Super Thrive

[FrFrancis]

I recently was given a bottle of Super Thrive and noticed their packaging no longer mentioned use for orchids. It seems like it was highly recommended at one point in time but I never hear anything about it anymore. Does it actually really help orchids?

[silken]

I think it does help roots develop and maybe growth too. I think you hear less about it now because so many people use seaweed (kelp) products for similar reasons. Seaweed really promotes root growth in orchids and is less expensive and easier to find.

They all (including SuperThrive) have a shelf life and need to be kept in a cool dark place or they deteriorate.

[tucker85]

I know growers who still use Superthrive. I think it's a good product but I got better results from a seaweed product so I switched to that. Here in South Florida, Superthrive has a reputation for causing flower deformities if you use more than the label recommends. At the recommended dose I think it does help promote plant health.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by tucker85

I know growers who still use Superthrive. I think it's a good product but I got better results from a seaweed product so I switched to that. Here in South Florida, Superthrive has a reputation for causing flower deformities if you use more than the label recommends. At the recommended dose I think it does help promote plant health.

To what Tucker said, and to follow up the most recent post of FrFrancis:
1. I also experienced deformity in Cattleya alliance flowers after over-use of KLN - one bloom cycle only, did not persist, back to normal next bloom cycle. Was it the KLN? Hard to tell just from one plant.

2. I have used a different brand of kelp from what Ray sells (Growmore vs. the Kelpmax Ray sells). I do see increased root branching with consistent use. However, I have not attempted any kind of trial to see if there is a quantifiable benefit to using the kelp (or to test the alternate hypothesis, that I'm an idiot that has wasted money on dead seaweed juice).

If I was a betting man, I would wager that there is a real benefit to using the kelp. I'm happy with the Growmore, and based on comments by many on this and other orchid forums, it appears that people that use Kelpmax are happy with that too. I have never heard of deformities caused by using a kelp product (has anyone else?). I suspect that in addition to the plant hormones, there is a significant micronutrient content too.

[Whimgrinder]

It's snake oil. Don't waste your money.

See: The Defenitive SuperThrive Experiment: The Final Results (Day 48) - YouTube

And an excellent study by Barry Rice, respected botanist:
http://www.sarracenia.com/pubs/cpn38-24-27.pdf

[FrFrancis]

Thanks Whimgrinder!

[Whimgrinder]

The problem with something like SuperThrive is that those who loudly proclaim what a miracle it is, have never done a study that includes a control group - they simply apply it and conclude that their success is due entirely to the SuperThrive! That's not science!
I see it all the time in a variety of horticultural interest groups: less emphasis on doing science and too much confirmation bias baloney. Believing something doesn't make it true.

[Ray]

Many moons ago, I purchased 150 each of Phalaenopsis Lemforde White Beauty and Oncidium Sharry Baby from a local nursery. I moved them from flats to pots, split them into three "identical" groups, and clustered them together in the greenhouse.

Group A received my normal watering and feeding regimen. Group B got that with the addition of 1/8 teaspoon per gallon SuperThrive. Group C received the same treatment, but I substituted a stimulant formula of my own creation.

After 6 months, groups B & C were significantly larger than those receiving just fertilizer. Yes it was a small sampling, but the differences were obvious to anyone who saw them. I think my own stuff was better than the SuperThrive batch, but I was a bit biased...

[Whimgrinder]

Originally Posted by Ray

Many moons ago, I purchased 150 each of Phalaenopsis Lemforde White Beauty and Oncidium Sharry Baby from a local nursery. I moved them from flats to pots, split them into three "identical" groups, and clustered them together in the greenhouse.

Group A received my normal watering and feeding regimen. Group B got that with the addition of 1/8 teaspoon per gallon SuperThrive. Group C received the same treatment, but I substituted a stimulant formula of my own creation.

After 6 months, groups B & C were significantly larger than those receiving just fertilizer. Yes it was a small sampling, but the differences were obvious to anyone who saw them. I think my own stuff was better than the SuperThrive batch, but I was a bit biased...

For some specific plants, under specific circumstances, there may be some benefit to be had from concoctions like SuperThrive, but I am sure the benefits are minor to nonexistent for most of the application scenarios.

I'm glad you saw some benefit from it, Ray. But you won't convince me to choose ST over a balanced nutrient regimen, which I believe is how I can best achieve optimal plant health. I would even consider ProTekt (silicate) or Triacontonol way before I'd invest in SuperThrive. At least there is documentation to support the growth enhancement/health benefit properties of these two. I've yet to see a formal study that definitively showed that SuperThrive had an obvious beneficial effect in trials.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ----------

From February 5, 2010:

Originally Posted by Ray

I have continued to play with SuperThrive and K-L-N (NAA, IBA, and B1) over the years, and have concluded that if there is something "iffy" about your culture, they can help, but if you're doing a pretty good job with your plants in the first place, they add little, if anything. I only use them as a soak for transplants - sort of a "kick start" to help them get reestablished.

You seem a lot less convinced in the passage quoted here, Ray, than you do in your statement today. Has your opinion changed in the past five years, and if so - why? I'd like to know :-)

[Ray]

The nepenthes study apparently did not take into account the freshness of the material tested, so proves nothing to me. The application rates were pretty strong, too, which may cause issues.

The application of ANY auxin in excessive quantities can be detrimental to the plant. Their relative strengths, or chemical activities vary all over the map, changing the amount needed to go from "beneficial" to "disruptive". 2-, 4-D is an auxin that is used as a weed killer, yet in very low concentrations is used in at least one plant stimulant that I'm aware of.