# Has anyone Tried Fulvex?



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 22, 2016)

I just wonder if it's worth it.

I know people have talked about the good effects of fulvic (humic) acids.
So I just picked one product among so many (such a headache!).

The lable (online) shows that it is loaded with elements that are already present in my fertilizer except for the three bigs ones (NPK), but it says mix it with base fertilizer to apply.

Now I'm wondering how much of pH this will drop, I assume very little to nothing with the recommended dilution although I'm curious as the label on the bottle does say to adjust the pH to 6.8 to 7 before applying. 
I need to get some pH test strips.


----------



## Ray (Apr 23, 2016)

I experimented with humic acids a long while ago, and did not see any particular benefit, but I'll admit that it was more "shot in the dark" testing than a reasonable evaluation.

They are supposed to enhance nutrient uptake, but considering the low nutrient demands of orchids, is that attempt at "force feeding" truly beneficial?


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

Well, I have it now so I'll use it anyway. 

When it sounds too good to be true, I guess it usually is. lol


----------



## PaphMadMan (Apr 23, 2016)

I haven't tried the product, but I can comment on the chemistry of humic and fulvic acids and the importance of pH.

Humic and fulvic acids are the soluble components of humus - the insoluble (under normal circumstances) part is called humin. They are a diverse group of complex organic compounds, the last bit of organic matter that resists further breakdown in soil environments. Humic and fulvic acids are all soluble at neutral pH and above, but as pH becomes more acidic the humic acid components begin to precipitate. There isn't a clear distinction, but at some point in pH and concentration the compounds that have precipitated are humic acids and the ones that stay soluble are fulvic acids. 

The pH adjustment to 6.8 to 7 is just making sure the humic acid is soluble. That is generally in the peak solubility range for many nutrients as well, but some fertilizer solutions are more acidic depending on formulation. The Fulvex on its own should probably be in that range, but in a mixed solution it is your fertilizer that will probably do more to determine the final pH. If your fertilizer is significantly more acidic you could precipitate some humic acid. Do you know your usual fertilizer pH?

How effective are they? I don't know, but I've started to use a granular humic acid product myself, so far just in a more bonsai application rather than orchids. They should improve micro-nutrient retention and availability. In organic media the breakdown will constantly produce humic and fulvic acids, though fresh or mostly inorganic media might start out with a very limited amount so that's why I'm trying it.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

I never measure pH ( I don't have a way to do it, yet, but I would like to.) but I didn't see any precipitation in the diluted solution so I guess it was alright. 

I assume most fertilizer solution is slightly acidic?

I need to order some pH test strips. 

By the way, the way I understand is that fulvic acid is humic acid of lower molecular weight and higher oxygen content.

I see that the color of concentrate in the bottle is brown and smells funny (but not necessarily unpleasant, just strange lol).
My main interest was basically what the label claims, and that's what you stated as well, that fulvic acid is able to bind to other cations, which are basically majority of the nutrient elements that plants need, and is able to then transport them into the plant cells rather easily.
Then, it says how other ingredient (doesn't say what) help stimulate the plant metabolic activity.

Oh, well...many such product labels sound very sweet in general, so I do not put too much weight on it, but this time, I got sucked into it. lol

It says to apply every watering, but today I am watering everything with just plain tap water. gotta get back to watering the rest now.

By the way, I do see that bark mix (especially) tend to leach out brownish water, which I thought was tannin or whatever the chemical the bark contains, but is it actually humic acid of some sort??


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 23, 2016)

I have used fulvic for a year or so as a supplement to my low fertiliser level. Perhaps it improves something, but am not sure. Will probably not continue once I run out of the stuff because my irrigatin water contains it anyhow.(brown water from my own bog:clap


----------



## Ray (Apr 23, 2016)

Many of the commercial humic acids on the market are derived from lignite, a low grade of coal...


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> I have used fulvic for a year or so as a supplement to my low fertiliser level. Perhaps it improves something, but am not sure. Will probably not continue once I run out of the stuff because my irrigatin water contains it anyhow.(brown water from my own bog:clap



That is what I did with Superthrive years ago.
Now I wonder if it is similar because I remember it was also brown and smelled funny and similar but nastier.

I never saw any influence of it, so when I threw it away before the bottle even ran out. lol

Someone mentioned megathrive, and I bought that one also. It did nothing.
I guess I never learned and keep getting sucked into the commercial gimmick. lol

I guess this will be my last give in. no more! haha


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

Ray said:


> Many of the commercial humic acids on the market are derived from lignite, a low grade of coal...



Mine says it is derived from Magnesium Sulfate, which is basically Epsom salt. I don't know how they derive fulvic acids out of that?
I don't know. but then it says it has 70+ things are in the bottle, and they list a few on the label, which are as I mentioned, "trace" elements that are found already in my fertilizer. 

I should have bought one more plant with the money. haha


----------



## gonewild (Apr 23, 2016)

Happypaphy7 said:


> Mine says it is derived from Magnesium Sulfate, which is basically Epsom salt. I don't know how they derive fulvic acids out of that?
> I don't know. but then it says it has 70+ things are in the bottle, and they list a few on the label, which are as I mentioned, "trace" elements that are found already in my fertilizer.
> 
> I should have bought one more plant with the money. haha



Epsom Salts is just another name for Magnesium sulfate, no difference.
Fulvic acid derived from Magnesium sulfate would require Harry Potter magic.
Maybe the label means your product contains both Fulvi acid and Magnesium sulfate?


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

No, I know that, hence it smelled fishy to me at first.
The label literally says so word for word.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

BTW, I don't know if this fulvex thing helped or not, but some of my seedlings (henryanum and henryanum hybrid) had this yellowish new leaves.
I thought Fe or Mg deficiency although nothing else looked like this.

I've been diligently pouring this thing on them in the past few waterings and they are greening up. maybe coincidental?

They were not under T8, so it wasn't the light bleaching them.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 23, 2016)

This is from the product info for Fulvex on the Botanicare website.
Fulvex is a blend of different elements so it should not be compared to the use of pure fulvic acid or even fulvic acid that is contained in Humic acid.
I'm not saying Fulvex is bad just that it is not "Fulvic acid", It simply contains fulvic acid in its recipe. Perhaps your label is very misleading (wrong).

_
Description
Fulvex is an all natural liquid extract that combines concentrated
amounts of fulvic acid, magnesium sulfate (a known plant catalyst),
and a blend of over 72 trace minerals. Fulvex is beneficial for both
hydroponic and soil applications. This blend is designed to work
with a grower’s existing nutrient feed formula to enhance nutrient
availability and increase mineral uptake._


----------



## JAB (Apr 23, 2016)

I have used Fulvex on other plants and personally I would suggest Ful Power by Bioag, and/or TM-7 from the same company. The TM-7 has additional micronutrients as well as humic acids. Recently been using Black Diamond from GH but I am not a huge fan of the company in general and the product is good but really messy! 
Cheers
JAB


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

Yes, that is the label on the website.
It does say it has fulvic acid in it along with some 70+ something elements it claims it has. 

Regarding the MgSO4, sorry my bad.
On the label of the bottle, it says guaranteed analysis: Magnesium 1.0% and it is derived from Magnesium Sulfate. My bad. lol

I don't know why it only claims Mg as guaranteed analysis when it says it contains so many other stuff in it. strange.




gonewild said:


> This is from the product info for Fulvex on the Botanicare website.
> Fulvex is a blend of different elements so it should not be compared to the use of pure fulvic acid or even fulvic acid that is contained in Humic acid.
> I'm not saying Fulvex is bad just that it is not "Fulvic acid", It simply contains fulvic acid in its recipe. Perhaps your label is very misleading (wrong).
> 
> ...


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

JAB said:


> I have used Fulvex on other plants and personally I would suggest Ful Power by Bioag, and/or TM-7 from the same company. The TM-7 has additional micronutrients as well as humic acids. Recently been using Black Diamond from GH but I am not a huge fan of the company in general and the product is good but really messy!
> Cheers
> JAB



Thanks for the feedback of the product use.

But this product also says it has vulvic (humic acid) and lots of other stuff in it. See the web label info. 
It basically looks like fertilizer with all the trace elements without the big three, NPK. 

So, I don't know how this would be any different than those other products you mentioned?
This is all too confusing.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 23, 2016)

Happypaphy7 said:


> Regarding the MgSO4, sorry my bad.
> On the label of the bottle, it says guaranteed analysis: Magnesium 1.0% and it is derived from Magnesium Sulfate. My bad. lol
> 
> I don't know why it only claims Mg as guaranteed analysis when it says it contains so many other stuff in it. strange.



Probably because Mg is the major content and the other elements are in such small amounts they fall below the legal labeling requirement!

Again I'm not saying it is not good for something but I would never use a fertilizer product that carefully hides the content. To me they are using clever words to sell you water. Fulvex contains fulvic acid...but how much? 
Its a secret. :rollhappy: 

Next to The magnesium content the highest mineral content is *Sodium 560 ppm*.............. That turns me off.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 23, 2016)

Exactly!

I mean I'm sure those other 70+ something are in such small quantity that they did not list as you say, but still. 

I will just use it up and then that will be the end. haha

Or I might just grab a different product of similar kind. haha


----------



## gonewild (Apr 23, 2016)

Or if it works keep using it.


----------



## Ray (Apr 24, 2016)

Happypaphy7 said:


> I don't know why it only claims Mg as guaranteed analysis when it says it contains so many other stuff in it. strange.



That may be the only thing they actually control! Some of these products, especially when containing "natural" ingredients, are pretty variable, and since what's documented on a label must be guaranteed by law, they don't.

KelpMax is a veritable chemical smorgasbord, but you'll see it's labeled only as kelp extract, not the specific ingredients.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 24, 2016)

Ok, thanks.


----------



## myxodex (Apr 25, 2016)

I use a humic acid product at much lower rate than that recommended, the fert mix looks very pale brown. 
I do this simply to complex cations, but not sure it makes any difference.

There is some research which suggests that humic acid preparations vary in their beneficial contents. Humic acid derived from worm castings is more active at promoting plant growth than that derived from leonardite or lignite (most commercial forms). I have to find and re-read the papers on this, but the suggestion was that organic acids induce a slow release of auxin like compounds from humic acid preparations and that HA from worm castings produces more. I'm not entirely convinced that auxin release is the whole story here, but maybe an important part of it.

There is a link here to plant beneficial bacteria. Some plant beneficial bacteria have been shown to increase the rate of nutrient uptake in plant roots. Although it is not entirely clear how they do this, one group in this field has pointed the finger at auxin production. Some plant beneficial bacteria are known to produce auxins by conversion of the amino acid trypophan into indole acetic acid (classic auxin). If they are root zone specialists it makes sense,... they get more real estate.

What is clear is that, as Kirk has pointed out before, humic substances are poorly defined at the molecular level and so one bottle of humic acid isn't necessarily the same as another. It is possible the HA from worm castings isn't completely decomposed and hasn't fully released all it's beneficial compounds.


----------



## Ray (Apr 25, 2016)

Plants absorb nutrients primarily as cations in solution. Why would you want to complex them and make them less (or more slowly) absorbable?


----------



## gonewild (Apr 25, 2016)

Ray said:


> Plants absorb nutrients primarily as cations in solution. Why would you want to complex them and make them less (or more slowly) absorbable?



The key to what you said is the word "primarily". The unknown is how and if plants also absorb nutrients from other sources and in forms other than cations in solution. My guess is that orchids have evolved to be able to do so. That is how they can grow and flourish in a cation poor environment. So providing a source for nutrients in a more complex form may actually improve growth. 

In an artificial environment orchids need nutrients from an artificial source and liquid fertilizer is that "life support". But that does not mean it is the only source or best source of nutrients. It's time to be open to unknown possibilities and not assume published science is the final answer.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 25, 2016)

Also, I think what he meant to say about complex cation thing is porbably one of the main supposed benefits of using fulvic acid, which is to combine with cation and makes them easier to get into the plant tissues?

I read that this is one of the greatest aspect of humic/fulvic acid.

Also, as he pointed out, since different products vary, I wish they specified or made it clear what the difference was. sigh~


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 25, 2016)

gonewild said:


> In an artificial environment orchids need nutrients from an artificial source and liquid fertilizer is that "life support". But that does not mean it is the only source or best source of nutrients. It's time to be open to unknown possibilities and not assume published science is the final answer.



I agree. 
Artificial fertilizer won't be as efficient as natural, by this I mean the complex interaction between plant roots and microorganism activities.

We do what we can, though with limited ability. lol

By the way, I don't think we assume published science is the final answer.
It is just that published paper gives us something concrete to see.
It is not always perfect and always has room to improve as new study design or sample and ideas emerge, anyway. 
Science is always open to the unknown and aim the unveil that unknown. I think that is at least the goal and why people keep trying. 
Isn't it right??


----------



## PaphMadMan (Apr 25, 2016)

Ray said:


> Plants absorb nutrients primarily as cations in solution. Why would you want to complex them and make them less (or more slowly) absorbable?



I'm not sure how much less available a complexed cation is, but at least it stays in the root zone instead of being easily washed away with the next rain. I think it likely that plant roots have evolved to absorb the nutrients that are always there, not just the ones that are available in transient pulses. In that sense, I'm not sure how much benefit there would be to a plant in S/H compared to an epiphyte growing in nature with roots surrounded by a limited amount of humus.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 25, 2016)

Don't they get washed off during watering??
Then, fertilizing every week might accumulate a lot of salts?


----------



## gonewild (Apr 25, 2016)

Happypaphy7 said:


> By the way, I don't think we assume published science is the final answer.
> It is just that published paper gives us something concrete to see.
> It is not always perfect and always has room to improve as new study design or sample and ideas emerge, anyway.
> Science is always open to the unknown and aim the unveil that unknown. I think that is at least the goal and why people keep trying.
> Isn't it right??



There are members of this forum that have argued that unless it is published science then it is not to be considered as possible. Previously I have been called many names for suggesting the things being discussed in this thread.
It's nice to see this thread being a little more tranquil and open minded! :wink:


----------

