No, I suggest you get off HC and do some more research. There's growing use of biostimulants in agriculture and you and others keep harping on about the lack of peer-reviewed scientific evaluation. But there are a large number of publications where there is growing scientific evidence supporting the use of biostimulants as agricultural inputs on diverse plant species - google is your friend.
The fact that you suggested biostimulants would be used in place of traditional fertiliser shows me you have NFI. It's like suggesting you'd use fertiliser as a subsitute for pesticide
“Biostimulants foster plant growth and development throughout the crop life cycle from seed germination to plant maturity in a number of demonstrated ways, including but not limited to: improving the efficiency of the plant’s metabolism to induce yield increases and enhanced crop quality; increasing plant tolerance to and recovery from abiotic stresses; facilitating nutrient assimilation, translocation and use; enhancing quality attributes of produce, including sugar content, colour, fruit seeding, etc.; rendering water use more efficient; enhancing certain physicochemical properties of the soil and fostering the development of complementary soil micro-organisms.
Biostimulants operate through different mechanisms than fertilisers
, regardless of the presence of nutrients in the products”.
Still doubtful? here's one I've referenced for you:
Located on:
CSIRO Research Publications Repository
Publisher:
Australian Society of Soil Science
Field Of Research:
Agricultural Land Management
The need to feed a growing world population and the threat of climate change have led to a quest to secure the next leap in productivity. Biostimulants are increasingly being used worldwide.
They are non-biological, non-fertiliser material that,
when used in conjunction with established fertiliser
plans, enhances the plant's nutrient use efficiency, or provides other direct or indirect benefits to plant development or stress response. [...]
The mode of action of these products include enhanced root and shoot growth and yields attributed to plant hormones and hormone-type substances, enhanced tolerance to heat, drought and salinity stress due to promotion of synthesis of antioxidants, the plant hormone jasmonic acid and osmolites in crops and enhanced resistance to diseases by improving the expression of pathogenesis-related protein genes. [...] Seaweed extracts are commonly used in horticulture and home gardening in Australia and
several grain growers have pioneered the use of other biostimulants in cropping.
Following global trends, a growth in biostimulant use is likely to impact the management of soil fertility in Australia.
Now because I'm pretty sure you'll still dismiss the use of biostimulants by countering with why would you spend money on both fertiiliser and biostimulant? It's because yield losses due to drought and salinity stress are increasing mainly due to climate change and intensive agriculture that has lead to soil degradation. It's not rocket science to work out that a small increase in inputs for a much larger increase in outputs is good business - surely even you don't need the CSIRO to verify that fact for you?
One last point, can I suggest you look further afield for research, some of our best scientist end up overseas simply due to the lack of funding in Australia. It's a big market, the biostimulants market is projected to reach USD 2.91 Billion by 2021 (source: 2016). Do you really think all these people have got it wrong?
