Al, the topic of plant hormones is quite complex, and to understand how they work one should be diligent in understanding botany, particularly plant biochemistry. But for the consumer, I think it is the responsibility of the company manufacturing the product to have research available and discussed in simple terms; research papers for peer review should also be available for those educated on the subject. After all, some people buy in huge quantities only to find everything in their greenhouse is now suffering, relying on beliefs rather than facts. What is on the label is generally deceptive and labels are part of clever sales tactics. Information NOT included is part of their smoke and mirrors. But the "labeling" is all the other information that should be available about the product, which is true with at least pesticides in the U.S. by law. If this "labeling" is not available, be skeptical. You should not have to pay any bucks for a product to do your own experiements. (Can you imagine this with medications and the pharmaceutical industry? Why do it with plants?). There are biochemical compounds that have cytokinin effects, such as Hypoxanthine, Adenine, Kinetin, Benzyladenice, Zeatin, Dipheylaurea, and N6-Isopentenyladenine(2iP). You are right - so what really is in the product that Candle Tree considered? Would supplements of IAA at specific times and in specific proportions be necessary to make it effective? And there are other considerations. That would be to complex for most non-professionals, but applications might be necessary. As for Superthrive, two Ph.Ds I studied under both referred to it as "snake oil" coincidentally. One mentioned that independent lab analysis was done on the product at different times by different labs and the ingredients were not even consistent. Also mentioned was that iron and other micronutrients were sometimes added and sometimes not - depending on the batch. There were other problems with mixing ingredients together that would disintegrate each other's compounds on contact. I cannot say any of this is true or not true, since I didn't pursue the matter. The problem with adding mineral nutrients is that any excess of one element will create deficiencies in others; they bind together into insoluble complexes that the roots cannot absorb. So if you fertilise, and this product says it is no substitute for fertilisers, you could create problems. If the pH of the soil or potting medium drops too low, foliage will show nasty toxicity symptoms. As I said, I had no interest in this product at the time of these lectures to get the specifics on this research. But Superthrive does not seem to have any credibility in the scientific community from what I can find, only believers. But why should it? "Mystery potion", as I call it, does not list the ingredients that would bind the company to state inspection and product validation.

Spider mites were repelled and poisoned by alcohol extracts of spider plant, common stinging nettle, and chili pepper (each separately) when rose leaves were dipped in the solution. Cleome was most effective. Note: it doesn't mean that growing the plants alongside roses will control spider mites on roses.

Rina, I don't disagree with anything you wrote. That comment of mine certainly is deserving of a rebuttal. Because I wrote so much already, I didn't include that I understand that most newbies use peat and also tend to water succulents like they do tropical houseplants. But sometimes people see a little bit of peat somewhere, like in some of mine, and I've seen them literally write, peat causes the roots to rot. Which I'm saying isn't true, especially if repotting every few years at least. Sometimes assumptions are made. I've also grown plants in 'pots' without a drainage hole. With peat this can be done, very carefully. But with a gritty mix that would be near impossible. Meaning, some who use a gritty mix and are used to that, and see someone using peat (which causes root rot) using a pot with no drainage hole means it must be drowning in water. I know I'm writing about a small percentage of people, but again, we shouldn't be too quick to assume, even if it's just 5% of people. I don't mean to sound snippy. I'm a curmudgeon, but a nice one. :) It's hard to see people's tone, and I should realize that too when reading others. I also don't often explain things well enough.

I have chickens. All the shells go in the compost, then into the garden. I always find it interesting that people worry about eggshells breaking down. First, they do. They break down pretty quickly in my garden---into small chips. Second, if the didn't, why would I care? The other thing that I find to be a positive contribution is that if you vermicompost, you quickly notice how much worms like gathering all their family into slimy balls to take up residence in an eggshell half. If worms are half as enthused in the yard as they are in Tupperware, then I think eggshells are valuable as a worm attractant.