Amino acid fertilisers are a real alternative to chemical NPK fertilisers.
They can stimulate soil and leaf microbial population; hence they help increasing organic matter and soil aeration, they pollute less as they supply plants with slow released nutrients (including a burn-free nitrogen, and other valuable nutrients), etc.
There are many different sources of by-products to manufacture an amino acid fertiliser. Other than fish, it can be the leftovers from abattoir, corn syrup, soybean, vegetable “waste”, etc.
I am convinced that fish emulsion is the most advantageous of them for soil and plant growth, but I would like to find scientific reasons the demonstrate it.
Can you please help me to find the differences between fish emulsion and any other amino acid fertiliser? Can you share with me a research paper that points into that direction?
Thank you very much for your help.
Hi Carole, thank you very much for your answer.
I have had a look to the link, I agree with most of it. However, I still have my doubt. The claim “fish emulsion, and many of the organic-based fertilizers, is that they offer protein to feed our soil microorganisms, which may help to build a more robust soil food web resulting in improved plant health for the long term” can be applied to all organic-based fertilisers, not specifically to Fish emulsion.
I would like to understand what makes fish emulsion unique and different from other amino acids fertilisers.
Anyway, thanks for your help.
Hi Carole,
I read the review from Steward-Wade, I have enjoyed it a lot, very informative. Thanks for sharing.
In your message, you also mention about di-tripeptides which are probably more readily available than free amino acids for plants. Have you ever done any research about this? Is it any other link that you could share in here about it?
Thanks again Carole, I really appreciate your help.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers