Gudang

Please consider what you've just asked:

"Is there any prove or study that plants can't absorb vitamins from outside?"

One can't prove a negative of anything, think about it.

Gudang, there's so much definitive and objective evidence of exactly which elements plants DO need that the vast majority of us act accordingly, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

My main concern with plant 'nutrition' is that they should get the elements they need in the proportions that they need them. If I give them anything they can't use or give too much or too little of a nutrient, whatever the plant doesn't use is deposited in the soil as a solid, which will throw off the soil chemistry and affect the ability of the root system to take up water, which would be a bad and unnecessary thing.

So I'll stick with my Foliage Pro, which costs less than a multivitamin, is easy to apply, and makes my plants very very happy (regardless of whether or not they love me).

@karen

I asked that way because the word can't, dominate the comments. And yes, people can prove a negative. Just googling it.

Plants using energy as efficient as possible. In normal condition, plants absorb nutriens through their roots, and build most of things internally. All nutrients, very small ionic form is a must, from root upward almost no energy required. Bigger molecules from leaves sending downward also efficiently helped by gravity. Geotropism take it's part.

But sometimes, plants not in normal condition. They will allow things they need to get in through other methods, as long as they think it's more efficient on doing it rather than build on their own. Stomata, epidermis.. skin? Sorry my english so bad. If virus that have hundred times bigger able to get in, so vitamins may have a chance. Vitamins is possible absorbed into phloem and distributed, not like nutrients path that have to go deep into xylem and transported directly upward to leaves.

@litterbuggy

All plants body able to absorb and identify their needs and respond accordingly to get max result with lowest energy required.

Try layering. Bend a stem to the ground and cover it with soil. The stem will absorb and identify soil contents and start developing roots. Roots is just best way, not the one only, to absorb nutrients since root is the best on extend surface area in small space completed with screening ability so xylem not flooded with big molecule and fail on upward transporting. Root will only absorb small ions, but not with other part of plants. Ability to absorb hormone, vitamins, and many kind of foods is on their genetic for survival.

So my point is simple. Give vitamins only when root is hurt, damage, or unavailable. On healthy plants, giving vitamins is mostly useless since making them theirself is more energy efficient. All plants decisions depend on energy usage. Always that way.

Gudang, I was just explaining what I do and why, which is based on the scientific method. My confidence in the way I fertilize comes not just because of the scientific basis for it, but because of the amazing effect it has had on my previously sickly plants.

Still, I understand that others will do things differently based on other beliefs or experiences, and that's completely, totally okay by me.

Lenore

@litterbuggy

Yeah, i think i understand u completely. In tropical zone like me, root rot is common since the humidity is so high. On that case, foliar feeding , vitamins, and other non root treatments should be taken to save them, base on scientific method also of course. I don't know if it's available in english or not, but in my country, experiment on vit B for plants are plenty, and mostly with positive result.

I love the confidence that comes from dirty toes. It makes a difference if you have compost under your fingernails.

One should always recognize the fact that anything in the soil solution that is not needed by the the plant has no potential to serve as a benefit. It would only have the potential to limit a plant's vitality. There is a significant difference between plants and animals, and waxing anthropomorphic by dosing plants with vitamins manufactured for human consumption is walking a very fine line; so fine, in fact, that it's much more likely you'll end up unintentionally limiting your plant than stumbling on the next best thing. It's not a huge secret that plants need only 15 to 20 nutrients (depending on who you ask) to grow normally and complete their growth/life cycle(s), all of which are found in high quality fertilizers or well-managed mineral soils.

Al

Ahhh we have discovered the one that thinks the vitamin is for the plants and not the biosphere surrounding the plant, and that is a fine line.

Root hair is the plants trusted source of nutrients. Safest since all enter in a very simple ion, and lightweight. Giving plants their need through root hair is natural, and mostly work to keep plants alive and grow unaltered, which mean, vitamins, hormon etc produce by theirself, few or in large amount, without human interfere. Plants who make decision.

There's a time when what people want can't fulfilled that way. When replant and we want them heal faster, when we want them to grow dwarf, when we want their stem grow longer, etc etc etc, can be altered using external hormone, vitamins, and others, and most of those not enter into plants through root hair, nor they decide to make it theirself, but that's possible by human intervention. Giving ext hormone on grape cultivation or vitamins in absence of root hair while replant maybe just some example. Newest study maybe surprise us more, who knows? Knowledge is progressing.

????

"One should always recognize the fact that anything in the soil solution that is not needed by the the plant has no potential to serve as a benefit."

4 Nobel prizes given for proofs of how Vitamin B12 is produced by plants work against this idea. B12 is not needed by the plant, at least directly anyway. Perhaps it was worded too restrictively. Or perhaps I should have parsed "not needed by the plant" differently in that I should have understood the connotation "directly needed by the plant" was to be included with the idea "indirectly needed by the plant".

Also "It's not a huge secret that plants need only 15 to 20 nutrients (depending on who you ask) to grow normally and complete their growth/life cycle(s), all of which are found in high quality fertilizers or well-managed mineral soils"

This makes me think of Terra Preta and what we know as a soil of practical evidence versus my soil and what it produces. I suggest the body of evidence is that I should take the vitamin and read more. I think this number of 15-20 nutrients is very useful in commercial farming as a goal. It has an integer and plant growth is measurable over time. Inputs per minute is a practical cost description for a business. But to point out Archaea was not even discovered until 40 -50 years ago and later catagorized as a third form of life with cell walls different that either plants or animals is to also bring out the idea that this number is not all there is to know about influence upon yield from plantings, or vigor as it might be valued in ornamentals. How a multi vitamin content is used and redirected by these odd newly discovered life forms in the 12 types of soil and the subtypes of those soils is obviously not completely understood as study of organic farming methods is ongoing.

I suspect that much like biochar is not useful in certain soil types but is useful in others, the same might as easily be true of multivitamins as it would relate at least to a poor biosphere in some soil versus a rich biosphere in another type of soil.

There are so many leaps to conclusions, and abstract comments in several of the posts above (by more than one poster), the sole purpose of the leaps/abstracts being to get to something/anything that supports the individual's narrative, that it hardly seems worth the effort to engage in disagreement.

Al

I was trying to explain my view base on experience and science related to it as good as i can in english language. I hope if there's any other view, agree or disagree, just share and lets discuss in a good way. If individual opinion able to judge and dismiss all of that, then i hands up. Nothing worth to share further. Maybe i should keep all good that i know for my own.

Gudang, I for one find other people's opinions and points of view interesting, especially when there is an attempt to explain the reasoning or logic behind it. You're right, it's nice to be able to share and discuss in a good way, whether you agree or disagree. Or half-agree!

Perhaps try to stay more on-topic for each question eg. if someone has asked about soil for houseplants, it might not be the time to talk about soil in the ground outside. Hope that helps. Can I ask what your background in plants is? And what country you live in?

@robin

Houseplant in my perspective is plant that living mostly in pot and grow inside house. In many part of the world, soil for planting in pot or inground is not different, and they succeed on what they do. If some others fail on doing it and build their own method that work better for them, it's ok, but seperate it totally will limit yourself in understanding plant and how they behave.

Plants have their own way to survive. For example, some plant's buds and young leaves are eaten by insects. What the plants response is producing hormone that attract predator of that insects. If we only give them nutrients through the roots, most of nutrients will be wasted to produce that hormone, even if they now live in greenhouse and no insect predators available around.

Beside treatment for the insect, it's good to give the plants auxin and vitamins for faster heal. Not because they unable to develop those 2 theirself, but mostly because their habit of producing defensive hormone made the 2 not available enough for faster heal.

Plant's responses will vary against desease or other things, but to make it short, give vitamins isn't a sin, and some old farmers myth could be right, they just don't know how it work and how to explain it.

So I am new to this and maybe that is the reason this thread is so confusing. Why does it matter if someone puts vitamins in their soil or their houseplants? Is this discussion like every other discussion in which people feel there is only one right way of doing things? If a person finds a solution that works isn't it good to share. Furthermore, what is the true difference between a plant living inside the house or out. It still needs the same nutrients to survive. Why all the bickering? I find it refreshing when someone discovers something that actually works. I appreciate all knowledge. You never know when you are going to need it.

"Why does it matter if someone puts vitamins in their soil or their houseplants? "

Maybe think of it in this way..........would you feed your houseplants mashed up carrots or peas or ground beef or orange juice? Those are all very nutritional food sources........for humans. But not at all for plants :-) Same with the vitamins. Humans may need them to supplement a less than ideal diet and the vitamins have been processed and formuated to address those human needs and to be digested and absorbed by human morphology. But plants are not humans and their nutritional needs are different, as is their morphology or ability to absorb and process those nutrients.

ALL the vitamins a plant needs or requires are obtainable naturally via the minerals in the soil and through photosynthesis or in the case of a containerized plant (with no real 'soil' involved), through the appropriate application of a full range fertilizer. Scientifically, there is NO measurable benefit from applying human vitamins to plants nor is there even much scientific substantiation for using formulated-just-for-plants vitamin supplements. Plants growing naturally in the wild without benefit of human interaction manage perfectly well without them!! One needs to be able to separate retail marketing and the selling of (unnecessary) products away from the realities of botany.

" Is this discussion like every other discussion in which people feel there is only one right way of doing things?

This is never an either/or situation. But there are definitely preferred methods of doing things based on a thorough understanding of the scientific principles behind them. Growing plants in containers - either indoor or out....that makes no difference - does require a different methodology simply because container gardening is a completely artificial construct that is not replicated in the natural world. Growing plants in a container sets up a very limited and restricted environment that prohibits or impedes natural growth. Failing to properly understand and accommodate those limitations and restrictions just sets the gardener up for unsatisfactory results or even failure. Hence the instructions for a proper growing media, instructions for watering and fertilizing and the need to frequently manipulate both top and root growth (pruning) to deal with an extremely limited growing environment. If these conditions are ignored, the decline/failure may not be immediate - plants are hugely resilient organisms - but it WILL happen.

Anything the plant doesn't need that makes its way into the soil solution has only the potential to limit the plant's ability to realize its genetic potential.

Al

There are many research about vitamins for plants from many reputable organizations. Vitamin is vitamin. It's exist for every living things, not only human. What we able to do is learning about plant and open up our mind for many possibilities, not strictly judge whether they need something or not. There's many way to rome.

OMG this thread has just made my day LOL!!! Plants make oxygen too but they don't use it, they give it off as a waste product! Plants don't use people vitamins but, yes, they make people vitamins, which is why people eat them.... Yes, biodiversity in the soil and in nature is important but, last time I checked, vitamin pills do not occur in nature, they are chemical formulations created to supplement a human (or animal) diet that may be deficient in them. We don't feed them to plants for the same reason that we don't drink a glass of miracle gro with our breakfast every morning.... There are so many differences between animal and plant physiology that it just is not possible to explain it all on this limited forum. As for the "web of life" consider this: The first life to exist on land was plant life, plants converted sunlight and CO2 from the atmosphere into sugar for plant growth and gave off oxygen as a waste product, basically creating our current atmosphere and making the planet hospitable for animals to live and utilize the excess oxygen and convert it to CO2 again. I know, the real story is much more complicated than this but the idea that every child in the most privileged country in the world does not know this basic outline is a travesty. There is a lot of BS disguised as science on the internet, so if you really want to know how plants and animals utilize nutrients, please, please take a basic biology course.

Only anaerob bacteria and some fungus that don't need oxygen. Please please...

what about human mineral supplements?

i.e. magnesium is magnesium...?

Supplements are ONLY appropriate if you know there is a need for them. In the ground, that would be the result of a professional soil test. In a container setting with a decent fertilizer regime (a full range - micro and macro nutrients - liquid fertilizer used routinely according to directions), I can't imagine ANY supplements would ever be necessary!

Reread Al's comment: "Anything the plant doesn't need that makes its way into the soil solution has only the potential to limit the plant's ability to realize its genetic potential." That pretty much sums up things completely.....for those with any understanding of science and botany!

Everything will be simple if we only dealing with healthy plants that stay healthy forever, and that's not the case, that's why this thread exist. When we learn more, we'll know that there're many much to learn. If someone have different oppinion, it's not always because they learn science less. Maybe they learn science more. Put ourself high on top, feel that already know everything and thinking others poor in knowledge related to botany and science isn't the way to make our statement impressive, honestly.. and many likes for false statements, omg..

somegu7, minerals comes in many forms. Magnesium is a good example of a mineral that's comes in several forms, appearing as Magnesium Bicarbonate, Magnesium Carbonate, Magnesium Chloride, Magnesium Hydroxide, Magnesium Oxide, Magnesium Phosphate, and Magnesium Sulfate. For human consumption, some are easy for the human body to utilize, but most are minimally absorbed, at best. The same goes for most minerals and many vitamins. In general, the forms of vitamins and minerals that are found in food typically eaten by mammals like humans will be more useful for us than the forms commonly found in soil.

This makes sense, since the gut uses very different chemical processes to absorb and bind nutrients than plants do. Conversely, it seems logical that plants will benefit from the forms of minerals that occur in soils--which may turn out to be a form you'd never find in a good human supplement (although a cheap human supplement might contain a form that's good for plants because it's cheaper to make). I won't swear to they, though, because I'm no expert on plant biology.

I'm not sure this advances the conversation, but hopefully it answers your question.

Magnesium is indeed magnesium, but it doesn't occur naturally in elemental form because it is extremely reactive. Chloride is also an essential plant nutrient, but in situ plants usually get enough chloride from rain water or the atmosphere. Where a human might take MgCl(2) (magnesium chloride) as a dietary supplement, the fact that the compound is 75% chlorine makes it potentially very toxic when used as a source of Mg for plants. There are many similar examples of potentially inappropriate use of vitamins/supplements manufactured for human but used for plants.

If you think your ('your' used collectively) plants are having nutritional issues, first review your supplementation program to make sure it's on target. If you don't know how to tell whether or not your nutritional supplementation program is appropriate, it's probably not beyond the realm of reason to suggest that experimenting with chemicals that have more potential to limit than benefit might not end well.

IOW - if you think your plants could use a pick-me-up, it's almost certainly an issue that requires a remedy you won't find by way of experimentation with nutrients/supplements manufactured for people.

Al

Old thread, but I landed up trying to find out if B vitamins can help plants acclimatize/help plants doing poorly. I am not as expert as some here, but you do add vitamins to home made tissue culture medium. Particularly the B Complex and inositol. The commercial ones have them too, but I suppose they don't use the more expensive people vitamins.

It is hard to say whether plants absorb them in special circumstances like tissue culture or even otherwise. But plants do absorb nutirents (that is why people foliar spray) and plants do use vitamins for their growth, so I think OP wasn't as stupid as he seems to be made out to be here.

Curiosity broadens knowledge. Merely declaring that plants can't absorb XYZ does not make sense. Sure, you may have evidence explaining why, but that evidence wasn't placed here for us to understand a reason beyond "PRO/moderator was certain"

Sure, the plant doesn't absorb what it doesn't need - which is how you still have soil left in the container, right? The roots don't vaccuum it up. I am finding it hard to understand how this immediately means that the plants don't require vitamins and thus adding them is ineffective/harmful. There is plenty of research on the utilization of vitamins by plants. Most formal papers I found related to tissue culture, but there is also abundant anecdotal evidence of products like superthrive and of course, the enterprising cannabis growing community. What OP posted doesn't sound as much out of the realm of possibility as the hostile responses indicate.

Unless of course someone actually has a research paper/botanical text that says why plants don't utilize vitamins, even if they do fertilizer and other chemicals.

There are so many chemical reactions in plants that not explored by science yet. Some chemical formula, nitrofenol for example, may work as catalyst on some reactions, make plant metabolism run a lot faster, and science may still unable to explain which reactions are effected. Evident come first and studied later is common. Plants still have plenty mysteries. Keep learning.

Archaea is the key to your plant's success. Help these life forms thrive so that the plants can produce and obtain the minerals (that must be added) and other compounds. Grow your soil is key. There is a reason FARMERS are mandated by the US Government to add certain "basic" minerals to their ROTATED crop soil. There is a reason why soil gets DEPLETED. Adding the basics including the extras like fertilizer type compounds helps a plant thrive as you feed the microorganisms known as Archaea. Vitamins = Vital Minerals. These are only the Vital ones.. not all of them. Adding a vitamin pill can help your plant. I read some complain that it can hinder or hurt your plant. Won't happen unless it's something other than a mineral. Plants ignore what they don't want. But, there are toxins out there that can hurt plants/people that may be present in that vitamin and one not know of it. That's where science, research and study comes to play to see the facts which no one has here vs. Vitamins. What I say.. try it.. if it helps your plant.. you know it's good... if not, then don't do it next time.

I have a palm plant that is 32 yrs old and dying fast. I've never heard of the vitamin trick until today. Should it be put in whole ( how far down)? Crushed and blended in the soil?

Thanks

ilene, please reread this thread :-) If your palm is "dying fast", human vitamins are not going to help. You need to determine the cause for the failure and then correct that. And that could be one or more of several factors - a need to repot or refresh/replace the potting soil, the plant is overly rootbound, watering needs are not being addressed properly (too much or not enough) or it has not been properly fertilized. And just to be very clear - people vitamins are not plant fertilizers and will be of absolutely NO help in saving your plant!!

Ilene - the probability your plant's viability is threatened by complications of root congestion is astronomically higher than the likelihood you can end the decline with a vitamin.

ANYTHING the plant doesn't need that makes its way into the soil solution has only the potential to limit. In the case of a multiple vitamin, how many elements/compounds are in that vitamin are unessential to the plant's well being? Each of those unessential elements/compounds become limiting factors as soon as they enter the soil solution.

Al

To shed some light on the subject.

Quoting from: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=29178

A product that has attained Horticultural Urban Legend status is Vitamin
B-1. The historical account of Vitamin B-1 and the public craze it
caused was well told by Rasmussen (1999) and is briefly summarized
here. In the 1930's Caltech's James Bonner discovered, that Thiamin
(vitamin b-1) was able to restore growth to pea root tips that had
languished in tissue culture. It was concluded to be essential in plant
growth media. Bonner later found that B-1 had little growth promoting
effects on most whole plants in hydroponic culture, but that some plants
such as camellia, and cosmos showed dramatic growth increased to added
B-1 vitamins. Bonner latter discovered that thiamin production was
associated with the foliage of growing plants. The hoax was on in 1939
when Better Homes and Gardens magazine ran an article that claimed
thiamin would produce five inch rose buds, daffodils bigger than a salad
plate and snapdragons six feet tall! In 1940, Bonner entered into
collaborative research with Merck pharmaceutical company to master the
growth-promoting effects of B-1, account for the wide variability in his
experimental results and develop a product that gave consistent good
results. Bonner proved during this period that B-1 was phloem mobile
was made in leaves and transported downward in stems. Bonner's
experiments with Cosmos continued, but with varying results, so he
sought cooperative research with University experiment stations around
the country. Results were mixed, some showed growth promotion, most
not. By 1940, other physiologists widely reported negative results. By
1942 Bonner was debunking his own discoveries, stating that the effect
only ever occurred in very few plants and that since thiamin was found
in soil itself, field applications were unlikely to benefit plants.
Bonner ultimately fully retracted his claims of efficacy by saying “It
is now certain, however, that additions of vitamin B1 to intact growing
plants have no significant or useful place in horticultural or
agricultural practice”. The public craze and fanatical headlines about
thiamin continued but Merck withdrew all interest and funding in the
concept so as to distance itself from a product that does not work.

Although old post - WizChip said: Vitamins = Vital Minerals.

Incorrect: Vitamins = Vital amines, like thiamine, niacin, etc. They are complex organic molecules. Nowhere close to being considered minerals.

Humans and animals rely on there being a wide array of vitamins and amino acids in their diet when they cannot be synthesized. Plants synthesize the vitamins they need. In fact, they do not assimilate vitamins as the molecules are unable to pass root membranes. Lipid root membranes prevent free movement of materials in and out of root cells. Functionally, embedded in the bi-layered lipid membrane are transporter proteins highly specific to passage of a variety of materials across the membrane. If there is no transporter protein specific to any given material, it cannot make its way into root cells, and apoplasmic transport is blocked by the casparian bands which make selective transporter proteins essential.

Think of it like this - there are ways to get into a prison, but without a transporter personnel to escort you through walls that limit access, you aren't getting in.

Al

There're still so many misteries about how some phenomena explained scientifically. Knowledge achieved gradually bit by bit for long period of time and it's never end. For this case, try think like this... In organic farming, we basically never feed the plant. We feed bacteria that convert organic material into ionic nutrition that plant use. Any substrate, include vitamins, might not directly absorbed by the plant, but how we know if it doesn't effect bacteria and other living being in soil? In the soil, only few percent of bacteria already studied. Most of them still unknown, not even given name. Second, science using inductive method on gaining conclusion, so it never finish. Using scientific way of thinking, there's still so many possibility to improve in our farming/ method. If we satisfied with what we already know, we close the door to possibilities of getting something new.

I just stoped some Vacepa juice and Crushed Prenatal pills in mine... I'll know something by deacmber.2021...if it works or not.. shoot it it makes it to the end of the month... Then I got a special skill..this my 1st plant I rescued it on 4-20-2021

..

It makes soo much more sense to first concentrate on providing a sound nutritional supplementation program than to simply buy into the idea there's a magic concoction that will somehow provide compensation for any/all ills emanating from the grower asking the plant to deal with cultural conditions the plant is not programmed to deal with. The reasonable suggestion is fix the limiting cultural condition.

This thread has been broadened to include vague generalities and what ifs; and, in it it's suggested many things are unknown about plants, and anything is possible which is like suggesting apples will start to rise from trees tomorrow instead of fall to the ground. That someone or several someones embrace a 'rising apples theory' should not be viewed as a clarion call to teachers to consider the notion a serious possibility and provide instruction time in classrooms equal to that given Newton's work.

We're really not discussing the idea that a pill/ elixir might somehow benefit something that benefits something that proves beneficial to the plant (I think we all agree that's true), at least I'm not, and that wasn't what the OP was asking. I'm suggesting that for container culture, the stress resultant of poor basic cultural conditions cannot be cured by a pill or magic elixir unless the product provides specific remedy for the factor most limiting to the plant, and Liebig's Law of the Minimum is concurrent with that reasoning.

Liebig's barrel ^^^

Eg., here the factor limiting growth/vitality is a nitrogen deficiency, and increasing the supply of any/all other factors will not cure the N deficiency. Any pill/ potion provided would need to facilitate uptake of nitrogen in order to fix it (that's what fertilizer is for, and we know it works, used appropriately). Unless we know in advance what we're doing can provide relief for a nitrogen deficiency w/o harmful unintended side-effects, the risk is many thousands or even millions to one that more harm than good will result. Liebig's law also includes other limiting factors like light, temperature, pests, and soil conditions. To wit, more fertilizer cannot compensate for a deficiency of light any more than more light can't compensate for a nutritional deficiency. For those who embrace the 'anything is possible' line of thought, consider the odds are astronomically high that an amalgamation formulated to provide an actually cure for a human illness would have a limiting effect, not beneficial.

It's not by way of a closed mind that I arrive at a conclusion I've given quite a bit of consideration to. The idea that anything is possible is appealing on it's face, but when considering the probability that harm through providing any of a random assortment of pills or tonics to plants with no understanding of what result to expect is far more likely to harm than benefit, I think I'd be very inclined to avoid the disappointment that comes from placing hope in miracles. Of course, they happen ...... just not often enough to reasonably expect them.

That's the view from here.

Al

Vitamins contain many of the essential minerals plants need IE

Potassium, zinc, magnesium, phophrous. It can't hurt

Oh yes it can hurt to the degree it costs the plant its viability. Anything dissolved in the soil solution that isn't essential to the plant's well being has only the potential to be limiting. Unless you know there is a need for what you make available to the plant, the potential for whatever "additive" someone thinks might prove beneficial, is far, far more likely to be a limiting factor.

Read this carefully:

Liebig’s Law

Certainly some of you have come across this before. First, there are 6 factors that affect plant growth and yield; they are: air, water, light, temperature, soil/media, nutrients. Liebig's Law of Limiting Factors states the most deficient factor limits plant growth and increasing the supply of non-limiting factors will not increase plant growth. Only by increasing most deficient factor will the plant growth increase. There is also an optimum combination of the factors and increasing them, individually or in various combinations, can lead to toxicity for the plant.

Al

Wiz chip nailed it. In organic growing, It's the bacteria in soil which feed the roots. Throw some vitamin tablets ground up in the soil, bacteria break it down further and their wastes are what the plant uptakes. Good and bad. Sometimes too much of 1 and not enough of the other. If soluble in water the roots will take it in good or bad. Chemical or organic. Sprayed foilarly, same thing, take in whatever is dissolved in the liquid, good or bad.

Whoever said that plants only need x nutrients and minerals and that's all and who said that the same goes for humans, sure, we could survive, but who wants to have the same thing over and over everday. Variety in our diets is healthy. And encouraged.

Also take into consideration evolution. I'm sure plants didn't start out with everything they needed in perfect amounts. Availability and changing ecosystems and need to adapt and the ones that adapted faster with the required traits that benefitted them at the time survived to reproduce.

Also we as mammals excrete wastes that are broken down by the soil bacteria and through the bacteria, made available to the plant. This include any vitamins the mammals had eatin. Furthermore it's bacteria in our gut that help breakdown foods we consume into usable nutrients for us.

Anyway in my opinion, sure add some vitamin to the soil or water. Moderation is the key. Small amounts of sodium is beneficial for plants. Large amounts will kill most. All plants need nitrogen. Too much nitrogen will kill it. Plant a seed in fresh chicken poo 1 foot deep. It will probably fail. All I have written is my opinion on the matter based on common sense and years in the garden and internet heresay. In my opinion plants most certainly can benefit from vitamin supplements designed for human consumption. Moderation is key. But there are many environmental factors which will hinder or help. Amount of sun, precipitation, shade, hillface, temperature, soil composition, hydroponic, etc. etc.

Keep up the debate.

Plants absolutely do utilize exogenous vitamins! They have transporters in their root cell walls for that. Here is example for B6 vitamin: https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12195

Plants and humans use mostly the same vitamins and for the same fundamental processes that evolved very early in the evolution. All life share those processes. Thus the requirements for them are pretty much the same.

So, should you put vitamin tablet in flower pot?

Plants make their own vitamins and soil already contain some vitamins due microbes making them. However if the plant is very stressed, the extra vitamins can lower its metabolic stress. So, it is plausible in some cases. Just remember that too many vitamins are toxic to humans and plants.

I'm amazed how many people here are so unwilling to make a quick search on any scientific botany journal to learn the basics. Instead the time is spend by bashing people asking the question.

Right - and the average hobby grower is capable of identifying a specific vitamin "deficiency", and able to figure out exactly how to provide exactly what chemical is needed and the amount so as to remedy the deficiency w/o creating a toxicity? If they aren't, odds are extremely high that their blind dosing will be limiting as opposed to beneficial. Perhaps you might lay out for us precisely how to diagnose a VB6 deficiency and fix it w/o creating a condition that is phytotoxic

Prac-ti-cal: of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas. A vitamin is a nutrient, other than a basic carbohydrate, which must be absorbed because the organism cannot make it at all, or cannot make enough of it. In order for a multivitamin supplement to be beneficial, all contents must benefit the plant, i.e. every single vitamin must be essential to normal growth or the plant's well being. If only one ingredient is nonessential, it contributes to the TDS/EC of the soil solution with NO payback and varying potential for phytotoxicity.

After you lay out how we can diagnose a B6 deficiency and cure it, you might look through those scientific journals for ANY information suggesting use of human multi-vitamin supplements as an efficacious maintenance or treatment regimen for plants and how to determine when it is appropriate.

There is a difference between having a closed mind and looking at things from the perspective of what the outcome will be when a poorly reasoned treatment is practically applied. If the "reasonable man standard" is applied to this question, it's an absolute no-brainer. Would a reasonable man provide a hodge-podge mixture of chemicals to plants without understanding if any are beneficial or toxic?

Al

Firstly, the non-toxic margin is quite wide. Putting some extra is likely to do nothing, if the plant can't benefit from it. Just like little change in TDS/EC also doesn't matter, even when done by adding something phytotoxic like salt.

"In order for a multivitamin supplement to be beneficial, all contents must benefit the plant ..."

This is simply false. Soil also contain completely inert compounds to the plant. All you need is one beneficial compound and rest can be neutral.

Secondly, the vitamins can help plant even without strict deficiency in stress situation as seen in vitro. This seems to be due stress causing ROS and antioxidant properties of the vitamins. Example vitamin-C is commonly used to save plants in stressful situations in vitro. Personally I have used melatonin (0.1 mg/L) as antioxidant and it works well.

Thirdly, the reason why I landed here was to see what was the recipe for cheap MS alternative that uses common multivitamin tablets. Converted in metric units they suggest 1/4 multivitamin tablet and 355 mL of water (among other ingredients). Keep it around that and you will not poison your plants.

Origin of the recipe is from book "Plants from Test Tubes: An Introduction to Micropropagation", which bases its recipe to well known media used in plant science (like MS and B5).

Again, as my conclusion seem to elude you, it is plausible and worth to try in some cases.

"Origin of the recipe is from book "Plants from Test Tubes: An Introduction to Micropropagation", which bases its recipe to well known media used in plant science (like MS and B5)."

And well beyond the scope of 99% of the posters here, most of whom are just avid hobby gardeners with little use for micropropagation and as Al stated, with no way of determining on their own whether their plants are in any need of any nutrient supplementation, let alone vitamin supplements intended for humans, not plants.

btw, I have a degree in horticulture and I have no idea what you are referring to with "MS" and "B5". You will likely find that excessive pedantry is typically a case of diminishing returns.........

Well, if you cannot recognize your plants needs (what ever it is, basic or complicated), then your plants are likely to die or grow poorly. But that's a learning opportunity. There are so many ways to kill your plants. Let's just keep all the options open, when there is plausibility for success. At least as a last resort.

MS is short for Murashige and Skoog medium, and B5 is short for Gamborg's B-5 Medium.

I've posted thousands of images of perfectly healthy plants and mixed plantings on these pages, and none have ever been dosed with vitamins. Plants have grown for eons with nary a vitamin supplement in sight or a human intervention to be had. A reasonable man considers the risk:reward paradigm and immediately realizes when he has no clue what the potential reward is or what the risks are, it's best to leave it alone. "Yes! let's go pet that pretty snake. We'll wonder if it's toxic if we're snake-bit." "That cleaning solution smells very much like citrus, I wonder how it would taste in a gimlet?" "Hey! This dishsoap feels really slippery. I think I'll use it as a substitute for motor oil in all my vehicles." "Oh wow, multiple vitamins! I think I'll give them to my plants!" No reasonable person would carry through on any of the aforementioned acts. It's one thing to enter into an experiment with no real hope that it will turn out to be beneficial, but dosing your plants with multiple vitamins formulated for humans and expecting it to be beneficial is indeed folly.

Al