Plant growth promoters they do work!

There are many products on the market which form a connecting link between foliar fertilizers and pesticides. Are they effective?
Tomasz Czubiski At numerous requests of our readers, the editorial staff of top agrar Poland undertook another difficult task, which is a test of plant growth promoters. Under this general name stand products named by their manufacturers and distributors in many different ways: biostimulants, growth stimulators, nutrient activators, promoters etc. In fact these marketing names introduce only confusion to the market and do not help the farmers to understand this type of product. Manufacturers are trying to be different from each other by describing their products in more and more sophisticated ways. It is worth noting that plant growth promoters can be registered and introduced to market in many different ways and from this comes the variety of their descriptions. Some of these products are registered as pesticides (Asahi), others as foliar feeds or biostimulant fertilizers. Nevertheless farmers are demanding to be able to categorise this group of products and most of all, to verify their effectiveness. Different registration procedures If a manufacturer decides to register his product as a plant protection product, he has the right to say on the label that it regulates processes in plant in a different way than fertilizer materials (e.g. it is a growth regulator or stimulator of growth and yield). However, it involves very high costs of registration, several hundred times higher than in a case of registering product as for example a fertilizer. This procedure was used for example in the case of Asahi and the Kelpak product (due to the change in legislation Kelpak is not anymore in the register of pesticides). Because of that these products have been tested not only in terms of chemical composition, but also their effectiveness (the testing served to prove that the product works, as it is specified on the label) . Plant growth promoters can be also registered as biostimulants, according to the procedures used in the registration of fertilizers. Therefore these products need to be additionally amended with nutrients in the form of macro or microelement salts. If there were no nutrients, it would be impossible to register them in this way. During the registration procedure manufacturer receives a WE symbol, which indirectly confirms that the product complies with EU regulations. That is why these products are described as fertilizers on the official labels and information about additional ingredients (extracts of algae, amino acids, plant extracts and recently also yeast extracts) that are also components of these products, may be used as a marketing trick or the information remains secret known only to the manufacturer. Simply, these products must be introduced on the market as fertilizers, because they underwent this type of official registration.
Spring barley, in which plant growth promoters were tested, was exposed to stress factors: severe frosts after emergence and drought at the tillering stage.

Regulating the legal status It depends on the manufacturers if they will conceal a chemical composition of the products or place some limited information on the labels (if the products are not registered as pesticides). At the moment farmers do not trust such descriptions and would prefer it was stated clearly what they use and what, in case of any doubts, they can analyse for. Arable farmers are spending often more than $15/ha for these products and they are skeptical about the magic effects claimed by the manufacturers, and would like to have reliable information about the product content and confirmation about it effectiveness. Hopefully in the next few years the situation of the legal status will be standardized. The European Biostimulants Industry Consortium, brings together a variety of manufacturers of such products and claims to establish legal directives for registration procedures of these products, was formed. Remi Lacaille from Arysta LifeScience company who is a representative of the Consortium claims that the registration procedure

One of the components of many plant growth promoters is an extract from sea algae. Producers of such products indicate different origin of the algae.

of biostimulants should be developed. It should not be as strict as in the case of plant protection products because these products are based on natural extracts. If there will be no need for toxicological and ecological examina-

tions (as it is the case of pesticides), the registration procedure will be cheaper. The Consortium, however, is supporting testing the efficacy of these products in field conditions. We will have to wait for the results of the activity of European

1
Products

Characteristic of tested plant growth promoters

Mode of action in plant according to manufacturer (distributor)
Growth regulator and yield stimulant, accelerating lush plant growth, prolonging the fruiting period and contributing to higher yield and improved quality of yield. It is advised to apply in the event of crop damage with e. g. plant protection products or in the stress conditions such as drought, frost and after sawing

Composition (active ingredients)

Manufacturer (distributor)

Asahi SL (is registered according to the procedures of plant protection products, however not in cereals) C-Weed 50 R Forthial

Sodium p-nitroPhenolate - 0.3% Sodium o-nitrophenolate - 0.2% Sodium 5-nitroguaiacolat e- 0.1% (compounds from the group of nitrophenols participate in important metabolic processes)

Arysta LifeScience Poland

Product for foliar application accelerating plant development and increasing tolerance to stress. Activator of yield, optimizing nutrition and increasing photosynthetic activity of flag leaf and F-1 leaf- producers of assimilates for ear, increasing yield and improving grain quality Phosphite biostimulant causing more effective usage of nitrogen and according to the manufacture containing the fastest acting phosphorus Promoter of plant growth and development, accelerating the growth and increasing crop tolerance to stress

Low-temperature concentrate of sea algae collected in Atlantic ocean and manganese (Mn) - 3% PAT (Physio Activator Technology - a patented technology based on extracts from seaweed - Ascophyllum nodosum); nitrogen- 6,2%, magnesium - 9% Nutrients, including 26% of phosphorus as phosphite with amino acid

Agro-Sie Arysta LifeScience Poland Daslgety Agra Poland

Nutri-Phite PGA

ProPlex

seaweed concentrate (5%) and nutrients: total nitrogen-2%, magnesium - 0.3%, sulphur - 5%, boron - 0.15%, copper - 0.05%, iron - 0.2% ; manganese - 0.1%, zinc - 0.5%, and trace amounts of plant hormones, betaine, amino acids, vitamin B1 potassium (K2O) - 3.5%, magnesium (MgO) - 0.42% copper (Cu) - 0.02%, and sulphur, manganese, boron and sodium

Agra Technologie Przyszoci

PRP EBV

Physiostimulant of plant vital functions, activating the natural plant response mechanisms to stress, allowing the use of genetic yield potential, a concentrated solution of minerals for foliar application

PRP Technologies

Scheme of the use of plant growth promoters

Combinations Asahi SL Asahi SL + Forthial Forthial Nutri-Phite PGA Dose (l/ha) 0.6 0.6 + 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 ProPlex PRP EBV 1.5 2.0 2.0 CWeed 50 R 0.75 Growth stages * BBCH 22 BBCH 22 BBCH 47 BBCH 30 BBCH 47 BBCH 23 BBCH 30 BBCH 47 BBCH 23

*Dates of treatments: BBCH 22 09.05.2011 (when the frost has finished), BBCH 23 13.05.2011, BBCH 30 16.05.2011, BBCH 47 31.05.2011

During the production of algae-based products, a macerate (cream) is obtained as first and then it is filtered to remove the solid parts

Biostimulants Industry Consortium. Being aware of the fact that the development of European law is rather slow, this will probably take several years. Nevertheless it is definitely worth supporting such an initiative, which will help clarify the situation of plant growth promoters on the market, at least those of natural origin. For the time being however, when we buy these products we must rely on the label, information about the efficacy of such products, which are in most of the cases tested only by their manufacturers or now our studies conducted in top agrar Poland. Experiment in difficult conditions The experiment was carried out in the fields of the Experimental Station IUNG - PIB in Baborwek, near Szamotuy (Great Poland province) under the supervision of Dr. Edwin Naglik and Dr. Krzysztof Kubsik. Spring 2011 was very tough for barley over there. In the first few days of May, a month after sowing the barley, a heavy frost occurred. The ground temperature dropped to -11 C. From mid-May, when barley entered in the critical phase in terms of water supply, there was a drought that lasted over a month. These were extremely stressful conditions for barley, which negatively affected the yield throughout the whole spring barley crop. Harvested field of spring barley was just over 2.5 t / ha, which was the lowest result for many years. Results of our experiment We tested the effectiveness of plant growth promoters in the conditions as

described above. These conditions seem to be ideal for testing the effectiveness of anti-stress products (table 1). However, when a short-term stress turns into lethal stress, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. The effectiveness of plant growth promoters was tested in replicated large area experiments (each product was applied to a total field of area of 1 ha , in a dose and the timing according to the label or the experts recommendations from the manufacturers). Although this experiment meets all the criteria of a scientific study, it must be emphasized that it is a one-year study, based on one variety of barley. Drawing conclusions about the economic comparison of products will be possible when the experiment will be repeated using many different varieties of barley, in different years and locations. This might be a great opportunity for independent scientific bodies. Shortly after the first

stress factor, frost in May, Asahi SL, Asahi SL in mixture with Forthial, slightly later ProPlex and C-Weed 50 R were applied. At the latest, Nutri-Phite PGA and PRP EBV were applied. The last two products did not affect the lowtemperature stress in May, but only assisted the plant in overcoming the June drought. Two factors were evaluated during the barley growing season (table 3): twice the vigour of plants (in the watery ripe phase at BBCH 71 and at early dough stage; BBCH 83) and the infection by fungal diseases under the supervision of Prof. Marek Korbas and Tadeusz awecki. Examination of the foliar disease situation aimed to investigate whether these products in any way can increase the plant resistance to diseases (as it is frequently claimed by promoters distributors in their marketing materials). Despite the poor condition of barley that was originally affected by the May frost (in terms

Evaluation of the leaves health condition*

CombinationsPlants vigor* BBCH 71 Control Asahi SL Asahi SL+ Forthial Forthial NutriPhite PGA (2) ProPlex PRP EBV (2) CWeed 50 R
o

Net blotch** BBCH 83 2 2 3 2.5 3 3.5 3 3.5

o

of infection BBCH 71 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4

of infrction BBCH 83 3.5 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.6
o

% of infection in comparison to control

3 3,5 3,5 3 3 4 3,5 4

100 80 69 74 83 69 74 74

* Rank of plant greenness in 9 scale (where 0 - yellowish leaves, plants drying up, 9 - plants vividly green). **First examination: BBCH 71 (13.06.2011)- leaf F-1 and F-2 examined. Second examination: BBCH 83 (30.06.2011)- trace occurrence of powdery mildew, rust in controls (0.1% of infected leaves in each)

Tested barley was checked mainly for net blotch, powdery mildew and rust occurrence.

The health condition of barley plants was examined in laboratory conditions by Prof. Marek Korbas from IOR in Pozna, Poland.

of density) and the poorly filled ears (due to prolonged drought) it can be concluded, based on the conducted experiments, that all the tested products were effective. We noted as well that products that were applied later maintain a better vigour through to harvest. Severe drought and low plant population did not favour the disease occurrence. However even this parameter was evaluated. The intensification of only one disease, net blotch, was noticed on the spring barley. Not until the end of vegetative growth, after the rainfall, were powdery mildew and rust observed. With so little infection by pathogenic fungi (only 3.5 percent of the controls were infected with net blotch at the beginning of early dough stage), it was concluded that all the products, even though not fungicides themselves, they measurably reduced the infection rate by pathogenic fungi. Although this "effectiveness" is not high, surprisingly positive is the fact that it contributes to the health condition of barley plants. This confirms that probably

these products increase the resistance in crops. Yield of barley has increased At the end of growing season each tested field (large area experiment, fields of area of around 1 ha) was harvested using a combine harvester with isotopic yield sensor and GPS. All of the products combinations used in the experiment had a positive influence on the barley yield (table 4) an increase in yield from 0.3 to 2.1 dt /ha was observed. Nevertheless, we should not be comparing here individual products. In extremely difficult conditions the obtained yield is not the final indicator of the economic effectiveness of the product. If we compare the percent of yield increase and the thousand grain weight increase, we can make conclusions about the effectiveness of such products, especially in stress conditions. With such a low yield of barley we can not draw a direct conclusion about the economic response (if the total input was paid back with the yield

increase?). Although we did not manage to fully answer which product is the best, this study helped clarify doubts about the efficacy of this type of product. Now we can say for sure that they work positively under the stress conditions. In addition, further trials on larger areas should be undertaken in the future.

Tomasz Czubiski

Yield, thousand grain weight (TGW) and the cost of plant growth promoters use
Combinations Yield dt/ha Control Asahi SL Asahi SL + Forthial Forthial Nutri-Phite PGA (2x) ProPlex PRP EBV(2x) CWeed 50 R 24.6 25.0 26.0 25.1 24.9 26.7 25.5 27.0 dt/ha 0.4 1.4 0.5 0.3 2.1 0.9 2.4 Increase in yield and TGW* % 1.6 5.7 2.0 1.2 8.5 3.7 9.8 TGW 44.0 44.6 44.9 44.4 44.5 45.2 44.6 44.6 % 1.4 2.1 0.9 1.1 1.4 2.7 1.4 Income growth per ha (z/ha)** 32.0 112.0 40.0 24.0 168.0 72.0 192.0 Costs of treatments (z/ha)

60.0 100.0 40.0 72.0 42.0 188.0 60.0

*Yield increase in comparison with the control. **Selling prize of barley 80z/dt.