Description of the Prior Art: The component materials of the inventive compositions are known in the art. Succinic acid (butanedioic acid) is a colorless crystal which is slightly soluble in water.

Technical grade succinic acid is typically obtained by fermentation of various carbon sources. Succinic acid is used in organic synthesis, manufacture of lacquers, dyes, esters for perfumes, photography, in foods as a sequestrant, and as a buffer and neutralizing agent. Succinic acid-2,2-dimethylhydrazide (diaminozide) is used as a growth retardant in greenhouses to retard premature fruit drop.

Succinimide (2,5-diketopyrrolidine) is used in organic synthesis and as a growth stimulant for plants.

Molasses are produced as a byproduct of the production of sucrose in the sugar cane and sugar beet industries.

Molasses are the thick liquid left after sucrose has been removed from the mother liquor in sugar manufacture.

Blackstrap molasses is the syrup from which no more sugar can be obtained economically. Molasses contain sucrose, reducing sugars, ash, organic nonsugars, and water.

Molasses are also produced to a much lesser extent by other industries, including for example the citrus fruit and the

glucose industries. Current end uses for molasses include rum and yeast production, and pharmaceuticals. Beet molasses are blended onto sugar beet pulp and into animal feed.

The further removal of sucrose from molasses results in the production of the byproduct raffinate. Beet raffinate is about 70% solids (15-20% sugar) and is useful as an animal feed. Cane raffinate is about 20% solids (3-4% sugar), and has a similar use.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Briefly describing one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a composition useful for improving the growth of plants. The composition comprises a succinate compound and molasses raffinates. The succinate compound may include succinic acid, fermentation succinate, or mixtures thereof. In a related aspect of the invention there is provided a method for improving the growth of plants by treating the plants with the growth composition.

The compositions and methods of the present invention improve both vegetative and reproductive growth in a wide variety of plants, including high value and high volume crops.

It is an object of the present invention to provide compositions which improve plant growth and which are readily and economically used.

A further object of the present invention is to provide methods for improving the growth of a wide variety of plants.

It is another aspect of the present invention to provide an advantageous use for the byproduct raffinate.

Further objects and advantages of the present invention will be apparent from the following description of the preferred embodiments.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated herein, and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope of the invention is thereby intended.

The present invention provides a growth composition and method useful for improving plant growth. The composition can be readily prepared from available components hereafter described. The composition is conveniently applied to the plants in conventional methods, including foliar and soil drench application methods. The effect of the components of the composition have been demonstrated to be synergistic, with improvements in both vegetative and reproductive growth of the plants resulting.

The plant growth composition is based upon a combination of a succinate compound and molasses raffinates. The succinate component may include fermentation succinic acid, also referred to as fermentation succinate, or synthetic succinic acid. The molasses raffinate may be sugar cane raffinate, sugar beet raffinate and/or mixtures thereof. A particular feature of the present invention is that the growth composition basically includes a low value food byproduct, the raffinate component, as a carrier system and adjunct for the succinate. Thus, a significant value is obtained from readily obtained and relatively low cost materials, leading to significant improvement in plant growth.

Preparation of the Succinate Material The present invention uses a succinate compound which may comprise either a synthetic succinic acid or a

fermentation succinate material, as well as closely related compounds such as monomethyl or dimethyl esters of succinic acid. Succinic acid, also known as butanedioic acid, may be synthesized by conversion of ammonium tartrate. Other succinate materials preferred in the invention include the fermentation succinates such as preparations derived from corn dextrose as the primary carbon source, or using cane raffinate as a carbon source. As used hereafter, the terms succinate and succinic acid are used generally to refer to a succinate material produced either synthetically or by fermentation.

The production of fermentation succinic acid from cane raffinate and molasses is demonstrated by the following procedure: 1. Sugar cane raffinate and cane molasses are fermented with MBI Strain M70/20 to produce Mg-succinate; 2. The fermented material is treated by ultrafiltration to remove the cells and produce a cell-free broth; 3. Mg-succinate is acidified via cation exchange chromatography; 4. Crystallization is used to produce crude succinic acid crystals; 5. Crystallization is again performed to yield a second pass of crystals; and 6. The mother liquor is treated to obtain a further crystal product.

Succinate, i. e., succinic acid, prepared in this method has moderate to high plant bioactivity, depending upon the plant that is treated.

The succinate material may be provided for use in the form of crystals or as an aqueous solution. The concentration of the material is not critical to the invention, since subsequent adjustments may be made in order

to obtain (1) the desired ratios with the molasses raffinates and (2) the appropriate application rates for the plants. In one method, the succinic acid crystals are dissolved in water to provide a component for combining with the raffinate. In this process, a concentrated solution is prepared having a concentration of about 100 to about 10,000 parts per million. This may then be combined with the molasses raffinates as a concentrate, or it may be diluted prior to or during combination with the molasses raffinate.

Preparation of the Molasses Raffinate The molasses raffinate component of the growth composition are also readily available and their preparation is known in the art. The terms"molasses"and"raffinates" are intended in this description and the claims to have their common meaning and scope as used and understood by those in the art. These materials are produced commercially, either as an intended product or as a byproduct of other commercial processes. The composition of the molasses and/or the raffinates will necessarily vary within ranges acknowledged in the art, and these various materials are useful in and encompassed by the present invention.

Both the sugar cane and sugar beet industries produce molasses as a byproduct from sucrose manufacture. Cane molasses have a typical composition of 30-40% sucrose, 5-10% glucose, 5-10% fructose and 1-2% kestose. Beet molasses have a typical composition of 46-52% sucrose, 0.5-1.0% glucose, 0.5-1.0% fructose and 0.5-2% raffinose. The types of molasses are also differentiated as"B"and"C" molasses."B"molasses have a typical composition of 60% sucrose and 8-10% invert sugar, whereas"C"molasses generally have 38-45% sucrose and 12-16% invert sugar. When

molasses are made, crystallization (3x) is used to make the "B"molasses first, followed by formation of the"C"form in subsequent crystallizations.

There are typical differences between cane and beet molasses. Cane molasses, commonly referred to as blackstrap molasses, usually have increased carbohydrate degradation products, and are higher in aldehydes and ketones. Beet molasses are generally higher in sulfur and nitrogen content, as well as higher amounts of raffinose. The ash (salts) content of the two types of molasses are generally similar.

Molasses raffinates are prepared as a result of the desugaring of molasses, i. e., the separation of sucrose from molasses. Generically, a typical process for conversion of cane and beet molasses to raffinate utilizes a chromatographic, ion exclusion resin separation which yields sucrose and raffinate. More specifically, molasses are diluted to clarify, and cation exchange is used to soften the material. A second cation exchange separates the material into sucrose, invert sugar and raffinate at 5% solids, concentrated to 20%. The sucrose has generally been considered to be the high value product, and the raffinate has been viewed as a low value byproduct. The present invention provides the additional benefit of making beneficial use of the raffinate byproduct.

Raffinates have varying compositions based upon the source and composition of the molasses, the process used, and other variables. A typical composition of cane raffinate is 2% sucrose, 3% glucose/fructose, 7% ash or salts, and 8% other solids, for a total of about 20% solids. A typical composition for beet raffinate is as follows, in which RDS represents dissolved solids:

Component % Weight % RDS Dissolved solids 74.39 Ash 20.36 27.37 Nitrogen 1.50 2.01 Protein 17.01 22.86 Total Carbohydrates 17.39 23.38 Sucrose 12.50 16.80 Raffinose 4.86 6.53 Invert Sugar 0.04 0.05 Sodium 1.89 2.54 Potassium 7.44 10.00 Magnesium 0.005 0.006 Calcium 0.039 0.053 pH 9.25 The molasses raffinates material may be provided for use in the form of an aqueous solution. The concentration of the material is not critical to the invention, since adjustments may be made in order to obtain desired ratios with the succinate materials and for appropriate application rates for the plants. Typically, a composition is used having a concentration of about 100 to about 10,000 ppm.

This may then be combined with the succinate as a concentrate, or diluted during or prior to combining with the succinate.

The use of molasses raffinates is a particular advantage of the present invention in several respects. Cane raffinate for example is a high salt, low sugar byproduct that would not be expected to have much plant bioactivity.

However, when the raffinate is combined with the succinate material, the bioactivity of the succinate on various plants is greatly increased. Cane raffinate is also a very low value carrier system for the succinate, making the cost of goods very attractive to growers. In fact, the costs for raffinate and succinate per acre is very affordable for growers of both high value and high volume crops. In

addition, the sugar industry benefits from the economic advantage of having a desirable use for the raffinate byproduct.

Combination of the Succinate and Raffinate The growth composition of the present invention utilizes a combination of the succinate material and the molasses raffinate material. As previously indicated, these two materials may be provided in various forms, and adjustments made in order to provide for mixing of the materials in a convenient manner and at the desired ratios. In general, the two materials are compatible, and simple physical mixing of one with the other yields a suitable growth composition.

The relative proportions of the succinate material and the molasses raffinate material in the growth composition may vary widely, while still providing advantageous growth improvement for plants. The growth composition preferably includes at least about 0.1 to about 1.0 pounds of succinate material per pound of molasses raffinates material (% solids), i. e., growth compositions include a ratio of succinate material to molasses raffinates material of from about 1: 10 to about 1 : 1 by weight of solids.

The concentration of the final growth composition may range widely. The main criteria is that the composition have a concentration that facilitates handling and storage, and permits application to the plants in a convenient manner and at desired rates. A more concentrated solution contributes to the handling and storage issues, and the growth composition may accordingly be preferably maintained prior to use at a concentration of from about 20% to about 80% solids.

The growth composition is applied to the plants in any of a variety of ways which serves to deliver the composition

for uptake by the plants. Typical methods include foliar and soil drench applications. By way of example, foliar application includes the use of boom sprayers, backpack sprayers and airplanes, and drench application includes the use of irrigation and microirrigation. The concentration of the growth composition may be readily selected to suit the method of application. By way of example, a solution having a concentration of from about 100 to about 10,000 ppm is preferable for either foliar or drench application methods.

More preferably, the growth composition has a concentration of from about 100 to about 5,000 ppm.

The optimum application rate will depend on various factors such as the type and size of the plants, the density of the plantings, the conditions and methods of application, and the concentration of the composition being applied. In a preferred aspect of the present invention, the growth composition is applied to achieve a rate of about 0.1 to about 5.0 pounds per acre, based on the combined weight of the succinate material and molasses raffinate material.

The growth compositions and methods of the present invention are efficacious for a wide variety of plants. The invention has particular application and utility with crop plants. It appears that the growth composition affects nutrient uptake for the plants, thus indicating the wide applicability of the invention.

Specific tests have demonstrated the usefulness of the inventions in laboratory, greenhouse and field settings.

The improvements occur both in terms of vegetative and reproductive growth. The following specific examples address such diverse plants as duckweed, cabbage, spinach, soybeans, field corn, balsam fir, grapes, cherries and snapbeans. These examples show that the inventive compositions and methods have general use with plants.

Desired or optimum rates, concentrations, methods of application, etc. for given plants may be readily determined by those in the art without undue experimentation.

Tests have shown the synergy of formulations of the present invention over the individual components of the formulations in providing enhanced vegetative and/or reproductive growth. The tests have been conducted over a wide range of test conditions. By way of example, succinic acid, molasses raffinate and combined succinate/raffinate formulations used on field corn seedlings resulted in a synergistic effect by the succinate/raffinate composition in affecting both fresh weights and percent dry weights versus control (water) and other treatment groups (raffinate or succinic acid materials tested separately). Moreover, the lowest statistical differences for raffinate/succinate compositions over the control (water only) were probabilities (P values) of 0.95 and 0.99 for percent dry weights and fresh weights, respectively. That is, fresh weights were increased while percent dry weights were reduced. In contrast, statistical differences were not found for fresh or dry wieghts for succinic acid or raffinate materials tested individually versus the controls.

While the invention is not limited to a particular theory of operation, it appears that the plants treated with succinate/raffinate had greater rates of water uptake than the control plants. It is also likely that selected nutrients were also increased in these test plants. Many nutrients are important to the growth of plants. Boron, zinc and copper, for example, have significant functions in a wide variety of plants. Deficiencies in plant nutrients can lead to reduced harvest and greater susceptibility to disease. Therefore, the increase in nutrient uptake can provide substantial growth advantages for the plants.

Preparation of Test Materials The examples hereafter used the following materials.

The fermentation succinate was obtained from MBI International and represents a typical succinate product commercially available. Unless indicated otherwise, the cane raffinate was obtained from Applexion, Epone, France, and the beet raffinate was obtained from Amalgamated Sugar of Twin Falls, Idaho. All parts per million ("ppm") are based upon total solids content of the succinate and/or raffinate, as pertains to the material being identified.

Cherry Trees Example la Raffinate/succinic acid formulations outperformed control formulations for cherry trees in studies conducted at the Michigan State University NorthWest Horticultural Research Station in Traverse City, Michigan. Excellent, statistically significant differences were obtained in the orchard trials. Formulation applications applied in the spring at the time of flowering yielded a consequent increase in harvest by as much as 29% (1995).

In an extended study of Montmorency tart cherry trees, raffinate and fermentation succinic acid were used at a ratio of 1: 1 by weight. For each tree, the application consisted of 30g of dry substance in 1 gallon. There were four applications in 1994, nine in 1995, and four in 1996, beginning each year while the trees were in full bloom in May. Improvements were identified over control trees which were treated with water having nitrogen added thereto.

Comparisons were made for low, medium and high nitrogen trees.

This effect on cherry trees is important in that the raffinate/succinic acid composition provided increases in micronutrient uptake and yield harvest. Also, the treated, low nitrogen trees had yield increases over other untreated, low nitrogen trees, and over untreated medium and high

nitrogen trees. Since reduction of nitrogen loads in the cherry industry is a major environmental initiative to minimize nitrate contamination of ground water, the cherry trial results have added meaning.

In the first year of the study, Montmorency trees were treated with various formulations comparing the inventive composition with controls having low nitrogen addition. The test used 6 low nitrogen trees per treatment with each treatment consisting of 1 gallon of liquid applied per tree at four different times. A formulation was used comprising 90.85 g succinate and 454.25 ml cane raffinate (20% solids) in 6 gallons. This formulation produced a yield of 76.0 lbs/tree of cherries, compared to a yield of 68.8 lbs/tree for the control trees treated with water and added (low) nitrogen.

Example lb The study of Example la was continued in the following year. The yield for the trees treated with the raffinate/succinate formulation averaged 158.0 lbs/tree, compared to 121.8 lbs/tree for the control (water and nitrogen).

In addition, trees were treated with varying amounts of broadcast nitrogen at different times to serve as further control groups. The average yields were all at or below those for the inventive formulations, namely as follows: medium nitrogen (fall application)-127.3; medium nitrogen (spring)-117.7; medium nitrogen (fall & spring)-126.0 ; medium nitrogen (spring and summer)-134.2; high nitrogen (spring)-99.0; high nitrogen (fall & spring)-112.7; and high nitrogen (spring & summer)-119.2.

Example lc A continuation of the study involving Montmorency cherry trees was used to further compare raffinate/succinate

preparations with a control. The application materials were prepared as follows.

In each instance the required materials were added to 6 gallons of water, with a total solids content for the preparations 2,3 of 181.65 g. Preparation #2 was prepared using 90.85 g fermentation succinate and 122.1 ml beet raffinate (74.39% solids). Preparation #3 included 90.85 g succinate and 454.25 ml cane raffinate (20% solids).

The yield harvest in pounds per tree and the average increase in trunk circumferences in mm for the treated trees are provided in the following table. Treatment Yield Harvest Circumference Control (water) 114.3 46.06 Preparation #2 115. 3 44.17 Preparation #3 118. 5 54.00* * 3 > Control by P > 0.965.

Bell Peppers Example 2a Capistrano bell peppers were treated in one trial by soil application of the succinate/raffinate compositions, and the results for two harvests were evaluated. Water was used as a control group, and two other groups were treated with combinations of fermentation succinic acid and either cane raffinate (Applexion, 20% solids) or beet raffinate (Amalgamated Sugar, 76% solids). The trial used six replications per treatment, with five soil applications consisting of 735 gallons/acre ("G/A") at 2000 ("2K") parts per million ("ppm") for applications 1-4 and 193 G/A (7.6 K ppm) for application 5. Succinate plus cane raffinate ("CRaff"), and beet raffinate ("BRaff") materials each contained 1K ppm.

The succinate/raffinate compositions, particularly in the second harvest and with beet raffinate, showed increased yields. The following table shows the results of the

trials, with the weight being in ounces, and both the weight and number being expressed per plant. Treatment Total Harvest Second Harvest Number Weight Number Weight Control (water) 2.545 12.659 1.603 6.607 Ferm. Succ. + CRaff 2.490 12.490 1.790 7.762 Ferm. Succ. + BRaff 2.891 14.239 2.263* 10.332* * statistically different from Control at P > 0.95.

Example 2b A second study on bell peppers (Camelot) utilized 7 replications per treatment with foliar applications at 100 G/A. The marketable peppers for two harvests were evaluated. The succinate/raffinate compositions provided increased yields by as much as 23% by weight and 26% by number of peppers in the second harvest.

The succinate/raffinate preparations were varied to have either 250 ppm, 1000 ppm or 5000 ppm of each of the fermentation succinate and the cane raffinate, resulting in application rates of 0.42 lb/A, 1.66 lb/A and 8.30 lb/A, respectively. In the following table, the number of peppers is given per plot of plants, and the pepper weights are given in pounds per plot. Treatment Total Harvest Second Harvest Number Weight Number Weight Control (water) 20.43 10.74 17.29 9.94 Ferm. Succ. + CRaff (250 each) 20.93 10.84 17.86 9.86 Ferm. Succ. + CRaff (1000 each) 22.43 11.61 21. 86a 12.21 Ferm. Succ. + CRaff (5000 each) 22.00 10.89 18.86 10.11 a. statistically greater than control (P > 0.90) Garden Cress Example 3 Garden cress was treated with soil applications of

succinate/raffinate compositions, and weight yield increases of as much as 44% were obtained versus the water control.

The succinate and raffinate materials were obtained as for the previous Examples. Four replications were used per treatment, with 10-20 plants/rep. The plants were grown for three weeks (16 hrs illumination/day), and the wet and dry weights per plot in milligrams ("mg") were determined. The ppm's of the succinate and raffinate portions of the preparations were varied as shown in the following table.

Treatment Yield Harvest Wet Wt Dry Wt 1 = Control (water) 43.3 (100%) 5.1 2 = Ferm. Succ. (250) + CRaff (250) 61.7 (143%) * 6.0** 3 = Ferm. Succ. (100) + CRaff (1000) 50.8 (117%) 5.2 4 = Ferm. Succ. (250) + BRaff (250) 62.4 (144%) * 5.9 * 2 and 4 > 1 by P > 0.99 ** 2 > 1 by P > 0.90 Dwarf Apples Example 4a Drench applications of succinate/raffinate compositions were made for Rogers Red McIntosh (M26) dwarf apples, and increased width and height were obtained. The compositions included 1: 1 ratios of fermentation succinate with raffinate, and the results were compared with a water control. The treatments were made to four separate plots of trees, 10-12 trees/plot. The applications were made in mid-July at a rate of 304 milliliters/tree, and the average caliper (width in mm) and height (in inches) were determined in the following mid-October. The results are given below.

Treatment Caliper Height July October July October 1 = Control (water) 8.78 12.29 38.66 52.35 2 = Ferm. Succ. + CRaff (1000 ea) 9.22 12.41 38.87 52. 13 3 = Ferm. Succ. + CRaff (250 ea) 9.12 12.52 39.97 51.93 4 = Ferm. Succ. + BRaff (1000 ea) 9.10 12.18 40.36* 54.86 *4 > 1, P) >0. 90

Example 4b The study of Example 4a was repeated with Fulford Gala (M26) dwarf apple trees. Similar results were obtained, as shown in the following table. Treatment Caliper Height July October July October 1 = Control (water) 8.65 11.86 36.87 53.82 2 = Ferm. Succ. + CRaff (1000 ea) 9.00 12.15 38. 38 54.49 3 = Ferm. Succ. + CRaff (250 ea) 9.18 12.60 38.4 ga 53.86 4 = Ferm. Succ. + BRaff (1000 ea) 9.10 12.44 38.88b 54.82 a. 2,3 > 1, P > 0.95; b. 4 > 1, P > 0.99 Spinach Example 5 Improved growth has also been demonstrated for spinach.

Drench applications of a succinate/raffinate composition yielded increased weight of 12% versus the water control.

The test composition contained 1 K ppm each of fermentation succinic acid and cane raffinate. Four applications were made at a rate of 125 G/A. For six replications, the average spinach plant for the water control test weighed 0.713 ounces, compared to an average weight of 0.798 ounces for the spinach plants treated with the succinate/raffinate composition.

Soybean Seedlings Example 6 The fresh weight and dry weight of soybean seedlings (Corsoy 79) harvested 14 days after the first treatment with a succinate/raffinate composition increased by as much as 9%. The plants (2/pot) were grown in a greenhouse and treated via drench (100 ml/pot) method with water only, or with succinate/cane raffinate compositions, each at 500 ppm. The treatments were made 11 and 16 days after initial planting. A random complete block with 4 blocks was used.

The results were obtained for fresh weight in grams 1/plant and for dry weight in mg 1/plant, and were as follows: Treatment Water B + CRaff Fresh Wt Dry Wt 100 ml 0 ml 9. 08 1. 64 95 ml 5 ml 9. 05 1. 64 90 ml 10 ml 9. 51 1. 70 50 ml 50 ml 8. 91 1. 60 0 ml 100 ml 9. 88 1. 79 Balsam Fir Example 7 A composition of fermentation succinate and cane raffinate has been demonstrated to have a synergistic effect in improving the growth of Balsam Fir. The study comprised 3 replications (5 trees each), and the application volume was 800 ml/1. 145 ft2. Three applications were made in one month intervals during growth in a greenhouse, and two more applications were made during growth in a shade house, 4 and 5 months after the last of the greenhouse applications. In comparison to a control using only water, the succinate/raffinate composition yielded firs having needle lengths of 13.55 mm on average (versus control, P) 0.99, cv = 4. 53%), compared to an average needle length for the control of 12.44 mm. Similar applications made using only the succinate or the raffinate yielded needle lengths of 12. 08 mm and 12.39 mm, respectively-both less than the water control.

Corn Seedlings Example 8a Similar results have been demonstrated with respect to corn seedlings (Pioneer 3585). In one study, 5/5 squares of

corn seedling plants were grown in a Baccto/field soil mix.

The plants were treated 7 and 9 days after planting, and were harvested for measurement 16 days after planting. The plants were fertilized with 20-20-20 prior to the first treatment and again three days after the second treatment.

Treatments were applied as a drench of 100 ml/pot. As shown in the following table, all combinations of sugar cane raffinate ("CRaff") and succinic acid increased both the fresh weight (g 1 per plant) and dry weight (mg 1 per plant) of corn seedlings 15% and 13%, respectively. The succinate used in treatment 5 was from a source different than for the succinate used in treatments 2-4. Treatment Yield Harvest Wet Wt Dry Wt 1. Control (water drench) 2.71* 204** 2. Succinate (500) + CRaff (500) 3.18 232 3. Succinate (100) + CRaff (1000) 3.04 228 4. Succinate (1000) + CRaff (1000) 3.15 234 5. Succinate (1000) + CRaff (1000) 3.10 232 *, ** significantly different from all other treatments at P > 0.99 and P > 0.95, respectively.

Example 8b The foregoing study was reproduced, yielding similar results as follows. The succinate used in treatment 4 was from a source different than for the succinate used in treatments 2 and 3. Treatment Yield Harvest Wet Wt Dry Wt 1. Control (water drench) 6.54 774 2. Succinate (100) + CRaff (1000) 7.07* 780 3. Succinate (1000) + CRaff (1000) 6.70 763 4. Succinate (1000) + CRaff (1000) 6.77 789 * P > 0.95 (8% increase vs. control)

Example 8c A similar test was conducted with corn seedlings grown in a greenhouse at 73°F and 42% humidity, and with only one treatment of succinate and either cane raffinate ("CRaff") or beet raffinate ("BRaff") at eight days after planting.

The results again showed improved growth with the inventive formulations, as set forth below: Treatment Yield Harvest Wet Wt Dry Wt Control (water drench) 5.80 528 Succinate (1000) + CRaff (1000) 6.00 542 Succinate (2000) + CRaff (2000) 6.30* 554 Succinate (2000) + BRaff (2000) 5.98 534 * P > 0.95 (9% increase vs. control) Example 8d A further test was conducted using corn seedlings grown in a greenhouse at 75°F and 50% humidity, and with only one treatment of succinic acid ("S") alone or with cane raffinate ("CRaff") at six days after planting. The results again showed improved growth with the inventive formulations, and demonstrated superiority of the combined formulation over the succinic acid alone, all as set forth below: Treatment Yield Harvest Wet Wt Dry Wt Control (water drench) 5.24 445 S (1000) 5.10 420 S (1000) + CRaff (1000) 5.88 484 Example 8e A dose response test of sugar beet raffinate applied as a drench on the growth of corn seedlings (Pioneer 3585) was

conducted. The seedlings were treated one week after planting and were harvested eight days after treatment. The growth chamber had 16 hour days at 25°F and 8 hour nights at 20°F. The plants were grown in the growth chamber and thinned to 4 plants per pot, and all of the treatments were applied as a 100 ml drench. As shown in the following table, the drench with sugar beet raffinate reduced the fresh and dry weight of corn seedlings as compared to the water control. Hence, raffinate in the absence of succinic acid was not effective in increasing the growth of corn seedlings. Treatments Fresh Weight Dry Weight Compound Conc. (mg/L) (g/plant) (mg/plant) Water Control 5. 21* 474 Beet Raff 100 4. 83 440 Beet Raff 400 4. 64 414 Beet Raff 800 4. 75 432 Beet Raff 1600 4. 96 444 * The F value for comparison with all treatments is significant at P > 0.95.

Cabbage Example 9 Fieldsport cabbage was treated with four applications of water as a control, and with two preparations of either (1) 0.1 K ppm fermentation succinate and 1 K ppm cane raffinate, or (2) 0.25 K ppm succinate and 0.25 K ppm cane raffinate.

The first two treatments were made at a rate of 735 G/A, and the two subsequent treatments were at 193 G/A but using a 3.8 times concentrated treatment material. The average ounces per head for the control cabbage was 63.04, compared to 66.67 and 66.08 ounces/head for the treatments (1) and (2), respectively. In a similar study, with each of four

treatments being made at 125 G/A, and using a mixture of 1 K ppm fermentation succinate and 1 K ppm cane raffinate, the cabbage treated with the inventive composition had an average weight of 3.620 ounces/cabbage, compared to 2.766 ounces/cabbage for the water control.

Fieldsport cabbage was similarly grown using four applications of water, or mixtures of (3) 1.0 K ppm fermentation succinate and 4 K ppm beet raffinate, or (4) 0.25 K ppm succinate and 0.25 K ppm beet raffinate. Two treatments were made at a rate of 735 G/A, and the two subsequent treatments were with a 3.8 times concentrate at 193 G/A. The average ounces per head for the control cabbage was 67.41. This compared to 73.52 and 75.12 ounces/head for the treatments (3) and (4), respectively, with 4 > Control at P > 0.90.

Snap Beans Example 10 The yield of snap beans (Rocdor) was increased 30% and 40% by a drench treatment (3.3 ml) and by a foliar spray, respectively. The snap bean plants (2/pot) were grown in Baccto soil using a random complete block design. A stock solution of cane raffinate and fermentation succinic acid, each at 10,000 (10 K) ppm was used for the drench and foliar treatments. Water was added to bring the total drench volume to 50 ml. Plants were treated 9 and 13 days after planting, each treatment being by drench application except for the last one which was a foliar application (spray to drip). The test resulted in improved growth as indicated by <BR> the fresh weight of plant (g-1/plant) and the number of beans/plant set forth in the following table:

Treatment + Added H20 Yield Harvest Fresh Wt # of Beans Control, drench 50. 0 20. 8 5. 5 Succinate + CRaff (30ml) 20.0 25. 6 6.7 Succinate + CRaff (10ml) 40.0 23. 1 5.3 Succinate + CRaff (3.3ml) 46.7 27. 0 6.2 Succinate + CRaff (lml) 49.0 22. 1 5.7 Succinate + CRaff (spray) 0 29. 2 7. 2 Grapes Example 11 A set of potted Concord grape vines were trained, pruned and fertilized, and soil applications of the inventive compositions were made from spring through summer. The control vines were treated with water, while the treatments according to the present invention utilized a mixture of equal parts by weight of beet raffinate and succinate. The plants had shoot, root, leaf, node and trunk measurements performed in the fall, and a summary of those results are given in the following table. The measurements were totalled for each of five replicates per treatment group.

Treatment with beet raffinate and fermentation succinate, each at 1 K ppm, was 110% (trunk, root, leaf and shoot dry weight) and 130% (root, leaf and shoot dry weight) of the control and at a statistical significance of P > 0.90.

Measurements Control Raffinate/% Increase Succinate Over Control Shoot length/vine (inches) 14.68 16.80 114 No. of leaves/vine 9.5 10.2 107 No. of lignified nodes/vine 6.8 7.3 107 No. of nodes/vine 9.8 10.3 105 Specific shoots weight 0.181 0.194 107 Specific leaf weight 8.60 9.25 108 Shoot dry wt (g) 6.74 8.44 125 Leaf dry wt (g) 5.25 6.14 117 Root dry wt (g) 28.8 38.6 134 Shoot fresh wt (g) 12.7 15.5 119 Leaf fresh wt (g) 38.4 41.4 108 Root fresh wt (g) 107 140 131 Leaf area (cm2) 1499 1579 105 Total Dry Wt3 82.30 90.40 110 Total Dry Wt4 40.79 53.18 130 1 g dry shoot wt/shoot length x 2.54 <BR> <BR> 2 2<BR> g leaf dry wt/leaf area cm2 x 103<BR> 3<BR> g wt of trunk, root, leaf and shoot/rep<BR> 4<BR> g wt of root, leaf and shoot/rep The plants treated with the raffinate/succinate composition showed increased growth in thirteen different categories, including growth of the leaves, nodes, shoots and roots. Only the trunk wet and dry weights were lower by about 11% for the raffinate/succinate treated plants versus the control. Further, since enhanced vegetative growth during the first year is generally a good barometer for better fruit production in the second year, it is reasonable to expect that harvest yields for the plants with the inventive composition treatments will have higher yields than the control plants.

Example 12 The foregoing examples demonstrate the utility of the inventive compositions and methods for a wide range of plants and at varying concentrations. Treatment of such diverse plants yields suitable results for various other compositions, including combinations of synthetic or fermentation succinic acid, or mixtures thereof, with cane or beet raffinate, or mixtures thereof, at 1 : 1, 1: 4,1: 7 and/or 1: 10 solids ratios.

While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the foregoing description, the same is to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive in character, it being understood that only the preferred embodiments have been shown and described and that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit of the invention are desired to be protected.