Kelp / Seaweed Additives

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I wonder if you used at a lower dosage every other water, How that would effect the plant?
 
I use a low dose once a week with my fertilizer. Have been since spring.

Lots of roots, growths, and leaves, but don't know if its the rest of the program.

At least nothing negative to report.
 
is there really any difference in the products that are fish extracts that may have kelp/seaweed, or is it better to use the kelp/seaweed extracts without fish? (for nutrition, not to avoid the smell ;) )
 
I guess it depends upon what you're trying to accomplish.

The kelps provide all sorts of minor elements and enzymes and the like, while the fish is going to be primarily a source of macronutrients, no?
 
I am wondering if there are products in europe so I could start a trial with cyps and seedlings too.
 
is there really any difference in the products that are fish extracts that may have kelp/seaweed, or is it better to use the kelp/seaweed extracts without fish? (for nutrition, not to avoid the smell ;) )

The believe the growth regulator hormones of plants (cytokynins and auxins)
are not the same as for fish.

Fish extracts also should not contain fulvic acid.

So I really think this is an apples to oranges thing.

I think what got the world as fired up on kelp as a general plant aid, is that it is known to be the fastest growing plant in the world. So if you grind it up and press out the extract, then at least you should be applying the "magic essence" of a mega growing plant to your plants.
 
Last edited:
But is kelp really a "plant"? Taxonomy of seaweeds is a mess.....I guess some people still consider kelp and other macroalgae as plants... but most, formerly, seemed to consider them as "protists", which is a totally worthless concept, scientifically (although its great in a simply descriptive sense). I've seen some taxomomies that simply assigned kingdoms to some of the macroalgae's.....Point being, if its not a plant, how much of its characteristics can be equated with plants?
 
But is kelp really a "plant"? Taxonomy of seaweeds is a mess.....I guess some people still consider kelp and other macroalgae as plants... but most, formerly, seemed to consider them as "protists", which is a totally worthless concept, scientifically (although its great in a simply descriptive sense). I've seen some taxomomies that simply assigned kingdoms to some of the macroalgae's.....Point being, if its not a plant, how much of its characteristics can be equated with plants?

Regardless of taxonomy it seems to be full of max quantities of plant stuff (like auxins and cytokynins).

It's been a few years since taking algology, but alga were in the plant kingdom back then because they had so many process/structures analogous with terrestrial vascular plants.
 
But is kelp really a "plant"? Taxonomy of seaweeds is a mess.....I guess some people still consider kelp and other macroalgae as plants... but most, formerly, seemed to consider them as "protists", which is a totally worthless concept, scientifically (although its great in a simply descriptive sense). I've seen some taxomomies that simply assigned kingdoms to some of the macroalgae's.....Point being, if its not a plant, how much of its characteristics can be equated with plants?

Wikipedia had some interesting points on this. Parts of the group that includes kelp (don't have the spelling in my head) were put into protists (something about mold and slime algae). Species considered "brown algae" were put into plants. Then somewhere in 2005 the entire original "kelp" group were given a kingdom all unto themselves along with 5 other eukaryotic groups.

It is a mess, but it looks like taxonomists are still having problems calling them something other than a plant.
 
That's why I like the Domain system. Too many inconsistencies with "kingdoms". this way, they are all just Eukaryotes.
 
OK. Did some more digging, and have started carrying Kelpak.

If the cytokinins are at- or above the level of the auxins, whether the plant has an "auxin response" or a "cytokinin response" is apparently dependent more on the plant than anything else, and varies all over the map. If, on the other hand, the auxin level is higher, the response is consistently an auxin one. Kelpak is higher in auxins, but it appears that's more dependent upon processing than genus or species.

Their research shows auxins causing the initiation of root branching and new root tip growth, and root tips are where a cytokinins are primarily produced, so you get a bigger root mass (enhancing water and mineral uptake), and the cyto's spur on top growth supported by the enhanced uptakes.

I'm also starting to market a product that is fertilizer and seaweed in one - I call it "Solo" as you only need the one product. Right now I'm making it with MSU, but I might go with K-Lite in the future, if that pans out.
 
Pretty cool Ray.

Besides the plant hormones, kelp extracts usually have many of the trace metals added to the MSU type ferts.

Do you have analysis to share of the kelp extract beyond the auxin/cytokynin numbers?
 
Thanks for the tip on storing Superthrive.

The fertiliser I have started using includes kelp. Does that mean using a product such as Superthrive is now redundant?
 
Thanks for the tip on storing Superthrive.

The fertiliser I have started using includes kelp. Does that mean using a product such as Superthrive is now redundant?

No... But you find that you only have to use superthrive in moderation. Quality of kelp products vary greatly along with amounts used in organic fertilizers. Good quality cold pressed kelp can go for $100 for 500 ml. But you only have to use .5-1 ml per gal.
 
1 I thought Superthrive was banned in Oz because they couldn't substantiate the claims??

2 I can't find a kelp product which is low in K??
 
Back
Top