bretts]

I don't know if other size bottles have the ingredients but the gallon bottle does. Lower right. Just below ALWAYS FAR AHEAD IN SCIENCE AND VALUE Now these are the two active ingredients and like I stated, same as in this country it is not classed as a fertiliser it does not have a guaranteed analysis of the nutrients it is classed as a plant or soil conditioner. The label claims it has biousables. I class this as your worm castings type stuff that it is claimed they make nutrients or are nutrients that are easily used by the plant or help break down the nutrients so they are easily absorbed by the plant. I have not looked into this but there are many products that make the same claims and do not show the analysis. Just like our seasol that makes most the same claims except for added growth and it doesn't call itself No# 1 of everything
http://www.superthrive.com/gallon.html

I went over the label the other day looking for the claims that you say you tested and I was fairly surprised that when you think about it there really is nothing there that is outrageous. Yes they Claim they are the best allot but they do seem to be the most concentrated product on the market. I would be interested exactly what the claim on the bottle said, that you state you were testing. I would like to know the claims on the bottle that you state have been proven false?
My understanding is that if you are adding the correct amount of fertiliser then adding more will be of no benefit. If a plant is growing more it seems to make sense that at some stage it will eventually use more nutrients. Some people might blame superthrive if the plants start to look like they are nutrient deprived. This is only theoretical but so is your complaint that this is a trick to get better growth with the product when you believe it has no benefit.

I have never used the stuff[superthrive] mainly because it was not available to me. It was because of this that I researched to find similar product that I started to learn how the benefits were proven. I thought that the products that I bought in place of it such as seasol and plant starter were better value. This discussion has me wondering which is the better value to use. I still have trouble converting all the dilution measurements of superthrive to our metric system.

[Pup]

I wonder if Kentucky fried chicken coursed as much of a controversy when it was introduced with its secret herbs and spices.
I say if you believe use it if you don't, don't

Get an eye dropper 1 drop per litre

[Bretts]

It has several recomended dilutions for diferent aplications. The dilution is stronger for a stressed or root pruned tree. Getting the application rate correct is very important.

[Hector Johnson]

Message Deleted

[Pup]

Well, I've seen a report on the analysis of KFC's herb mix and it seems it consists of salt, pepper, MSG, sage, oregano and onion salt. Not 11 ingredients at all.
That's the thing about truth in advertising. Coca-Cola has never patented its recipe. If it did that it would have to publish it in the patent application. Nor has SUPERThrive been patented, as far as I can tell.

I suspect it's something similar to Vegemite, though without the salt and perhaps an added auxin or two. It smells like Vegemite, which would tally with the high B-vitamin claims.

Hector when I have run out I have used vegemite diluted at 1 teaspoon in 10 litres of water. My tomatoes were Bigger.

As I said Lindsay was here this weekend he swears by it and promotes it.

[Hector Johnson]

Message Deleted

[BrianBay9]

Brett,

I suspect much of the issue lies in labeling laws in the US vs Australia. In the US, Superthrive does not list ingredients on the label....or didn't last time I saw one. And the label claims are indeed outrageous. Perhaps you are lucky, and the Australian government insists on including ingredients on the label, and only listing claims that can be supported by the company.

Brian

[Bretts]

Brian the label that I linked you too is from USA as far as I know? Did you even look?
Brian you stated,

However, it's outrageous promotional literature claims huge benefits for all kinds of situations. Many of those claims can, and have been, conclusively proven to be false. Many of its claims are simply ludicrous

This is just slander if you refuse to stipulate wich claims and show any available proof that they are false. I am tiered of people making these slanderous claims and ignoring any reasnobale request to clarify thier piont.

[BrianBay9]

Brian the label that I linked you too is from USA as far as I know? Did you even look?
Brian you stated,

However, it's outrageous promotional literature claims huge benefits for all kinds of situations. Many of those claims can, and have been, conclusively proven to be false. Many of its claims are simply ludicrous

This is just slander if you refuse to stipulate wich claims and show any available proof that they are false. I am tiered of people making these slanderous claims and ignoring any reasnobale request to clarify thier piont.

Oh for heaven's sake! I don't happen to have a bottle with me any more so I can't quote all the claims. I don't have to show proof that claims are false (but I have shown one claim is false, in that study I did that you don't like) - it is their responsibility to show that their claims are true.

I can categorically state that is not the label on the product I had, because the product I used did not list ingredients. That is also not the entire label, at least on the product I had which also contained an insert with additional promotional claims.

Shall we examine what is on the label you linked to? According to this label (as well as my poor eyes can read it), ST will:

1. Makes impossible easy
2. Generates more flowers and leaves on indoor plants (more than what? than fertilizer alone, I presume)
3. Outdoor plants and bare roots - Starts outdoor plants, "new root and foliage action, shooting down, up" (I don't even know what that means. I assume these plants, with ST, should have a higher survival %, and look better.)
4. Trees - to get two years growth in one? (their question mark, not mine - trying to imply it without being held accountable?)
5. Fruiting - for earlier, heavier bearing? (again, their question mark)
6. Seeds - "to make germination percentage and speed earlier, better yields - including vegetables" (?)
7. Lawns - to make quicker, denser, tougher turf
Then there is a long list of plants, presumably those that would benefit from ST.

See also claims from their website,
http://www.superthrive.com/plantvitamin ... rive4.html
http://www.superthrive.com/page5.html
http://www.superthrive.com/page6.html

According to this label and their website, then, ST will benefit essentially all aspects of the germination and growth of all plants - oh, and rescue stressed plants too.

As proof they offer anticdotes and testimonials - worthless
http://www.superthrive.com/page7.html
http://www.superthrive.com/page8.html

In my experiment, I had a bunch of bare root starters that I soaked in ST as described on this label under the heading of "Quantities" "Bare Root". I used it as directed, and could see no benefit. Therefore, I have disproved one claim (#3 above) as best as I can understand their vaguely worded claim. That is enough for me to expect the ST people to provide demonstrable proof of their other claims.

I don't expect to get anywhere with this discussion, but don't tell me I'm ignoring your reasonable requests to clarify.

Brian

[Hector Johnson]

Message Deleted

[BrianBay9]

Hector, I completely agree. The product may have benefits, but the "over sell", perhaps typical of the 1950's, overshadows everything else. I would be much more likely to use a product that had a couple of well supported claims than one that claims it does everything.

As for Brett, I have no doubt he means well, and has data to support his contentions regarding the benefits of auxins in certain circumstances. I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

Brian

[Bretts]

I don't have to show proof that claims are false

I would think that if you go around stating

Many of those claims can, and have been, conclusively proven to be false.

Then you may have some ounce of information to back your claims?
I for one do not go around stating things are false and not even clarifying what it is I am actually saying when I was asked. I would think this especially so if I was learned as a scientist. The fact is just by the scientific studies on Auxin most of their claims are proven.
If I was a scientist doing a study on a product such as Superthrive I would submit my proposed test or at least contact the company to get information that may help me in my studies.

Ok you seem to have listed about all the claims on the label. This is disappointing I thought you may have some understanding of how Auxin works by now. My question was I would like to know the claims on the bottle that you state have been proven false? I doubt you have any information that any of these have been proven false except for your experiment. Which I say was lacking in substance.
I will address each one and if you still have an issue with any please clarify.

1. Makes impossible easy
This can relate to making cuttings of material that would not be possible without Auxin. I believe there are some species that will not work without Auxin but are easy with. This is old science nothing amazing here.

2. Generates more flowers and leaves on indoor plants (more than what? than fertilizer alone, I presume)It is stated that wholesale nurseries have long used Auxin to make plants hold their flowers longer. Auxin also generates extra root growth which in turn generates extra leaf growth. Wholesale nurseries have long used the properties of auxin to keep the plants at a certain stage that the customer requires them. More than what ? More than without of course!
3. Outdoor plants and bare roots - Starts outdoor plants, "new root and foliage action, shooting down, up" (I don't even know what that means. I assume these plants, with ST,You claim to have disproved this. I would like to hear an explanation how your experiment does not have the same res8lts as the expert one that I gave details of? This is the most obvious use of Auxin in re-generating roots on transplanted trees. Auxin is generally associated with lateral root growth.
4. Trees - to get two years growth in one? (their question mark, not mine - trying to imply it without being held accountable?)
Not sure what the question mark is for A happy healthy big root system will equal extra growth. That is basic auxin proven theory. This would be a good test of the product for a large advanced tree grower.

5. Fruiting - for earlier, heavier bearing? (again, their question mark)Auxin is again widely used by the orchards for things like holding the fruit longer. I don't see anything unbelievable here.

6. Seeds - "to make germination percentage and speed earlier, better yields - including vegetables" (?)
Auxin is widely documented to increase germination in seeds. I believe there is some evidence in stronger resulting seedlings. Yes I remember instead of a deep tap root the root has many lateral roots. This is not good for some nurseries due to a shallow root system and drought failure, but very interesting for bonsai application.

7. Lawns - to make quicker, denser, tougher turfAgain it is well documented and the use of Auxin in the lawn industry is widely excepted to make a superior lawn.

Then there is a long list of plants, presumably those that would benefit from ST.
I would class this as ideas for use and don't see any trouble with any. Lets look at one that has had my thoughts lately though.
Flowering Plant competitions.
Lets say we have an azalea that has flowered a little too early for an upcoming bonsai competition. What we understand about auxin can mean that we make the competition with a full blossom of pristine flowers instead of wilting ones.

According to this label and their website, then, ST will benefit essentially all aspects of the germination and growth of all plants - oh, and rescue stressed plants too.

It is well documented that the auxin in Superthrive helps with germination and re-generation of roots in stressed plants. There seems to be some indication of reducing the chance of stress in the first place.

I don't see how testimonials from many respected customers is worthless?

In my experiment, I had a bunch of bare root starters that I soaked in ST as described on this label under the heading of "Quantities" "Bare Root". I used it as directed, and could see no benefit. Therefore, I have disproved one claim (#3 above) as best as I can understand their vaguely worded claim. That is enough for me to expect the ST people to provide demonstrable proof of their other claims.

I would love to hear your scientific explanation why your experiment that you claims disproves the claim of "Outdoor plants and bare roots - Starts outdoor plants, "new root and foliage action, shooting down, up"" Is a very different result to the field study done by Department of Agriculture Newforge Lane, Belfast, BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
that showed up to 20 times the lateral root growth on responsive species?

I don't expect to get anywhere with this discussion, but don't tell me I'm ignoring your reasonable requests to clarify.

The only reason this discussion stalled was because I had to repeatedly ask for you to clarify

Many of those claims can, and have been, conclusively proven to be false

After all this all we have is a list of all the claims by superthrive, my description of how they relate to auxin and your claim that they have or can be proven false with no information to back your claims.
If you still disagree with any of the claims please stipulate which ones with an explanation why and /or the proof that you claim there is.

[Bretts]

I apologise unreservedly for the over-enthusiastic and somewhat inconsiderate behaviour of my fellow countryman, Brian. I suspect he means well though many, but not all, Australians are quite so blunt and direct.

Perhaps this product, as a staple of gardening from the mid-20th century, is the victim of popular marketing styles at the time? The wording smacks of the wild but vague declamatory style popularised at first by Thomas Barratt of Pears Soap and adopted in the 1920s and 1930s by many US consumer goods firms.

Speak for yourself Hector. The inconsiderateness here is people who slander and then state they don't have to prove their claims. This makes me do all the work for their claims if I am to continue with the discussion. Not all Australians are the same no. Some just listen to opinion and follow their peers without considering the facts. Thankfully there are not that many of them here.

I am starting to like the Label now that I take time to read it. If you got it flaunt it